Category: Anti-Gun Folks

… you’ll find yourself wrong. It’s like a train wreck. You know you shouldn’t really be staring, but you do. Joan Peterson’s latest theory, in questioning why David Petraeus went so far wrong, “Is it the power? Is it the hubris? Is it the egos? Is it narcissism?” No, apparently her theory is that it’s the guns. The guns made him do it. Folks, these people are crazy. Downright bats**t crazy.

This New Jersey mayor might not be considered an official member of the “Illegal Mayors Against Guns” club yet, but he’s on his way since Borough Council & the Borough Attorney investigating which laws he may have broken.

North Haledon, NJ Mayor Randy George decided to help himself to a city generator in order to chill the freezers at his personal business (an ice cream shop) while the rest of his city went without power following Sandy. He also gave another city generator to his buddy Police Chief Robert Bracco for purely personal use at home.

The defense the Mayor gave to this decision he now admits was unwise (as he’s being investigated for the misuse of city equipment for his personal profits) is that he was working hard and the Police Chief was working hard, so he just assumed that he had the authority to hijack city equipment for their own personal benefit.

As a member of Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, I guess that Mayor George really does believe he’s more deserving of these taxpayer-funded perks than all of his little constituents who went without heat, light, and lost food when their personal freezers went unpowered.

A California FFL is facing opposition from the Brady Campaign because he wants to work as a gun broker out of his home. Neo-prohibitionists at The Brady Campaign suggest that “unlicensed dealers,” are a horrible and dangerous bazar for criminals who want guns. Then, when someone decides to seek a Federal Firearms License to become a licensed dealer, they turn around and argue that licensed dealers are dangerous. So which is it? Or is it just that selling guns, a constitutionally protected right, I might add, is an unqualified evil? I think neo-prohibitionist is a fitting term to describe them.

I guess it’s not just violent too. Recently a Brady Board member opined “Angry white men are losing their influence,” and then proceeds to go on a racist and sexist diatribe the likes of which is hard to be believed. Is Tam an “angry white man?” Is Jennifer? Is my co-blogger? The cornered cat? Are the large percentage of my fellow NRA Election Volunteer Coordinators who are women? Is Pastor Ken? On the academic side of the Second Amendment, is Professor Johnson? Professor Cottrol? And let’s not forget about our women who toiled tireless on behalf of the outcome in the Heller decision.

I am sure some on the gun control side will be shocked and offended at my suggestion that Joan Peterson’s epic tome on the racial aspects of this issue are, in fact, racist and sexist. If someone said that Free Speech is an issue of angry males, how are you not implying free speech isn’t important to blacks or women? If this election had gone the other way, and one of us had said that this result was an indication that, to turn it around, angry black women were losing their influence, would you not decry such a response as racism and sexism? What if someone said the 4th Amendment, which protects from unreasonable search and seizure, was among these “angry white male” rights Joan speaks of. Oh wait.

The fact of the matter is that President Obama won re-election based on traditional political metrics that have long been at play in this country. What does the election say? It says when you run a challenger against an incumbent President, unless you really have your act together as a candidate, and fortune and circumstance smile upon you, you’re likely to lose. President Obama won the election because he did a better job of holding his base together, and his turnout machine was better than Mitt Romney’s. Period. It doesn’t speak of the rise or ascendancy, or descendancy of race or gender, and I think to suggest otherwise is to attempt to throw poison back into the well of racial animosity we’ve spent many decades trying to clean up. And which side is doing that here? Which side is dragging race into this, and constantly trying to paint 1/10th (1/5th if you’re Bloomberg) of the Bill of Rights as only being important to white males? They ought to be ashamed of themselves. Is this what living up to progressive ideals means?

Didn’t take long for Obama to get started on retribution for our opposition. I also hear ATF is very interested, suddenly, in meeting with NSSF. And let’s not forget that Bloomberg handed the Administration a 40 point plan on how to screw us without needing a damned thing from Congress. Elections have consequences. We’re not going to have much choice other than to bend over and take it.

One of Mike Bloomberg’s allies in Mayors Against Illegal Guns who only left the coalition when she had to resign from office when convicted of multiple crimes is in the court system again. After reaching a deal with prosecutors, she’s already in violation of her probation.

Court records show former Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon has been charged with violating her probation on theft and perjury charges.

Dixon, a Democrat, resigned in 2010 after she pleaded guilty to lying about gifts from her former boyfriend, a developer who received tax breaks from the city. She was also convicted of stealing about $500 in gift cards donated to the city for needy families.

That’s right, Bloomberg’s gun control project had him working with a mayor who stole gifts for families in poverty, and even when the court allowed her probation, she still couldn’t keep herself out of trouble. I guess this means we need to give his project a new nickname – Illegaler Mayors Against Guns.

Hey, NRA members… you’re racist! Put this crap in the realm of feel good nonsense that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans when it comes to making phone calls, knocking on doors, and getting people out to vote:

CSGV tried to have Examiner.com censor Kurt Hoffman, a number of bloggers stood up for his right to speak. A free exchange of ideas is what healthy free societies support. I’ve had my issues with the III percent philosophy, which I have not been shy about criticizing on this blog, but I absolutely believe they have a right to speak and publish on their viewpoint. This is yet another desperate attempt by CSGV to silence dissenting opinions.

I read Kurt’s post which started all this hubbub, and as best I can tell he told people to read a book. I will forthrightly back people’s desire to publish and read materials, even controversial or potentially dangerous materials. The book Das Kaptial contains ideas that are responsible for the deaths of millions of people in the 20th century, but I’d still suggest people read it. Does that make me a marxist or violent left-wing revolutionary? The adult thing to do in these situation is to counter speech with more speech. If you don’t agree with the insurrectionist idea, understand what it really is, and speak out against it in a serious manner. But that’s not what the straw men builders at CSGV have chosen to do; they have chosen to attempt to silence and intimidate people who stand up for our rights and freedoms.