Mar 15, 2013

Getting ready for class and GunNews deadline looms large, so posting will be thin…

But here are some charms for you to enjoy…


Roy over at Days of Our Trailers loves following social media.  He found a couple of gems.  First, under Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs:

Gun Control Activist: Fear of Just About Everything

A poster on the ICHV FB page contacted her state rep (Chicago Anti Gun Hack Steans) in a tizzy over Concealed Carry and how scared she is of it. (Note this line: “She said that the lawmakers are hearing from way more people who are pro-gun than us.”  No sh!t sherlock).  So I clicked on her page just to see how anti-gun she is.  The answer is extremely.

 Anyone who knows me knows I not only hate guns, hunting and anything to do with the gun culture, but it disturbs and sickens me. I won’t even watch movie previews that have people shooting guns.Thinking about me target shooting ‘disturbs and sickens’ her.  I began thinking she was pretty disturbed already.  Then I read this:

 ..I do not want to encourage vigilantism among today’s “common men.” They scare me without guns!There’s more…


And another one that’s an obscure report of a new, anti-civil rights group, the “Central Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence”.


The stammering Lynn Fingerhut. “There were not uhm, guns available when the second amendment was created uh that could shoot, umm, 30, uh 30-rounds in uh five seconds,” said Central Illinois Coalition Against Gun Violence member Lynn Fingerhut. “I mean this is, uh, this is a very different world we live in.”

Reading an article on another ‘balanced panel‘ on guns and they had a member from the ‘Central Illinois Coalition Against Gun Violence’.

I thought ‘Who?’  Because as far as I’ve been able to find, there is no such organization.  No website, no twitter feed, no FB page, nothing.  Nothing but a single mention for this forum.

There’s more, of course…


A home run from John Lott:

Can poor people be trusted with guns?

(FoxNews) – Can poor people be trusted with guns? Overwhelmingly, Republicans thinks so. But while Democrats fight against taxes on the poor and oppose voter photo IDs because they impose too much of burden, they seem to be doing everything possible – from fees, expensive training requirements, and photo IDs — to make it next to impossible for the poor to own guns.

Indeed, legislation in at least 17 states around the country is aimed specifically at making it more costly to own a gun. Democrats are voting in mass against exempting the poor from fees when it comes to guns. New Yorkers aren’t alone facing everything from registration fees to buying liability insurance.

That’s too bad, because many law-abiding citizens, particularly minorities in crime-ridden neighborhoods really do need a gun for self-defense. There is little doubt that the people who are most likely to be victims of violent crime – again, overwhelmingly poor blacks in urban areas — are also the ones who benefit the most from owning guns.  Research, including my own, has demonstrated this.

Democrats seem to think that waiting for police to arrive from a 911 call is good enough for the poor.

Next week Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) will introduce legislation that will ban the production of inexpensive guns in the United States. While it is true that some criminals use these guns, these smaller, lighter handguns are also ideal for self-defense. And of course they are particularly helpful for poor would-be victims who can’t afford more expensive guns.

Read more…



Town hall meeting questioner to leftist Democrat Jim Moran:  “I know you’re pro-choice:  Why aren’t you pro-choice when it comes to self-defense for women?”



And, under the category of Obama building his own internal police force, from Gateway Pundit:


DHS Approves Two $450 Million No Bid Contracts For More Weapons and Ammo

Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, March 15, 2013, 11:26 AM

The Department of Homeland Security approved two more $450 million contracts for more weapons and ammo recently.
The Obama File reported:

Dave Gibson is reporting that on Monday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted details of a no bid contract with weapons manufacturer Sig Sauer, worth $4.5 million over the next five years.

The contract is identical to the one DHS announced last week with Heckler & Koch.

Both contracts are for $900,000 worth of “replacement parts” a year, for weapons used by DHS agents.

While it is hard to imagine how or why a domestic agency could anticipate firing their weapons enough over the next five years to need $1.8 million annually in replacement parts, the DHS documents clearly state their need to “stock sufficient quantities of parts needed to fulfill the quantities of parts anticipated to be ordered.”

In April 2012, DHS purchased $143,000 worth of submachine guns from Heckler & Koch.

Exactly what plans does the department of Homeland Security have for all this military stuff? Just look at their recent purchases:

2,717 Heavy-weapon configured armored vehicles
7,000 “Real” assault weapons
1.6 Billion rounds of ammunition

And why all the armed military exercises, using choppers firing automatic weapons (using blank ammunition) and tanks, being conducted in Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Miami, and Houston?

And why did the U. S. Army publish a January directive to use drone fleets in the U.S. for “training missions and domestic operations.”

Why did the National Security Agancy refuse to declassify Obama’s executive order that would allow the government to deploy the military within the United States for the sake of cybersecurity.





One thought on “Round-up…”
  1. 2nd Amendment says I have the right to own and use a weapon in defense of myself and my Nation against all enemys foreign and domestic, and interpitation by me. America is becoming liberal and are interpetating the Constitution to their own ends while I disagree that is their right and RIGHT that I and all veterans have died and shed blood for.How would they like it if their rights under the 1st and 4th Aendments were curtailed, WAIT A SECOND Feinstein was asked this recently in congressional session and said she did not need a lecture.

Comments are closed.