So Biden Has Told Us Which Guns He Owns...

I still cannot believe this was the best the dems thought they had to offer America! He is absolutely nothing more than a pure POS leftist anti-American scumbag.

 ...while at the same time wanting to ban the rest of us from owning guns in 9mm and AR-15s (and probably lots of other semi-autos). More at the source. While he says he has two shotguns, the thing he neglected to tell us is what weapons his security details in the Secret Service and the military carry. 

FUCK YOU JOE BIDEN YOU COMMUNIST PIECE OF SHIT!

All the best,

Glenn B

 

PS: Well, that wish of all the best goes out to most folks excepting anti-gun & anti-American commies like Biden.

Oh Henry

In my opinion, what almost ruined my Christmas spirit this year was this linked article and the leftist balderdash contained therein:

https://nypost.com/2019/11/25/a-nauseating-christmas-gun-ad-killed-my-holiday-spirit/

It was written by whom I think is a seemingly leftist anti-gun reporter and is a piece about the Henry Repeating Arms' U.S. Survival Rifle AR-7, a semi-automatic rimfire survival rifle and about an email for it. He was supposedly nauseated by a Christmas holiday promotion email that Henry Repeating Arms allegedly sent to him reference said rifle.

The rifle in question was meant to be a survival rifle. I own one and I am also quite experienced with firearms (both shooting them and as a firearms instructor and armorer) and I can tell you that using this rifle for more than a last ditch survival rifle or as a plinker would be a risky stretch of its capabilities at best in something like a self-defense scenario. While it could be used, as could any other firearm that actually is capable of shooting live ammunition, in an emergency for self defense it would be a poor choice indeed as a primary self defense weapon. That is due to the caliber, 22 LR, and the inherent rate of failures to fire of 22 rimfire ammunition. In addition, while someone could use it on a violent rampage - just as they could any other firearm or a: can of gasoline & matches, Molotov cocktail, IED, knife, machete, baseball bat, truck, car or whatever - it never was meant to be and is not very suitable, if at all so, as a so called assault rifle. Even under the anti-gun auspices of the so called NY SAFE Act - it is not considered an assault weapon. It's magazines hold a total of eight (8) rounds each and as I pointed out they are of the 22 rimfire variety.

Yet,the author of the article seemingly strongly implies it to be some sort of assault weapon capable of turning the wanna-be mass murderer type into someone who can sneak it into a school or theater and use it to kill "...large groups of people instantaneously". Don't believe me, think I am stretching it - read the article and look at the photographs that accompany the article (then look at Henry's Website https://www.henryusa.com/rifles/u-s-survival-ar-7/ and tell me where was the AR-7 among those pictured in the article).

The article, I believe, only goes to help prove a point that gun enthusiasts have been making for years: The left does not want common sense or reasonable gun control - they want to eliminate all guns. In essence, they are attempting to do so by eliminating one class at a time and expanding that class of firearms by adding on additional ones that were never before considered to be problematic in an evil weapon sort of way. Now, thanks to the author of the article - my guess is that many will probably consider the AR-7 to be an evil assault weapon capable of turning even the meekest or looniest among us into a raving lunatic mass murderer.

I don't know which political party to which you belong or what is your stance on gun control versus gun rights but reporting such as that should offend you since it evidently assumes, as I see it, that the reader is an uninformed idiot. I mean think about it - when is the last time you heard of someone using an AR-7 in a mass murder? Sure, it's possible but not likely; yet, I'm almost willing to bet someone on the left of the mentally twisted variety, I pray not the reporter himself, is hoping that someone with a demented mind and a Henry U.S. Survival Rifle AR-7 will try using one in a mass murder attempt before Christmas - that is now that what I consider to be this media monster has planted his evil seed.

All the best,

Glenn B

A New Enemy On The Left

According to an article in the Washington Post, Levi Strauss & Co. has pledged one million dollars to combat gun violence and is throwing their support to Michael Bloomberg and his anti-RKBA campaign. According to the Post:

"The San Francisco-based retailer said last week it is pledging more than $1 million to support nonprofits and youth activists who are working to end gun violence. The company is also partnering with Michael Bloomberg to help create a coalition of business leaders who support gun control measures and encouraging employees to get involved in political causes."

Well I, for one, used to love Levi's dungarees (note I did not say jeans because jeans are for leftist wussies). They were my go to brand and I also used to purchase Dockers products (produced by Levi Strauss & Co.). I never knowingly will buy another pair of Levis or any other of their products; although, this latest move by Levi Strauss is not the only reason. I stopped buying Levi's dungarees years ago when they moved production to Mexico. This latest anti-American, pro-globalization, move by them has only helped to assure that, when I say I never will buy any of their products, the word NEVER is chiseled in granite. If there is any doubt that their move is pro-globalization and anti-Amerrican here is the way others are viewing this:

"... retailers are realizing they can afford to alienate some U.S. consumers as they look abroad for a bigger chunk of their growth." (Quote attributed to Peter Horst, founder of marketing consultancy CMO.) Well, Levi Strauss & Co. apparently has been doing just that as the article points out that:

"Levi Strauss, which also manufactures the brands Dockers and Denizen, made the bulk of its sales — 52 percent — outside the United States last year. Sales grew 13 percent in France, Germany, Mexico and the U.K., compared to 2 percent growth in the United States."

More at the source.

Note they made the bulk of their sales outside of the USA last year and apparently are evidently very willing to lose more US of their U.S. customer base and sales so long as those sales in other parts of the world increase and their profit is maintained. They seemingly do not give a damn about this country or her people.

If you own a gun, support our rights, liberties and Constitution, want to see 'Made in the USA' on our goods again r just hope to see our economy keep getting better - please consider ceasing to purchase any and all products produced by Levi Strauss & Co.. The way I look at it is that if you buy from them you are stabbing us and yourself in the back and doing a great disservice to the USA.

All the best,
Glenn B 

I Am Going To Be Buying More Hornady Ammo...

...and it's not because I have a particular affinity for it like thinking it is better than other ammo (although I must say their 35 Remington is balls-on accurate) or that I think their quality control is better than that of other companies (but have to say it always goes bang) or anything like that at all. It's because Hornady just had one of the best responses to liberal leftist looney anti-gun government, specifically to the pissant tyrant governor of NY who recently requested that NY banks discontinue doing business with any among the firearms and ammunition industries. What was Hornady's  response, read it yourself:
 
"April 23, 2018

Hornady stands up to State of New York

Today, the State of New York did one of the most despicable acts ever perpetrated by any state by asking New York banks, financial institutions and insurance companies to stop doing business with the gun and ammo industry. 
While it may not make a difference to New York, Hornady will not knowingly allow our ammunition to be sold to the State of NY or any NY agencies. Their actions are a blatant and disgusting abuse of office and we won’t be associated with a government that acts like that. They should be ashamed.
-Steve Hornady, president of Hornady Manufacturing Company" (source).
 
Now if only the rest of the firearms and ammunition industries would do likewise and stop selling their products to anti-gun governments - and stop selling to any wholesaler or retailer who sells to those governments - you would see the anti-gun left change their tune rapidly. 
 
It is too bad that not all manufacturers will join in with Hornady but maybe some will follow their lead. So, I am hopeful that Hornady would stop selling to retailers or wholesalers who sell Hornady products to anti gun governments and am hopeful that Hornady will request that other ammunition and firearms manufacturers will follow suit. I just contacted Hornady media relations to request that they do just that. 

All the best,
Glenn B

 

No Wolves Allowed

 

 

Yep!

 

All the best,

GB

Pondering Race Baiting And Calls For Gun Control As of Late

I remember seeing it said by the leftists, in several places and in several ways, that when a white guy kills people, white people excuse him as a lunatic or mentally ill but when a black guy does the same then white people brand him as a vicious criminal. Of course, the implication being that whites are racist and always treat blacks in a racist manner. However, once again, the leftists' drivel has been proven wrong since almost everyone, including white folks, is calling Flanagan a mentally ill psycho regardless of his racist motives and there is not one white person rioting over the two recent killings of whites by blacks. Of course though, the left is blaming the killings on guns and not on the criminals or on the fact that violent crazy people are allowed to roam the country at will.

It always amazes me how the media and politicians can twist things. 'If it does not fit into your agenda, then twist it to make it fit.' should be the motto of the media, the left, the liberals (not always on the left mind you), the politicians - both Democrats and the Republicans (in recent years since almost every Republican politician is a RINO).

I am proud to say that I am an independent without party affiliation although I am considering registering as a Libertarian. That's because today both major parties are pretty much one in the same in their sole goal - which is more power for them at the expense of the We The People.

All the best,
Glenn B

Where We're Headed - We're Not Headed There If I Can Help It

By Robert A. Waters April 7, 2003

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choir boys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.

Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens. During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands." All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens. How did the authorities know who had handguns?

The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA, THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"..It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams

© 2003 Robert A. Waters - All Rights Reserve

**********

I received permission from the author to publish this here in my blog. An amazing story. Of course there is another side to it that you can read at Wikipedia wherein it is claimed that the home owner shot the thugs as they tried to flee. Heck that would be legal in Texas wouldn't it? Regardless I think the whole atmosphere surrounding firearms, heck any arms, in England is ridiculous; and their attitude about someone trying to act in self defense is terrible; and besides that their police are a sham. Don't let it happen here, even with an all lib power surge in the House, the Senate and the oval office. Fight for your rights.

By the way, the author's current website is: http://www.robertwaters.net

His blog can be found at: http://kidnappingmurderandmayhem.blogspot.com

I may have to start visiting there with virtual regularity.

All the best,
Glenn B

Gun Sales Up Over Gun Grabbing Fears - and Yes I Will...

...tell you that I told you so. As a matter of fact, I told you so here:

http://ballseyesboomers.blogspot.com/2008/11/exercise-your-liberties-and-freedoms.html

Before I told you so, I was busy ordering 1,000 rounds of 7.62x39 ammo, and a new Yugo SKS as I wrote about here:

http://ballseyesboomers.blogspot.com/2008/11/have-been-busy-ordering.html

And right before that I had told you that Obama was projected as the winner of the election and that I had no time to write about it because I had to do some shopping, I said that here:

http://ballseyesboomers.blogspot.com/2008/11/fox-news-has-called-it-for-president.html

The sad thing is I do not have enough ready cash to order more firearms. I still may have to order some on plastic and pay the piper, or would that be the money grubbing banker, those high interest rates for credit card purchases. Oh well.

Hopefully the order for the Yugo SKS will not fall through. I lost my credit card right after ordering it, and have since had to cancel it, and VISA will be sending me new ones. Of course SAMCO had not gotten around to charging my card for the rifle I ordered. I called them and they said to send an email about the problem telling them how i wanted to pay. I sent the email asking them to call for my AMEX number once they get to my order. Funny, for some reason they are backlogged several days on orders!

If you think that the fears of those whom are stocking up on firearms and ammo like there will be no tomorrow, or at least like there will be no right to keep and bear arms tomorrow, are unfounded fears - then just let me tell you - you are wrong. Here is an exact quote (boldface added by me) from the web site of Change.Gov, the web site of (yes you guessed) the President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama:

"Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets." (source: http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/, about 3/4 of the way down the page under Crime and Law Enforcement)

Weapons, including so called assault weapons, belong just as much on our streets, and in our homes, and in the hands of We The People, as they belong on foreign battlefields. Why? Well, because the 2nd Amendment was added to The Bill of Rights in order to make sure that it would never be forgotten that We The People have the power to overthrow any government that would resort to tyranny. How could a government today resort to tyranny and use it to put down the people? By taking away their firearms, the same ones meant to prevent tyrants from oppressing us. This is the way it commences each time a tyrant comes to power. If you do not believe me then check the history books about Georgia, Cambodia, Russia, The Soviet Union, at least a dozen countries in Africa, Venezuela, China, North Korea, and so forth. Don't believe the bull crap that they want to restrict firearms ownership to fight crime. Just look to England, Australia, and France to see that tough gun control laws do not work - heck look no further than Washington, DC where the strictest gun control laws in our nation were in effect and the violent crime rate just kept going up, up and up. Why - because citizens could not defend themselves and criminals knew that. look to Texas to see how violent crime, and the numbers of violent crime victims fell. Why?" Because of the fact that not only can citizens of Texas carry firearms, but they are allowed to shoot bad guys with them to for so much as the bad guys breaking into their homes.

Look at the rest of the drivel they wrote. Of what Gun Show Loophole do they speak. There are no Gun Show Loopholes; there is only excessive restriction put on sales of forearms between individuals at Gun Shows. Why do I need to have a NICS check run on someone to whom I sell a single gun at a gun show when I do so as a private citizen, and when I do not need to do the same when I sell that gun to the same person anywhere else? On another issue why will my guns have to be made childproof when my car, my matches, my oven, my stove, my refrigerator, my steak knives, my bow and arrows, my booze, my power tools, my electrical outlets, my razor blades, and on and on and on do not have to be made childproof?

Folks all I have to say after reading that, and remember how Barack Hussein Obama tried to pass himself off as a friend of firearms owners and a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, is that you ought to be afraid of this man - very afraid. If you voted for him, you were out of your minds. Yeah, I know I said we need to show him respect, but guess what, I also said until he shows he does not deserve it any longer. First with his appointment of the biggest hate monger in DC as his chief of staff, and now with this website he has proven to me he is not worthy of that respect except as I need to show it to him as a member of the executive branch of the government. Yes I will show all DUE respect to him as his position calls for as part of my employment, but that is about it. I will not respect policies to reinstate the Assault Weapons ban, to disarm lawful American Citizens, to make a mockery of the 2nd Amendment, or to turn this nation into a tyrannical and oppressive government. I will do everything legally in my power to oppose him and to prevent him from doing these things. As I recall he will be sworn to uphold The Constitution, not to deface or destroy it or any part of it.

All the best,
Glenn B

Firearms Ignorance Personified - Carolyn McCarthy Congressional Representative For My District

Below is a video I found at the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association website. The video is dated, it sounds as if it was made back near February 2007. Over a year old or not, it is worth the watch if you have not seen it before. In essence the video shows a reporter from MSNBC as he interviews the Congresswoman about a gun ban she introduced which would ban firearms with barrel shrouds. He logically asks her what is a barrel shroud and why should a firearm with one be banned. Listen to McCarthy's laughable attempt at sidestepping the question. Besides being laughable, this video plainly shows something important about the anti-gun crowd, but later for that - watch the video first.



So what did it show that was important to learn about the anti-gun crowd. It showed their ignorance. This Congresswoman, the politician who won her first election I suspect based upon sympathy, this ignorant crusader who would ban assault weapons, this horse's ass anti-gun person who would leave us defenseless, does not even know what is one of the features which she finds evil or bad enough to take advantage of in order to ban a weapon that has that feature. She is just absolutely ignorant of what is a barrel shroud, yet it is apparent from the interviewer's questioning that weapons with barrel shrouds were to be included in the gun ban this woman was sponsoring.

Had she even had enough sense to have paused for a moment, then actually used her gray cells to have thought about the two words and their individual meanings - barrel and shroud - my guess is she may have been able to give a good answer as to what was a barrel shroud. As it turned out, she was just too much a ranting anti-gun advocate to give an honest answer right away. She just kept trying to push the party line that guns are in essence bad, and she did so by trying to evade the question and mouth off balderdash instead of an honest answer. Yet the reporter was dogged in his pursuit of an honest answer and pretty much forced her to answer the question truthfully. When she finally did so she had to admit she had no idea about that particular firearms accessory for which she had proposed anti-gun legislation.

How assholes candidates like her get elected and then reelected is beyond me.
This video should be shown again and again to people who are on the fence about gun control. If they saw the ignorance of anti-gun politicians such as is displayed in this video, it might just persuade them to come down off the fence on our side of it. If you know someone who is a fence sitter when it comes to guns rights versus gun control, why not show that person this video, or at least email them a link to it.

Safe shooting,
Glenn B

Wal-Mart Has a New Fireams Purchase Policy - It Stinks

I was reading through my emails today, including the stuff I get from the NRA, and this caught my eye: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3846. In essence it tells of new Wal- NotSoSmart Mart gun purchase policies. I didn't like them. In fact, I did not like them enough to get me get fired up enough to write Walmart a letter about the new policies, and to inform Wal-Mar that until they drop this policy, they have lost me as a customer. This may not seem like a lot to you, one guy writing Wal-Mart and basically telling them he will boycott them over their new policy; but let me tell you if enough of us do it, it can have significant impact - just think K-Mart. I ask you also to consider not shopping at Wal-Mart, and to write them showing your opposition to this new firearms purchase policy.

A copy of my letter to Wal-Mart is below:

"I have been a Wal-Mart shopper for many years. I have regularly shopped at Wal-Mart near to my home, and have also shopped at Wal-Mart when away from home both while on business or for pleasure. While I have shopped almost all departments at Wal-Mart, I would have to say that a large part of my shopping at Wal-Mart has been in the Sporting Goods Department. I am an avid firearms enthusiast, target shooter, hunter, and fisherman. My son also shops at Wal-Mart and he has the same interests as myself. I am sad to say that our shopping at Wal-Mart seems to be about to end. In fact, should Wal-Mart continue to implement its policy regarding firearms purchases - we will discontinue shopping at Wal-Mart altogether. We do not need to, nor care to, patronize a retailer who has decided to treat us like criminals when we are law abiding citizens, who make legal firearms and ammunition purchases. Yet Wal-Mart for some reason has decided to ally itself with mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City (where you have no current stores to my knowledge, certainly none that sell guns, but where I would bet you plan to open stores). Regardless of if you have stores there, you have allied yourselves with one of the top anti-gun people in the United States of America. You have changed your firearms purchase rules to include video taping the sale, and to allow Wal-Mart employees to deny sales to persons whom have had a firearm of theirs traced by BATFE (whether or not the person in question has ever committed a crime or not, or in other words even if the trace was one involving an innocent who reported their gun stolen). I wonder what other Draconian measure you will implement to make it more difficult for law abiding, and patriotic citizens, to purchase firearms and enjoy their 2nd Amendment rights.

I find these actions by Wal-Mart to be reprehensible. Therefore until such policy is discontinued, and until Wal-Mart makes an apology to the law abiding firearms owners in the USA, I see no reason to shop at Wal-Mart again, and I will not shop there for anything. In addition I will recommend that friends and neighbors also discontinue shopping at Wal-Mart.

With regret,
Glenn Bartley"

If you agree with me, then when you write to Wal-Mart make sure to mention the new firearms purchase policy, that you disagree with said policy, and that its continuance will effect whether or not you continue to shop at Wal-Mart. You can contact Wal-Mart here: http://www.walmartstores.com/contactus/feedback.aspx.

Then send the message out to others and ask them to do likewise. If one person does this it is merely a drop in the bucket, if two people do it it is team, if three or four people do it heck it might be seen as a conspiracy, if a few hundred people do it it may be seen as a protest, and if thousands of people do it - well folks - we will have us a grass roots movement - an anti-gun control grass roots movement the likes of which will be able to move mountains, effect politicians, and even make the mighty Wal-Mart tremble enough to relent its latest foolish gun-control policies! Who knows, it may even help defeat Bloomberg when he runs to become governor of New York (and one has to suspect this is what is coming).

Safe shooting.

All the best,
Glenn B

A Look At The Candidates - On The Issues

If you want to take a look at those running for office, or should I say take a look at how they think about and vote on the actual issues, well go no further than: On The Issues

For example: I wanted tot ake a look at the candidate for whom I will most likely wind up casting my vote in the Presidential elections (yes I know the primaries are not over yet, but I am a realist), so I went to said site and took a look at what they have on John McCain.

The site is rather impressive, and I can only hope what they report is accurate. I do not like McCain on Gun Control, but what they show is far better I think than what Gun Owners of America has to say about McCain and his voting record on the RKBA issue. I see that in great part, I am in agreement with McCain on the abortion issue. I could think of a couple of other exceptions that would allow abortions, but I am pretty much with him on how he views the issue. I'll have to do some more in depth reading of how he sees the issues, and how he votes on them, and I will comment more on this as I do so.

All the best,
Glenn B

Speaking of: INANE STATEMENTS.

Listen to the audio in the attached video/audio clip. Listen closely because the very brief argument you are about to hear is apparently the same one as the foundation of all of gun control advocates in the USA. So is the technique used to state it, which in my opinion is: whiny, adolescent like, negative, repetitive, blathering. It is sort of like the teen aged (or younger) child who has to have it his or her way, and when the wisdom of the parent is spoken, the child goes into the no, no, no, no, no, no mode as if that will make everything the parent said and is thinking wrong, and everything the child is saying and thinking correct. It is as if the news caster must also be the center of attention, and no one else with a point of view contrary to her's can be shown; just listen to what she directs the camera person to do. Also listen to how she says the security guard who brought down the Colorado church shooter only wounded him, and the shooter took his own life - sort of in defense of her point, but failing miserably because the armed security guard did make a big difference and save lives. This is truly, at least in my eyes, behavior not befitting an adult who is trying to make a point to thousands if not hundreds of thousands of viewers. This clip first appeared, as far as I am aware, on MSNBC televised news on December 11, 2007. I found this particular clip at:
http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/12/2007-12-11MSNBCMJMika.wmv

It should not be surprising to anyone that her ideas are typical of people who are fervently anti-gun, and pro gun control; and her way of expressing herself is typical of people who have no or little rational argument to make. The man who is speaking is making RATHER BALANCED STATEMENT. Note he says that one person with a gun can make a big difference for good or for bad; yet the woman says this is "the most inane statement". I wonder does she understand the meaning of inane, because if she truly had understood the word when she used it, she would quite possibly have pointed the barb at herself.

By the way did you figure out what was the 'foundation of the anti-gun argument' that I believe she stated. It is simply the: No, no, no, no to guns, and to people having them and using them for good. It is a shame that the gun control crowd wants to control guns, and keep law abiding people from possessing them; while at the same time failing to truly curb violent criminals.

All the best,

Glenn B

Tell Me What Is Wrong With This Story...

... and there is a lot wrong with it. Not with how it was told, I am not saying it is bad reporting, I am saying that the events were all wrong (although I cannot figure why this was only reported now instead of a couple or a few weeks back). This never should have happened, and when it did happen, the end result should not have turned out the way it did. Read it at FoxNews.com Murder With Baseball Bat of Mentally Disabled Man Caught on Surveillance Tape in L.A..

First of all, some pukey little punk with a baseball bat should never have had the lack of respect of life to approach someone and hit him with a bat like this. His parents maybe did not teach him morality well enough, or maybe he is mentally disturbed and should be in a nuthouse for life. I would also be willing to bet this is not his first criminal act, chances are he has been arrested before and he is again out on the street.s Yes these things are all wrong. Ultra Leftist logic that leads to feeling sorry for the poor underprivileged minority type sucks big time when it results in things like this, and it ends up like this all to often. Stuff like this is all wrong, and things like this should be much less commonplace than they are in today's world.

What else was wrong in this story, big time wrong? Look at it, read it again. No it is not that a mentally handicapped person was out walking to the store. That is probably a good thing if he was able to do it on his own within reason. Look , read, think. An unidentified passersby called 911 is what was wrong. Sure it was good that someone called 911 to try to get help for the victim, but that is all that anyone apparently did. Of course maybe they came to his aid and that would have been good.

Now think what was bad about how this all played out with the 911 call. First of all, the passerby who called 911 is unidentified. Why is that? Either he/she did not give a name and then left the scene afraid to become further involved; or the police refused to give out the caller's name for fear of reprisals from the assailant. That is very wrong. The good guy who made the call should be willing to give up his/her name to the authorities, and should be willing to testify as to what was witnessed. There should be little to no fear of reprisals, although it is a fact of life that reprisals in such cases happen all to often when someone comes forward as a witness.

There is also something else wrong with the 911 call. It apparently was the only 911 call. What about all those good people driving by in their cars. Surely someone else witnessed this, why did no one get out to help. Why did no one go after the dirtbag. But that is not all that was wrong.

So what else is wrong, what makes this all wrong, what allows for stuff like this to happen again and again? The fact is that we are a society of potential victims and the criminal dirtbags realize this and use it to their advantage. Too many of us are like sheep and when danger rears its ugly head we run away and this is how our society has made us. There could have a very different outcome though, one that could help put an end to such needless violent acts, and to the fears that fill many hearts after they take place. Imagine for a moment, a passerby walking along minding his own business sees this attack about to take place. He yells "Stop, don't move, I have a gun", or he simply draws and shoots the bad guy. Now the bat may have already swung, and the victim may have already been dealt a fatal blow, but the passerby could still have caused this to end differently by shooting the dirtbag. The dirtbags know you are very unlikely to be armed in a place like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Boston and the like, and they take advantage of that fact often. If, on the other hand, most people were armed it would be a different story, and bad guys would think two, three, four, or many more times before attempting such a crime. If good guys routinely shot bad guys who were committing acts of violence against innocents, the chances are the violent crime rates would plummet. Most of the scumbags who attack people like this are cowards. They do it from behind, they do it to a lone person, they do it because they think no one will oppose them. They will keep on doing it too, that is until the people of America wake up and realize that self defense, and defense of innocent others, is not only a right, it is the responsibility of each and every law abiding citizen.

All the best,
Glenn B

An end note: The police are reported as having no motive for this. My bet is, judging by profiling, stereotypes, and available evidence, that this was gang related, probably an initiation of some sort, or revenge. The guy who did this is probably boasting about it to his amigos criminal associates, as in other gang members. Yes that is guess work to a large degree, but darned educated guesswork at that - I have dealt with dirtbags before.

Today in History - a Violent Nature Exposed

Today is the anniversary of the last day of my freedom. Yep, if you guessed that it means that tomorrow is my wedding anniversary you are correct – 21 years of marital whatever. I was thinking of writing a rant tomorrow about some of the famous and not so famous events that took place on April 19th, but being that today is that other anniversary, I figured I would do it for April 18th instead. After all, April 19th is well known because it is the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, the bloody end of the siege Waco 1993, Connecticut approved the U.S. Bill of rights in 1939 (can you imagine, those liberals), The Warsaw Ghetto uprisings commence against the Nazis in 1943, the last day the earth was free of anything to do with Adolf Hitler (he was born on the 20th in 1889), Elliot Ness was born in 1903, President Lincoln orders a blockade of Confederate ports in 1861, Tadeusz Kosciuszko forces the Russians out of Warsaw in 1794, the American Revolution began when fighting broke out in Lexington, MA.

Okay so that was the 19th, which is tomorrow, so what about today the 18th. Well let’s see, on the 18th of April the following event occurred:

A suicide bomber kills U.S. Marines, and others, at the U.S. embassy in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983

Rhodesia, later known as Zimbabwe gains independence from great Britain in 1980

Ireland removes itself from the British commonwealth in 1949

Ernie Pyle killed by machine gun fire 1945

Yamamoto shot down by American fighter planes in 1943

Doolittle bombs Tokyo in 1942

Hitler names Joachim von Ribbentrop, ambassador for disarmament in 1934

The really big San Francisco earthquake 1906

Confederate Gen Johnson surrendered to Gen Sherman in North Carolina in 1865

Colonel Robert E. Lee turns down an offer to command the Union Armies in 1861 (can you imagine)

Battle of Harper’s ferry, VA 1861

Battle of Cerro Gordo in which U.S. armed forces rout a much larger Mexican Army in 1847

End of the 1st Seminole War in 1818

Paul Revere and William Dawes ride to warn people of MA of the advance of British Troops 1775

Sudbury, MA attacked by Indians 1676

Sure there were also a lot of other things that happened on this day in history, some good and some bad. There were many things that while worthy of note will never make it into the history books. As for the things I mentioned for both days, there is a common thread, and if you look at any other day throughout recorded history, I am certain you will find this common thread on all the other days of the year, and you will find it in abundance. The commonality is that we as a species are violent – and please note that yes the connection in some of the mentioned events is indirect, but you should be able to figure it out with half a brain.

Please note, much of the info about the above events was gleaned from: http://www.brainyhistory.com/, and http://www.historynet.com/today_in_history. Go to those sites, go to the encyclopedias, go to the history books, watch the History Channel and others, check it out for yourself - we have a violent nature - there is no doubt about it.

Sometimes violence is for the good, sometimes it is for the worse; but regardless of the morality of it, we are indeed prone to violence. In that regard we should all be afforded the liberty to exercise our right to self defense, defense of family, defense of innocents, defense of our property, defense of our Constitution, our flag and the Republic for which it stands. In other words, we should all be able to freely exercise our right to keep and bear arms. This should be a universal right for all mankind. It should be evident to those in the not so free world, that had they the liberty to exercise said right, they might well have been free, and many of their slain countrymen might still be alive today. In fact, it cannot be any more evident than it should be for those living in the USA, or other countries in the free world, that such a right has kept us able to enjoy all of our other liberties and rights time and time again throughout history, including the right to life, while others around the globe who have their liberties stripped from them suffer and perish at the will of armed governments.

The right to keep and bear arms, as in the Second Amendment, to the United States Constitution, found in the Bill of Rights, is our most valuable right. It protects all of our other rights as it also protects us. Instead of helping the United Nations, and other countries in their attempts to strip us of that right as does the anti-gun lobby - we, all of us as free U.S. Citizens, should be pushing for other nations to adopt the liberty for their people to exercise that same right.

All the best,
Glenn B