Posts Tagged With: 2012 Election

Support the Southwest Shooting Authority

The story on shows the right way to deal with Obama voters:

The owner of a gun shop and firearms training facility in small-town Arizona this week posted a sign telling patrons who voted for President Barack Obama to “turn around and leave” because they have proven they “are not responsible enough to own a firearm.”

The owner, Cope Reynolds, also took out a full-page ad in the local White Mountain Independent newspaper in an apparent effort to fully drive his point home.

“If you voted for Barack Obama your business is NOT WELCOME at Southwest Shooting Authority,” the ad states. “You have proven you are not responsible enough to own a firearm.”

Sure, it is more of a statement than an outright ban. After all, the Obama voter would have to actually confess it. However, it’s message of disdain for those who foolishly put their rights, and the rights of everyone else, at risk is loud and clear. If you know of another business, not just a gun shop, but any business making a point of telling Obama’s supporters where to go, we want to know about it.

Categories: Election 2012, Guns and Politics, Liberty | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Louisiana Gets it Right on Guns

While the Republicans were genially losing their bid for the presidency against a man with the worst presidential record in the history of the United States, the good people of Louisiana were quietly striking a blow for liberty within their own borders by passing the strongest pro-gun constitutional amendment we have seen yet.

Titled the “Louisiana Right To Bear Arms, Amendment 2 (2012),” the amendment passed 73.45 percent to 26.55. It bolsters the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights within the state by eliminating “language within the Louisiana Constitution that would allow passage of laws prohibiting concealed weapons.” —

The idea of the drafters of the new amendment was to prevent liberal, activist judges from imposing restrictions on the gun rights, specifically the right to legally carry a concealed weapon, of Louisiana citizens. We know that concealed weapons, lawfully carried and used, lower violent crime by making it dangerous to be a criminal. From prison interviews conducted by the Justice Department some years ago, we know that burglars are less inclined to invade a home where the resident is armed; and criminals in general are less inclined to accost a person on the street if that person is armed. Therefore, crime in that jurisdiction, where the people are armed, goes down. On the other hand, when you look at places like Chicago, Washington DC, Great Britain–all of which have either banned the private ownership of guns, or restricted them in some draconian way–you see runaway violence. It is that simple: an armed society is a polite society.
Of course, there is more to it than merely a desire to lower the crime rates. After Hurricane Katrina, we saw what happens when Leftists (ie. the Louisiana governor at the time, and the New Orleans mayor) are in control when a crisis hits. One of the first things they did was disarm everyone they could, as fast as they could, and often at gunpoint. Under the excuse of “safety,” these authorities used the crisis to accomplish something they had wanted to do for a long time: Disarm their citizens.
Now, thanks to the drafters of that constitutional amendment, and the voters, the People of Louisiana don’t have to worry quite as much. Of course, there is still the federal government to worry about. Returning Obama and the democrats to power was more than a betrayal of everything America stands for, it was an invitation for the kinds of totalitarian, jackboot tactics we saw after Katrina, but without the hurricane as an excuse.
I guess that is why so many of them, as well as people from 21 other states, are clamoring for secession.
Categories: CPL Law, Election 2012, Gun Control, Guns and Politics, Liberty, Second Amendment | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is Obama Coming for Our Guns?

That is the question. I think, from his actions during his initial 48 hours after the election,  it is likely he will try. The question is how. Here is one perspective.

Categories: Gun Control, Guns and Politics, Liberty, Second Amendment | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is America Slipping into Fascism?

There is a new T-shirt out there. It asks everyone who is for gun control to raise their hand. The graphic is of Hitler giving the Nazi salute. I can see the Lefties out there gnashing their teeth at the very thought, but the reality of history is that gun control is linked to every instance of genocidal atrocity from the Armenian genocide at the hands of the Turks, to the Holocaust, to Stalin’s purges, to the killing fields of Pol Pot…the list goes on. Each was preceded by “sensible gun control” practiced on people who were brought up to trust in and rely upon their government. Once those trusting people were unarmed, their ever-so-trusted governments turned on them like rabid dogs in a preschool. Why? Sometimes it was a coldly calculated political decision to eliminate any possible threats to the state. Sometimes it was to set an example and put fear into the hearts of the people. Sometimes it was racism and hate. Does it matter why? For whatever reason, the 20th Century saw millions disarmed, and then killed, by their governments. Our Founding Fathers knew the powerlessness of unarmed subjects, hence the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. They understood that the only way a people remains free is to be armed.

The Second Amendment reads: 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 Left has argued for decades that the Militia clause referred to the National Guard, and not to individuals. The problem is that there was not a National Guard when Madison wrote that sentence. No, he understood the word militia to means something entirely different. As our Founders would have understood the word, militia referred to every able-bodied man who could pick up a rifle and defend his community. What does that mean for us today? It means that the militia, as envisioned by Madison, Jefferson, and our other Founders, is us. You are the militia. I am the militia. We are the militia, and that means that we are the last, best line of defense against tyranny.

Why is this important? Because like all democracies, we are losing our way. For years, the Left has been slowly, inexorably, subversively, chipping away at the liberty of the American People. A process that began with FDR in the 1930s, and really took off in the 1960s, put the Left firmly in control of education and media; allowing this erosion of liberty in return for the false security of ever-growing federal government to be made acceptable to enough people to allow them to openly take over. With the reelection of Obama, we have come to that point, where the Left comes out of the shadows and does its dirt right out in the open.

The first thing Obama did was sign on to the UN Small Arms Treaty, which forces restrictive gun control on Americans regardless of the will of the States or even the will of Congress. Then, as if to add insult to injury, Senator Dianne Feinstein began the process of reviving her useless and deeply reviled assault weapons ban. Now we see rules changes to make acquiring a Federal Firearms License (FFL) more daunting by reminding all concerned that denial hearings, while constituting due process, do not have to follow the rules of evidence and other legal niceties required in federal courts. In other words, they are setting the stage to increase the denials of FFLs. Throw in the economic, foreign policy, homeland security, healthcare, and other issues this government plans to “work on;” the openly socialist goals of the Democrat party and the left-of-center shift by the Republicans; and you will see that we are facing a major change in what America means as an ideal. In fact, after the government take-over of the auto industry, it became clear that this government is taking a fascist path reminiscent of Mussolini and Hitler, two totalitarian dictators who grew government for the good of the people, restricted their rights in the name of homeland security; disarmed their citizens, turning them into subjects; and then went homicidal.

But that can’t happen here, I hear you cry, because we are civilized and good!

When Hitler was elected Chancellor, Germany was the hub of European culture, an intellectual mecca with amazing universities, vibrant arts, and a free, cosmopolitan environment that was second to none. Italy was not terribly different, nor was Japan; yet between them, these three nations tore the world apart. America is no different, and it is naivety to suggest that the same atrocities cannot happen here. I am not saying it will, I am saying it can, and with the Obama reelection, I am saying it might. After all, the Left has been pushing us in this direction for decades.

Gun owners, dealers, manufacturers, are all going to face daunting new challenges as this government continues to erode liberty to consolidate power, but then again, so will everyone else; including those who voted this government back into power.

Keep your powder dry, folks. The Militia may yet be needed.

Categories: Election 2012, Guns and Politics, Liberty, Second Amendment | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Is the NRA on the Ropes?

The left-wing mainstream media seems to think so. An article on says this:

The Washington Post editorial board yesterday used the sentencing of a shooting rampage maniac in Tucson to amplify a growing post-election theme that the National Rifle Association has lost political clout and is no longer an impediment to passing “gun control” legislation.

Using Brady Campaign election result and expenditure numbers, the Post concluded “This evidence that the association’s ability to influence elections may be exaggerated should stiffen the spines of Mr. Obama and congressional leaders to take on this important issue.”

I cannot say that the NRA is my favorite organization, but I will say they have staunchly fought the good fight for Second Amendment rights for decades. I will also say that Left have been itching for years to be able to write a headline like that, so we can’t blame them for jumping the gun a bit.

The gun issue was hardly mentioned in the Presidential election, which was a shame, but not unexpected. The Republicans conducted a single-issue campaign that left them unable to properly speak to pretty much anything else, such as gun rights. For Romney, everything he talked about was somehow linked to the economy. That, in and of itself, is not bad, as long as he also talked about other issues in their own right. Had the NRA been able to get him to discuss gun rights as well as the economy, it would have been good. More than that, it would have been a miracle.

Where you saw strength in the NRA was in the congressional and state-level races. There, where the candidates are closer to the people, the rights of the people are considerably more important to them. In that environment, the strength of the NRA and other gun rights organizations comes through. More than that, when specific pieces of legislation are up for votes, the NRA can bring great pressure to bear on sitting politicians in defense of our gun rights.

The editorial board of the Washington Post are every bit as wrong as the demagogues of the Brady Campaign if they think the NRA is down and out. It isn’t, and over the next four years, the NRA will prove that.

Categories: Guns and Politics, Liberty | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Who Thinks Petreus Really Resigned Over His Extramarital Affair

The NewsMax story is pretty cut and dried, beginning with:

CIA Director David Petraeus resigned his post as head of the nation’s leading spy agency on Friday, saying he had engaged in an extramarital affair and acknowledging that he “showed extremely poor judgment.”

True, the resignation letter does go on to mention the affair, but doesn’t it strike you as odd that he is making such a public resignation over an affair that no one was talking about, and under an Leftist administration that happily turns a blind eye to sexual misconduct every day? Moreover, is it not also strange that his resignation comes on the heels of his report that no one in the CIA told the Benghazi station agents to stand down?

So far, two upstanding military men have gone down after contradicting Obama on that single incident; the first, General Ham, for arguing with the President and Secretary of Defense as the attack was taking place that forces should be sent in to protect those Americans in the embassy, and now the second, Petraeus, for denying cover to Obama by denying any CIA role in ordering that no help be sent.

So, what does this mean to us? As if his horrific attempt to bolster support for a new Assault Weapons Ban called Fast and Furious was not enough, the Benghazi affair, with all its subsequent fallout, further demonstrates the ruthlessness of this individual, Obama, when it comes to getting what he wants. He cares nothing for loyal supporters, he cares nothing for the rule of law, he cares nothing for the American People. He is a true Saul Alinsky radical and firmly believes that the ends, no matter how trivial or personal, always justify the means, no matter how grave or public. Here is the take-away:

  • He wants your guns.
  • He wants them all.
  • He will do anything to take them from you.

And I mean anything. Any questions?

Categories: Election 2012, Liberty | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Obama Wastes No Time Trying to Undermine the Second Amendment via the UN

Patriot Outdoor News gave us the bad news that shortly after winning reelection, Obama backed a U.N. committee’s call to renew debate over a draft of the UN Small Arms Treaty. Worried about giving Romney yet another weapon to use against him, Obama had backed-off supporting the treaty last July. He wasn’t alone in this as there was substantial opposition, some of which came from Democrats sweating the November elections. Now, all that is over and as Obama told the Russians, he has “more flexibility” and, as you can see, he is using it.

Stock up on weapons and ammo, boys and girls. Obama will do anything he can, including surrendering US sovereignty to foreign dictators, to end civilian gun ownership in this country. He has to be stopped, and that means lots of pressure on the Senate and being ready to file suit in Federal court.

One more thing: Obama is really only part of the problem. Anyone who voted for Obama voted against YOUR Second Amendment rights (not to mention YOUR prosperity, YOUR healthcare freedoms, and every other right Obama has stepped on over the last four years). Remember that, and deal with them accordingly.

Categories: Election 2012, Guns and Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Poor Lost Republicans

Here we are, a couple of days after the 2012 election, and the question that nags at me is this: Given Obama’s absolutely abysmal record, how could Romney lose? Well, there are a lot of reasons. Being originally from Chicago, I know that the Democrats committed voter fraud and so, in many areas, stole the election. How did the Republican Party respond to that? They didn’t, at least not in any meaningful way. This should not be a surprise, since the Republicans have been sitting on their hands for a number of years now. For example:

  • The Democrats spent four years blaming Bush and covering Obama on the economy. How did the Republican Party respond to that? They didn’t, at least not in any meaningful way.
  • Obama was certified with no real investigation into his eligibility to be President, and he has been fighting any such investigation ever since. How did the Republican Party respond to that? They didn’t, at least not in any meaningful way.
  • Obama spent his first term circumventing Congress with one executive order after another, including orders that so cut our oil production that gas prices more than doubled during his first two years. How did the Republican Party respond to that? They didn’t, at least not in any meaningful way.
  • Paulson and Bernanke demanded $700 billion in stimulus spending, and Bush went along with it. How did the Republican Party respond to that? They didn’t, at least not in any meaningful way.
  • Obama socialized medicine in America. How did the Republican Party respond to that? They didn’t, at least not in any meaningful way.

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made: The so-called right-wing party in America has allowed the Left to run the nation to the edge of disaster, and by allowing Obama another term, they have pushed the nation over that cliff. Just look at the stock market. The Dow is dropping like stone, and who knows when that will stop?

Look at yourself, your friends, and ask yourself this: If someone was consistently doing something that was diametrically opposed to everything you believe in, and their actions affected you and your loved ones, would you do something about it, something more than the strongly worded letter or press statement? If you didn’t, what would people think? They would call you a hypocrite, they would say that you secretly agree with all those things you claim to be so opposed to, and they would be right.

This is the nature of the Republican Party today. It has shifted to left-of-center. How do I know that? Because they do not fight the neo-socialists of the Democrat Party, they do not fight for the individual or for limited government, or for anything that they claim to stand for. They compromise, they hold back, they turn a blind eye, and the Left grabs every more power. The Republicans are just happy to have a seat at the table.

These are the people we, as gun owners, trust to stick up for us? Are you kidding?

That thought should terrify each and every gun owner in this country. With the allure and corruption that go hand-in-hand with governmental power, the Republican Party has become more interested in that power than in the People. As such, they have sold out on nearly every major issue in the name of comity, compromise, good government. I have no reason to believe they will not sell out gun owners if it serves their purposes.

As counter-intuitive as this may sound, it really is time for a real conservative party. This party should be focused on the rights and prosperity of the individual. Why? Because a population of prosperous individuals leads to a prosperous nation; and a population of individuals with their rights respected and protected leads to citizens that are not only happy, but will happily pull together in times of crisis. You see pockets of that here and there, always at the local level, but on the national stage, that attitude died with the rise of the socialist counter-culture in the sixties and the Left’s takeover of American public education.

As far as I am concerned, the Republicans have failed us for the last time. Time to look for a new Party that cares more for the People than for power. Time to anoint a new conservative party.



Categories: Election 2012 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

What’s In a Name?

Are you a conservative? You may be a radical! Do you believe in guns and god and limited government? You may be a radical! Do you believe that your hard work was how you became a success? Then you may be a radical! With the election of Barack Hussein Obama for a second term, and the continued control of the Senate by the Democrats, we have to accept a couple of basic, and somewhat disturbing, facts.

First, this is no longer a center-right country. With the rise of the number of people who pay no taxes and expect government to take care of them, we saw the country lurch to the Left. Why? Because the Left caters to the dependent. The dependent want stuff, just like the rest of us, but they don’t feel the necessity to work for it. If they can get it from government, without the stress and strain associated with commercial struggle in the private sector, they do. Why break a sweat if you don’t have to, right?

Second, we have raised up at least two generations of spoiled, self-entitled brats who are more than happy to trade rights and freedoms for a cradle-to-grave welfare state. That would be fine, if it were simply their rights and freedoms, their liberty, being traded for the illusory security of the government dole. Unfortunately, as they seek to piss away their liberties, they do the same with yours and mine as well.

Third, racism is alive and well in the United States. We have a brown president and he was supported by 93% of blacks and 66% of hispanics. Why? Because he is not white. Obama’s policies have been economically devastating for both groups, but that means nothing to them. He is not white. He also wants to destroy American culture, which is based on a Northern European Judeo-Christian tradition centered in Great Britain. Hispanics that supported him see him as latinizing America, especially along the Southern border. Neither of these groups care that he is systematically destroying everything that made America great; for them it’s all about race. That is all that counts.

What does it mean that America actually voted for all this? It means that we conservatives are losing ground to a Left that is offering everything to everyone to remain in power. It means that we are becoming the counterculture. That makes us the radicals of the 21st Century.

That, my fellow radicals, means we have to learn how to be radicals. The Leftists in the 1960s didn’t know how to be radicals, but they figured it out, and one of them wrote a book. Yep, I am talking about Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. He wrote it as an answer to Machiavelli’s The Prince, which taught nobles how to keep power. Alinsky said in his introduction that, “The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.” If the trends continue, we will soon be the Have-Nots, and we will have to take our power back. That means learning from our Community Organizer in Chief, and his great teacher, Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky described an agitation process that tears communities apart before reorganizing them into a mass army that can be used to force change. That process is comprised of fanning the flames of resentment and hostility, seeking and exploiting controversy, attacking apathy and complacency in the community. Here are the rules Alinsky suggests the radical uses to accomplish this reorganization.

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”
Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.
Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
According to Alinsky, the key is to bait your opponent into reacting. “The enemy, properly goaded and guided in his reaction, will be your major strength.” Look back at the last few elections. Does this look familiar? It should.

Categories: Election 2012 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Best is Yet to Come…

Last night, Obama won. Well, it strikes me that Obama did not win as much as Romney lost. Like the sadly genteel Republicans that went before him, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Romney conceded in spite of the fact that a) a number of states were still being counted; and b) the Democrats would have demanded recounts and filed lawsuits. They do that because they look at these elections as wars that they are determined to win. I am not sure how the Republicans see these contests, but they do not bring the passion and bloodlust of the Democrats, and that is one important reason why they are routinely beaten by the Left. Last night’s election left us in precisely the same governmental situation that we had before, with Obama in the White House, Harry Reid and his democrats running the Senate, and the Republicans running the House of Representatives. What has changed, however, is the fact that Obama cannot run for another term. As a result, he is free to do as he likes, something that the first term showed over and over that he will do regardless of Congress or the Courts.

So, what does this mean for gun owners? First, it means the likely signing and Senate passage of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty; which contains provisions that will force the country to enact highly restrictive gun control laws that will all but eliminate the private ownership of various types of guns from handguns to semi-auto rifles and shotguns. Because treaties are above domestic law, it will take a repudiation by a subsequent President, or a Supreme Court ruling, to get rid of. Speaking of the High Court, Obama has four years to stack the Court with John Paul Stevens type Leftists, who will be itching to overturn both Heller and McDonald, paving the way for the return of gun bans and confiscatory regulations. It also means the return of the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban,” either through the UN treaty or by executive order. Consider the Second Amendment plank in the Democrat Presidential Platform:

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

The language above is vague enough to encompass anything they might want to foist upon the American People, and when coupled with Obama’s statement that “the best is yet to come,” that ought to give all of us serious moment of pause.

Given that Washington is, essentially, a lost cause, our only real hope now is in the states, exercising their 10th Amendment rights. Not all of them, mind you, but with Republicans now occupying 30 of the 50 Governor Offices, and more and more states passing laws to nullify what they see as outrageous power-grabbing by Washington over the last four years. If the best is yet to come, imagine how much more nullification laws will be passed by the states.

By the way, the last time the nation was this polarized, the last time states were nullifying federal laws at this level and pace, the year was 1860. The following year, 1861, there was a bit of a dust-up between the States that lasted until 1865, killing a total of about 625,000 Americans. I returning the most divisive, most arrogant, most anti-American president ever to power, what has this nation done to its children and grand-children? Whatever it is, it won’t be good.

Categories: Election 2012, Guns and Politics, Weapons | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Create a free website or blog at