Wednesday, January 23, 2013


I suppose not a few of you out there are already foaming at the mouth just from reading the title of this post, and are itching to scream "racism".  Calm down. If I were racist, I'd post somewhere else about what fools black folks are for voting for Obama. I am not here saying that the blacks who voted for Obama are fools. I am,  however, saying that they have been played for fools by the Democrat Party TWO Presidential elections in a row.
I just finished several days of transporting people to and from transportation centers, hotels, and Inaugural events. I can understand the considerable happiness of the black folks I met, since not only was a black man elected to "The Highest Office In The Land", but also he was not thrown out at the end of one term. You can point to Obama and tell your kid that he can hope to do the same thing.
Fine. I'm happy for you. But if Obama were white, and he had done as poorly and done as many off-the-wall things in the last four years as he has in fact done, you black folks would be hollering for impeachment so loud it would knock this blog right off the internet. The fact that Obama is African-American is in fact the only good thing about him.
Or might you be happy that, because of Obamacare and other financial policy "achievements", employers are trimming back hours so that very few employees have full-time jobs? Are you pleased that, because of Obama's printing trillions of extra dollars, the money you do have is worth less and less? (When Obama was elected the first time, the Euro was worth about $1.20. Now - even with Europe sliding into the toilet - the Euro is worth $1.33. That's not good, folks.)
Have there been any celebrations because so many black folks have been lifted out of poverty and into prosperity because Obama reigns supreme? No? I'm not surprised, because Obama functions only to keep those dependent on the federal government dependent, and to bring those who are dependent into the dark stifling world of dependence upon the government for nearly everything.
We've all seen a couple of celebrations of this. The news clip of the Detroit woman standing in line to get "Obama cash from Obama's stash". We've all seen the video where the black lady exults that Obama's going to pay for her house and car. We've all seen the clip of that SEIU woman with the braying jackass voice yelling that "Evvabody in Cleveland goss Obama Phome!".  Appalling.
Obama however is actually not much more than a symbol. The real power in this country STILL resides in the hands of white politicians. Because the most powerful branch of government is the Congress. It will be a long damn time before you see an African-American Speaker of the House or a House or Senate Majority (or Minority) Leader, especially one who is a Democrat. (If black Conservative Allen West had been re-elected last year, he might have wound up replacing that bonehead Boehner. The white Democrat machine knew this, and targeted him for defeat.)
The Democrat leadership - except for Obama - is whiter than a Klan robe. The white political machine in Illinois, headed by the white Mayor Daley and the white Governor Blagojavich, selected Obama for the State senate as a reward for his gathering so many black votes for Democrat politicians. Then they used the corrupt Illinois machine to get him into the United States Senate. He was an unknown, unremarkable zero when he was trotted out to address the 2004 Democrat convention.
From the time Obama was handed the junior seat in the Senate by the corrupt white Democrats, they had a plan to get him into the White House ASAP.  They did this for several reasons. First, he was intended to be a cheerleader for the Democrat agenda. For instance, even though it's called Obamacare; Obama did not write one word of it. He probably didn't even read any of it. But he went out and did as he was told and hawked it. Aren't you proud of him?
Second, he was to live LARGE, baby; so that black folks could look at him and his family living the "sporty life" and live vicariously through them.
Third (and most importantly) he was meant to be a sop to African-Americans, whom the Democrat Party has promised so much to for 35 years (before that they were hosing black folks down the pavement in Birmingham and Selma) but have not actually done one damn thing for.
Otherwise he was to do as he was told. Do as he was told, mind you, by the white Democrat Party leadership, including the appalling Nancy Pelosi. 
Nancy Pelosi is the House Minority Leader (formerly the Speaker) who during the Obamacare debate used members of the Congressional Black Caucus as props, leading them with an outsized Gavel between lines of TEA party demonstrators, hoping someone would spit on them (and when it didn't happen, she just said it did anyway). 
It doesn't surprise me that Nancy deliberately led a group of black folks into a situation wherein she hoped they would be spat upon. Nancy's Congressional District may be San Francisco, but her home town is Baltimore, Maryland where she grew up as the daughter of former Baltimore Mayor DeLassandrio. The DeLassandrio family lived in Baltimore's "Little Italy"; where black folks are called "mulanyoms" (The word means "eggplant" and is a slur just as vicious as "nigger"). 
Those are the people who put Obama in power, by successfully marketing him to us all, Americans of every race, color, and creed. When they knew that he couldn't get elected the first time if he supported "gay marriage", he was told to oppose it.  But when the debate over it got too hot during the re-election campaign and some big money stopped flowing in, he was told to have "an epiphany" and so he did.  
Still, my African - American readers, I understand your happiness. Actually I think it borders on relief that Obama was not thrown out on his kiester, as he would have been had not 3 million McCain voters sat out the election. But remember that he answers to those who brung him to the dance: the white Democrat Party leaders, who are not about to hand the Speaker's gavel or the leadership of the Senate to a black person any time soon. When and if the House ever elects a black Speaker, then you'll have something to crow about. And when and if that happens, it will be a Republican - and not a Democrat - House majority that does it.
I'm not trying to pee in your champaign, folks. I'm just telling it like it is.

Monday, January 21, 2013


There's no escaping it: when you are the Editor-in-Chief of a web log read in China, Russia, Germany, Japan, England, France, Canada, Austrailia, Pakistan, Norway, Finland, Canada and the United States; and especially when your blog is located right across the Potomac River (known to many here in Virginia as "The Moat"); people damned well expect you to at least do an editorial post on it. So here it is.
I spent the whole damned day convincing people to take the Metro into the festivities because a cab would only be able to get them a fur piece away, and it would take hours and cost at least $30 what with the traffic.
Around half past 11, business had calmed down so I tuned into Obama's speech. Half of it he spent talking out of one side of his mouth about the greatness of our Constitution, the sanctity of our Individual Rights, and - this stunned me coming out of Obama's mouth - that we did not have a "monarchy nor a democracy" but a Republic. Dear God, did I actually hear Obama say that we don't do everything by plebescite or by the whims of a ruler but under the provisions of a representative Republic? He even denounced treating namecalling as reasoned debate. That has been a favorite tactic of the Statist Left.
And I thought, dear God, has he finally decided to lead and govern by the Constitution? Has he finally decided to stop smearing his "enemies" and instead do some things that might actually right the nation??
Nah. He didn't mean a word of it. Somewhere in there he said: "BUT..." And then he started explaining how modern times require solutions which might not be exactly in accord with the Constitution he had just sworn to uphold.
And as for that rote call for civility, minutes later one of his flunkies in the Justice Department spotted Representative Paul Ryan coming down the steps of the Capitol, and roused a mass of rabble to "boo" Ryan, and then proudly broadcast his "accomplishment" on Twitter.
He ended with a ringing endorsement of illegal aliens and "gay marriage".
So this Obama's legacy: He has now taken the Oath of Office four times, tying with FDR; and he is the only Inauguree to say the word "gay" in reference to homosexuals in an Inaugural Address. Such sterling accomplishments.
Right now my business partner is driving the hack, handling the by now well-lubricated Obama fans celebrating their second big day. Yep, that's a great accomplishment; putting this bozo in the White House and then KEEPING him there for another four years.
God save these United States. 

Sunday, January 20, 2013


As various elements of the anti-gun Statist Left press their attack on private firearms ownership, they invariably mention the slain kids of the Newtown, Connecticut massacre and solemnly intone - or scream in a spit-flying maddened screed (as NY Gov. Cuomo did) that these steps must be taken "so that nothing like (Newtown) ever happens again!"
They then offer a whole bunch of "answers" and "solutions"; not one of which would have stopped the Newtown massacre. "Preventing another Newtown" is NOT their objective. TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS THEIR OBJECTIVE and they are cynically using the lost lives of a score of dead kids to carry out their long-held designs.
This morning, on the Sunday news shows there was an interview with two dolts from Maryland, and their main point was that "armed guards" or "armed staff" in schools would make the "kids" "Feel less safe", and that a school should be "a learning environment" and not "an armed encampment".  These, folks, are called "Talking Points" and they are repeated over and over again. They are buzz-words carefully crafted to jolt the emotions of the hearer and divorce his decision-making process from his reason and weld it to his knee-jerk emotions.
Among the more risible suggestions for "preventing another Newtown" has been "Restricting access to schools".  Adam Lanza SHOT HIS WAY INTO SANDY HOOK. The two previously mentioned Maryland dolts were talking about "learning environment" vs. "armed encampment"?  How about "learning environment" vs. "SUPER-MAXIMUM CORRECTIONAL FACILITY" since that's the level of security it would have taken to thwart Lanza?
Limiting magazine capacity? Do you know how long it takes to change a magazine? Here's a little tutorial:
Semi-automatic firearms have a feature which locks the slide or bolt open on the last shot. Hit the magazine release with your thumb, and the spent magazine falls out. Slam in a new magazine, hit the slide or bolt release, and the slide or bolt slams forward. Pull the trigger and keep firing. The whole process takes less than a second for a person with even minimal training.
Ban semi-autos altogether? Okay, ever heard of "speed loaders"? Using these requires a bit more practice, but a reload can be accomplished in well under two seconds. And a shooter who is equipped with two revolvers will have a ready answer for anyone who tries to stop him during the reload process.
And, of course, there is the shotgun. With a shotgun - at short ranges - it is entirely possible to kill two or three people at once. What's more, a shotgun can be sawn down to a concealable weapon with the mere facility of a hacksaw. Of course, this is strictly illegal; so we suppose that someone with malice aforethought would pause to peruse the statutes and think twice. Not.
The only thing that would have prevented the tragedy in Newtown is the one thing that is anethema to the anti-gun crowd. Select teachers, trained in proper response to an active shooter and coordinated with local law enforcement; carrying weapons discretely concealed; and known to the community at large to be present in the school; could have prevented the Newtown massacre altogether without a drop of blood being shed. As I stated in an earlier post, had Adam Lanza known that there were armed men and women walking in the halls of Sandy Hook elementary ready to stop him; he likely would have just stayed home and masturbated.
The one thing amenable to the Statist Left that MIGHT have prevented the Connecticut Massacre would be the total prohibition of possession of ANY firearm for ANY reason, except for on-duty police and military. When cops got off duty, they would have to surrender their weapons. Try proposing that, you idiots.
In fact, I hope you DO propose such a measure. Because if you do, it will mean bye-bye Missy Democrat Pie in 2014 and 2016. And you know it.
So you just continue to chip away at the Second Amendment (and hope no one notices - due to the big argument about the Second - how your "political correctness" campaign chips at the First and how you twist the entire Constitution when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't.)
The American Revolution began when the Crown came for the people's firearms. You lefties better keep that in mind. Or, better still, ignore it.  Dig your graves, lie in them, and be buried in ballots in 2014 and 2016.  Reagan buried the Soviet Union without firing a shot. The pen is never mightier than the sword as it is when marking a ballot.

Saturday, January 19, 2013


I believe it was Caligula - or possibly Nero - who believed that people would not notice or care about the ruinous way Rome was being run as long as their bellies were full and they were entertained. This is known as the "Bread and Circuses" school of political science. It is also a classic way of producing voters who are political ignoramuses, now re-christened "low-information voters".
People who are low on bread get an EBT card. As to the circuses, in ancient days they were chariot races, gladitorial combat, Christians fighting lions and tigers with bare hands, mass crucifixions and public torture. These were subsidized by the Emperor, so that every citizen could be entertained and forget about things like how Rome was turning into a firetrap because the Emperor was using the money for enforcing construction codes to pay for the show.
Today, if you can't go to the circus, it gets brought to you courtesy of the TV and cable networks, and you pay for it with the money added on to the goods and services that advertise during these events. I'm not talking about the Ringling Brothers or the Cirque d' Soleil only. They are part of it, as are pro and college sports.
But I am talking about the Great National Circus, the modern gladiatorial combat of Sports, the plebian theater known as television programming, the propaganda machine called the news media, and the glitter-covered perfumed sewage of celebrity gossip, scandal, and snooping.
Recently two examples of what I am talking about here originated in Sports, oozed through the networks, slid across the News, and have now been covered with glitter and presented in the tabloid sections of the various media.
Lance Armstrong, bicyclist extraordinaire', has been forever banned from professional cycling. As you no doubt know - and unless you've just come out from a cave yesterday you do - Armstrong was found to have been using steriods and other hormones and "blood-doping" with hyper-oxygenated transfusions in order to win umpteen contests, including several "Tour de France" titles. What is more, the winning award cannot be given to the second, third, or fourth place "winners" either because they ALL WERE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING but never mind, Lance is the American, so crap all over HIM.
But this whole story was rapidly developing a "ho-hum" flavor, so this week it was "teased" for a couple days before Lance finally came out and admitted to doping ON OPRAH WINFREY'S SHOW. (Didn't we hear something back in 2009 about Oprah retiring in 2010? What's she doing back on the air?) Now, everyone is yapping up Lance's tree again, this time about whether Lance told the whole truth.
(By the bye, I ride my bike regularly, and I don't take steroids or hormones or other drugs. I have not once undergone a transfusion. So, if the Tour de France needs a winner, send me the money and the yellow jerseys, on the basis of the following true statements: (1) I ride a bike sometimes, so I am a cyclist. (2) I don't use prohibited drugs and I don't take steroids or recieve transfusions; and (3) I have never competed in the Tour de France. So even if I have lied in statement (2); even so I am therefore a bicyclist who has demonstrably and undisputably NEVER used doping to win a Tour De France. TDF officials contact me in comments about where to send the jerseys and prize money, sil vous plaiz.)
Moving on.
Another great, big, slobbery meaningless case of who-the-fuck-gives-a-royal-shit hit the fan this week when some kid on the Notre Dame football team announced that his "girlfreind" either was dying or had died (I don't give a damn about football and I don't follow idiocy like this very closely, so I don't remember which, but...) and then it turned out that this "girlfriend" was some person who had stolen the identity of a young woman and used it to "hook" this college player in a scheme called "catfishing". This kind of thing goes on every single day in the ozone of the Internet. But the big talking is said to be justified because it is a famous athlete who was taken in. Really? You mean that since it was a college jock who might have just been hit in the brainpan one too many times fell victim to this, it's a bigger story than if some obscure bachelor owner of a pizzaria did?
But here's the point of this post: The news organizations devote more time to this salacious gossip about the (mostly alleged) mistakes and foibles of the Rich and Famous than they do to the things people ought to be thinking about and acting on. They become high-information (or so they think) gossips by this means.
By this means also they become "low-information" voters, gleaning their understanding of politics and their representatives in government by way of 30 second sound-bites as they drool in anticipation of the latest news of the latest scandal, delivered in detail and designed to keep them ignorant.
Thus in 30 seconds millions were convinced that Mitt Romney was directly responsible for the death of a man's wife from cancer (she's still alive); and thus in 30 seconds a Union carpenter was believed when he said he built the stage upon which it was announced that the plant he worked in and had been bought by Bain Capital and closed down; and that therefore Romney didn't give a tinker's damn about "me".  Had the media done its job and covered these stories and others and reported facts, and not busied themselves in reporting on frippery as if it were a Nationally Significant Matter; then Obama would not be taking his FOURTH oath of the Presidency on Monday.
(Oh, yes. Obama - and Chief Justice Roberts - flubbed the oath last time and it was taken again in private the next day. This time he will take the Oath in private on Sunday and again in public on Monday. Making Obama the first president in U.S. History since Franklin Delano Roosevelt to take the Oath FOUR TIMES. )
But four times or one time, it's all the same. The Current Resident only cares about his Oath when it assists him in getting what he wants. If it stymies him he will ignore it to the extent he thinks he can get away with. And he hopes the Body of the People will pay attention to their circuses and enjoy their bread as he does just as he pleases.
It's a catfish sandwich with steroid sauce. Don't be a sucker. WAKE THE FUCK UP, PEOPLE!
Wake the fuck up.

Thursday, January 17, 2013


The Current Resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, Washington D.C. (New ADP policy: Since some of our "progressive" accquaintances have objected both to our putting "president" in quotes and then refusing Obama a title other than  "Mr." - which honorific he probably doesn't deserve either - he is now "Current Resident Obama") today made a rather lengthy speech as he stood surrounded by a bunch of kids who are probably going to be paying for all the crap he is shelling out borrowed money for until they die.
The Current Resident read some of the letters written to him by the kids - who from all accounts really were a darling bunch, and God bless and keep them all - pleading with him to save them from the bad, nasty guns.
Then  he announced a whole raft of Executive Orders, none of which had they been in effect for the last four years would have saved one precious little life in Newtown (or anywhere else). Many ot these Executive Orders were ridiculous, being things he could have done WITHOUT issuing an executive order (such as the bit about having Kathleen Sibeilius and some other flunky tour the country promoting some blather or other about supporting the Current Resident) and some were - to put it mildly - possibly illegal (such as the one directing physicians to question patients and their children about firearms in the home).
But Obama chose to introduce this by reading some letters from a bunch of kids, as if he were reading cute letters to Santa Claus. We wonder: If a thousand kids wrote him saying they really, really, really wanted ice cream and cake three times a day; would he fly them in and call a conference and plump for a Betty Crocker and Sealtest subsidy?
We remember as we think everyone does the kid in our class who came up with a "brilliant" idea for eliminating war: When two countries are mad at each other, instead of fighting with guns just have the smartest guys on each side play a game of chess. 
That's a wonderful idea, Tommy. Now run along and play with your friends.
Obama wants us all to believe that Tommy is a little genius and has come up with a great idea to make the world a non-violent paradise. Obama wants us all to be his widdo kids, and let him tell us what's best (and if we do something he told us not to do or don't do something he told us to do, we gets a whippin').
By having a bunch of kids standing around and quoting from what they had written him, the Current Resident has shown what he thinks of his constituents, the American People. To Obama, we are all just a bunch of children in need of his supervision, and if we obey we will be fine.
Almighty Jehovah God sees me this way, and since He made me, He can expect me to accept this.
Mr. Obama, here's a news flash: YOU ARE NOT GOD. I AM NOT YOUR CHILD.  Read the Constitution, respect it and follow it, or in the alternative be removed from office in the manner prescrbed therein.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013


For years, those who would abrogate the Second Amendment and eliminate private posession of firearms entirely have been carping about what they call the "gun show loophole".  What loophole?
It's not a "loophole". It is the permitting of private sales and transfer of firearms between individuals. This is permitted in several states, including Virginia.
That beautiful blue-steel Smith and Wesson "pre-Model 15" "5-screw" .38 caliber Combat Masterpiece revolver you see me wielding on the masthead was purchased by me at the gun show in Chantilly, Virginia from a private individual. Yet I still had to go to a Federal Firearms Licencee and get a Brady check done  before I could take possession of the weapon.
Every gun show I have ever been to has been absolutely crawling with State, local and Federal law enforcement types in plainclothes. I dare you to show me one murder where the weapon was actually purchased at a gun show without a background check. "Eliminating the gun-show loophole" is a non-solution to a non-problem. The last place a felon would go to acquire a firearm is a gun show.
Now, under Virginia law if I were to encounter someone interested in buying a firearm from me, I could sell it to him like a kid selling a glass of lemonade from a sidewalk stand.
But I guess we firearms owners are a funny bunch, because unless I knew the guy pretty damned well then a Federal Fireams licenced dealer would have to be involved, and the fee for the processing would be included in the price. And if I knew or should have known that the buyer was a "prohibited person", I would be in deep trouble, indeed. I've made a few "private sales", and they've all been Hoyle.
Still, I wouldn't have any problem if all firearms sales were required to undergo what is commonly called a "Brady check". Just so long as there were provisions that heirloom firearms and such could be put into recievership until the person who inherited them became of age to possess firearms.
Say I were to kick the bucket tomorrow, and my will had stipulated that that beautiful Combat Masterpiece would go to my (fictional) underaged nephew. Place some provison into the law that such transfers be not prohibitively onerous nor expensive, and we can talk.
But really, why change the way things are? Private firearms transfers between legitamate firearms owners are not a problem. If some sketchy dude offers me half a grand for one of my guns, then depending on my estimation of the threat I will take a course of action ranging from simply blowing him off to reporting the request to the authorities.
Most if not all transfers of firearms to prohibited persons involve firearms that are stolen or otherwise illegally obtained (or even manufactured). In  Alexandria recently a police car containing a Remington 870 riot shotgun was stolen. The car was recovered.
The shotgun was not. This is, please note, a "sawed-off" pump-action shotgun, easily concealed beneath a coat. And a shotgun can inflict carnage at short range just as bad or worse than a true (fully automatic) "assault rifle". As this is being written, it is not inconcievable that this very same shotgun is being sold in Oxon Hill, Maryland or in Sursum Corda in D.C.; and might be used tomorrow to slay an innocent or two (or three or four or five or six). Do you think that the guy who sold that shotgun was concerned in any way about the law?
The biggest "loophole" in the "gun control" laws is irreparable. It is the "I am a criminal and I don't give a fuck about the law" loophole. That, and not the so-called "gun show loophole" is the problem. 

Monday, January 14, 2013


Today, in an astonishing speech on the debt ceiling, Obama chastised the House Republican Caucus for not raising the debt limit so America can "pay our bills", which Obama alleged Congress has "run up". 
Well, that crap wasn't "run up" by the Republicans. The vast majority of it was "run up" when voters made the mistake of turning the House over to the Democrats. It was passed over their loud objections, and notably in the case of Obamacare it was passed with all kinds of chicanery - even with a Democrat majority - including threats, arm-twisting, secret meetings, changing parliamentary rules in the middle of the process, and even what ought to be called out-and-out bribery (remember the "Louisiana Purchase" and the "Cornhusker Kickback"?).
What Obama was talking about was not money that has already been spent. He was talking about money that has been authorized to be spent. If you are planning a vacation, and have reservations for a beach house; and if you find that to go on that vacation AND pay the gas bill so that when you get back you will be able to cook dinner and heat the house you will need to run up more money on a maxed-out line of credit; then will you call the bank and ask them for an increase in your credit limit so you can pay your gas bill?
And just what do you think your banker will do when he hears your lame explanation? Personally I think he would tell you to cancel your reservation, quickly plan a less expensive vacation (or abort it altogether), pay  your gas bill on time, and continue to enjoy a good credit rating. Or, in the alternative, go ahead on to your seaside vacation and arrive home to find the gas has been cut off, the interest on your card has been increased to the maximum (thus costing you more money) due to your default, and try to make grilled cheese sandwiches in the toaster until the electric bill comes due and you can't pay that, either.
The silver lining is that the phone would be cut off for non-payment in short order, so at least the bill collectors would stop calling. That way, when you died of starvation after freezing in the dark, at least you would have some peace in your final, miserable hours.
NO debt limit increase without DRASTIC cuts in spending. PERIOD.

Friday, January 11, 2013


I do hope everyone got a good laugh out of the last post. But it's time for everyone to get down to serious business.

The Democrat Party - they who keep bitching that their name is "The Democratic Party" and complaining that we call them the "Democrat Party" as a deliberate insult (and they are right, and they deserve it) is in a full-bore effort to scrap the Constitution and turn these United States into a nation under single-party rule.
At present, the only thing standing between this cabal of traitors; who would gather all political power unto themselves and have the entire citizenry under their sway and dependent upon them for the basic neccessities of life, and the absolute power they seek (and seek it they do, and aggressively); is the Constitution of the United States. And the only thing keeping the Constitution in force is a slim majority in the House of Representatives.
Yet Democrat Senators and Representatives are now openly advocating that Mr. Obama abrogate the separation of powers and simply go right ahead and borrow more money without the permission of the House, using a tortured and utterly fraudulent interpretation of the 14th Amendment as authorization under law to do so.
In  similarly ominous development, the Democrat statists are using the deaths of 20 kids in Connecticut to push their ultimate objective of the disarmament of the citizenry. Most decent people in this country would like to eliminate -  if possible - the possibility that such a massacre would ever happen again. And so the Statists who currently control the Democrat Party are pushing the fiction that the best way of doing this is to "ban" certain types of "assault" firearms.  But the Second Amendment means, by the term "Arms", everything up to and including the standard arms of a light infantryman. The hell with an AR-15. It ought to be lawful to possess an M-16 capable of 3-round burst fire. Ought to be required, in fact.
Not too long ago, it was possible to just waltz into the United States Capitol building and - after passing through metal detectors - have free rein of the Capitol Building and every House and Senate office building therein. I even remember when you didn't even have to go through the metal detectors. (I might have even carried concealed right into the Halls of Congress back then). You could hop onto a light-rail subway and ride between the House offices and the Senate offices all day long, if you liked.
And - more importantly - you could just barge right in to the office of whatever Congressperson represented you and demand of him (or, more likely, his staffers) just what the fuck he or she thought he or she was doing.
Bad guys wreaking havoc in the halls of the People's House are not a new thing, either. Back in the 1950s a bunch of Puerto Rican nationalists shot up the Senate floor from the gallery. Yet security was not tightened until nearly 30 years later.
Fast-forward to the present day. If you do not have an appointment with a Senator or Representative, you must shape up in a "visitor's center" whence you will be led around by the nose by a "tour guide". Should you linger behind to admire an aspect of the art or architecture; should you pass the office of your Senator or Congressman and decide to pay an unannounced visit; hells bells, should you notice a restroom and answer an urgent call of nature; you will be challenged and immediately evicted or - worse - arrested.
Current Senate Majority Leader Harry "Whorehouse Harry" Reid famously said a couple years ago that "you can smell the tourists coming into the Capitol".
That's funny. Know what else? You can smell the rats in Washington wherever you are, every day. And unless they are stopped, everyone will become so inured to the stench that they will not notice it until it becomes so strong that it has eroded and obscured everything that it means to be an American Citizen . We are now in the thrall of a government that believes we exist to serve IT and not the other way around. A civil rebellion must take place, using the ballot box as a weapon.
The alternative is a very bloody and prolonged civil war. That, or the peaceful and abject surrender of our populace to a cabal of elitists who, having disarmed us, will dictate what is best for us and have us all follow like a flock of sheep. I WILL DIE ON MY FEET BEFORE I LIVE ON MY KNEES! "Cold dead hands" is NOT a slogan where I am concerned.
You better wake the fuck up. "They" are not "coming for the guns" only. THEY ARE ALSO COMING FOR YOUR FREEDOM. If enough people do not realize this - even as it is being performed right under their noses - but almost every politician is a would-be dictator. Our Constitution is full of "checks and  balances". But these are just old inkstains on parchment if poliiticians are allowed to twist - and ultimately ignore - them.  All the Statists need is your assent by silence, or your assent by not voting, or both; to complete their grandiose plan of the takeover of these United States by default.  

Wednesday, January 9, 2013


My, we've been awfully serious and dire lately, haven't we? Well, the opposite of gravity is levity; and we recieved a much needed dose of it thanks to the former fattie Al Roker yesterday afternoon.
We had just gotten off duty and had grabbed a beer and sat down and turned on the TV. The first image that we beheld was that of NBC personality Al Roker.
Just as we had taken our first swig of beer, Roker said: "I pooped my pants".
We immediately and involuntarily did a classic "spit-take" as beer spewed from our mouth and our nose. Believe us, a carbonated beverage being forced under pressure through one's nasal passages is an extremely unpleasant sensation; yet we could not stop laughing. We very literally fell out of the chair we were sitting in. The last time we remember being so convulsed at a serious utterance was when Admiral Stockdale said, as his introduction during the 1992 Vice Presidential debate: "Who am I? Why am I here?".
We calmed down enough in time to hear Roker explain that he was walking to the White House Press Room, and thought he was going to fart. But instead, he explained, he "pooped".
This caused us to indulge in even more gales of laughter. And what was just preciously absurd was that he was being interviewed about this, and both he and the interviewer held straight faces. You see, they were discussing a Very Serious Matter.
The Very Serious Matter was something to do with the supposed risks of having one's stomach capacity surgically restricted. And the premisies of the necessity of telling this embarrasing story to the nation was supposedly to let folks to know that THIS MIGHT HAPPEN TO YOU if you've had similar surgery.
Actually, this surgery has been around for decades and had "pooping your pants" been a common consequense, doctors would advise patients who had the surgery on how to avoid poop-laden farts. We were still laughing pretty hard - the more Roker and his interviewer spoke, the more ridiculous the situation became - but what we gathered was that the real reason Roker told this story was because some book he wrote was not selling well.
Well, our books aren't selling that well. But we are not going to go on national television and tell folks we pooped our pants, even if we could sell a million copies by doing so. Even if we had, in fact, pooped our pants. We promise each and every one of our three readers that in the event we ever poop our pants, we will keep that news to ourselves by every single expediency available to us. If called to testify about pants-poopage before the Congress, we will take the 5th.  
It rather irks us here at the Alexandria Daily Poop, however, that from time to time we have to report on matters involving defacation. Just so you know, here's a reminder: The "poop" in the title of this publication refers to information and not to ca-ca.
Nonetheless, this occurrence was a great example of exactly why the commentators of the lamestream, drive-by media are not to be taken seriously. It's hard to imagine why anyone who reports on an embarrassing pants accident; or anyone who confesses to such; doing so with a straight face and the attitude that There Is Nothing Funny About It and that crapping one's drawers and then publicly speaking about it as if it were not something of a joke; could think that anyone would take them seriously thereafter.
Old Al Roker, broken hearted, took a poop when he thought he'd farted.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013


All of the recent tempest about guns has been correctly viewed as an assault on the Second Amendment. But it seems to have come in mighty handy as a means of distracting from the larger designs of the American Statist Progressives in the effort to make the Constitution of the United States a "dead letter" by default.
Mr. Obama has telegraphed his intent to attempt to use a clause of the 14th Amendment as authorization for him to borrow and spend without saying "boo" to the House of Representatives. If he attempts this, it will trigger a Constitutional crisis that will make Watergate look like an episode of "Judge Judy".
Aiding and abetting in this are the folks in the "mainstream media", who obediently decry everything Mr. Obama's detractors believe and gloss over or fail to report anything that would give credence to those who oppose him. These operate under the aegis of the First Amendment. But neither they nor Mr. Obama and his gang really respect the First Amendment, unless of course it shields them. For everyone else, they make every attempt to quash dissenting points of view.
For those in the media who disagree with the Statists, they are dying to re-instate the "fairness doctrine"; which would be applied only to the "right-wing" media and not to the lamestream drive-bys.
Where the requirements of the Constitution and the law interfere with Mr. Obama and his bunch's agenda, so far they have simply ignored them and done as they pleased. WHERE THE HELL IS THAT FREAKING BUDGET, YOU PERFIDIOUS GANG OF ASSHOLES?!?
A key tactic in these efforts is to have as many things as possible attain to the status of a "crisis".  That's why for example no budget in going on four years (even though it's REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND BY LAW but never mind). Without a budget, each and every action and expenditure becomes a crisis needing immediate resolution and requiring ramming through some bill or another before even one Senator or Congressman has had the time to read through and think through even a third of it.
This whole thing has been made possible by the deliberate dumbing-down of the electorate into what Obama's bunch call "low-information voters".  The method is a - must give the Devil his due - ingenious one. What with all these "Crises" shouting for attention while the lousy economy has people trying to figure out how to just survive, many folks just tune everything out until something like 20 dead tots grabs their attention.
Do not think for one second that the tragedies in Aurora and Tucson and Newtown are what Obama and his gang are concerned about. These people are dancing on the little graves of those kids. While your attention is focused on this phony "comprehensive" "gun violence" effort, the American Statist Progressives are probing for weak points and hoping you won't notice what they're up to until it's too late.
You had better wake up and start paying attention. There are elements in this country who are salivating over the prospect of civil unrest. For starters, go to the website of the National Stormfront. Take a look at what they are saying there.
This is what happens when one element of the Left gains a foothold. Today Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi, representing the Socialist/Communist part of the Left, are attempting a power grab. The other part of the Left, the facsists, are waiting in the wings to present themselves as the saviors of the common man. Unless YOU and everyone else rises to defend our Constitution; unless YOU and everyone else starts paying attention, asking hard questions and refusing to accept weasel words and argle-bargle for answers; then we are heading into a fire.
The tinder is already smoking. There is still time to put it out. Start paying attention, and don't be a "low-information" voter. This assault on our Constitution and Republic may still be repulsed by civil means. But the time, I fear, is growing short. 

Sunday, January 6, 2013


The American Statist Left is constantly droning on about how the key problem driving mass killings such as Columbine, Aurora, Tucson, and Sandy Hook is "the easy availability of guns".  That is demonstrably a lot of twaddle.
I have memories going back to when I was 10 years old of looking at the Sears, Roebuck & Co. mail order catalogue. There were ads in there for pistols such as the Beretta "Minx" (Fires nine shots as fast as you can pull the trigger!) and M-1 carbines in .30 caliber (Has about the kick of a pussycat). Ten year old me could have ordered a Colt .45 Single Action Army revolver and had it delivered by parcel post back then, and the only thing that stopped me was (1) I didn't have 25 bucks in my piggy bank (This was an era where a salary of nine grand a year was considered "Upper Middle Class") and (2) my dad would have blistered my butt so that I could sit on a coin and tell if it was a penny or a dime. 
Then Lee Harvey Oswald murdered President Kennedy with an Italian Mannlicher-Carcano bolt action rifle that he ordered and had delivered in the mail, and buying firearms by mail order was quickly outlawed.
But for a good part of my boyhood, firearms were "easily available", and I had pals who lived on large wooded tracts; and their folks allowed us to go out in the woods with some .22 rifles and pistols and do a type of recreational shooting called "plinking"; ie; shooting at cans and bottles on the ground, that sort of thing. Some of us even went to the dump at night to do some "rat shooting".  Even into my teen years, any of us could have gotten hold of a gun, walked right into school with the thing in a jacket pocket or a bookbag or gym bag, and killed the bully who had been tormenting us and his whole damned clique.
That's right. We had bullies back in those days of the late 60s and early 70s. And they didn't just "bully" by snide remarks, either. These guys were honest-to-badness hoodlums who would humiliate someone by beating the crap out of them. What Harris and Kliebold went through at Columbine that allegedly sparked thier lethal rampage was nothing compared to what a target of a bully at my high school went through. Yet no one, but no one ever carried a firearm into the school, let alone kill anyone.
In the interests of full disclosure, one of my classmates, Bill Hilgeford, did die of gunfire. He and some fellow footballers took their fake IDs and went out drinking at a Dayton nightclub called "The SHE". They got whiskey-brave and started some crap with a guy who had a bunch of friends, and wound up fleeing at high speed while being shot at from the pursuing vehicle. Finally they were trapped at a red light, the attackers pulled up alongside them, and Bill was riddled with bullets from what I remember as being described as a .22 revolver.  He bled to death internally before help arrived.
That was a tragedy, and it shook the entire community of what was then Wayne Township, Ohio. But nobody went thumping the tub about "getting rid of guns".  Most of the talk was - correctly - focused on parents keeping tabs on what the kids were up to.
If the problem consisted of the "easy availability of guns", then Colunmbine and Sandy Hook would have happened nearly half a century ago. Firearms are much less easily gotten now than then, and yet now we have this phenomenon. And had the Aurora killer or the Sandy Hook killer or any of the others just thrown an improvised explosive/incendiary device(s) and ran, the carnage might well have been even greater.  
And you can pass laws until you are blue in the face, and still you will have no assurance that the person walking toward you does not have a firearm on his person and malice in his heart. But he will be assured that you are incapable of resisting whatever evil designs he may have.
"High-capacity magazines"? The Browning "Hi-Power" 9mm semiautomatic pistol has been available to the civilian market since World War One. It holds 13 rounds plus one in the chamber. High-capacity magazines are not a new thing.
"Assault rifles"? Leaving alone for the moment that any weapon that is not capable of fully automatic or "burst" fire is NOT AN "ASSAULT RIFLE", more killings were done last year with bare hands than were committed by the use of any rifle, "assault" or not.
The problem, I believe I have shown more than adequately; is not "easily available" firearms, nor is it "high capacity magazines" and neither is it "Assault rifles". THE PROBLEM IS THE CULTURE!!
When I was a young kid, personal responsibility was drummed into us, as it should be. There were consequenses - bad and good - attached to everything we did. Talk about a "level playing field" would have been laughed to scorn back then. Everyone knew that different playing fields had different advantages and disadvantages - such as Boston's infamous "Green Monster" wall - and that what was important was that everyone play an uneven field by the same rules. It was accepted that human proneness to error meant that once in a while the referees and umpires would make a wrong call, and that human nature would engender outright cheating every so often, and that this was an unavoidable fact of life that had to be dealt with.
Somewhere along the line, however, the notion took hold that it was possible to create a "perfect society".  This notion was not a new thing (nothing really is); Plato posited it in "Utopia" before Christ was born, and Karl Marx regurgitated it in "The Communist Manifesto". This notion presumes that it is possible for a human being to be perfect. Maybe not ALL human beings, but that an elite of "enlightened" humans can lead the rest of us dimwits to Paradise on Earth.
In the late 1970s, this Utopian fantasy was joined and exacerbated by the "Me" decade. Here in the Washington Metropolitan Area, there was an organization promoting individual therapy called "The Total You"; which aimed at convincing people of their own self-worth whether it existed or not.
Three generations, each more influenced by this garbage, now walk the Earth. Especially in these United States, people look to their government as the provider of the solution to all their problems. During the last presidential campaign, the Left ran an ad showing a fictional woman called "Julia" having all her needs met from cradle to grave by a benevolent government kissing every widdo boo-boo life dealt her. 
That is what every one of these mass murderers expected. And when they did not get everything according to the paradise they expected was their birthright, they lashed out in lethal tantrums. Their parents, their contemporaries, and the "professionals" they had contact with were all blinded by their dependence on the government to take care of everything, and/or their suppositions that it is possible for imperfect humans to forge a perfect society.
Do you suppose that Lee Harvey Oswald would have never killed President Kennedy had mail-order rifles been banned in that day? Do you think that my classmate Bill Hilgeford would be alive today had "handguns" been banned? I have news for you.
YOU WILL NEVER GET RID OF FIREARMS.  Firearms are ancient technology. Even the submachine gun is technology that is more than a century old. Clandestine cottage industries  using less than $20,000 dollars worth of machine tools can turn out dozens of fully automatic weapons each per day. If firearms are the problem, then there is no solutiion.
The solution is simple. Parents, watch your kids. Columbine killers Kliebold and Harris had an astonishing arsenal of firearms in their bedrooms well in advance of the Columbine massacre, yet the parents did not notice this??
And stop depending on "the government" to take care of every single incidence of nisfortune that falls your way. Once everyone does this, the price of AK clones and AR-15s will fall through the cracks.
And we gun owners will NOT sit still for this nonsence. Wamt to  start the American Civil War II?
Then come for the firearms. "Coming for the firearms" is what engendered the first shots fored in the American MIlitia.
Guns are NOT the problem. The culture is.

Saturday, January 5, 2013


The blithering from the Statist Left in the wake of the Connecticut massacre continues on and on, with the same tired old baloney rehashed as the lefties fan the embers of emotion shamelessly. This is, after all, how the Left makes every argument they try: by getting people to act on their feelings instead of looking at facts with a level head (see the post "Liberal SIN" for more on this).
The Left does not hate guns. They hate guns in the hands of anyone who opposes them, including United States armed forces when the Commander in Chief is a Republican. (When the CinC is Barack Hussein Obama, they even love the hell out of drones doing missile assassinations of American Citizens without due process of law.)
The Left is well aware of the truth of the saying of Mao Tse-Tung: "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun". (This is possibly the only thing the late Chairman Mao and I would agree on.) Thus, firearms in the hands of those who oppose the Left must be tightly controlled (or ideally eliminated altogether). Chairman Mao's saying was however hardly an original thought. The Founders of this Republic had exactly that in mind when they put the Second Amendment into the Constitution. The power (and therefore the guns and the right to keep and bear them) belong to "the people"; meaning to each individual free citizen.  No wonder the Left hates the thought of a common citizen being able to own firearms and carry them.
But the trend for about 35 years has been toward recognizing the right of citizens to keep and bear Arms, and toward loosening the infringements on them that began back in the Depression era. This has been driving the anti-gun Left nuts. Their reaction has been predictable, and time and again they have been shown to be spectacularly wrong.
When Virginia joined the growing ranks of states which stipulate that any citizen who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a handgun be issued on request - with the exception of persons convicted within the five years preceeding the request of certain offenses such as disorderly conduct or DWI - a permit to carry a concealed handgun, provided the applicant take and pass an NRA-approved concealed carry training course; the Washington Post op-ed page went absolutely nuts.
Rivers of blood running through the streets of Arlington and Alexandria were forecast, especially since those jurisdictions' "three-day waiting periods" and Alexandria's special prohibition against the open carry of a loaded firearm were nullified by the law that was passed.
Nothing even remotely like this happened. In fact, Virginia's (already lower-than-much-less-"gun friendly" D.C. and Maryland) crime rate plummeted. Virginia has had a few - notably the "Virginia Tech Massacre" - mass shootings, but these were committed in places which were among the few places allowed under Virginia law to declare themselves "gun-free" zones.
As Virginia's crime rate dropped, the city of Washington D.C. experienced a rise in particularly gun crimes. Of course the Post and the politicians were quick to blame the "easy availability of guns in Virginia" for their problems. But this just begs the question of why, if we just across the river are so awash in evil guns, we in the Blessed Commonwealth don't have the problem?
Then, the District of Columbia was forced by the Supreme Court's Heller decision to allow (allow??) residents to purchase and keep handguns in their residences, loaded and ready to go. The Washington Post again literally screamed bloody murder. But the result has been a steady decline in the homicide rate. 
Meanwhile, Chicago - whose Mayor Daly said a few years ago that he was against loosening that city's gun laws because it would lead to "You got a gun, and I got a gun, let's go out in the street and settle this". Today Chicago has the strictest prohibition on handguns in the country. And last year, 800 people lost arguments settled because the guy who shot them knew his opponent would be unarmed.
Also, consider Vermont. In Vermont, you carry your weapon openly, you carry it concealed, you carry it how you like, when you like, and where you like. Ever hear of a mass murder in Vermont? (And by the way, Vermont is also so far to the Left otherwise that - barring the cold and the absence of firearms restrictions - it could be California with maple syrup.)
Of course there are people who say that the "more guns = less crime" examples here are a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. This is Latin for (roughly) "It happened after this, therefore this caused it".  The classic example of this fallacy is: "The rooster crowed, the sun arose, therefore the rooster crowing made the sun rise".
The "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy can be exposed by the simple device of killing the rooster. When the sun rises in silence, the fallacy is exposed.
So you would expect that if some area in a "gun-freindly" place were made "gun-free"; then if nothing bad happened there either; that would mean that other factors unrelated to the presence of firearms in ordinary citizen's hands were responsible for the low occurrence of gun violence. Fair enough.
Look to Aurora, Colorado. In Colorado, citizens may carry concealed weapons into almost any venue that does not specifically prohibit them.
The maniac who shot up the theater multiplex in Aurora bypassed several other (much more conveniently located) theater complexes which did not prohibit firearms. In those places, the rooster of  firearms in the hands of citizens was crowing, and the sun of safe and peaceful life shone.
The place where that rooster was killed and failed to crow was a theater which specifically prohibited its patrons from having weapons on the premises. When that rooster failed to crow, darkness reigned, and people died.
The state-controlled media reporters like to respond to this fact with a droning mantra about how if there had been armed citizens in the theater they (choose as may as you like, it's all BS) would have not been able to stop the killer because of his "superior weaponry"/ might have sprayed even more bullets and killed more people/or whatever. But the main usefulness of an armed citizenry in preventing crime (and for that matter, tyranny) is mostly one of deterrence. In Aurora, the killer was deterred three times before he found a place where there was guaranteed to be no opposition to his design.
In the case of the tragic massacre in Connecticut, the lamestream media types have been conjuring visions of "teachers in pitched gun battles" with the killer, had they been permitted to have firearms to defend the kids.  The irony is, the killer selected a school full of kiddies for his crime precisely because he knew that there would not be a single armed person there to stop him. Had he known that any adult he encountered just might have a Glock under his or her jacket, he likely would have just stayed home and jerked off.
Firearms are not "the problem". In our next post we will identify the problem and posit some possible solutions.    

Thursday, January 3, 2013


I promised not to write on this subject until the holidays had passed, in order to be at least one person who kept his yap shut and let the poor families of the children murdered in the Newton, Connecticut schoolhouse massacre deal with what can only be the worst Christmas anyone has - outside of actual wartime - ever experienced.  Since everybody else was playing this event for all they could get out of it, my silence does not count for a whole lot; but at least one commentator on one obscure web log let them have their peace. My prayers are with these families.
On the other hand, as I pointed out in my initial reaction to this dreadful event, those whose fantasy is - for whatever motive - getting rid of firearms were crying on the outside, but smiling on the inside as they planned on how best to use this awful massacre of innocents to their own ends. I can imagine the Brady Bunch doing jigs and rubbing theiir hands together in glee as they crafted press releases and gave their lobbying corps their marching orders.
The bunch of loony ladies known as "Code Pink" have gotten involved, too.  On a scale rating obnoxiousness of 1 to 100, with cream cheese on the low side and the Westboro Baptist Church on the other end; Code Pink is about a 75.3.   In one instance, a "Code Pink" gal stood up in front of NRA President Wayne LaPierre and started shouting that the NRA were "murderers". I really regret  not renewing my NRA membership, as I'd have sued that idiot woman and Code Pink for every dime they had, since I've never killed a soul. 
Code Pink also had a picket line outside "The Nation's Gun Show" at the Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly, Virginia last weekend. They were annoying the living hell out of every show attendee they could, and I would just like to know; if they are so damned scared of people carrying firearms; just why it is then that they felt so sure they could openly irritate the hell out of a couple thousand armed gun enthusiasts without getting shot to death? After all, we folks who carry loaded firearms kill people, don't we?  (Of course we don't - except in the case of defending ourselves or others from death, or greivous bodily harm (such as, oh, rape).) Those Code Pink ladies were in the safest place in Virginia right then, and they knew it. 
Speaking of gun shows, have you ever heard of a mass shooting at a gun show? If you believe the lies spewed by the Bradys and the Pinks and their ilk, you'd expect that a gun show - where there are literally miles of tables piled with all manner of firearms, ammunition, swords, knives, daggers, etc. - to be the ideal place to stage a mass murder. They even have Class III weapons - fully automatic M-16s, AK47s, Browning Automatic Rifles, even a few old examples of the world's first true assault rifle, the Sturmgewehr StG44 - on display and for sale. Sneak a few loaded up magazines and a pair of wire snips to sever the security cables, snatch an M16 from one of the displays, and start spraying rounds. It would be ridiculously easy. So why hasn't anyone tried it?
The answer is as ridiculously obvious as the act would be easy. No one has tried this because if they did, they would be dead as the bovine that provided my corned-beef-and-cabbage New Year's Day dinner before three rounds of full-auto fire had exited the muzzle of the weapon. 

People bring their kids to these gun shows, too. I bet that just horrifies you anti-gun folks, doesn't it? Well, yes they sometimes get hurt. One boy was ripping and tearing up and down the aisles and hit his puddin' head on a table corner, and his father - who had been admonishing him to settle down - came over to him and...

I bet you antis thought I was about to say that the dad pulled out his belt and gave the tyke a bare-ass whippin' while the rest of the assembled hillbillies hooted approval.  Sorry to disappoint you all, but Daddy came over, comforted his son, and gently told him that now he knew why Daddy was telling him not to run in the aisles. Then Daddy and his wife (Girlfreind, maybe?) excused themselves to drive their son to the emergency room to get him checked out.

That child was never in any danger of being harmed by gunfire, even though he walked (and ran and horseplayed) among tables chock-full of weapons. I would also note that anyone who tried to harm him might well have met the fate of my above-mentioned hypothetical gun-show shooter.

That's the kind of people we Armed Citizens are.

In the wake of the Newtown massacre, however, the anti-gun statists hurried to get their message out while the hurt was deep and emotions were high.  There was nothing for them but the agenda, and they used every trick in Mr. Alinsky's book to push it. When Virginia Governer McDonnell suggested armed guards in schools, the Democrat Representative for Fairfax County, Gerry Oconnell, said that he was "offended" that McDonnell had "insulted" the Newtown teachers by the (where did this come from?) suggestion that they had been derelict by not being prepared for the shooter by being armed.  That's not even close to anything McDonnell said or implied, but it advances the narrative; so even if it's not true it's still a fact (such is the reasoning of the anti-gun Left).

The media blitz about this tragedy - having the same anti-gun agenda - is actively pushing the same old load of baloney about guns and the effectiveness of gun bans. Perhaps the biggest load of crapola came from noted Leftist movie maker Michael Moore, who said that he found it odd that all the places where people could own guns legally were places where there was no crime; yet our "inner cities" where the crime rates are highest are where you will find no legal gun owners. Moore's conclusion is that people who live where guns are legal are "racist" (?!!!??!!!).  Michael Moore has a Wack-A-Mole game where his brain should be (Yet there are people who take this fat fool seriously, and this really worries me.)

The Washington Post   has a column called "5 myths about" whose subject two weeks ago was "gun control".  In it, the columnist said that he was tired of hearing the "canard" that the Second Amendment was put in to ensure that the people would be armed and able to stave off a tyrannical government. 

It is not a canard.

The Amendment reads thus:
"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."

The Second Amendment is not about hunting.

Neither is it about the right of a State to have a National Guard unit or two.  "Well regulated" does not mean "Drowning in regulations written by people who don't know a spontoon from a halberd". It means "adequately trained to the use of Arms".  And the Militia is NOT the "National Guard".  It is, according to James Madison, "The whole body of the People". 

"...(B)eing neccesary to the security of a free State". Note the phrase "free State".  A tyranny is not a "free State"; ergo the Second Amendment is about providing something for a would-be tyrant to worry about.

The last clause of the Amendment states how this shall be accomplished:

"(T)he right of the people, to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is the right of the people. That means that it is the right of each and every free man and woman, whether they be formal members of a State, Federal, or local military or paramilitary organization or not. Every time a right is said to belong to "the people" it means individual people. Otherwise the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." could be interpreted to mean the houses and papers, etc. of the State government and not you in your little castle.

"(S)hall not be infringed".  Out of deference to religion in the First Amendment, churches are not taxed. Firearms and ammunition are. Why someone doesn't point this out as infringement baffles me. All this hooey being shouted about "banning" certain types of firearms is nothing more than the advocacy of violating the Second Amendment, too.

Because "(T)o keep and bear Arms" means to keep and bear, not just a flintlock musket (you can just can that old arguement) but to keep and bear ANYTHING UP TO AND INCLUDING THE STANDARD ARMAMENT OF A COMMON LIGHT INFANTRYMAN. This today means everything up to and INCLUDING a fully automatic select fire (true) assault rifle.

All but one of the recent mass shootings took place in "gun-free" zones. Much has been made of the fact that the Columbine shooters were dealing with an environment where there were armed security guards, but being few and in uniform they were easily avoided; there routines having been observed and analyzed by the killers.

In all but one of the "gun free zone" massacres, the killer(s) - including the Columbine murderers - killed themselves when met with armed resistance and the inevitability of capture. The lone exception is the Aurora, Colorado killer who tried to slip the police net by pretending to be a cop. The police, however, are not stupid; and he was taken alive.

In the event where lawfully armed citizens were present - the attempted murder of Representative Gabby Giffords in Arizona - the killer was tackled and brought to justice alive, though not a shot was fired by the good guys.  The good armed citizens of Arizona thus have a track record similar to that of the United States Secret Service, who fired not a shot but captured John Hinckley alive after his attempt on the life of President Ronald Reagan.

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. If "the right of the people, to keep and bear Arms" had not already been so egregiously infringed by people with motives ranging from misguided to devious and despotic, a score and more of kids in Connecticut might just be telling their pals today what Santa gave them for Christmas. It is just infuriating.


Blog Archive