Dear Mr. Gregory,
I'm writing to you concerning the December 23rd broadcast of "Meet The Press" on which you conducted an "interview" with Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association. I use the quotation marks around the word 'interview' because what you actually conducted was more akin to an interrogation than an actual interview.
If the goal of your show was to give your guest a chance to express their point of view, you failed miserably. If the goal of your show was to examine both sides of an issue in a bipartisan and fair manner, you failed even more miserably. Your show was nothing more than a platform for you to express your liberal, anti-gun agenda and to do your best to portray anyone with a differing opinion, specifically Mr. LaPierre, as some kind of radical lunatic. I found your approach to the whole interview to be biased, unreasonable, and unprofessional, and as a "professional" journalist you should be ashamed of yourself for the manner in which you conducted yourself.
I will, however, congratulate and thank you for unknowingly making the main point that Mr. LaPierre was trying to express, that point being that gun laws simply don't work because criminals don't obey the law. You did this by holding up for all the world to see a "high-capacity" magazine which, by your own admission, was capable of holding "thirty bullets." (They're called 'rounds,' by the way; a 'bullet' is the actual projectile. Looks like someone on your staff failed to do their research.) And the last time I looked, the gun laws in the District of Columbia where your show is filmed has outlawed the possession of "high-capacity" magazines - the kind you held up on your show.
That makes what you did illegal, and that, Mr. Gregory, makes you a criminal. And as Mr. LaPierre stated, criminals don't obey laws, do they? You certainly didn't, even after the producers of your show contacted the DC Police and told them what they wanted to do, and were denied permission by the police to break the law and use the magazine on the show. This is a prime example of how gun laws don't work because criminals don't obey them.
So you say you're not a criminal?
Let's see...you knew the law, asked the police about the law, were denied permission to break the law, and did it anyway. Yep, that makes you a criminal by any standard.
So now I ask you this, Mr. Gregory: When can we expect for you to turn yourself in to the DC Police so you can be charged and prosecuted for knowingly and willingly breaking an existing gun law?
I won't hold my breath.
Sincerely,
IHC
Friday, December 28, 2012
Saturday, December 22, 2012
The Liberal's Gun Control Agenda
The liberals in our nation have an agenda for gun control, and no matter what you say or do you will be unable to sway them from their efforts to accomplish that agenda. And if you ever needed proof positive of this, then you were given that proof yesterday by Demoncratic Senator Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey. (New Jersey, by the way, is one of the most gun-restrictive states in the nation, so we shouldn't be too surprised.)
For those of you who may be unaware, the libtard agenda of which I speak is that which bans the production, possession, sale, or use of any kind of firearm by any private citizen of the United States of America. They want a total and complete ban on all privately-owned weapons throughout the entire nation. Of course, in order to do this they're going to have to repeal the 2nd Amendment - good luck with that - but they're dead-set on getting their way in this, and yesteday's comments by Lautenberg proves that.
After keeping silent for a full week out of respect for the families of the dead, the Nation Rifle Association yesterday made a statement concerning the shooting and laid out a plan for what needs to be done to prevent it from happening again. That plan is simple, and I agree with it 100%. The plan is for every school in our nation to have either a trained, armed security guard or, better yet, a police officer on duty in every school everywhere. When you stop and think about it, this makes perfect sense - just the deterrent alone would be worth it, but if someone was foolish enough to come onto school grounds and start shooting, the reaction time of an armed response would be as long as it would take for the officer to run the length of the building or drive across the campus instead of the 5-10 minutes it would take a patrol car to get there.
Simple, effective, and sheer brilliance in its conception, right? I mean, our kid's lives are worth it, right?
Frank Lautenberg doesn't thing so. He said that this idea, presented by Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, was "reckless."
I guess disarming the public and taking away our means to protect ourselves and our kids isn't reckless, then? Someone is confused, and it ain't me.
Here's what Frankie Boy said, as quoted by Fox News:
"It is beyond belief that following the Newtown tragedy, the National Rifle Association's leaders want to fill our communities with guns and arm more Americans," he said.
To me, the only thing that is beyond belief is that anyone with an ounce or a shred of common sense and intelligence would think that you have any other logical response to violence except to meet it on its own terms.
Besides, that's not what LaPierre said, but Frankie Boy is hoping you won't notice that. What LaPierre said was that the schools should be protected by "trained, armed security officers" or "police officers." He didn't say to hand every soccer mom in the neighborhood a rifle and post her at the school. Sorry, Frankie Boy, but some of us aren't as stupid as you hope we are.
In my humble opinion, only a fool or a complete moron would think that you can end gun violence by taking away every law-abiding citizen's gun. And passing more laws to add to the 20,000 gun control laws already in effect is like spitting into the wind - the criminals aren't obeying those laws as it is, so what kind of fool would expect them to follow one or two more?
But then, I've come to realize that the libtards and the Demoncrats are fully aware of that. They know that more gun control laws won't work, and it's all a part of their plan to accomplish their agenda.
Now, I'm anything but a conspiracy theory kinda person, but to me I think there's something else afoot. I've been thinking about the lunacy of passing more laws that statistics and facts have proven won't work, and why the libtards and Demoncrats are continually pushing for more gun control laws. And suddenly, a few days ago, it hit me - that's exactly what they want. They want to pass more laws only to have them fail, and then that would enable them to go to their next "logical" step in their agenda - the repeal of the Second Amendment.
I can see Nancy Pelosi standing in front of Congress now: "And since we've tried everything we could, passed all these new laws to protect the public, only to watch helplessly as the violence continues, our only reasonable alternative now is to repeal the Second Amendment and ban all guns entirely. That will effectively remove guns from our streets and make all of us safe!"
When you stop and think about it, it all seems to make sense, doesn't it? If ever there was one thing that I hoped to be wrong about, this is it - and I most certainly hope I am wrong. Time will tell, but with NObama appointing Joe Biden as the head of a committee to "research" gun violence in America, I can't help but get a sinking feeling about all of this.
I've long said that NOBama would launch his attack on the Second Amendment if he won re-election, and unfortunately the shootings in Connecticut have given him the absolute perfect opportunity to launch that attack without it looking like what it really is - his personal agenda to repeal the Second Amendment.
Stand by, friends and neighbors, because it's all about to get very interesting.
IHC
For those of you who may be unaware, the libtard agenda of which I speak is that which bans the production, possession, sale, or use of any kind of firearm by any private citizen of the United States of America. They want a total and complete ban on all privately-owned weapons throughout the entire nation. Of course, in order to do this they're going to have to repeal the 2nd Amendment - good luck with that - but they're dead-set on getting their way in this, and yesteday's comments by Lautenberg proves that.
After keeping silent for a full week out of respect for the families of the dead, the Nation Rifle Association yesterday made a statement concerning the shooting and laid out a plan for what needs to be done to prevent it from happening again. That plan is simple, and I agree with it 100%. The plan is for every school in our nation to have either a trained, armed security guard or, better yet, a police officer on duty in every school everywhere. When you stop and think about it, this makes perfect sense - just the deterrent alone would be worth it, but if someone was foolish enough to come onto school grounds and start shooting, the reaction time of an armed response would be as long as it would take for the officer to run the length of the building or drive across the campus instead of the 5-10 minutes it would take a patrol car to get there.
Simple, effective, and sheer brilliance in its conception, right? I mean, our kid's lives are worth it, right?
Frank Lautenberg doesn't thing so. He said that this idea, presented by Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, was "reckless."
I guess disarming the public and taking away our means to protect ourselves and our kids isn't reckless, then? Someone is confused, and it ain't me.
Here's what Frankie Boy said, as quoted by Fox News:
"It is beyond belief that following the Newtown tragedy, the National Rifle Association's leaders want to fill our communities with guns and arm more Americans," he said.
To me, the only thing that is beyond belief is that anyone with an ounce or a shred of common sense and intelligence would think that you have any other logical response to violence except to meet it on its own terms.
Besides, that's not what LaPierre said, but Frankie Boy is hoping you won't notice that. What LaPierre said was that the schools should be protected by "trained, armed security officers" or "police officers." He didn't say to hand every soccer mom in the neighborhood a rifle and post her at the school. Sorry, Frankie Boy, but some of us aren't as stupid as you hope we are.
In my humble opinion, only a fool or a complete moron would think that you can end gun violence by taking away every law-abiding citizen's gun. And passing more laws to add to the 20,000 gun control laws already in effect is like spitting into the wind - the criminals aren't obeying those laws as it is, so what kind of fool would expect them to follow one or two more?
But then, I've come to realize that the libtards and the Demoncrats are fully aware of that. They know that more gun control laws won't work, and it's all a part of their plan to accomplish their agenda.
Now, I'm anything but a conspiracy theory kinda person, but to me I think there's something else afoot. I've been thinking about the lunacy of passing more laws that statistics and facts have proven won't work, and why the libtards and Demoncrats are continually pushing for more gun control laws. And suddenly, a few days ago, it hit me - that's exactly what they want. They want to pass more laws only to have them fail, and then that would enable them to go to their next "logical" step in their agenda - the repeal of the Second Amendment.
I can see Nancy Pelosi standing in front of Congress now: "And since we've tried everything we could, passed all these new laws to protect the public, only to watch helplessly as the violence continues, our only reasonable alternative now is to repeal the Second Amendment and ban all guns entirely. That will effectively remove guns from our streets and make all of us safe!"
When you stop and think about it, it all seems to make sense, doesn't it? If ever there was one thing that I hoped to be wrong about, this is it - and I most certainly hope I am wrong. Time will tell, but with NObama appointing Joe Biden as the head of a committee to "research" gun violence in America, I can't help but get a sinking feeling about all of this.
I've long said that NOBama would launch his attack on the Second Amendment if he won re-election, and unfortunately the shootings in Connecticut have given him the absolute perfect opportunity to launch that attack without it looking like what it really is - his personal agenda to repeal the Second Amendment.
Stand by, friends and neighbors, because it's all about to get very interesting.
IHC
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
We Have a Much Bigger Problem than Gun Control
Been thinking about the shootings in Connecticut this week, and I've come to the obvious conclusion that we as a nation have a much bigger problem on our hands than gun control. This problem has been building for generations, and in recent years it has manifested itself in the most horrendous, vile, and horrible ways possible - the deaths of innocents, especially children.
The problem isn't gun control or the lack thereof, people - it's much, much bigger than that.
The problem is the breakdown of society and the moral fabric of our nation that would make anyone of any kind of mindset even consider walking into a school and shooting 26 innocent people. This breakdown of society has been going on for generations, and we as a nation for various reasons have either allowed or forced this to happen, depending on which side of the political fence you're sitting. (And I'm going to make it a point NOT to make this a political statement of any kind, a first for me.)
Sixty, fifty, even forty years ago acts of random violence like this were absolutely unheard of. Parents taught their children to respect their elders, their community, the law, other people, and their nation. Sure, there were those miscreants who defied authority and disrespected everyone and everything, but they were the exception rather than the rule. And even then, they didn't pick up an automatic rifle or a pistol and walk into a daycare center blasting at anything that moved - they ended up in prison where they weren't a threat to anyone except other convicts.
But then, slowly but surely, things began to change. Somewhere along the line a generation of parents felt it wasn't important to teach all of the things about respecting others to their children that their parents taught them, so they left out a few key things. And when those children grew up and had children of their own, they left out a few of the things they'd been taught - and so on, and so on, until we now have a society where people think it's their right to say or do anything they want, regardless of how it affects other people.
We as a nation have lost respect for each other, for our laws, for our nation as a whole, and for humanity. It is the loss of this respect which allows the miscreants of our society to carry out acts such as mass murder; it is the uncaring nature of our society which allows those with mental illnesses to go untreated until they finally go over the edge and take 20 innocent children with them. It is the "devil may care, do what you want" attitude of our society which allows someone to walk into a college classroom and start shooting because he "was picked on as a child."
The problem, friends and neighbors, is that we have allowed our society to degenerate into a society where repercussions are unheard of and not expected, and accountability and responsibility are explained away. We are more concerned with not "offending" someone's delicate sensitivities than we are with protecting our children from the madness and evil in the world, and ensuring that those who perpetrate such evil are held accountable and justly punished. We have allowed our society to become one in which the accused has more rights than the victim.
And we must stop this - NOW.
The first step, in my humble opinion, is for our nation as a whole to take off the political/ideological/religious blinders that we have placed on ourselves and look at the problem with an unbiased, honest view. Yeah, that's gonna be tough, but I don't think it's anything we can't do. And once we get the blinders off and everyone finally sees what the real problem is, then and only then can we work together towards a solution.
And again, in my humble opinion, that solution is realizing that we must start teaching our children what is right and responsible, we much teach our children - and each other - that everyone deserves respect, and to be respectful of others as you would have them be respectful of you. We have to once again make our society one in which the individual is held responsible for his/her actions, and punish the perpetrator and not the bystander or the victim.
In short, we have to restore morality, dignity, and respect to the people of our nation.
And we need to do it now.
IHC
The problem isn't gun control or the lack thereof, people - it's much, much bigger than that.
The problem is the breakdown of society and the moral fabric of our nation that would make anyone of any kind of mindset even consider walking into a school and shooting 26 innocent people. This breakdown of society has been going on for generations, and we as a nation for various reasons have either allowed or forced this to happen, depending on which side of the political fence you're sitting. (And I'm going to make it a point NOT to make this a political statement of any kind, a first for me.)
Sixty, fifty, even forty years ago acts of random violence like this were absolutely unheard of. Parents taught their children to respect their elders, their community, the law, other people, and their nation. Sure, there were those miscreants who defied authority and disrespected everyone and everything, but they were the exception rather than the rule. And even then, they didn't pick up an automatic rifle or a pistol and walk into a daycare center blasting at anything that moved - they ended up in prison where they weren't a threat to anyone except other convicts.
But then, slowly but surely, things began to change. Somewhere along the line a generation of parents felt it wasn't important to teach all of the things about respecting others to their children that their parents taught them, so they left out a few key things. And when those children grew up and had children of their own, they left out a few of the things they'd been taught - and so on, and so on, until we now have a society where people think it's their right to say or do anything they want, regardless of how it affects other people.
We as a nation have lost respect for each other, for our laws, for our nation as a whole, and for humanity. It is the loss of this respect which allows the miscreants of our society to carry out acts such as mass murder; it is the uncaring nature of our society which allows those with mental illnesses to go untreated until they finally go over the edge and take 20 innocent children with them. It is the "devil may care, do what you want" attitude of our society which allows someone to walk into a college classroom and start shooting because he "was picked on as a child."
The problem, friends and neighbors, is that we have allowed our society to degenerate into a society where repercussions are unheard of and not expected, and accountability and responsibility are explained away. We are more concerned with not "offending" someone's delicate sensitivities than we are with protecting our children from the madness and evil in the world, and ensuring that those who perpetrate such evil are held accountable and justly punished. We have allowed our society to become one in which the accused has more rights than the victim.
And we must stop this - NOW.
The first step, in my humble opinion, is for our nation as a whole to take off the political/ideological/religious blinders that we have placed on ourselves and look at the problem with an unbiased, honest view. Yeah, that's gonna be tough, but I don't think it's anything we can't do. And once we get the blinders off and everyone finally sees what the real problem is, then and only then can we work together towards a solution.
And again, in my humble opinion, that solution is realizing that we must start teaching our children what is right and responsible, we much teach our children - and each other - that everyone deserves respect, and to be respectful of others as you would have them be respectful of you. We have to once again make our society one in which the individual is held responsible for his/her actions, and punish the perpetrator and not the bystander or the victim.
In short, we have to restore morality, dignity, and respect to the people of our nation.
And we need to do it now.
IHC
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Senator Dianne Feinstein Is A Total and Complete Idiot
Yes, that's right, Demoncratic Senator Dianne Feinstein is a total and complete idiot. And for the record, so is Demoncratic Mayor Michael "Big Gulp" Bloomberg of New York City and Demoncratic Senator Charles "Chuckles" Schumer of New York state.
For that matter, ANYONE who truly believes that the answer to the nation's gun violence problem is yet MORE laws is a total and complete idiot.
Let's get one thing straight right off the bat: I think the shootings in Connecticut are a total and complete tragedy, and my heart goes out to those who lost loved ones in this unspeakable act of violence and mayhem. The absolute last section of our society that should ever be exposed to something like this is our children, and I hope the bastard who did this rots in Hell. I simply cannot imagine the pain the parents of the dead kids are going through; I know if I'd gotten news like that when my kids were little, it would have completely destroyed me. God only knows how the parents are able to handle this, buy my heart goes out to them.
The day this happened I got a text message from a good friend of mine asking me if I'd heard about it; I had, but I was driving at the time and couldn't reply. And by the time I got to where I was going I was so upset about the whole thing that I really didn't feel like talking about it. (Sorry for ignoring you, Clay, but that's the way it was.) Anyhow, Clay said something to the effect of, "Now the left-wing gun control nutjobs will come out of the walls!" and I knew that he was 100% right. And so he was, with Feinstein proclaiming today that she plans to introduce legislation in both the House and the Senate for more gun control laws. She also said that she is fully supportive of re-implementing the "Brady Bill" because "we have to get these weapons of war off the streets!"
I'll save the most obvious for last and address that last statement instead.
I guess Dianne isn't keeping up on current events, because the weapons used in the shootings in Connecticut were two 9mm pistols, specifically a Glock and a Sig-Sauer. Neither of these can be accurately described as a "weapon of war" in the context in which Dianne chooses to use it. The third weapon that was found on the scene but has not been confirmed to have been used was an "AR-15 style" rifle. That can most certainly be classified as a "weapon of war" since the design is specifically taken from the AR-15 issued to our own troops, but it's a poor, lame, and feeble excuse to classify all three weapons as "weapons of war." So in this instance, Dianne my dear, you're only 1/3 right and 2/3 wrong - as usual.
So now let's get to the obvious of which I spoke, that being the fact that more gun laws won't work. This should be fun!
For openers, once again the investigation has shown that the weapons used to commit the murders were legally purchased, just as in Aurora, Colorado, Tuscon, Arizona, and Virginia Tech in Virginia. The gun laws in place were followed 100%, yet the tragedy still took place - but not being committed by the person who legally purchased the weapons. The murders were committed by someone who stole the weapons from the lawful owner - which, by the way, is shown in FBI statistics to be the case most of the time. So those particular gun laws failed to protect anyone from being murdered. That's important, so keep that in mind.
Prior to the shooting at the school, the murderer first killed his own mother; then he stole the three weapons, stole her truck, transported the three stolen weapons onto school property, broke into the school, and then killed 26 people.
All told, the killer broke a whopping total of 41 laws!
Now, would someone please explain to me how passing even more laws will do any good, considering that criminals aren't following the laws already in place?
And THAT, friends and neighbors, is exactly why I say that anyone who thinks gun control laws are the answer is a total and complete idiot. CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW! That's why they call them "criminals!"
Guns are tools, nothing more, nothing less. If you place a pistol on a table, it will sit there and harm no one until a human being picks it up and uses it. The manner in which that human being uses it is the issue, not the tool being used.
Did you hear about the mass murder in China that took place the same day as the Connecticut shootings? Seems that a teenager in Beijing killed eight innocent people after having an argument with his girlfriend - but he didn't use a gun. No, the Chinese people don't have the same rights as we do, and personal ownership of firearms is banned by the Chinese government. So what did he use?
He used a knife. Just like the guy in Great Britain did last month, too.
Funny, I don't hear any of the Libtards and Demoncrats calling for a ban on knives, do you? Yet the murders DID take place, both of them in countries where private ownership of firearms is ILLEGAL.
Kinda tells you something, don't it? Unless you're a total and complete idiot, that is.
"Gun Free Zones" don't protect people, because the only person in the zone that will have a gun will be the killer. (The theater in Aurora was a "gun free zone," by the way, and we see how good that worked, don't we?) Gun control laws don't protect people, because criminals don't obey the laws. Gun registration and purchase laws don't protect people, because most of the time the criminal doing the killing is using a stolen gun. A total ban on firearms won't protect anyone, either, because if someone is intent on killing a whole bunch of people they'll find a way. Just ask the families of the eight dead people in China.
The ONLY thing that will protect us is a gun; that, and the Second Amendment that guarantees us the right to own that gun. That fact has been proven time and time again, and there's just no denying it - unless you're a total and complete idiot, that is.
Kinda like Dianne, Chuck, and Mike.
So let me ask you non-believers a question: if you're walking home one dark night and a man steps out from behind a car and pulls a knife on you, which would you rather have - a cell phone or a gun? Which is going to make the bad guy think twice and leave you alone, and which is going to ensure that the police know where to send the meat wagon to pick up your dead body? IF the bad guy gives you enough time to dial '911' that is. Which is doubtful at best.
I know which I'd rather have - and do have, 99% of the time. (The other 1% of the time is when I'm at work because my company won't allow firearms on the premises. Don't get me started...)
Guns aren't evil. Man is evil, and he uses guns for evil deeds. Whether you Libtards and Demoncrats out there want to admit it or not, there is evil in the world and it does reach out and touch us every day of the year. And I'm one of those people who knows of the evil, recognizes it for what it is, and take active steps to be prepared to counter it whenever and wherever I encounter it.
I'm a Sheepdog, and I'm damned proud of it.
Please say a silent prayer for those killed in Connecticut, and for the families and loved ones they left behind.
IHC
For that matter, ANYONE who truly believes that the answer to the nation's gun violence problem is yet MORE laws is a total and complete idiot.
Let's get one thing straight right off the bat: I think the shootings in Connecticut are a total and complete tragedy, and my heart goes out to those who lost loved ones in this unspeakable act of violence and mayhem. The absolute last section of our society that should ever be exposed to something like this is our children, and I hope the bastard who did this rots in Hell. I simply cannot imagine the pain the parents of the dead kids are going through; I know if I'd gotten news like that when my kids were little, it would have completely destroyed me. God only knows how the parents are able to handle this, buy my heart goes out to them.
The day this happened I got a text message from a good friend of mine asking me if I'd heard about it; I had, but I was driving at the time and couldn't reply. And by the time I got to where I was going I was so upset about the whole thing that I really didn't feel like talking about it. (Sorry for ignoring you, Clay, but that's the way it was.) Anyhow, Clay said something to the effect of, "Now the left-wing gun control nutjobs will come out of the walls!" and I knew that he was 100% right. And so he was, with Feinstein proclaiming today that she plans to introduce legislation in both the House and the Senate for more gun control laws. She also said that she is fully supportive of re-implementing the "Brady Bill" because "we have to get these weapons of war off the streets!"
I'll save the most obvious for last and address that last statement instead.
I guess Dianne isn't keeping up on current events, because the weapons used in the shootings in Connecticut were two 9mm pistols, specifically a Glock and a Sig-Sauer. Neither of these can be accurately described as a "weapon of war" in the context in which Dianne chooses to use it. The third weapon that was found on the scene but has not been confirmed to have been used was an "AR-15 style" rifle. That can most certainly be classified as a "weapon of war" since the design is specifically taken from the AR-15 issued to our own troops, but it's a poor, lame, and feeble excuse to classify all three weapons as "weapons of war." So in this instance, Dianne my dear, you're only 1/3 right and 2/3 wrong - as usual.
So now let's get to the obvious of which I spoke, that being the fact that more gun laws won't work. This should be fun!
For openers, once again the investigation has shown that the weapons used to commit the murders were legally purchased, just as in Aurora, Colorado, Tuscon, Arizona, and Virginia Tech in Virginia. The gun laws in place were followed 100%, yet the tragedy still took place - but not being committed by the person who legally purchased the weapons. The murders were committed by someone who stole the weapons from the lawful owner - which, by the way, is shown in FBI statistics to be the case most of the time. So those particular gun laws failed to protect anyone from being murdered. That's important, so keep that in mind.
Prior to the shooting at the school, the murderer first killed his own mother; then he stole the three weapons, stole her truck, transported the three stolen weapons onto school property, broke into the school, and then killed 26 people.
All told, the killer broke a whopping total of 41 laws!
Now, would someone please explain to me how passing even more laws will do any good, considering that criminals aren't following the laws already in place?
And THAT, friends and neighbors, is exactly why I say that anyone who thinks gun control laws are the answer is a total and complete idiot. CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW! That's why they call them "criminals!"
Guns are tools, nothing more, nothing less. If you place a pistol on a table, it will sit there and harm no one until a human being picks it up and uses it. The manner in which that human being uses it is the issue, not the tool being used.
Did you hear about the mass murder in China that took place the same day as the Connecticut shootings? Seems that a teenager in Beijing killed eight innocent people after having an argument with his girlfriend - but he didn't use a gun. No, the Chinese people don't have the same rights as we do, and personal ownership of firearms is banned by the Chinese government. So what did he use?
He used a knife. Just like the guy in Great Britain did last month, too.
Funny, I don't hear any of the Libtards and Demoncrats calling for a ban on knives, do you? Yet the murders DID take place, both of them in countries where private ownership of firearms is ILLEGAL.
Kinda tells you something, don't it? Unless you're a total and complete idiot, that is.
"Gun Free Zones" don't protect people, because the only person in the zone that will have a gun will be the killer. (The theater in Aurora was a "gun free zone," by the way, and we see how good that worked, don't we?) Gun control laws don't protect people, because criminals don't obey the laws. Gun registration and purchase laws don't protect people, because most of the time the criminal doing the killing is using a stolen gun. A total ban on firearms won't protect anyone, either, because if someone is intent on killing a whole bunch of people they'll find a way. Just ask the families of the eight dead people in China.
The ONLY thing that will protect us is a gun; that, and the Second Amendment that guarantees us the right to own that gun. That fact has been proven time and time again, and there's just no denying it - unless you're a total and complete idiot, that is.
Kinda like Dianne, Chuck, and Mike.
So let me ask you non-believers a question: if you're walking home one dark night and a man steps out from behind a car and pulls a knife on you, which would you rather have - a cell phone or a gun? Which is going to make the bad guy think twice and leave you alone, and which is going to ensure that the police know where to send the meat wagon to pick up your dead body? IF the bad guy gives you enough time to dial '911' that is. Which is doubtful at best.
I know which I'd rather have - and do have, 99% of the time. (The other 1% of the time is when I'm at work because my company won't allow firearms on the premises. Don't get me started...)
Guns aren't evil. Man is evil, and he uses guns for evil deeds. Whether you Libtards and Demoncrats out there want to admit it or not, there is evil in the world and it does reach out and touch us every day of the year. And I'm one of those people who knows of the evil, recognizes it for what it is, and take active steps to be prepared to counter it whenever and wherever I encounter it.
I'm a Sheepdog, and I'm damned proud of it.
Please say a silent prayer for those killed in Connecticut, and for the families and loved ones they left behind.
IHC
Friday, December 14, 2012
The Undeclared War in Our Country
There's an undeclared war going on in our country.
Anyone who has been reading the newspapers, reading the online news web sites, or watching the news on TV knows about it. Something concerning this undeclared war finds its way into the news nearly every week, sometimes as often as every day. Everyone reads about it, some of us shake our heads in disbelief that something like this could be going on in our country, but the vast majority of us read the article and promptly dismiss it, concerned more with which professional athlete got traded or with which celebrity is going to jail or getting divorced next. And the undeclared war continues, with new battles popping up all over our country on a regular basis.
The war of which I'm speaking, friends and neighbors, is the War On Religion - or, more accurately, the War On Christianity.
Stop and think for a minute just how many news stories you've heard of recently that have something to do with some group somewhere in our nation, or some person somewhere in our nation who is backed by some group like this, who have jumped up and cried, "I'm offended!" or who have filed a complaint and/or a lawsuit over the display of a cross, a Nativity, or even a Christmas tree. Seriously, stop for a moment and think about it.
Never realized there were that many, did you? And the funny thing is, the only religion you see being attacked - and I use that word intentionally - in such a manner is Christianity. The latest attack has taken place in New York City, where an atheist group purchased a billboard in which they said it's okay to keep Santa Claus and the "merry" in Christmas, but you should "drop the myth!" with these words being portrayed over a picture of Christ on the cross, wearing a crown of thorns.
I got news for these people - as the old saying goes, "JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON," not some fat old guy in a red suit giving out presents. But I digress...
Let me say a couple of things right up front. First and foremost, yes, I'm a Christian and believe in God and Jesus Christ. As any one of you who've been following my blog for the past few years knows I have a bit of a problem with the Old Testament, but I still believe in God and Jesus and therefore consider myself a Christian.
Second, I have ZERO problem with someone whose beliefs are different from mine. If you don't believe in God or any kind of religious diety, fine; if you believe in Buddha, fine; if you believe in Zen, that's fine, too. If you believe in Bucky the Dancing Mule, that's also fine with me. As long as it works for you, I really don't have a problem with that.
But when someone starts telling me that my belief is wrong, that it's "a myth," and that I can't display the symbols of my religion because it "offends" them or it's "unconstitutional," then THAT is the point at which it most certainly is NOT fine with me! I have a HUGE problem with that, and I think it's about time that the people of this nation who believe in God or Buddha or Zen or Bucky all stood up and told the atheists and other naysayers and nonbelievers out there to shut the hell up!
I find it very hard to believe that anyone could truly be "offended" by the display of a cross on a hilltop that has been placed there to honor the Christians who have given their lives in the service of our country. Actually, I find it very hard to believe that anyone could be offended by the display of a cross anywhere unless you're a friggin' vampire. THEN I could understand it, but now...nope, that just don't work for me. I'm no fan of Islam, but I don't get "offended" when I ride by a mosque and see the crescent moon on top of the spire. I don't like it, considering all of the death and destruction that's been done lately in the name of Allah and Islam, but "offended?" Nope, not one bit. I think that tired old line of "I'm offended!" is being used by people who live to be offended and will jump at any chance to be offended. These people spend most of their lives wanting things that they are too lazy to work for and have found that suing someone over the display of a Christian symbol because it "offends" them is a quick and easy way to a payday they don't deserve; either that, or they're envious of the success that others have had and want to get some of the riches for themselves and/or destroy some of that much-envied success along the way.
It's like this, people: if the sight of a cross or a Nativity scene offends you, then don't look at it!
As for the "unconstitutional" crap that comes up whenever a Nativity scene or a cross is displayed on property owned by some form of government, well, it's like this: that so-called "separation of church and state as defined by the Constitution" is the REAL myth. In the first place, it's the Bill of Rights and not the Constitution; in the second place, the First Amendment doesn't actually say that. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Nowhere in there do you see ANYTHING mentioning in ANY WAY the separation of church and state. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business. ("Allabouthistory.com, separation of church and state.") But as anyone can plainly see, the First Amendment does not mention it at all.
So how did this myth of "separation of church and state" get started? Well, my educated guess is that some liberal bleeding-heart judge came to this ill-advised and misguided conclusion when he was hearing what was most likely the very first lawsuit to use this claim as to why the religious symbol should be removed. In any event, he/she was wrong then, it's wrong now, and it will continue to be wrong until some conservative judge issues a judgement stating just that.
But I ain't holding my breath.
In the mean time, the atheists and non-believers out there all need to realize a few things. They need to realize that this country was founded by people who were fleeing religious persecution, and what they're doing now in this day and age is just that - religious persecution. Those of us who believe in Christ and choose to display our symbols are being attacked and persecuted for our beliefs, and that's wrong.
They also need to realize that, while our nation's religious beliefs have evolved and broadened due to the Constitutionally-protected right of religious freedom, whether they like it or not our entire country was founded on Christian beliefs and principles. To collectively turn our backs as a nation on one of the founding principles of our country, that of religious freedom, is the first step on the road to self-destruction. And from the looks of things, we're well along that road.
The other thing the atheists and non-believers need to realize is that we have just as much right to believe and display our symbols as they have NOT to believe and NOT display any symbols. (Then again, if you don't believe in any religion you don't have anything to display...maybe a necklace with a big "0" on it?) But the fact is that to tell a Christian that he can't display a cross, to tell a Jew that he can't display a menorah, to tell a Buddhist that he can't display a statue is just plain WRONG, and NO ONE has the right to tell us otherwise.
I, for one, am damned sick and tired of the atheists and non-believers telling me what I can and can't do concerning my religion. I think it's well past time for those of us who have religious beliefs, especially Christians, to stop turning the other cheek and tell the atheists and non-believers to go pound sand up their asses and leave those of us who DO believe the hell alone.
But that's just me. And I'm damned proud of it.
IHC
Anyone who has been reading the newspapers, reading the online news web sites, or watching the news on TV knows about it. Something concerning this undeclared war finds its way into the news nearly every week, sometimes as often as every day. Everyone reads about it, some of us shake our heads in disbelief that something like this could be going on in our country, but the vast majority of us read the article and promptly dismiss it, concerned more with which professional athlete got traded or with which celebrity is going to jail or getting divorced next. And the undeclared war continues, with new battles popping up all over our country on a regular basis.
The war of which I'm speaking, friends and neighbors, is the War On Religion - or, more accurately, the War On Christianity.
Stop and think for a minute just how many news stories you've heard of recently that have something to do with some group somewhere in our nation, or some person somewhere in our nation who is backed by some group like this, who have jumped up and cried, "I'm offended!" or who have filed a complaint and/or a lawsuit over the display of a cross, a Nativity, or even a Christmas tree. Seriously, stop for a moment and think about it.
Never realized there were that many, did you? And the funny thing is, the only religion you see being attacked - and I use that word intentionally - in such a manner is Christianity. The latest attack has taken place in New York City, where an atheist group purchased a billboard in which they said it's okay to keep Santa Claus and the "merry" in Christmas, but you should "drop the myth!" with these words being portrayed over a picture of Christ on the cross, wearing a crown of thorns.
I got news for these people - as the old saying goes, "JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON," not some fat old guy in a red suit giving out presents. But I digress...
Let me say a couple of things right up front. First and foremost, yes, I'm a Christian and believe in God and Jesus Christ. As any one of you who've been following my blog for the past few years knows I have a bit of a problem with the Old Testament, but I still believe in God and Jesus and therefore consider myself a Christian.
Second, I have ZERO problem with someone whose beliefs are different from mine. If you don't believe in God or any kind of religious diety, fine; if you believe in Buddha, fine; if you believe in Zen, that's fine, too. If you believe in Bucky the Dancing Mule, that's also fine with me. As long as it works for you, I really don't have a problem with that.
But when someone starts telling me that my belief is wrong, that it's "a myth," and that I can't display the symbols of my religion because it "offends" them or it's "unconstitutional," then THAT is the point at which it most certainly is NOT fine with me! I have a HUGE problem with that, and I think it's about time that the people of this nation who believe in God or Buddha or Zen or Bucky all stood up and told the atheists and other naysayers and nonbelievers out there to shut the hell up!
I find it very hard to believe that anyone could truly be "offended" by the display of a cross on a hilltop that has been placed there to honor the Christians who have given their lives in the service of our country. Actually, I find it very hard to believe that anyone could be offended by the display of a cross anywhere unless you're a friggin' vampire. THEN I could understand it, but now...nope, that just don't work for me. I'm no fan of Islam, but I don't get "offended" when I ride by a mosque and see the crescent moon on top of the spire. I don't like it, considering all of the death and destruction that's been done lately in the name of Allah and Islam, but "offended?" Nope, not one bit. I think that tired old line of "I'm offended!" is being used by people who live to be offended and will jump at any chance to be offended. These people spend most of their lives wanting things that they are too lazy to work for and have found that suing someone over the display of a Christian symbol because it "offends" them is a quick and easy way to a payday they don't deserve; either that, or they're envious of the success that others have had and want to get some of the riches for themselves and/or destroy some of that much-envied success along the way.
It's like this, people: if the sight of a cross or a Nativity scene offends you, then don't look at it!
As for the "unconstitutional" crap that comes up whenever a Nativity scene or a cross is displayed on property owned by some form of government, well, it's like this: that so-called "separation of church and state as defined by the Constitution" is the REAL myth. In the first place, it's the Bill of Rights and not the Constitution; in the second place, the First Amendment doesn't actually say that. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Nowhere in there do you see ANYTHING mentioning in ANY WAY the separation of church and state. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business. ("Allabouthistory.com, separation of church and state.") But as anyone can plainly see, the First Amendment does not mention it at all.
So how did this myth of "separation of church and state" get started? Well, my educated guess is that some liberal bleeding-heart judge came to this ill-advised and misguided conclusion when he was hearing what was most likely the very first lawsuit to use this claim as to why the religious symbol should be removed. In any event, he/she was wrong then, it's wrong now, and it will continue to be wrong until some conservative judge issues a judgement stating just that.
But I ain't holding my breath.
In the mean time, the atheists and non-believers out there all need to realize a few things. They need to realize that this country was founded by people who were fleeing religious persecution, and what they're doing now in this day and age is just that - religious persecution. Those of us who believe in Christ and choose to display our symbols are being attacked and persecuted for our beliefs, and that's wrong.
They also need to realize that, while our nation's religious beliefs have evolved and broadened due to the Constitutionally-protected right of religious freedom, whether they like it or not our entire country was founded on Christian beliefs and principles. To collectively turn our backs as a nation on one of the founding principles of our country, that of religious freedom, is the first step on the road to self-destruction. And from the looks of things, we're well along that road.
The other thing the atheists and non-believers need to realize is that we have just as much right to believe and display our symbols as they have NOT to believe and NOT display any symbols. (Then again, if you don't believe in any religion you don't have anything to display...maybe a necklace with a big "0" on it?) But the fact is that to tell a Christian that he can't display a cross, to tell a Jew that he can't display a menorah, to tell a Buddhist that he can't display a statue is just plain WRONG, and NO ONE has the right to tell us otherwise.
I, for one, am damned sick and tired of the atheists and non-believers telling me what I can and can't do concerning my religion. I think it's well past time for those of us who have religious beliefs, especially Christians, to stop turning the other cheek and tell the atheists and non-believers to go pound sand up their asses and leave those of us who DO believe the hell alone.
But that's just me. And I'm damned proud of it.
IHC
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
An Open Letter to Bob Costas
Dear Mr. Costas,
I am writing this letter to you in regards to the comments you made last weekend during the broadcast of an NFL game in which you said that Jovan Belcher "would be alive today if he had not had a gun."
First and foremost, let me say that I absolutely respect your right to voice your opinion. This right is guaranteed to us in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and while I may disagree with what you say I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Having said that, now let me say this: you're an idiot.
I say this for several reasons, the first being the obvious: you placed the blame for Jovan Belcher's death squarely on a tool, an inanimate object that is incapable of doing anything unless someone picks it up and uses it. Jovan Belcher made the concious decision to pick up a tool - in this case a pistol - and use it to commit murder and then take his own life. Rather than place the blame on the man committing the act, as any reasonable and semi-educated man would do, you chose to blame the tool. What if that tool had been a knife instead of a gun? Would you have made the same statement? I think not.
You also chose to use your position and fame as a broadcaster for personal reasons, that being to broadcast your personal opinion on gun control. This is an insulting and abhorrent abuse of your position, and if I were the president of your broadcasting company you would have been unemployed before the game was over. You were on the air to narrate a football game, not give your personal, bigoted, and semi-informed opinions on gun control.
Your comment tells me that you're one of those folks who believe our nation would be better off without the Second Amendment, that we'd be better off if no one in this country had guns. On this point, Mr. Costas, you are either sadly misinformed or intentionally uneducated and ignorant. Our founding fathers were wise enough to list the rights that we all have simply by existing, and they drafted the Bill of Rights to protect those rights, not give them to us. They were also smart enough to arrange them in order of importance, with the right of free speech you exercised being first.
Immediately after that one is the right to defend it, that right being the right to "keep and bear arms." Our founding fathers knew that our right to free speech and all the other rights as listed in the Bill of Rights were meaningless unless we had - and exercised - the right to defend them and ourselves. That's why it's the Second Amendment and not the Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth. Take away our right to defend ourselves and our rights and freedoms, and we cease to be citizens and become subjects. And if you think this is hogwash, then all you have to do is look at what history tells us. Every dictator who ever lived and lives today all have done the same thing first, that being to outlaw private ownership of firearms and thereby take away the public's means to resist.
Whether you and the others of your opinion like to admit it or not, there is evil in the world. There are those out there who live to do us harm, to take advantage of us, to rob, maime, and kill us at their whim and leisure. They do it on the streets and they do it in our own homes. The police cannot stop them for the simple reason that they cannot be everywhere at once; there are also many more "bad guys" than there are police officers. Additionally, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that it is not the job of the police to act as our bodyguards, and that the responsibility of our defense lies with us and not the police.
Guns give us this defense. The old saying of "God created man, but Colonel Colt made them equal" is right on the mark. Guns give us the means to defend ourselves, to protect ourselves from the evil people in the world no matter what. Guns give the mother who is home alone with her infant child the means to protect herself and that child from the man who kicks in the door to her home with the intent of robbing, raping and killing all those inside. It gives the woman on the street the means to resist the rapist who assaults her without warning or cause. It gives the man walking out to his car in the parking garage late at night the means to protect his life when the robber steps out of the shadows in front of him brandishing a knife.
Simply put, guns give us the means to survive.
The time of blaming tools for the actions of others is long past. The time for holding people accountable for the acts they commit is upon us, and the sooner you and others of your opinion realize this the sooner we make this nation a safer place in which to live. Statistics have shown that in every state where concealed carry has been legalized, violent crime has dropped. The reason for this is simple: the bad guys don't want to die, either. Statistics have also shown that where private ownership of firearms has been banned, violent crimes have increased. Don't believe me? Just ask the citizens of England and Australia.
You most certainly have the right to your own opinion and beliefs, and I respect those rights. All that I and the others like me ask is that we be given the same respect.
Sincerely,
IHC
I am writing this letter to you in regards to the comments you made last weekend during the broadcast of an NFL game in which you said that Jovan Belcher "would be alive today if he had not had a gun."
First and foremost, let me say that I absolutely respect your right to voice your opinion. This right is guaranteed to us in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and while I may disagree with what you say I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Having said that, now let me say this: you're an idiot.
I say this for several reasons, the first being the obvious: you placed the blame for Jovan Belcher's death squarely on a tool, an inanimate object that is incapable of doing anything unless someone picks it up and uses it. Jovan Belcher made the concious decision to pick up a tool - in this case a pistol - and use it to commit murder and then take his own life. Rather than place the blame on the man committing the act, as any reasonable and semi-educated man would do, you chose to blame the tool. What if that tool had been a knife instead of a gun? Would you have made the same statement? I think not.
You also chose to use your position and fame as a broadcaster for personal reasons, that being to broadcast your personal opinion on gun control. This is an insulting and abhorrent abuse of your position, and if I were the president of your broadcasting company you would have been unemployed before the game was over. You were on the air to narrate a football game, not give your personal, bigoted, and semi-informed opinions on gun control.
Your comment tells me that you're one of those folks who believe our nation would be better off without the Second Amendment, that we'd be better off if no one in this country had guns. On this point, Mr. Costas, you are either sadly misinformed or intentionally uneducated and ignorant. Our founding fathers were wise enough to list the rights that we all have simply by existing, and they drafted the Bill of Rights to protect those rights, not give them to us. They were also smart enough to arrange them in order of importance, with the right of free speech you exercised being first.
Immediately after that one is the right to defend it, that right being the right to "keep and bear arms." Our founding fathers knew that our right to free speech and all the other rights as listed in the Bill of Rights were meaningless unless we had - and exercised - the right to defend them and ourselves. That's why it's the Second Amendment and not the Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth. Take away our right to defend ourselves and our rights and freedoms, and we cease to be citizens and become subjects. And if you think this is hogwash, then all you have to do is look at what history tells us. Every dictator who ever lived and lives today all have done the same thing first, that being to outlaw private ownership of firearms and thereby take away the public's means to resist.
Whether you and the others of your opinion like to admit it or not, there is evil in the world. There are those out there who live to do us harm, to take advantage of us, to rob, maime, and kill us at their whim and leisure. They do it on the streets and they do it in our own homes. The police cannot stop them for the simple reason that they cannot be everywhere at once; there are also many more "bad guys" than there are police officers. Additionally, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that it is not the job of the police to act as our bodyguards, and that the responsibility of our defense lies with us and not the police.
Guns give us this defense. The old saying of "God created man, but Colonel Colt made them equal" is right on the mark. Guns give us the means to defend ourselves, to protect ourselves from the evil people in the world no matter what. Guns give the mother who is home alone with her infant child the means to protect herself and that child from the man who kicks in the door to her home with the intent of robbing, raping and killing all those inside. It gives the woman on the street the means to resist the rapist who assaults her without warning or cause. It gives the man walking out to his car in the parking garage late at night the means to protect his life when the robber steps out of the shadows in front of him brandishing a knife.
Simply put, guns give us the means to survive.
The time of blaming tools for the actions of others is long past. The time for holding people accountable for the acts they commit is upon us, and the sooner you and others of your opinion realize this the sooner we make this nation a safer place in which to live. Statistics have shown that in every state where concealed carry has been legalized, violent crime has dropped. The reason for this is simple: the bad guys don't want to die, either. Statistics have also shown that where private ownership of firearms has been banned, violent crimes have increased. Don't believe me? Just ask the citizens of England and Australia.
You most certainly have the right to your own opinion and beliefs, and I respect those rights. All that I and the others like me ask is that we be given the same respect.
Sincerely,
IHC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)