Saturday, January 19, 2013

What the Liberals Have Taught Me

This past summer was an eventful one in more ways than one, both positive and negative. On the negative side, the summer got off to a lousy start with the passing of our Boston Terrier, Buster, and then got worse with some philosophical and practical changes in the company I work for which caused me no small amount of inconvenience and irritation. On the positive side, in August we picked up our new Boston Terrier puppy, Cage, which helped more than I can describe to fill the void left in my heart by Buster's passing; I also got to spend some quality time with my parents and my wife, and get in some riding on top of that. All in all it was a good summer, but quite an eventful and educational one at that.

The one lesson I learned this past summer that has stuck with me the most was taught to me by the Liberals in our nation, and I wish I could say it was a good one but I'd be lying if I said that. The Liberals taught me all about tolerance - or, rather, their lopsided and self-serving version of it.

Let's start out by looking at what the Webster's definition of "tolerance" is:

Definition of TOLERANCE

1: capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
b: the act of allowing something : toleration


It goes on to give a couple more definitions of the word, all of which are correct but none of which have anything to do with what I'm talking about here. (Like the amount of variance allowed when constructing machinery, etc. See what I mean?)

No, the part I'm specifically referring to is #2, the "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own." But after the events of this past summer, it is apparent to me that the Liberals in our country have an entirely different definition of the word, one that is warped beyond all reasoning.

In a nutshell, the Liberals believe that their way is the only way, that anything they choose to do or believe is right and above reproach, and everyone must accept their beliefs in their entirety without debate or recourse, while at the same time the Liberals have the right to totally and completely dismiss any other belief held by any other group no matter what, and may ridicule and deride those beliefs without fear of retribution or retaliation. Anyone who dares dispute their beliefs or voice objections to them or their ridiculing of conflicting beliefs is immediately branded either a "hater," a "racist," or a "bigot."

In short, to fully and completely accept their beliefs is being "tolerant." They, of course, are not required to be "tolerant" of your beliefs since theirs are right and yours are automatically wrong.

The proof of this is the big flap over the Chick-fil-A president's comments concerning his religious beliefs. All of the liberals out there automatically took issue with his beliefs because they were drastically different than their own, and immediately began flooding his corporate and personal telephones and mail boxes with death threats. That's right, death threats.

That's a really good way to show how "tolerant" you are, huh? God forbid that a Liberal should receive a death threat for voicing their opinion...should that happen, the next thing you know MSNBC or CNN will be doing a feature story on it!

The Liberals have also taught me the true meaning of the words "hypocrite" and "hypocrisy." Case in point: after the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook, Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association suggested that a good way to keep our children safe at school was to post either police officers or armed guards at the schools. The Liberals, of course, took issue with this, saying that it was "silly" and "ridiculous" to post armed guards at schools. During the invevitable gun control debate that followed, one New York newspaper, "The Journal," even went so far as to publish the names and addresses of concealed weapon permit holders in their county in the newspaper.

So how is this hypocritical? Those actions alone are not; however, when the President of the United States refuses to entertain the idea of posting armed guards at public schools while his children attend a private school with armed guards, THAT is hypocritical. The various liberal congressmen who cry about needing more gun control laws while doing so from behind the protection of their own armed guards is also hypocritical, as is the number of those very congressmen who themselves are in possession of a concealed weapons permit - like Chuck Schumer of New York. And last but not least, when the newspaper that published the list of permit holders began to get hate mail, they posted armed guards at the entrances to their buildings.

So what they're all trying to tell us is that it's okay for them to use guns to protect themselves, but it's not okay for us to do it.

That, friends and neighbors, is the absolute height of hypocrisy - and I despise a hypocrite.

I firmly believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and I also believe that those opinions are neither "right" nor "wrong," they're just different. I've always believed that, and I always will. And I truly don't have an issue with differing opinions - my issue starts when the intolerance and hypocrisy starts, and unfortunately we've seen a plethora of both in the past seven months or so.

And with the looming inauguration of the Buffoon In Chief to his second Reign of Terror, I have a feeling it's only going to get worse.

IHC

Friday, January 18, 2013

My Reply to Allison's Daughter

Yesterday I received a very interesting comment and a request for help from one of my readers, Allison Hardt. Here's the comment as posted:

"Allison Hardt said...

I have been reading your blog for quite some time now and for the most part I have agreed with you .I was wondering if you could help me with your input on something ? My Daughter came home from school yesterday and told me that the talk at school is now they are going to let teachers carry a gun in school. My daughter is 12 yrs old and is very upset .. This is what she said “ Mom , why is it alright for a teacher to carry a gun at school when guns are prohibited on school property . I would feel safer with the police being here then I would with a teacher having a gun . The police are trained to use a gun and are prepared to use it if they have to. If the teacher has one in her desk all that will do is make it easier for the insane student or other insane person at the school to get it . They have taken God out of my school and replaced it with a gun ,and further more the only American Flag is the one out front on the flag pole. “ My daughter did not want to go to school today , she did go but now she is more afraid on how many guns are there . What do you tell your child ? School is hard enough as it is . I would really like to know what you think about this if its not to much trouble . Thank You."


As I told Allison in my initial reply, I'm very flattered that she's been such a loyal reader, and instead of answering her in the "Comment" section I said I'd answer her here instead. Having said that, let me also say that I'm honored that she would ask for my opinion and assistance, and am more than glad to help out in any way I can. Since Allison is going to be relaying this to a 12 year old child, I'm going to try and keep my answers simple and non-political.

So here we go!

People at all different levels of government thought that prohibiting guns from being taken onto school property would keep everyone safe; unfortunately, events in real life have proven this idea to be wrong. The rule was made with the best of intentions, but the fact is that people break rules every day, and this rule is no exception.

Having the police station an officer on school grounds is a good idea, one of which I'm in favor of, but the reality is that the police don't have either the money or the officers to be able to do this. One alternative is to hire an armed guard agency to protect the schools, but the schools don't have the money either. The only other alternative is to let the teachers be armed themselves. If this takes place, I'm 100% sure that the school would train the teachers on the use of firearms first, very much like the police are trained on firearms safety and use, and would make sure that the teachers either carried the firearm on their person at all times or had it locked up in a gun safe where no one could get hold of it except them. We did this as a nation with our airline pilots after 9/11 and the program has worked, so there's no reason to think that it won't work in schools either.

I agree that "they" have taken God out of schools, which I disagree with, but I don't think "they" have replaced Him with a gun. The Supreme Court says that religion can't be taught in schools, and while I disagree with this I will follow the law because that's what good, honest citizens do. I also think that if parents were to teach their children about God, integrity, and respect for others that we wouldn't have most of the violence we have today. The schools used to do that, but now they can't so it's up to the parents to do it. I'm sorry to say that there are a lot of parents who have not done this, and the results are obvious.

I think that every classroom in every school in every state of the United States of America should have an American flag in it, and each day should be started out with the reciting of The Pledge of Allegiance. This is how I was raised, and this is how I think all future generations of American children should be raised. I'm sorry to say that for a lot of reasons, all of which I don't understand, the schools have gotten away from this and don't do this anymore. There were some confused and misguided people who said that the mention of God in the Pledge was teaching religion to children, so the schools had to stop. I think this has done much more harm than good, and until we get a President and a Congress who agrees we're just going to have to do the best we can with it.

Lastly, guns are nothing more than a tool, much in the same way as a hammer or a saw is a tool. If you put a hammer or a saw on a table and leave it there, it won't do anything but lay there until someone picks it up and uses it. If they use that hammer or saw to hurt someone, then it's not the hammer's fault or the saw's fault, it's the person's fault. The person should be punished and not the tool.

It's the exact same way with guns. A gun is a tool that will hurt no one on its own; it takes a person to pick it up and use it for this to happen. People will say that guns are designed for only one thing and that thing is to kill, and to a point they are right. But they choose to ignore the fact that a gun is nothing but a tool, and will only be used to kill if someone - the person who picks it up - uses it for that reason.

But guns can be, and are often, used for good and to save lives as well. The police use them for this purpose every day, and I myself have used a gun to save my own life. Two young men tried to rob me using a knife one night a long time ago, and I was carrying a pistol at the time for which I had a license. I drew my pistol and pointed it at the young men, who dropped the knife and ran away. I thank God that I didn't have to shoot anyone that night, but the point is that a gun saved my life that night. So guns are used for good as well as bad, every single day.

You don't need to be afraid of guns, because guns can't hurt you. Be afraid of the people who use the guns to hurt people, because people are the cause - not guns.

And there you have it, Allison. I hope this helps, and I hope that you'll let me know how things turn out with you and your daughter.

Again, thank you for being a reader and for asking my help on this.

IHC

Thursday, January 10, 2013

NObama's Committee to Study Gun Violence is a Sham

Oh, my God, where to start on this one...

First things first: appointing Joe Biden to be in charge of a committee to study "gun violence" in America and actually expecting him to be fair and unbiased is like buying a lottery ticket and actually expecting to win - and then being surprised when you don't. What did you expect, really? NObama's chief Court Jester has made his feelings on gun control very plain from Day One, and to expect him to recommend anything except more useless gun control laws is nothing short of stupid. Not ludicrous, not foolish, but STUPID. NObama would have served the purpose much better if he'd appointed a moderate to head the committee or, better yet, if he'd appointed two people to co-chair the committee one from each side of the issue - with the Court Jester NOT being one of them. THAT would have been the smart thing to do. But then again, NObama hasn't been doing very many smart things these days, has he?

And were we really surprised when the Court Jester had the "Brady Bunch" in his office first, instead of, oh, I don't know, the NRA? It's human instinct to want to talk to those of the same opinion first, but it sure doesn't say anything for being fair and unbiased, does it? If he wanted to be seen as fair and unbiased, then he should have had the NRA in his office first. That would have done wonders for his credibility with me, and while I realize I'm only one person, I'm quite sure there are legions more out there who feel the same way I do on that point.

Then again, the Court Jester doesn't seem to be concerned about being fair and unbiased - he's already come to his conclusions as to what he thinks needs to be done, and he's also already decided how he and NObama are going to do it. Why else would he announce after the first day's meetings that the use of an Executive Order to establish tighter gun control was "on the table?" He tried to cover his ass by adding that "legislation would be needed" to back it up, but the damage has already been done. As I'm typing this, the Republicans in Congress and the citizens of the nation are lining up and screaming their heads off about this blatant intent to bypass the Congress and the Constitution and rule by "executive decree." Considering the number of Executive Orders that NObama has issued in the past four years - more than the previous FOUR presidents combined, by the way - I'm not at all surprised that he'd stoop to this tactic.

For those of you who voted for this asshat last November, congratulations - you've elected the first DICTATOR in our nation's history. I hope you're proud of yourselves.

As I said in the title of this entry, this whole committee thing by NObama and the Court Jester is nothing but a sham. It's a facade, a fake, a dog and pony show to give people the impression that they actually give a damn about saving lives and that they really want to hear ALL suggestions on how to solve the problem of gun violence in America. If they were really serious about it, then they would have taken Ted Nugent up on his offer to sit on the committee with the Court Jester - but as far as I know, Uncle Ted isn't included. That tells you something right there. (Nugent, by the way, wrote a letter to Biden and then published it on his web site in which he offers his services. If you haven't read it, you really should.)

No, the Court Jester and NObama don't really give a damn about saving lives. What they REALLY want is to eliminate private ownership of firearms in the United States, and to do that, of course, they have to repeal the Second Amendment. The establishment of yet more useless gun control laws in the face of reams of documentation that proves gun control laws in general - and the Brady Bill in particular - don't work is just the first step, as I said in a post last week. Their ultimate goal is the repeal of the Second Amendment, and they'll do anything, both legal and illegal, to accomplish that goal.

And in the mean time they're going to pass up the opportunity to address and possibly solve - or at least drastically reduce - the real cause of gun violence in America. Guns are not the cause, they're the tool. The cause is mental illness, and the programs in our country to recognize and treat mental illness are sadly lacking. We have the opportunity as a nation to take some definitive actions that will absolutely reduce gun violence in our nation, but focusing on and banning guns is not the answer. Banning guns is no more the answer than banning cars is the answer to drunk driving, and for the life of me I just don't understand why the libtards and the Demoncrats don't understand this!

For the first time in my life, I'm genuinely concerned about the future of our great nation. I'm a student of history, and one of the things I've studied is how the great dictators in the past have come to power, and in every instance - every single one - the very first thing they did to secure their power was to disarm the people. As the old saying goes, "An armed man is a citizen; an unarmed man is a subject," and it seems apparent to me that NObama is intent on making all of us his subjects. He envisions a socialist society where the government takes care of everybody - whether they want to be take care of or not - and provides everybody what HE thinks they need. Of course, the flip side is also true in that if HE thinks we don't need it, then he either deprives us of it or takes it away.

And the sad thing is that there are enough people out there who think that the total loss of their freedom as a citizen is a fair price to pay for being "taken care of." Why else would they have elected this charlatan twice?

As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither."

I've long said, and said it proudly, that I'm a "Sheepdog." If you've read my blog then you know what I'm talking about; if not, then do a search for that term in my blog and read what I wrote. But over the course of the past few days I've been giving some very serious thought to what's going on in our nation and with the socialist buffoon now occupying the White House, and I've come to the conclusion that I'm no longer just a "Sheepdog."

I'm also a "Three Percenter." (If you don't know what that means, then look it up.)

And I'm damned proud of that, too.

I don't know where all of this is going to take us, so just like the rest of you I'm going to just hold my breath and pray to God that it doesn't all go to hell on us. If NObama tries to "rule by executive decree" then it's going to go South in one hell of a hurry; if not, well, we may just be able to survive NObama's reign of terror intact.

Time will tell.

IHC

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Fact Versus Fantasy: What The Libtards Hope You Don't Know About Gun Control

Now that the topic of gun control is #1 on the White House Hit List - just as I said it would be if NObama was re-elected - I think it's time that we all took a serious look at some of the bullshit that that libtards and Demoncrats are spouting about what a wonderful thing gun control is, and how we'll all be safer when we're disarmed. What follows are the myths and fantasies that the libtards and Demoncrats are saying about gun control and what they would have you believe, and the corresponding facts that prove them to be just that - myths and fantasies. So here they are, in no particular order, although I did try to go from the most prevalent to the most obscure, with one exception.

#1 - More stringent - or just more - gun control laws will decrease gun violence.

This one is wrong on so many planes it's laughable. At present there are more than 20,000 gun laws on the books nationwide, yet we still have acts of violence being committed with guns. And on top of that, statistics have proven that 94% of the murders committed in the United States are committed with "illegal" guns - that is, guns that have been stolen and are not used by the person who legally purchased it when the crime is committed. And then there's the basic fact of why ANY gun control law has not and will not ever work: CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. That's why they're called "criminals." And if you want proof of this, you need look no further than the city of Chicago. Chicago has the most stringent gun control laws in the nation, yet they also have the highest murder rate, the majority of which are committed with - you guessed it - "illegal" guns. The city that was second to this was Washington, D.C. which also had very stringent gun control laws - as in, you couldn't own a handgun at all. D.C. also had the second-highest gun murder rate in the nation, but all that changed last year when the D.C. gun ban was overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States as being unconstitutional.

#2 - Gun control laws such as the "Brady Bill" will make us safer/decrease gun violence.

Not according to the FBI, it won't. After the "Brady Bill" expired, the FBI conducted a study on the effects of gun crimes and violence that the bill had, and they found that the bill made no noticeable difference in the amount of crimes being committed with a gun. And the FBI isn't the only organization to conduct such a study and come up with those results. Georgetown University, Duke University, and the American Medical Association to name a few have also conducted research on the effects of the bill, and none of them was able to prove that the "Brady Bill" had any measureable effect on hangun violence in the United States. The harsh reality that the libtards and Demoncrats don't want to admit is that every single study done on the effect of the "Brady Bill" have ALL failed to show that the bill did any good at all. The studies did show, however, that the Federal government - specifically the Department of Justice - had been what I would call criminally negligent in punishing those who attempted to purchase a handgun in violation of this bill. In the entire time the bill was in effect from 1994 until 2004, more than 700,000 applications were denied yet only six thousand offenders were prosecuted! And of those prosecutions, less than a handful resulted in jail time.

The question now is, why should a criminal fear or obey a law that they know won’t be enforced? Simple answer: they won’t.

#3 - Banning "assault rifles" will make us safer/decrease gun violence.

For openers, there's no such thing as an "assault rifle." This is a term that was invented by the liberal media because it sounded scary and would intimidate the weak and faint of heart, and they were right. There is NO weapon in the United States military arsenal that is officially classified as an "assault rifle."

And once again, the FBI says that this isn't true. The fact is that approximately 1% of gun crimes committed in the United States involve the use of a so-called "assault rifle," with the weapon of choice being an automatic pistol. The liberal news media incorrectly reported that an AR-15-type rifle was used during the shootings in Connecticut, but the investigation has shown that while an AR-15 style rifle was found in the killer's car, the actual shooting was done with two 9mm automatic pistols. (Did I mention that all three guns were STOLEN from the killer's mother after he murdered her?)

#4 - Banning "high capacity" magazines will reduce the number of people killed in a mass shooting.

Uh, no. All a high-capacity magazine does is keep you from having to change magazines more often. The simple solution: carry more magazines or, better, yet, carry more than one gun. And for those of you out there who are foolish and/or stupid enough to think that you have enough time to attack and disarm a shooter while he's changing magazines, keep in mind that it only takes 3 to 4 seconds to change magazines. Are you willing to bet your life that you can carry out your plan in that amount of time?

#5 - Less guns mean less crime.

Again, not according to the FBI. Statistics have shown - and continue to show - that the exact opposite is true. Less guns actually means more crime. Florida was the first state to adopt a "must issue" concealed carry permit law, meaning that you no longer had to prove to a judge or anyone else why you should be issued a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Once you applied for the permit, the local government was compelled to issue you the permit. Once this law took effect, two things happened: concealed weaons permits skyrocketed, and the numbers of violent crimes being committed plunged. And since that time a total of 39 states have adopted "must issue" laws, and in every state violent crimes have dropped. It seems that criminals don't like to get shot, either.

And if you need still more proof that less guns means more crime, take a look at the violent crime statistics for England and Australia. Both of these nations have abolished the private ownership of firearms, and in both nations violent crimes have skyrocketed.

#6 - There's nothing wrong with "common sense" and/or "responsible" gun laws.

Maybe, maybe not. But the fact is that "common sense" has proven lately to be anything but common. What one person may consider to be "common sense" may not be such to another. The same is true for the term "responsible" in that what you may consider "responsible" may not be considered as such by another person, me included. The use of these two phrases by the gun grabbers is nothing but a ploy to get the public to agree with them by making it appear that disagreement with what they propose shows both a lack of common sense and irresponsibility. I, for one, won't fall prey to this tactic.

#7 – “Gun Free Zones” save lives.

No, for one simple reason: the only person in a “gun free zone” that will have a gun will be the shooter. After all, if someone is intent on committing a mass shooting, do you really think he’s going to avoid a “gun free zone” simply because the law says so? Remember what I said about criminals not obeying laws? No, the truth is that a “gun free zone” is going to be the FIRST place the shooter will look for – and that’s where he’ll go, count on it.

And here’s another factoid that the libtards and Demoncrats don’t want you to know: the shootings in Connecticut, Colorado, Arizona, and Virginia all took place in a “Gun Free Zone.” So if you want irrefutable proof that “Gun Free Zones” don’t work, all you have to do is look at the last FOUR mass shootings.

And I saved the best for last.

#8 - Making all guns illegal will make us safer and/or eliminate gun violence.

This is another one that is wrong on so many planes that it's laugable, and the really sad thing is that there are folks out there who truly believe this. But once again, facts prove that this is nothing but wishful thinking and a myth perpetuated by the libtards, the Demoncrats, and the liberal media. If you want proof of how making something illegal won't keep it from happening, just ask the DEA how their war on drugs is going. Meth, LSD, opium, heroin, marijuana and cocaine are all illegal but we still have a drug problem in America, don't we? And any DEA man you ask will tell you - off the record, of course - that the war on drugs is one we can't win, ever.

Drunk driving is also illegal, yet in this nation more people are killed each year by drunk drivers than are killed with guns, yet you don't hear anyone calling for a ban on cars, do you?

Last but not least, look at the City of Chicago again - more proof that making something illegal won't stop the criminal activity that involves that item.

Someone please tell me how taking away my means of self-defense will make me safer, because I still haven’t figured that one out.

I see one hell of a fight coming on Capitol Hill about gun control, and for a lot of us it's going to be a severe case of deja vu. In the 1990s the gun grabbers trotted out John and Sarah Brady to appeal to the emotions of the nation in their drive to get the "Brady Bill" passed, and it worked. Of course, the fact that the President and both houses of Congress were controlled by Demoncrats also played a hell of a big part. But now, in 2013, we have the same thing happening again, only this time it involves former Representative Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly. Giffords was one of the victims of the Arizona shooting two years ago, for those of you who may not remember the name. Yesterday she and her husband announced that they were founding an organization to establish "responsible" gun control laws (there's that word again) and to raise enough money to effectively fight the most powerful and influential pro-gun lobby group on Capitol Hill, namely the National Rifle Association.

So once again we have the victim of a gun crime taking aim not on the person who committed the crime, but on the tool he used. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not. After all, when you don't have the facts on your side and you have nothing left to use, the only thing you can possibly do is come up with a way to appeal to the emotional side of the human race and go for the "pity effect." It worked once, and the libtards and Demoncrats are hoping it works again. The one big difference between then and now is that this time, the Republicans control half of Congress, so we won’t get anything shoved down our throats this time like we did in 1994.

I, for one, am going to do my best to make sure we don’t have a repeat of 1994. We can’t afford to make the same mistake twice.

What about you?

IHC