Friday, July 25, 2014

Quote of the Day

I am really amazed at people who say they support the Constitution, yet can talk about armed rebellion against the United States:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
US Constitution, Article III, Section iii

Never forget WHO Jim Brady was...

He was Ronald Reagan's press secretary prior to the assassination attempt.  That said here is Ronald Reagan on

Gun Control
“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”
~Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.

As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street, and he also signed off on a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases. “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” Reagan said at the time, according to

In 1986 as president, he signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which “banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.”

After leaving the presidency, he supported the passage of the Brady bill that established by federal law a nationwide, uniform standard of a 7-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns to enable background checks on prospective buyers.

In 1991 Reagan wrote an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times stating his support for the Brady Bill and noted that if the Brady Bill had been in effect earlier, he never would have been shot. He also urged then President H.W. Bush to drop his opposition to the bill and lobbied other members of Congress to support the bill.

In 1994 Reagan wrote to Congress urging them to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of military-style assault weapons.

For some reason, the right has decided that these policies are somehow "wrong" and that they are in some way "liberal", yet there are loads of conservative statements from way back similar to those made by Reagan.

What's up?  Why play with public safety?

"Sycophantic Lickspittles"

Nothing like a politician who votes where the money is coming from if you are going to use a bullshit term like this.

If the "Tea Party" crowd isn't bought and paid for, then they are the village idiots.

Of course, as I have been pointing out, the village idiot is the perfect conservative.

The Newest NRA Poster Child - Shaneen Allen

Shaneen Allen


As we mentioned when the story broke, it is absolutely unbelievable that she didn't know about the difference between NJ laws and PA laws. She lied about that. At the very least she's another scofflaw gun owner who lives by the adage "bad laws be damned." And when caught, there's no admission of having made a mistake or having done wrong, only blame and finger-pointing at the overly severe laws in NJ which "make criminals" out of poor persecuted gun owners.

The best part of this whole charade is the gun-rights attempt to paint her as not only an innocent, but as some kind of paragon of motherly virtue.  Dozens of articles have described her as a "mom," as one who works two jobs, in other words, as a saintly martyr.

These are the same folks who went berserk about the supposedly misleading photos of Trayvon Martin. The gun-rights fanatics wrote hundreds of blog posts and thousands of comments about how the left was purposely misrepresenting the appearance of Trayvon.

Where's the similar outrage over this unbelievable photo (photoshopped?) that Ammoland published? Where's the similar outrage over the barrage of pro-gun articles proclaiming her lofty and innocent status. I don't hear anyone on the gun-control side screaming about it. So, let me be the first.

Castle Doctrine Gone Wild - California 80-year-old Satisfied after Killing Fleeing Pregnant Home Intruder


Raw Story

An 80-year-old Long Beach man could be facing charges after admitting he shot a home intruder twice in the back, killing her, as she ran away and despite the fact that she told him she was pregnant.
Tom Greer returned to his home Tuesday to find it being ransacked by a man and a woman.
“I walked in on them,” Greer told KNBC. “And they jumped on me in the hallway.”
Greer said that he was tackled and thrown to the ground but managed to get his .22-caliber revolver and confronted them as they ransacked a safe containing cash.
Seeing the gun, the couple ran out of the house and started down an alley.
“The lady, she couldn’t run as fast as the man, so I shot her in the back twice,” Greer explained. “She’s dead, but he got away.”
“She says, ‘Don’t shoot me, I’m pregnant! I’m going to have a baby!’ And I shot her anyway,” Greer said.

Dear Mom and Dad.

Simple proposition: the presence of a firearm means there is a risk of a firearm accident.

Now, watch people do everything they can do deny that fact. I've noticed most of the "pro-gun" arguments try to refute that proposition.

Despite the studies which point out that a gun in the home poses more of a danger than a benefit, people will deny that.

Do you REALLY want to protect your family and keep them safe?

Or is that just bullshit and you would bring the menace into your home for some insane ideological point?


Update: Woman Accidentally Shoots Herself While Scaring off Intruder

More here.