Wednesday, October 23, 2013
For many years, liberals have conjured up with all sorts of ideas on how to make the world a better place. Unfortunately, their ideas have proven over and over again to be expensive, inefficient, punitive, destructive, and downright dangerous. Here's my list of the worse liberal ideas ever conceived: Socialized Medicine, a/k/a Obamacare Obamacare is forcing people to buy something they don't want from a website that doesn't work. And, if you don't sign up, you're taxed a percentage of your income. Obamacare is transforming the traditional full-time 40-hour work week into 30-hours a week part-time. The cheapest "bronze" plan requires an unreasonable $5,000.00 deductible before any insurance benefits kick in. It forces struggling small business owners to cut employee strength to 50 or less to avoid mandated employee insurance coverage they cannot afford. Large corporations are dropping traditional employee insurance coverage completely because it is now unaffordable. It has caused the cost of many existing insurance policies to double or more in order to comply with the law. Just about everything we've been told about the benefits of Obamacare has been a lie, such as the ability to keep your own doctor (who might not accept the government insurance), and that your healthcare costs will be reduced by $2,500.00. DDT Ban In an effort to reduce bird deaths, liberals' demand of a worldwide ban on DDT has caused millions of human deaths (half of them children) in Africa by mosquitoes carrying malaria, typhus, and dengue. The liberals' solution to combating these diseases is to issue mosquito nets instead of spraying the menaces with an insecticide that has been proven extremely effective and safe to humans. Nuclear Weapon Free World The use of nukes during World War II let the genie out of the bottle. So long as countries like Pakistan, Iran and North Korea possess these weapons, the U.S. cannot afford to be nuclear free. If it were, there is no question these and other American hating countries would use their nukes against us. Manmade Global Warming This is a liberal scheme to shame developed countries into paying international taxes and redistributing their wealth to developing nations. There is little question that our climate is changing, but blaming humans for it is simply nonsense. Affirmative Action Liberal white guilt has led to affirmative action programs designed to blatantly discriminate against white people. If it's unlawful to discriminate against minorities, why is it all right to discriminate against the majority? Any discrimination in college enrollment, employment, and public contracting should simply not be tolerated. The reelection of President Barak Obama should have ended all affirmative action policies permanently. Social Security Without question, Social Security is the largest Ponzi scheme ever conceived. At its current rate, it will be unsustainable within a few years merely because there are not enough workers to pay for the benefits of the retired generation. The money confiscated in payroll taxes could be much better invested in the stock market, IRAs, 401(k)s, CDs, savings accounts, or just about any investment vehicle instead of letting the government handle it for you. Oh, and as an added bonus, if you die before you start collecting, your heirs don't get your Social Security contributions. The government gets to keep it to give to someone else. Amnesty for Illegal Aliens Immigration reform is actually code for adding millions of new liberal Democrat voters to their ranks. What other reason is there for liberals arguing against voter ID laws? Instead of "reforming" immigration laws, why not start enforcing the existing ones? Granting amnesty to lawbreakers rewards them for their crime and is unfair to those who waited for years to become American citizens. War on Poverty Trillions of dollars have been spent on the war on poverty only to have a higher percentage of Americans living in "poverty" today than ever before. The welfare state has destroyed family units and created a dependency on government the same way urban pigeons depend on people feeding them left over French fries at McDonald's. "Green" Energy So called "green" energy simply doesn't work and will never replace fossil fuels as the primary sources of energy. Wind powered turbines look like hell, and are responsible for killing numerous endangered birds like Bald Eagles and California Condors. Solar will never replace modern jet engines to power aircraft or diesel engines to move ships and trains. Because of government restrictions on drilling for oil on federal lands, oil independence may never be achieved. America could be an oil and natural gas exporter instead of being dependent on unstable Middle Eastern countries for its energy needs. If liberals would stand back and let the energy companies "drill baby, drill," the increased state and federal taxes would pay for their expensive schemes, like Social Security and other social programs. Racial Profiling The liberal notion that the police stop minority members for no reason other than their ethnicity is patently false and ridiculous. This is merely a liberal effort to protect criminals and make police less effective by accusing them of racism. In reality, the police are practicing proactive policing which has been proven to reduce crime rates every time it's tried. You don't agree with my picks of worse liberal ideas? You think they are all wonderfully progressive ideas? Then you obviously don't mind millions of children needlessly dying of diseases, risking the nation going into insolvency, discrimination against white people, and an increase in the crime rate. Think about it.
Attorney General Holder spoke at the American Bar Association (ABA) in San Francisco last week and announced his "Smart On Crime" policy changes. The new changes include directing United States Attorneys to not charge "nonviolent drug defendants" with offenses that carry mandatory minimum sentences. This change will dismantle one of the most useful tools in drug enforcement's investigative tool box. It will also give drug traffickers an incentive to continue conducting their criminal activities. Prior to 1987, when mandatory minimum sentences and the U.S. Sentencing guidelines went into effect, many significant drug traffickers received only several years in prison for crimes that after the implementation of mandatory minimum sentences may have resulted in life imprisonment. I was a relatively new DEA agent assigned to the Los Angeles Division in the early 1980s. So, I can contrast the impact mandatory minimum sentences had on the drug traffickers I arrested, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that it was very significant. For example, in 1985 I investigated a cocaine smuggling ring that planned to smuggle 500 kilograms of cocaine into the U.S.. Eight people were indicted and upon their conviction, they were sentenced to three and a half years in federal prison. This was despite one of the defendants, a drug defense attorney, providing me, while acting undercover, a kilo of cocaine to supposedly sell to help finance the smuggling of the cocaine from Bolivia. Because of the federal parole system at the time, each defendant was immediately eligible for parole upon completing only one third of their sentences. The defendants walked away after only serving about 13-months in prison for possession, transfer and conspiracy to import 500 kilos of cocaine. It was these types of cases that prompted the Congress to pass mandatory minimum sentences to put teeth in the law. In 1988, I investigated a marijuana smuggling organization that had been in operation for over a decade and netted millions of dollars in illicit profits. The entire organization was caught red handed offloading over 14-tons of Southeast Asian marijuana from a fishing trawler. Over 60 defendants were arrested, some of which had prior convictions for marijuana smuggling. When they were informed that they were looking at life in prison due to mandatory minimum sentences because of prior drug convictions, the amount of marijuana and many other factors, they simply couldn't believe it. Many voiced that they wouldn't have become involved if they knew they could spend the rest of their lives in federal prison. The risk versus reward ratio simply wasn't worth facing mandatory minimum sentences. However, the possibility of making millions of dollars during a successful smuggling operation fully justified taking the risk if they would only face a couple of years in prison. Defendants can free themselves from mandatory minimum sentences by cooperating with investigators to identify other members of their criminal organization. Many, many more cooperated after 1987 because the incentive was great. Prior to this, almost no one cooperated. Cooperating defendants led DEA agents to identify and arrest many more people involved in drug conspiracies than ever before, eventually resulting in federal prison overcrowding. It's impossible to measure how many people are deterred from criminal activity knowing that if they are convicted of a federal drug crime they will spend a significant amount of time in prison. I think it's fair to say that the deterrent effect will be gone with Holder's new ill-conceived policy, and more people will be tempted to engage in drug trafficking when stiff sentences are off the table. Holder defined low-level drug violators for the ABA as a defendant who was "not an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor of others" involved in drug trafficking. He is referring to money couriers, counter surveillance look outs, drivers, transporters, etc. What the Attorney General doesn't realize is that these so-called "low-level" drug criminals are tomorrow's organizers, leaders, managers and supervisors within drug trafficking organizations. Without their involvement, drug trafficking organizations could not function, so why should they get a pass when they were all involved in the same drug conspiracy? Holder needs to do his job and enforce all the laws passed by Congress; not just the ones he likes.
Have today's headlines about the government stockpiling ammunition, more gun control legislation, emptying prisons due to overcrowding and the prospect of 11 million illegal aliens, including criminal aliens already in custody, receiving amnesty enough to make you consider owning a firearm? If so, there are things you should know before you take the plunge and exercise your Second Amendment rights. This column will focus on handguns only and is based upon my own professional experience of carrying concealed handguns for most of my life. What Kind Of Firearm Do I Need? There once was a seemingly endless debate about which type of handgun was better for personal protection: revolvers or semi-automatics. That debate has pretty much been settled with almost all law enforcement agencies turning in their revolvers years ago for the semi-autos; however, for the novice, a revolver is hard to beat. They come in a variety of sizes and calibers and throughout this nation's history more people have probably used a .38 special to protect themselves than any other firearm. They are easy to load, clean and operate. If you're a woman, you may want to see first if you have the strength in your index finger to rapidly pull the trigger of a revolver five or six times; many do not. A double-action semi-automatic pistol only requires a heavier trigger pull for the first shot, and the necessary strength to fire subsequent rounds is diminished significantly. Some semi-auto firearms are designed to fire "single action" only, such as a Glock. I would not recommend this type of handgun for the novice as it is inherently more dangerous to the operator unless he or she is well trained and experienced to handle such a weapon. Semi-automatics can carry 10 - 17 or more rounds depending on the manufacturer and the caliber, but many states are actively pursuing limits on magazine capacities to no more than 10 rounds. Regardless, a 10-round magazine or if you're in New York, a 10-round magazine with only seven bullets in it, still exceeds the capacity of a six-shot revolver by two rounds because you can keep a round in the chamber of the semi-automatic pistol. What Caliber of Handgun Should I Use? A .22 caliber pistol is fun to shoot empty cans with, but when it comes to personal protection, .40 S&W and .45 calibers offer the best protection. Studies by the Drug Enforcement Administration Firearms Training Unit revealed that the .40 caliber pistol had more stopping power and penetration than just about any other handgun caliber and rivaled the knock down capacity of the famous .45. I recommend and carry a .40 caliber pistol because of the weapon's larger magazine capacity. More bullets are always better in a gunfight. What Brand of Firearm Should I Purchase? There are many fine firearms on the market, both foreign and domestic; however, you cannot go wrong with a brand that has been around for decades and is used by law enforcement agencies. They have done the research for you, so you can trust their judgment. Take a Firearms Course and Practice at the Range If you purchase a firearm, don't just throw it in a drawer and not ever practice with it. You must become intimately familiar with its functions, safety devices, loading procedures and how it will react when you pull the trigger. Don't wait until the moment you need to use it to protect yourself to realize it makes a lot of noise and has a good amount of kick to it. Practice at a range and get some instruction from an NRA, police or military range master who knows what he or she is doing. Make Sure Your Firearm is Out of Reach of Children You can eliminate the possibility of an accidental discharge of a firearm by a child or curious adult by properly securing the weapon. There are many small, lockable containers available designed to secure a handgun that can quickly be opened with a combination. Many States require proof you have such a container, or you must purchase a cumbersome gun lock, most of which are junk and easily defeated. Check to see what your State requirements are. A firearms dealer can tell you for sure. What Kind of Ammunition Should I Use? What is known as "hallow point" ammunition will help prevent a bullet from going through a robber and killing a customer. The bullet is designed to expand upon impact and produce the maximum wound possible while not going through several layers of sheet rock. Almost all police departments use this type of ammunition, so why shouldn't you? Is There Civil Liability If I Shoot Someone? Count on it! We've all heard stories about a burglar suing a homeowner for shooting him. Check with your insurance carrier about coverage specifically related to firearm discharges. If you're a homeowner with a steady job and a 401(k), you've got deep pockets as far as an unscrupulous attorney is concerned. Do Your Research Before Purchasing A Firearm Read some of the many magazines devoted to handguns. You'll have a good head start on determining the firearm that is right for you before walking into a gun store. In Conclusion If you're not comfortable with a handgun in the house, then don't buy one. Many times, the mere displaying of a firearm deters a bad guy from carrying out his evil intentions. Shooting someone only to protect your life or the life of another is a good rule of thumb. It is just as important to know when to shoot as it is to know how to shoot. Finally, don't ever fire warning shots. If you fire and miss the bad guy that should be ample warning to him that you mean business. Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/has-the-time-come-for-you-to-own-a-gun-things-you-first-need-to-know#ixzz2ia8x2Gmo Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
If Republicans want to "reform" immigration laws so bad, I have an idea. Instead of virtually giving immunity and a pathway to citizenship to every single illegal alien in the country, why not first see just who really wants to become a United States citizen, and who is here just to take advantage of American generosity. Give public notice to illegal aliens and visa over-stayers residing in this country that if they do not voluntarily deport themselves by the end of this year, they will forever be barred from becoming a US Citizen or legal permanent resident. If an illegal alien or visa over-stayer is caught in the country beginning next year, not only will they be deported, but they can never legally return. Now, if an illegal alien or over-stayer really, really, really, wants to become a citizen like so many Democrats claim, then this is the ultimate incentive for them to go home and apply for citizenship the old fashioned way: legally. Both the immigration reform act Ronald Reagan signed into law and the one carved out by the so-called gang of eight are actually different forms of the same thing: amnesty. In fact, the most recent version of amnesty for illegals is in essence a form of extortion. The government won't prosecute you if you pay it a $2,000 fine, pay back taxes, get and hold a job (good luck with that one), and in your spare time learn conversational English. But, if you have been convicted of a "serious" felony or more than three misdemeanor convictions, you're outta here! (Who the hell ever came up with those criteria? I guess only being arrested and convicted three times for sneaking across the border, misdemeanor assault on your wife, or drunk driving is the new measure of good citizenship. And who would determine what a serious felony is, the IRS?) If illegals knew they could never apply for citizenship if caught in the country starting next year, serious US citizen wannabes would self-deport themselves and their families in droves to apply for citizenship at the US embassies in their nations' capital cities and get in the back of the line. They wouldn't have to pay back taxes, get a job, or pay a fine. Once they become legal residents they can either achieve the American dream they allegedly seek, or go or the welfare rolls like the Boston Marathon bombers did. In the meantime while all the illegals and over-stayers are waiting in line for citizenship, we can bolster the border by building a state of the art fence along the entire southern border and round up illegal aliens who are only here for jobs and all the freebees and have no intention of giving up their Mexican citizenship. Republicans need to be advised that voting for this bill in its current form is not going to win over the Hispanic vote. It will only add future voters to the Democrat rolls, as evidence by Hispanics voting overwhelming for President Obama last November despite him breaking his promise to pass immigration reform in his first term, and his Justice Department allowing assault weapons to be smuggled into Mexico resulting in hundreds of Mexican Nationals deaths at the hands of drug lords. These new voters will in all likelihood vote for Democrats because it's hard for Republicans to compete with Santa Clause. In the unlikely event the current version of so-called comprehensive immigration reform becomes law, it has a provision that does not allow these new citizens to vote for 13-years. Once becoming law, that provision will immediately be challenged by liberals like Sen. Chuck Schumer who will argue that it's unfair to prevent these new immigrates from voting and participating in democracy for such a long time. Fortunately, conservative Representatives in the House will most likely not agree to the Senate version of the bill, and gridlock will prevent the measure from becoming law. At least, I hope so.
In July, 2009, the President of the United States said that he thought the Cambridge, Massachusetts police department "acted stupidly" when Sgt. James Crowley arrested Harvard Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. at his home after someone called the police to report suspicious persons there. The professor became indignant and disruptive when he was simply asked to produce some identification proving that he lived there. In light of the events last week in Boston, Watertown, and Cambridge in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon Terrorist attack, I wonder if the president and Prof. Gates still think the police are stupid. Within a few hours after the FBI released their photographs captured on videotape, Tamerian Tsarnaev and his younger brother, Dzhokhar apparently ambushed and killed 26-year old MIT Police Officer Sean Collier after he responded to a call about some sort of disturbance. The brothers then fled on foot to a convenience store, also in Cambridge, where they carjacked a Mercedes SUV and drove around for about 30 minutes with the owner, telling him they were responsible for the Marathon bombings. After releasing the owner at a Cambridge gas station, he called the police department to report the theft. An alert patrolman spotted the stolen vehicle, still in Cambridge, and police from a variety of agencies pursued the vehicle into nearby Watertown. What happened next is something rarely, if ever, seen in the annals of urban policing. The stolen vehicle suddenly stopped and the two brothers not only exchanged gunfire with the Cambridge, Watertown, and Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority police, but the suspects began to throw homemade explosives at the officers in an attempt to not only get away, but to kill them. Recordings of the firefight sounded like something heard during the Iraq war. Unfortunately, MBTA Police Officer Richard Donohue was severely injured and is still recovering from his wounds. My prayers are with him. The younger brother, Dzhokhar, abandoned his sibling and apparently ran over him in with the SUV in his haste to get away. The vehicle was later found abandoned not far from the shootout, and another explosive device similar to one used at the Marathon, was found inside the vehicle. Reporters later asked at a press conference, "How could he have gotten away?" Obviously, they have never been in a high speed pursuit of murderers, at night, who exchanged gunfire with them, and threw explosives, in which one of the pursuing officers became severely injured. What a stupid question. The police dragnet was soon set, and by late afternoon the following day, Dzhokhar was found hiding inside a boat that was parked in the driveway of a Watertown home. Another firefight ensued, and he was finally taken into custody, amazingly still alive. As the numerous police officers, federal agents and firefighters departed the area, the neighborhood swarmed into the streets, applauding and cheering them for capturing the remaining terrorist fugitive who had placed Boston and the entire surrounding area into panic and gridlock. I wonder what was going through Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s elitist mind when he witnessed the events on television unfolding before him. Did he think that Sgt. James Crowley might have been involved in the firefight or pursuit of the terrorists? Did he care? Would he have called the police if he saw Dzhokhar hiding on his porch? I also wonder if President Obama still thinks the Cambridge Police "acted stupidly" when they confronted the two terrorists. Has his opinion about the Cambridge police changed at all? He said the nation owes a debt of gratitude to law enforcement officials and the people of Boston for their help in the search. He also urged people not to rush judgment about the suspects motivations, according to the AP. Rushing to judgment is exactly what the president did in 2009 when he said the Cambridge Police "acted stupidly." He did not wait for the facts; he just jumped to that conclusion. Perhaps now he and Prof. Gates have a better appreciation for what the men and women of the Cambridge police department have to go through and must endure when they put on their uniforms: everything from obnoxious professors to stone-cold terrorists.
In what amounts to another bonehead decision by the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration, airline passengers will soon be permitted to carry small knives, hockey sticks, two golf clubs and pool cues on board commercial airliners. Just about the time the flying public became accustomed to stashing their small Swiss Army Knives and nail clippers in their luggage, now these items are going to be allowed to be personally carried on board airplanes. Janet Napolitano says that the changes are to be more aligned with "international" security standards. Really? You can soon bring your favorite pool cue on the airplane, but you still can't bring a bottle of water or a Pepsi on board. What sense does that make? The last time I flew I noticed a sign advertising that passengers 75 years old or older didn't have to take their shoes off? Why is that? Has there never been a documented terrorist 75 years of age or older? Why not let everyone keep their shoes on unless they are male Muslims between 20 and 40 years old, the typical profile of an Islamic terrorist? It's true that small Swiss Army type knives that can be attached to key rings pose little danger to the flying public. But, 10 hijackers all armed with small knives they place to the throat or eyes of five airline flight attendants would pose a significant problem. The same goes for souvenir baseball bats that are essentially wooden clubs that can be used to beat someone to death. Not to mention the damage the handle end of a pool cue could do. They are almost identical in size and weight of a police baton and could disable someone by striking his head, knees and shins. Napolitano and her staff argue that because cockpit cabin doors are secure and with the increased presence of air marshals, there is little chance of these items being used to open a cockpit door. No argument there. However, this is the same woman who told Congress our borders are as secure as they have ever been. But what if the pilot is having a romantic relationship with a flight attendant on board that has a knife to her throat or is being severely beaten by a hijacker demanding entry into the cockpit; will the pilot open the door? I certainly hope not, but such a scenario is not out of the question. If hijackers identify an air marshal and render him unconscious with souvenir Washington Nationals baseball bats and retrieves his firearm and threatens to kill the first class passengers if they do not get access to the cockpit, then what? Even if pilots will not open the cockpit door for any reason, the hijackers may not know that. Unless that policy (if there is one) is publically made known, hijackers may take the chance that they can coerce the pilot to foolishly open the door. These are more good reasons to allow off-duty and retired police officers to carry firearms while passengers on airlines. Delta is the first air carrier to complain about the pending changes. Airline attendants are also up in arms, so to speak, about the proposed changes, and for good reasons. If other countries want to allow passengers to carry items that are potential weapons, they should have the right to do so. But if a foreign air carrier wants to maintain flight routes to the United States, it should comply with already existing U.S. standards because so far they have worked to prevent an airline hijacking. In other words, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
The media coverage of the murderous rampage of former LAPD police officer Christopher Dorner and his eventual suicide illustrates the media's tendency to report wrong conclusions as facts. For example, the media widely reported that Dorner was a former "highly trained" police officer and was intimately familiar with LAPD and military tactics. They gushed over his being a "marksman" with a rifle and an "expert" with handguns. What they didn't report, probably because they didn't know any better, is that in both police and military circles a "marksman" is the lowest level of qualification one can achieve. So, in other words, he wasn't that good of a shot with a rifle, but may have been very proficient with a handgun. As far as his police training goes, Dorner graduated from the basic LAPD academy and spent two months on patrol before being involuntarily called to active duty to deploy to Iraq. When he returned a year later, he resumed his probationary period performing patrol duties with a Field Training Officer (FTO) that he eventually made false accusations of two months later. This means he had a whopping four months of real police experience with a year in between not performing the job. Dorner had no investigative training whatsoever. So, Dorner knew as much about police work as Piers Morgan knows about firearms. Despite the media capturing from his Facebook page, photographs of Dorner in a Navy flight suit, it was several days later that they learned from TSA that he may have had some type of flight experience. I'm still not sure how TSA got involved. It never dawned on reporters that pictures of him entering a jet aircraft and standing at a podium in his flight suit were indicators that he was probably involved in Naval aviation. The problem was that no reporter recognized that Dorner was wearing a flight suit. And, apparently no reporter bothered to ask someone who might have recognized the difference between a flight suit and a battle dress uniform. If Dorner had a role in Naval aviation, he probably attended the Navy's version of the Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) school, which is primarily attended by pilots, crew members, and others who could easily find themselves on their own behind enemy lines. SERE school gives its students the capacity to evade capture, live off the land, and escape if captured. This might have explained Dorner's ability to initially evade capture by the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department in the Big Bear wilderness. It later turned out someone left a cabin door unlocked and he merely hid inside until the owners discovered him several days later. Authorities eventually pursued Dorner into another cabin where a combat style firefight erupted. CNN's Anderson Cooper was on the phone with former LAPD Chief William Bratton when a huge plume of black smoke began to billow from the log cabin. Cooper asked the chief if tear gas canisters were causing the black smoke. The chief wasn't watching the video, but if he had, he would have immediately recognized that the cabin was on fire! Tear gas, in any form, does not create black smoke. When reporters overheard the sheriff's radio traffic about the use of "burners," they, and the public, immediately assumed the deputies set fire to the cabin in order to kill him. What the reporters involved in the media frenzy didn't realize is that "burners" are the common names for canisters of tear gas that is released through a pyrotechnic burning process that efficiently disperses the gas through heat. Because contents of buildings where "burners" are deployed often contain nylon carpeting, wood paneling, curtains, sofas and other flammable materials, there is a high probability that a fire could start. These types of canisters are used as a last resort. I think most would agree that neither the deputies nor Dorner were in the mood to negotiate his surrender. Dorner had just shot two deputies and made it very clear in his manifesto that he expected to be killed by the police because of his criminal actions. He was also firing a rifle at the deputies when they deployed the tear gas in an attempt to flush Dorner from the cabin. In an AP report that Dorner's cause of death was probably a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, the reporter mentioned the "arsenal" of weapons found in his possession, "including assault rifles with flash suppressors that masked the sound of gunfire and the location it was coming from..." I hate to appear as a know-it-all, but it's easy when competing with reporters who know nothing about the topic. Flash suppressors suppress the rifle's muzzle flash when fired and is designed to conceal the location of the shooter. They have nothing to do with deadening the sound of the fired bullet. Suggesting assault rifles have silencers make them sound all the more sinister in the minds of the public. Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/media-gets-it-wrong-on-the-christopher-dorner-incident#ixzz2ia6fizOM Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Saturday, January 5, 2013
In a recent article about gun control by the Associated Press, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-WV) was described as a “Conservative Democrat.” I maintain that there is no such thing as a “conservative Democrat” in today’s political climate. Such a term is an oxymoron. If voters are looking for a conservative who will fight for gun owner rights, the other political party is the obvious choice. Sen. Manchin, a popular former governor of West Virginia, ran a political advertisement in 2010 depicting him shooting a piece of legislation nailed to a tree with his hunting rifle to demonstrate his strong commitment to preserving the Second Amendment. What a farce! The good people of West Virginia must feel betrayed by Sen. Manchin who now says that “everything should be on the table” when future gun control is debated in light of the tragic Newton, CT shooting of 26 people, of which 20 were elementary school children. You doubt my analysis? Well, Manchin has company. Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), who helped bolster support for his reelection by being a pro-gun Democrat, has, according to the New York Times, “signaled an openness. . .to new restrictions on guns.” Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), who had the backing of the National Rifle Association because of his pro-gun voting record, said there should be “stricter rules on the books” regarding guns, and called the school shootings “a game changer,” according to the NYT. Translation: Do I score more political points by supporting the Second Amendment, or supporting more gun control? Another gun law won’t stop another mentally ill person from committing an act of violence. The NYT described Sen. John A. Yarmuth (D-KY) as a “moderate” Democrat, (another oxymoron) and quoted him as saying he had been “largely silent on the issue of gun violence over the past six years,” adding, “I am now as sorry for that as I am for what happened to the families who lost so much in this most recent, but sadly not isolated, tragedy.” How many people in Kentucky, a bright red state, do you think voted for Yarmuth, in part, because of his purported stand on the Second Amendment? What these so-called pro-gun conservative and moderate Democrats, as well as Republican law makers, should focus on is preventing mentally ill people from gaining access to firearms. But wait! It was the ACLU and other liberals who want to confiscate your guns, pushed legislation to grant “privacy rights” of the mentally ill. Just because someone is potentially violent due to mental illness doesn’t mean we should confine them to a facility and given treatment to keep sane people safe, does it? Geez! Would Senators Manchin, Reid, and Yarmuth feel better if Adam Lanza killed the school children and faculty with a shotgun? Are shotguns less ugly then so-called “assault weapons?” What if Lanza hid in the woods and killed the school children during recess from 300 meters away using a scoped 30.06 caliber hunting rifle and escaped? What if Mr. Lanza used a bomb or a knife? Would that somehow make the killings more politically correct? I don’t see the difference. Pulling the trigger was an evil act. Once again, liberals attack the tool, instead of the root of the problem for this and all the other mass shootings during the Obama administration: mental illness. Shouldn’t people forfeit their “right” to privacy if they have been diagnosed with mental illness? Especially, if they have demonstrated or voiced their intent to do violence against others, such as was the case with Lanza? He became upset and threatened to kill his mother when she sought court authority to confine him for his mental illness. President Obama and other liberals need to understand that the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms was designed by our forefathers to preserve liberty and defeat tyrants and despots. Maybe they do understand, and this is precisely why they want to confiscate your weapons and render you defenseless.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said that with the new Congress she will reintroduce the so-called “Assault Weapon” ban. Her new version of the ban is like the old version on steroids. She now wants to create a national firearms registry in which gun owners are fingerprinted and photographed much like when a criminal is arrested and booked into jail. For the privilege of having gun owners and their firearms registered, it will cost them a couple of hundred dollars fee. Also in her bill she wants to add many additional weapons that cannot be manufactured, purchased, imported or transferred. Liberals have a particular disdain for the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, which has been manufactured for the last 30-years or so. The latest estimate is there are about 30 million AR-15s in the possession of law abiding citizens who use them for sport shooting, hunting, and self-protection. That 30-million figure does not count the numerous Soviet style AK-47 semi-automatic rifles that have been legally purchased. Banning “high capacity” rifle magazines will also accomplish nothing. David Gregory used one as a prop on Meet the Press to indignantly wave in the face of Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice-president of the NRA. Obviously, someone from Gregory’s staff drove into Virginia where it could be purchase it for around $25.00. For every AR-15 there is, the owners probably own at least four 30-round magazines, so do the math on how many exsist. The same goes for semi-automatic pistols. Many large caliber handguns have a capacity of about 12 or less. So, are two less rounds going to make a significant difference? It does if you’re in a gunfight with a robber who has a handgun that can shoot more bullets then your gun can before reloading. People like Sen. Feinstein who want smaller capacity magazines are simply placing the law abiding citizen at a disadvantage against an armed aggressor. Proponents for smaller capacity magazines frequently refer to them as “clips,” illustrating their lack of knowledge on firearms and tactics. Many AR-15 owners are military veterans. While in the service they were issued an M-16 or M-4, which is what AR-15s are designed after. The M-16 is fully automatic weapon while the M-4 can fire a burst of three-rounds with one trigger pull. These veterans have been trained how to safely handle the weapons and were impressed with their performance. Other AR-15 owners who never served in the military buy these weapons because they know that if it’s good enough for the military, it should be good enough for them. If you live on a ranch or farm and are virtually next to the middle of nowhere, owning such a weapon makes perfect sense to protect yourself, your animals, and your property from wolves, coyotes, bandits and criminal illegal aliens transiting through your property. These very weapons were effectively used by Korea-American store owners to protect their lives and property during the urban Los Angeles “Rodney King” riots. California has its own version of an “Assault Weapons” ban. The many restrictions placed on manufacturers to make a “California compliant” AR-15 have produced a laughable version of the most popular rifle in America. The weapon comes with a 10-round magazine that cannot be ejected from the magazine well without the use of either a special tool or the tip of a .223 caliber bullet that can press the magazine release button through a hole where the button normally would be. It is as if the weapon was designed by a committee of liberals to come up with the least effective rifle for hunting and personal protection possible. Now even those neutered versions of the AR-15 would be banned under Sen. Feinstein’s new weapons ban. The original ban obviously did not work, as evidenced by the Columbine school shooting, so what makes Sen. Feinstein think her new and improved version will accomplish anything different? She ignores the inconvenient truth that more people are killed by blunt objects than assault rifles every year. The only effective way to eliminate the possible use of one of these “military style” weapons in a future mass killing incident would be to completely confiscate them from their owners. Any attempt to do so would not only be unconstitutional, it would create civil disobedience of the kind not witnessed since the Civil War. Sen. Feinstein should focus on the root cause of mass shootings: mental illness. She wants to photograph and fingerprint gun owners, but would never consider establishing a national registry of people inflicted with mental illness to insure these people cannot purchase firearms. That would violate their right to privacy.