Better Ban Video Games
Dec 18, 2012 Political
Retiring Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who has already expressed his desire to implement stronger gun laws, is saying that the shooter in his state had a hypnotic involvement in violent video games. According to Lieberman Adam Lanza was a troubled youth whose video game obsession led to him becoming a murderer.
Lieberman tells us that not everyone who plays violent video games becomes a murderer but that some do.
I guess what he is saying is that not everyone should be painted with a broad brush, you know, like claiming that guns need to be banned since a small number of people use them to do bad things.
The murder of the children in Connecticut was tragic and should never happen in any society but it does.
It happens in countries where guns are banned and it happens in places in America where guns are banned (think Chicago). Any shooting at a school happens in an area where guns are banned because federal laws designate schools as gun free zones.
Ronald Reagan was shot in Washington DC, a place with strict gun control. Over 40 people a month are shot in Chicago, a place where guns are banned. Lots of people in Mexico are murdered with guns (some of them provided by Obama and Holder) and Mexico has strict gun control.
People who want to do harm with guns like to go to places where others do not have guns so schools fit right in there as do malls and some theaters.
Have you ever heard of someone murdering anyone at a gun show? Have you ever heard of anyone even attempting such a thing at a gun show? How about a gun store, anyone?
No, because the people there are armed and will shoot anyone who tries such stupidity.
Mass shootings are down in the US. Round the clock coverage and instant access to news makes it seem like they are more frequent but they are not. Hell, the worst murder of children in school happened decades ago and dynamite was the murder weapon.
If we want to protect our children and the rest of society then the children in our schools deserve the same protection that Barack Obama’s daughters get. Is there any doubt that if any person with a gun stormed their school that a Secret Service Agent would shoot him?
Why are armed people allowed in their school for their protection but all other schools in the US are gun free zones? If adults with carry permits who were trained to use firearms had been allowed in the school in Newtown the result might have been much different.
If only Barack Obama’s girls were students there…
I read something earlier that made sense. People do not raise an eyebrow over people in armored vehicles carrying guns to protect bags of money but cringe at the thought of people with guns protecting our children. This is an example of seriously misplaced priorities. The White House has armed Guards and a fence. Most federal buildings have blast walls or fences and armed guards. Signs indicating the use of deadly force is authorized against anyone who tries to do bad things are posted in these places but our schools have signs telling criminals that there are no guns inside so they will be safe if they want to do harm.
How many people would try to climb a fence with signs indicating that the fence was electrified? How many people would try to shoot up a school if signs were posted indicating there were armed people inside?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: criminals, gun bans, joe lieberman, less crime, mass murder, obama's daughters, video games
Obama Will Give Amnesty And You Will Pay For It
Oct 29, 2008 Immigration, Political, Second Amendment
Not to long ago nearly the entire Congress, John McCain included, tried to ram an amnesty package down our throats. That package would have given million of illegals a path to citizenship by largely ignoring the fact that they committed a crime to get here. The country went nuts and flooded the switchboards at the Capitol and the legislation went down in defeat.
More than 80% of this country opposed the idea of allowing illegals a pathway to citizenship that amounted to nothing more than amnesty. Now, a large portion of that opposition is prepared to elect a man who has stated that he wants to give the illegals a pathway to citizenship. Barack Obama is in favor of allowing millions of people to become citizens and thus gaining the right to vote. Obama will put politics ahead of country and allow millions of Democratic supporters to infiltrate our voter rolls and change the dynamics of politics for generations to come.
Under Barack Obama these new “citizens” will turn Texas into a deep blue state and it will take many of the other southern states with it. Traditional Republican strongholds will be infiltrated by millions of people eager to keep the party that gives away taxpayer money in power. This will spell disaster for the Republican party but more importantly, it will spell disaster for our country. Millions of people will flood government offices for Social Security benefits, medical care, and any number of other taxpayer funded social programs thus evaporating already scarce resources.
People need to wake up and see what is happening. Obama’s open secret is that he believes in Socialism. He told that to Joe the Plumber and said it in 2001 during an interview. Barack Obama believes that wealth in this country should be taken from people who earn it and given to those who do not. His idea of Utopia is wealth redistribution and no matter how Joe Biden tries to spin it and no matter how his supporters try to ignore it the plain fact is, the words came out of Barack Obama’s mouth.
If it isn’t bad enough that Obama is willing to give taxpayer money out like candy at Halloween, the government wants to confiscate more of your money in order to redistribute it to others. There is a plan being bounced around to force you to move all of your 401 (k) retirement money into government accounts. The plan will either involve putting it in a different pool or adding it to “your” Social Security fund which is a misnomer because the money goes to the general fund where Congress takes it and spends it. To top it off, government will require you to contribute 5% of you pay to the fund thus taking more of your money to redistribute.
This plan, which was discussed by some economist, involves redistribution of wealth. She said that it would give everyone an equal share (wealth redistribution). This is money that you have worked for and that you have invested in different accounts that, despite current problems, will do well for you. The government will require you to pool all the money you saved with the money of others and then the government will decide who gets how much of it. If you have $100 and someone else has $50, you both get $75. In other words, Obama and the Democrats will redistribute $25 of your money to someone else.
If Barack Obama becomes the president and allows millions of illegals to become citizens they will be standing in line with their hands out waiting for you to hand them the money you saved for your retirement.
I have said before that Social Security was a method used by the government to gain and keep control over people. They hold Social Security hostage in order to influence the lives of the elderly and the way they vote. They keep people dependent on government so that the government can control the population. Allowing them to take your retirement will ensure that instead of retiring and living the life you worked hard to achieve, you will live the life government decides you should live.
That, my friends, is nothing more than Socialism and it starts with Barack Hussein Obama.
Polling agencies have been using inaccurate methods based on unrealistic projections and Obama is continually reported to have a big lead. The race is much closer and this is evident by several things. One, Gallup used the traditional polling method in its last poll and Obama only has a 2% lead. Obama is reported to have a 10% lead in Pennsylvania and yet he and Biden are spending huge amounts of time and resources in that state. If their internal polls showed the 10 point lead the external polls show they would be campaigning in other, more closely contested states. The fact that they are spending all that time in a state they are shown as winning easily speaks volumes about how close this really is. Last night’s Rasmussen polls showed Obama with no larger than a 4% lead in any battleground state. The pollsters do not want to be wrong on this so now they are reverting back to the proven methods and those methods are showing a very tight race.
Don’t let the intentional deception of the last few weeks keep you from voting. John McCain and Sarah Palin can win this election but they will need all of us who oppose Socialism to go out and vote. No matter what the weather is like, no matter what else is going on, no matter what you hear, you must get out and vote. If all the people who oppose illegal aliens getting citizenship and those who oppose Socialism as well as gun owners (those of us who cling to them) get out and vote we can defeat Obama.
They have told us what they want to do. They want to increase taxes, make illegals citizens, spend 300 billion dollars more on a stimulus package, ban guns, and cut military spending by 25%. Barack Obama has told us he wants to spread our wealth around. We can stop that by getting out and voting.
But if you vote for Obama or if you sit this one out, don’t say you weren’t warned because they told us what they will do to us and if they control Congress and the White House that is exactly what they will do.
Your money will no longer be yours and Karl Marx will be laughing from the pits of Hell.
Related article:
Newsmax
Tags: gun bans, ILLEGAL immigration, Obama, socialism, tax increases, wealth redistribution
Second Amendment Work Not Quite Done
Jun 26, 2008 Political
The ruling by the Supreme Court today on the Second Amendment was a good ruling but there is still work to do. Already, proponents of gun control are claiming that the ruling allows them to decide where, when and under what circumstances people may have guns. Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler stated as much today. The reality is, the ruling gave no such restrictions.
The important thing to look at is what the Court was asked to decide. They were asked if gun ownership was an individual right and the case stemmed from a lawsuit over the DC gun ban which makes it a crime to have a functional weapon in one’s own house. The Court ruled that gun ownership is an individual right and that citizens in DC had a right to have them in their homes (in ready to use, functional configuration). That is what they were asked to rule on and that is what they did. There will be future lawsuits to iron out the limit of that individual right.
The reaction from Mayor Fenty of DC and Mayor Daley of Chicago was right out of the liberal playbook. Gavin Newsome of San Francisco also chimed in. They cannot believe the Court ruled this way and wonder how they could have reached such a conclusion. I wonder how any normal person could reach any other conclusion than what the Court did. [My Way News]
All three Mayors cried about the increased violence that would result from the decision and this is just a bunch of crap. These places already have extremely stringent gun laws and look at their murder rates. You see, the people causing those murders are those who are not supposed to have guns or are using them illegally. The Court’s decision deals with law abiding citizens and addresses the ability to deny gun ownership to criminals and the mentally ill.
Gun laws have not stopped the violent crimes in cities where gun control is the most strict. It is simple, criminals do not obey the law. Look at the crime rates in areas where there are strict gun laws and compare them to rural America where gun ownership is widespread (the bitter folks Obama talked about). The reality is, gun control has been a huge failure and has not reduced crime. Crime is reduced in places where the citizenry is armed.
Ask Mayor Daley how is strict gun control has worked out. He had more murders last weekend in his city than my county did all of last year (and this year combined). Ask Mayor Fenty how the decades of gun control in DC has helped his city which is more than the Nation’s Capital, it is the murder Capital. Handgun violence should not exist under the laws that existed there and yet there were countless shootings. Ronald Reagan was shot in DC so the strict gun laws did nothing to prevent that. Ask Gavin Newsome, who wants the justices to visit the housing projects in his city and see the violence, how it is that his city has gun violence with its strict gun laws.
If gun control is the answer and will end violence why do cities with strict gun control allow their police officers to carry guns? If there will be no gun violence there is no need for the police to carry a gun. It is also worth asking why Chicago allows its Aldermen to carry concealed weapons or why gun control advocate Dianne Feinstein of California has a carry permit. Why is it that these people have a Second Amendment right that idiots like Daley, Newsome and Fenty want to deny the rest of us?
We have scratched the surface in this battle but now that the camel has its nose under the tent we will be able to chip away at the unconstitutional gun laws that government has imposed upon its citizens. We will now be able to combat the tyranny of government. We will also be able to instill fear in the liberals. They want your guns so you have no means to resist tyranny. Now that it is decided law that YOU have the right to keep and bear arms (a right I knew I had all the time and will never relinquish) they will have lost a method used to control the citizenry.
If you think liberals are not afraid of gun owners you need to ask why it is the Amendment they attack all the time. Why do they regulate that freedom to death? No other Amendment in the Bill of Rights has the restrictions and impositions on it that the Second Amendment has and that is because it is the very Amendment that allows the average citizen a means of resistance against a tyrannical government.
It would also be interesting to know why liberals immediately attacked this ruling and started interpreting it as a victory for them. Nancy Pelosi said the ruling would not keep DC from regulating guns. Leave it to a liberal to find ways around a law with which he disagrees. Amazingly, whenever the Court makes a ruling that liberals like (abortion, rights for terrorists) it is considered settled by the liberals and not open for debate or discussion. When a ruling affecting the rights of citizens is made in favor of the citizens the liberals immediately fight to get around the right.
So, who are they fighting for? Who do they represent? Why are they so opposed to people having the right affirmed in the Second Amendment.
My prediction is, there will be no blood baths. There will be no increase in gun violence and in places where gun laws are relaxed or repealed there will be a reduction in crime. Professor John Lott has studied this and written about it.
We have won this battle but the war is not over yet.
Tags: gun bans, liberals, rights, Second Amendment, supreme court