Obama’s Selfie at Mandela’s Funeral.

Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/12/10/the-height-of-arrogance-president-obama-caught-snapping-selfies-at-nelson-mandela-service/

We know Obama hates our guns, but must he hate the dead as well?

After delivering a very egotistical speech at Nelson Mandela’s memorial service in Johannesburg, South Africa earlier today, President Obama was caught taking ‘selfies’ in the stands with British Prime Minister David Cameron and Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt. First Lady Michelle Obama, who was stoically sitting next to the group, did not participate.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/12/10/the-height-of-arrogance-president-obama-caught-snapping-selfies-at-nelson-mandela-service/

I have mixed feelings about Mandela, maybe the guy regretted his involvement with terrorism, maybe he did reject Fidel Castro although wasn’t very vocal about his rejections, but either way, you don’t take a selfie of yourself at a funeral. I know politicians go to those funerals to socialize, cut deals, even shake hands with tyrants as Obama did with Raul Castro.

But if you must take a selfie, do it away from the cameras, is that so hard to ask? This Obama, he’s a freaking TEENAGER.


Who doesn’t need a gun?

Meet Gun-Free Gary Gutting, the philosophy professor that wants you to keep your guns away from home.

 

The New York Times loves publishing anti-gun screeds, the latest one comes from Gary Gutting, a Professor of Philosophy, obviously not from the Ayn Rand school, but from Rousseau and Plato who believed in the “collective good” being above the individual good.

In his diatribe, Who Needs a Gun? he wrote:

A gun is a tool, and we choose tools based on their function. The primary function of a gun is to kill or injure people or animals. In the case of people, the only reason I might have to shoot them — or threaten to do so — is that they are immediately threatening serious harm. So a first question about owning a gun is whether I’m likely to be in a position to need one to protect human life. A closely related question is whether, if I were in such a position, the gun would be available and I would be able to use it effectively.

Today I had lunch at Subway, instead of leaving my gun in the car, I put it in my jacket’s pocket and had it with me. The reason I was able to do that is because 1. A concealed carry license is easy to get in Tennessee. 2. Subway didn’t post those Gun-Free Zone signs that would have kept me unarmed while doing nothing to stop crime.

Unless you live in (or frequent) dangerous neighborhoods or have family or friends likely to threaten you, it’s very unlikely that you’ll need a gun for self-defense. Further, counterbalancing any such need is the fact that guns are dangerous. If I have one loaded and readily accessible in an emergency (and what good is it if I don’t?), then there’s a non-negligible chance that it will lead to great harm. A gun at hand can easily push a family quarrel, a wave of depression or a child’s curiosity in a fatal direction.

Criminals can travel from a bad neighborhood to a good neighborhood, Gutting, a gun can be kept loaded in a safe if you have kids (and you can teach your kids not to touch your guns). As for family quarrels and accidents, why not remove knives as well? And let’s get rid of those deadly swimming pools which kill more kids than gun accidents, and amazing fact since far more people own guns than pools.

Guns do have uses other than defense against attackers. There may, for example, still be a few people who actually need to hunt to feed their families. But most hunting now is recreational and does not require keeping weapons at home. Hunters and their families would be much safer if the guns and ammunition were securely stored away from their homes and available only to those with licenses during the appropriate season. Target shooting, likewise, does not require keeping guns at home.

Gutting, if you want to move to Sweden, go ahead, but real Americans do not want the government babysitting their guns.

Finally, there’s the idea that citizens need guns so they can, if need be, oppose the force of a repressive government. Those who think there are current (or likely future) government actions in this country that would require armed resistance are living a paranoid fantasy. The idea that armed American citizens could stand up to our military is beyond fantasy.

The Soviet Union felt that way about Afghanistan once, yet look at what a bunch of Taliban nuts with AK-47s did to an army with planes, helicopters, and body armor. Our own troops have suffered casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So tell me something, Gutting, do you really think 100 million civilians with all kinds of weapons are really that weak?  I don’t have to watch Red Dawn to know the power of civilians with guns, I only have to quote Japanese Admiral Yamamoto: “The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants.”

Once we balance the potential harms and goods, most of us — including many current gun owners — don’t have a good reason to keep guns in their homes. This conclusion follows quite apart from whether we have a right to own guns or what restrictions should be put on this right. Also, the conclusion derives from what makes sense for each of us as individuals and so doesn’t require support from contested interpretations of statistical data.

This is what the liberals call “compromise,” which is why I don’t compromise with anyone. Tell me, Gutting, is your Right to Free Speech restricted? Do you need a government permit to publish crap? This collectivist “balancing” crap is not in the constitution. We don’t have to balance anything, we punish those who break the law and ignore the rest. That’s the American way.

I entirely realize that this line of thought will not convince the most impassioned gun supporters, who see owning guns as fundamental to their way of life. But about 70 million Americans own guns and only about four million belong to the N.R.A., which must include a large number of the most impassioned. So there’s reason to think that many gun owners would be open to reconsidering the dangers their weapons pose. Also, almost 30 percent of gun owners don’t think that guns make a household safer, and only 48 percent cite protection (rather than hunting, target shooting, etc.) as their main reason for having a gun.

Nice way to spin the numbers. First of all, 4 million NRA members is far greater than all members of organizations that support gun control combined. Secondly, some gun owners falsely assume that their guns are safe and thus don’t join the NRA, but I doubt any gun owner wants your ideas implemented. Steven Spielberg is a gun collector, do you think he wants his guns stored in some government facility? As for the numbers you spin, here are the real numbers from the link quote quoted.

“58% of Republicans in households without guns say they would be comfortable having a gun in their home, compared with 30% of Democrats.”
Source: http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/

Democrats who probably don’t own guns and thus know not what they talk about.  Let’s go back to your last point:

“and only 48 percent cite protection (rather than hunting, target shooting, etc.) as their main reason for having a gun”

 

Different people have different reasons for owning guns, that 48% however is an increase of 22 points from 26% in 1999. That means MORE gun owners are citing protection as their reason to own guns.

Either way, we don’t regulate the First Amendment on an usage basis. One man burns a flag, another sings a country song, another watch naked Japanese women eating pudding. It’s all protected Free Speech. In “The People vs. Larry Flynt,” the infamous pornographer won his right to defame Jerry Falwell with bad taste satire. The Second Amendment deserves to be protected as well. If I can watch porn at home, I can keep my guns at home. A man’s home is his castle after all, that’s an ancient doctrine that predates the Second Amendment.

Our periodic shock at mass shootings and gang wars has little effect on our gun culture because most people don’t see guns as a particular threat to them

 

That’s because they aren’t a threat. Car accidents are far more common, yet most people would rather die on the roads than lower the speed limit. Why? Because life is not worth living if you’re on the highway doing less than 65 m.p.h. Gang wars don’t affect us if we don’t live in bad neighborhood, and mass shootings are rare compared to stabbings, beating, robberies, self-defense shootings, criminal shootings, etc. Besides that, most gun haters are too lazy to join the Brady bastards, today they worry about guns and tomorrow they freak out over Miley Cyrus twerking. It’s hard to call them socialists or liberals because in reality, they lack ideological commitment to anything. So there you have it, if you can get 4 million gun banners to pay $35 a year to the National Gun Hating Association or whatever hoplophobe group you come up with, congrats. In the meantime, I won’t hold my breath.

I’m not suggesting that opponents of gun violence abandon political action. We need to make it harder to buy guns (through background checks, waiting periods, etc.) both for those with criminal intentions and for law-abiding citizens who have no real need. But on the most basic level, much of our deadly violence occurs because we so often have guns readily available. Their mere presence makes suicide, domestic violence and accidents more likely. The fewer people with guns at hand, the less gun violence.

Thanks for letting us know, your idiotic article will be shared and read by many, it will be used as evidence against any gun grabber who demands “reasonable” gun regulation. Some may accuse me of giving you free advertising, but you know what? I rather confront my enemy instead of denying his existence.

 


http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/who-needs-a-gun/?_r=0

Obama shakes hands with Raul Castro.

Obama and Raul Castro- two gun grabbers shaking hands at Mandela’s funeral.

Let’s look at what kind of man Raul Castro is:

“Raúl Castro, as longtime member of Cuba’s Council of State, has been signing execution orders for years. But, his killing career began early on. In 1956, while in exile in Mexico, he murdered a former comrade. During the revolutionary struggle in the mountains, he executed deserters and informants. In the early days of the Revolution, while in charge of the Oriente province, he had hundreds of men killed. In one day alone, he ordered at least 72 men executed without trial in the city of Santiago. All throughout the night of January 12, 1959 and into the following day, successive groups of men were lined up in front of ditches at San Juan Hill and shot by firing squads. Raúl is reported to have gleefully delivered the coup d’grace on a few. Afterwards, a bulldozer was brought in to cover the mass graves. Among the victims was policeman Benito Cortés, an American citizen born in Puerto Rico and father of five. In 1966, Raúl had the bodies exhumed, encased in concrete, and dumped into deep waters off the coast of Cuba.

Cuba Archive has documented dozens of people, including many children, killed attempting to escape Cuba with Raúl in a leading role. His Air Force carried out the Canimar River Massacre of July 6, 1980, when dozens were murdered. Many more unarmed civilians are believed to have suffered similar fate at the hand of special Air Force units dedicated to spotting and sinking rafts. Like countless others, on January 19, 1994, two young men -Iskander Maleras and Luis Angel Valverde- were killed by Cuban border guards stationed around the U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo operating under Raúl’s direct orders to shoot. He rewarded their deed with medals and promotions.

As Defense Minister, Raúl Castro is responsible for war crimes in and out of Cuba. During the rural uprising of the sixties, his armed forces set fire and executed hundreds of prisoners on the spot. During the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961, five prisoners were executed shortly after their capture; nine were deliberately asphyxiated in a trailer truck. The toll of victims multiplies over the course of decades with Cuba’s international military incursions in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. Intentional attacks on civilian populations in Angola are part of his legacy.”

Source: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2042

Is it any wonder that Cuba has the most restrictive gun policies? Not that Obama cares, like a good Marxist, he’s willing to break lots of eggs to make an omelet. He won’t meet with George Zimmerman, though, but if you’ve been the Cuba’s unterfuhrer for 49-years, he’ll shake your hand.




style=”display:inline-block;width:300px;height:250px”
data-ad-client=”ca-pub-4900866936005300″
data-ad-slot=”6598765670″>

F Means Freedom Unless You Hate Guns.

 

 

To the Brady bastards, “F” means “Failure,” but to us, F means Freedom.

If you’re State got an F, stay. If it got an A, B or C, maybe it’s time to move or vote the bastards out if you can.

 


Gun Victory at University of North Florida.

Anti-gunners at UNF just got schooled.

In a ruling that could have statewide consequences, the 1st District Court of Appeal has ruled the University of North Florida cannot prohibit guns from being kept in cars parked on campus.

The university had banned the storage of any “weapon or destructive device” on college grounds and said any student who violated the rule could face discipline up to suspension or expulsion.

The gun-rights group Florida Carry Inc. and UNF student Alexandria Lainez sued arguing the university didn’t have the right under Florida law to ban firearms because the state Constitution gives that power to the state Legislature.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-12-10/story/appeals-court-rules-university-north-florida-cannot-prohibit-guns-campus#ixzz2n7iQJSTz

 

 


USA Today continues to promote the “gun research” lie.

22 people have been shot in Wilmington and something must be done. No, we’re not going to build more prisons, jail more crooks, or allow more law-abiding people to get guns. Instead, USA Today demands millions be given to some “gun researchers” who will recommend gun control as the solution.

“We have tried every type of medicine to cure this illness,” she said, calling on residents to press elected officials to write to the CDC, urging the federal agency to conduct the study and direct resources to solve the problem.

Scientists and policy makers say they have little scientific data about gun violence after Congress in 1996 prohibited federal agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, from offering research grants to study anything that could be used to promote gun control.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/10/wilmington-record-gun-violence/3952949/

Well poor poor scientists, what’s the matter? Couldn’t get Big Daddy Bloomberg to fund your “research”? Real scientists work without government money, you know.

Earlier this year, President Barack Obama issued an executive order directing the CDC and other agencies to look into the causes and prevention of gun violence; however, additional money to further the research and improve the USA’s violent death reporting system has been stalled in Congress.

 

All hail the Savior! The CDC, which should be concentrating on fighting outbreaks of real diseases like Ebola and Sars will now have to waste time on BS.

“We have tried every medicine to cure this illness,” really? Since when is gang bangers shooting each other an illness? Is a BEHAVIOR that you can’t control, you simply fight it.How do the Saudis control theft? They cut the hands of thieves. How do Singaporeans control vandalism? They beat vandals with a cane. How do American liberals fight crime? They target the people who didn’t do it while excusing the ones who did do it.

By the way, I say “control” in jest, at the end of the day, each individual will choose his behavior based on himself, there’s nothing we can do about it. I can tell you to read my blog, I can’t force you to do it.

It’s about free will.

 


Daily News freaks over AR-15 surrendered at gun buyback.

An AR-15 was surrendered to police during an NYPD Buyback event Saturday.

Here was their headline: “Firepower frenzy! Semi-automatic weapon surrendered at NYPD buyback event“

Of course, sometime ago they didn’t say “semi-automatic weapons” but “machine gun,” thanks to the people leaving comments, they fixed that mistake.

Here’s the story Thomas Tracy wrote:

An AR-15, the same deadly weapon used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School and Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacres, was anonymously surrendered to authorities Saturday for a $200 bank card during an NYPD gun buyback event, officials said.

Isn’t the NYPD great? When they’re not confiscating guns from law-abiding gun owners, they’re rewarding possible criminals for their stolen guns.
The frightening piece of firepower was one of 96 weapons collected at Calvary Presbyterian Church on Castleton Ave. in Staten Island that included 33 semi-automatic pistols,40 revolvers and 13 rifles. Eight B.B. guns were also collected.
The NYPD handed out $200 bank cards for all working firearms, as well as $20 for B.B. guns.  
Thomas, part of being a JOURNALIST is telling the TRUTH. How do you know that piece of firepower is “frightening?” Fear is subjective! I’ve shot the AR-15, it is a fine weapon, a fun weapon, but if you must use an adjective, then call it a popular weapon.
Here’s an idea, if you’re going to write about guns, go to a gun range so you know what you’re writing about.
 

 


Sock Monkey Disarmed by TSA.

It’s Planet of the Apes, people! Not even toy monkeys are safe from the TSA.

See his tiny gun? Not allowed, said TSA. Image Source: http://www.king5.com/news/local/TSA-agent-confiscates-sock-monkeys-toy-pistol-234986321.html

Here’s what happened:

Phyllis May of Redmond, Wash., was traveling from St. Louis on Dec. 3 when she noticed a TSA agent inspecting one of her carry-on bags, according to NBC affiliate King 5.

May sells the dolls and had several sock monkeys and sewing supplies in the bag. One of the monkeys, named “Rooster Monkburn,” after John Wayne’s character “Rooster Cogburn” in the movie “True Grit,” is a cowboy with a two-inch long pistol.

 

This is a weapon of mass destruction according to the TSA.

 

“She said ‘This is a gun,’” May told King 5. “I said ‘No, it’s not a gun, it’s a prop for my monkey.’” 

“She said ‘If I held it up to your neck, you wouldn’t know if it was real or not,’ and I said ‘Really?’” May said.

May told King 5 the TSA agent took the monkey’s gun and informed May she was supposed to call the police.

“Rooster Monkburn has been disarmed so I’m sure everyone on the plane was safe,” she told King 5. “I understand she was doing her job, but at some point doesn’t common sense prevail?”

King 5 reported that the agent did not call police and May was able to keep her sewing supplies and other dolls and board the plane.

The TSA told NBC News in a statement: “TSA officers are dedicated to keeping the nation’s transportation security systems safe and secure for the traveling public. Under longstanding aircraft security policy, and out of an abundance of caution, realistic replicas of firearms are prohibited in carry-on bags.

 


// ]]>