Friday, July 27, 2012

Sometimes Even I'm Amazed

I note that Charles Schumer -- and yes, even writing his name makes me feel queasy -- has introduced an amendment to the cyber security bill to bane normal capacity magazines. The funny thing, if anything can be said to be funny about  little insane clown posse, is his overly righteous statement that maybe we can all "come together" on guns if "both sides give a little."

For example, the Democrats might be willing to agree that the Second Amendment might possibly exist sorta somewhat as long as that doesn't mean actual people having actual, you know, guns that might shoot, then our side would agree to magazine capacity limits -- soon to bet set at "0" -- banning the most popular rifle in America and any gun that looked scary, and later, if we peckerheads can't all be rehabilitated, agree to quietly line up for our places in the boxcars headed to, oh, I don't know, probably Chicago.

This is what a liberal calls compromise. Why don't we all guess what I call it?


Anonymous said...

Your post is even funnier since your fingers are so used to typing "bane" instead of "ban."

May they ever be so.

- A proud Marine Dad in Virginia

Anonymous said...

It would be so nice if some Jihadi would "Allah Akbar" Mr. Schumer....w/ a blade or explosives, of course, not firearms.........

Larry C. said...

I have to share the state with Chicago. I don't recommend it.

Overload in Colorado said...

If we want 100% of guns, and they want 0%, a compromise would be a 50% ban?

SS said...

Michael, have you heard if there is a ban already here in Colorado??
I received notice from an online vendor that they cannot legally ship my Surefire magazine ~~ i'm down in Westminster....
Vendor is not responding to any questions.

Steve said...

Schumer said that both sides should be willing to give something and what he was willing to give was a vague and unenforceable assurance that he doesn't want to take our guns. He gives up the game right there when he admits that his idea of compromise is "Chuck gives up nothing".
Twenty years ago when they thought they were on the verge of winning, the gun banners were very clear about their goal to use England as the model for US gun laws.
I find it satisfying to watch Schumer, now that he has so thoroughly lost this battle, come begging to us for compromise.
F.U. Chuck.

Anonymous said...

Read the comments at the end of the article about Schumer's proposal. Very interesting how lots of gun owners are burying their heads in the sand about Mittens. He is not a friend of gun owners. Not saying BHO is a friend of gun owners, but he did sign the law allowing carry in National Parks and for me personally that was a big time expansion of my rights and freedoms since I drive through and hike through several National Parks sites frequently. In 8 years in office, GWB did virtually nothing for gun owners, did nothing to rein in the ATF, expanded the police power of the Federal Gov't, and only at the last minute wrote an executive order to allow Nat'l Park carry and the order never took effect because of court-order blocking it. Bush did nothing for us in 8 years, and with Romney's comments during the 2008 debates about how he'd sign an AWB if it came to his desk as President, and his history of having done so as MA Governor, I do not fear BHO Chuckles Schumer nearly as much as I fear Romney. One bad mass shooting and "President" Romney will be spewing the same crapola that Peggy Noonan wrote after the Gabby Giffords shooting, "Come on, we conservatives need to be one needs more than 10 rounds in a magazine...blah blah blah" Mark my F-ing words, Romney is no friend of ours. Neither is Obama, but wake up people, Romney is not "better". I'm writing in my dog's name for President. For the third presidential election in a row.

Steve said...

I don't know what Romney believes in his heart but he is better in the sense that he may be a jerk, but he's OUR jerk. Our commitment to this issue will keep him in line.
The true unemployment rate is pushing fifteen percent. People are suffering out there, financially and emotionally. It will only get worse if BHO gets another term
On every other issue Romney is better than Barry. Stop making the perfect the enemy of the good. A vote for anyone other than Romney is a vote for national suicide.

bigdrumdaddy said...

I agree wholeheartedly, Tom B., especially as I see "conservatives" lining up for appeasement left & right - Bill O'Reilly, Bill Crystal, Lis Weill, et al - are all too willing to appease . . . just about anyone apparently, for reasons which I'm uncertain of. But, siding with underhanded, emotionally-driven political hacks like Schumer whose ONLY THOUGHTS are of their own careers, public appearance, etc leads us nowhere. Even were we to "compromise", that would lead us down a path where we'd eventually find ourselves with little more than single-shot BB guns - until they found fault with those. Meanwhile, the elite would continue to surround themselves with their personal armed security details, leaving us at the mercy of the the crazed and the criminal alike.
And while I don't pretend that Romney is exactly "one of us", I know for a fact he's NOT BARRACK OBAMA - and in this election, nothing else matters. Romney may not be a "true conservative" - but Obama sure as hell ain't your granddaddy's Democrat either.
Eternal vigilance is indeed the true price of liberty - but absolutely useless if you don't act upon those who would infringe upon those freedoms. The choice is clear fellas. For, while Romney "may" infringe on those freedoms - Obama is determined to shred them, burn them and erase them for all time.

The choice couldn't be any clearer.

Anonymous said...

Re; Not saying BHO is a friend of gun owners, but he did sign the law allowing carry in National Parks and for me personally that was a big time expansion of my rights and freedoms since I drive through and hike through several National Parks sites frequently.

Thats what is called 'sucking you in'.And its obvious you and some others fell for it.

I will vote for Romney at least he is more apt to sign common sense things and we know damn well Obama absolutely refuses common sense.
And if we get lucky enough to get a republican congres (house and senate) with Romney we will be very apt to get some sort of national carry passed.

Anonymous said...

Get ready! It appears the we are about to be assaulted like we've never been assaulted before.

On Fox News yesterday, they had previews of an interview with SCJ Antonin Scalia. The interview will be aired tomorrow (Sunday) at I believe 6:00 P. M. EST on Fox cable network. The preview shows Scalia being asked about "new" gun control laws being enacted after the recent massacre in Aurora. He alluded to the progressive approach of applying "the will of the people" to determine what "reasonable" controls may be imposed. His job is NOT to apply popular opinion! His job is to adjudicate based on the law!

He was also asked about new gun technology "where you can fire 1000rounds in a minute", as opposed to the newly popular "gun-banner" argument that the 2A was written and applies to muskets and flintlocks only and how that may affect new laws being enacted to RESTRICT gun ownership. It looks like Scalia may be about to do a "John Roberts" on the Constitution. Check your listings and watch this for yourselves. I hope that I'm over-reacting

As far as this argument by the left, that the "2A" was written and applies only to guns of the era in which it was written, there are 2 opposing conclusions that WE muct reply with. First, the "Arms" that the 2A refers to are the same as those that the military had. So, the law should also apply the same today; our arms should also be the same as those that the various militaries have, including those that may choose to invade us. "Reasonable" laws have restricted us to lesser arms there though, eg. semi-auto vs. full'.

Second, If we look to the first Amendment as a parallel example, we would not conclude that it was written such that it only applied to a citizen giving a speech standing on a soap box, or hand-writing a letter, or posting a flyer, etc.; as was consistent with the levels of communication technology for that time. After-all, the printing press wasn't fully developed until long after that amendment was written and we are all empowered to use it and all of the modern "speech" and communication tools at our disposal today. (Beware of the "Fairness Doctrine" however.)

We can't fall asleep on this one. We all need to deliver a well articulated argument. Invite everyone that you can think of to the range and show them the truth about gun owners, shooting clubs, hunting and the NRA. Keep writing to your congress members too.

Life Member

P.S.: Similar pressure and a well presented agrgument has lead to a deferral of the UN "SAT" Treaty vote yesterday.

Overload in Colorado said...

Life Member,
The printing press was a mature technology in the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was penned. Newspapers were also wide spread in the late 1700.

Newspaper articles of note back then were the series of Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers written for or against ratification of the Constitution. Ben Franklin's famous political cartoon of the snake cut into 13 pieces "Join, or Die" was created while he was the editor of a Philadelphia newspaper in 1754. (considered one of the first Editorial Cartoons)

Your point still stands, just use radio, TV, and the internet.

Anonymous said...

Compromise means meeting your opponent half way.
Meeting an idiot, or traitor half way makes you twice as bad since you know better.
Here's my compromise:
The socialists drop all thoughts of gun control and we agree not to pursue mandatory CCW.
For now.
Tom B.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the additional clarification on the printing press Overload'. I should have been more clear in my reference to the printing press "being fully developed" and how that related to what citizens actually had access to back then vs. now.

As a follow-up to my comments on the Scalia interview:

I just watched the Scalia interview on Fox News Sunday, conducted by Chris Wallace. Scalia's responses to Wallace's questions were still somewhat troubling to me, but at least not as alarming as the previews were. (Fox may have done this on purpose, to get viewers.) When viewed in their full context, I still think that Scalia is leaving some "wiggle-room" to infringe on the Second Amendment, by applying popular opinion and re-assessing what the word "bear", as in "to bear arms", actually means.

The most troubling aspect was Chris Wallace actually appearing to be campaigning for new laws on semi-automatic arms, by asking "leading" questions. Asking leading questions is also the mark of poor journalism.

Stay united.

Life Member

Anonymous said...

The people saying that Romney is "bad on guns" either don't know what they are talking about or they are intentionally lying.
The fact is that despite a liberal democrat legislature the gun bill Romney signed in Mass eased some restrictions on Mass gun owners, and clarified some of the language in the permanent "assault weapons" ban that was put in place by the previous Gov.
His actions won him the approval of the Gun Owners Action League.
As for writing in your dogs name, or some 3rd party candidate , why don't you just go ahead and vote for Obama.
It will have the same effect, and I bet after the election you will tell people you voted Romney.
Thomas C. Bogan
Laconia NH.

Anonymous said...

Attraction bracelets are generally well-liked during the market place for really a while now. One among one of the most common currently are classified as the Thomas Sabo Sale bracelets. This distinct form of attraction bracelets is definitely fashionable and typically throughout the trend considering that a part of it truly is attraction could be the simple fact that you will be ready to mix at the same time as match its types and likewise Thomas Sabo beads. It truly is explained for being the ideal existing you are able to share together with the genuine specific female or maybe woman as part of your daily life. The Thomas Sabo attraction bracelets are generally best provides to present because the types are generally flexible ample to generate every person delighted.

This vogue originated during the place of Denmark and Thailand. Now, Thomas Sabo Online and Thomas Sabo jewelry producing is thought around the world. You can find even jewellery designers presenting their quite individual variety of legitimate and prime with the line Thomas Sabo charms.

For very first time consumers and makers, you would possibly bout the Thomas Sabo attraction being a craft effortless to operate with. It truly is intended during the form of beads so it might be very easily rolled into a chain. These chains, meanwhile, might be manufactured into Thomas Sabo, necklaces and also other jewellery of your respective decision.