So remember informed voter, vote for Lloyd Bridges.
OR ELSE!!!
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Lloyd Bridges for President!!!!
There's been a lot of talk these days about who should run for the "prestige" of being the President. Personally I think the most qualified person is Lloyd Bridges. He has a great last name, he's an actor, and he is sooooo dreamy. I think Madonna gave her endorsement for him (which, as we all know, is what makes or breaks a candidate!) and she is so on the ball. Like that one time when she discovered her latent British accent and impressed everyone with her command of such knowledge. Or how about that time she starred in all of those great movies that were blockbusters and critically acclaimed. Such timeless classics as Swept Away, Eva, and Stupid Old Bitch Who Can't Act Stars in Some Shitty Remake of a Shitty Movie because Her Husband is Fucking Her Sub-Par Vagina and Can't Stand Up for Himself.
So remember informed voter, vote for Lloyd Bridges.
OR ELSE!!!
So remember informed voter, vote for Lloyd Bridges.
OR ELSE!!!
Saturday, March 17, 2007
ISPU is an apt acronym! (It really makes me want to say "Pee-uw!")
Checking out the great group of the Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership I stumbled across this little gem that they posted. Apparently the ISPU (Institute for Social Policy and Understanding) has smeared gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters as "Neo-Nazis" in this article. I'm going to go point by point and ridicule their wrong-headed position.
(NOTE: the text is red for the bullshit.)
"The idea of terrorist cells operating clandestinely in the United States, quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages in our malls, is right out of Tom Clancy’s most recent novel. If not for the fact that the 9/11 attacks were also foreshadowed in a Clancy novel, I would have given the idea no further thought."
Very good, so you're not a bloodthirsty maniac. Neither are most gun owners because we obey the law quite well. I always find it amusing when people claim the guns cause people to do bad things.
I remember one guy yelled at me because a kid he knew blew his brains out with his dad's revolver. The kid would have done it anyway, had there been no gun. He could have easily jumped off a bridge, strangled himself, picked a fight with a big biker, had sex with Rosie O'Donnell, etc. The gun did not magically call out to him to use it to blow his brains out. The young man was disturbed and needed help. But I digress
Criminals scoff at gun laws because what is going to stop a murderer: a guy ready to defend himself with a gun or a gun law saying "No-No, that's illegal!". Doesn't take a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to figure that one out.
"This leads to a bigger policy issue. In the post 9/11 world where supposedly “everything has changed,” perhaps it is time for Americans to reconsider the value of public gun ownership. "
You're right on that one. We should reconsider how much of our rights have been taken away. The government has no business knowing what I am doing unless I am doing something overtly illegal. If I own several rifles that are "assault" rifles, then it's my own damn business until I do something bad like shoot a bunch of people. Ask people who own AR-15's, AK-47's, G3's, etc. how many people they have killed and you'll be in for a shock: almost none. Back to this fun adventure in hyperbole.
"The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore. The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a “well-regulated militia.” At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists."
Actually it's alive and kicking. The Founding Fathers (whom you have decided to drag into your shit fest like a little daddy's whore) would be at odds with such an apathetic view. WE SHOULD NEVER TRUST THE GOVERNMENT, ANY GOVERNMENT, NO MATTER WHAT PROMISES IT MAKES!
As Thomas Jefferson once said: "Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have."
And who can forget this pearl of wisdom: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. "
Or this wonderful classic: "What signify a few lives lost in a generation or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
But let's get back to this hilarious tragedy:
"Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-Nazi and white supremacist goups (Note: They spelled 'groups' wrong) view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States’ armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt."
Gun control advocates love using Waco as a way to sneer: "See, you can't stop the government." Actually we can if push came to shove. The Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar and his ministers by having an armed populace who grew tired of being neglected. Ever wonder why after that so many countries adopted gun control? The rulers realized that WE THE PEOPLE do not tolerate crap for too long if given the chance to make them pay for it in the shorts.
Or what about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising where the brave Jews fought valiantly against one of the most evil men to walk this Earth? They did not go silently into the night. If every law-abiding citizen had a rifle, a handgun, and plenty of ammo, we would outnumber the military and police by at least 10 to 1. That's a conservative figure. Only about 1% of the population is in the military and most of those are not infantry units so their abilities with weapons is questionable.
Not to mention that most soldiers would refuse such an illegal action. We have to remember we are talking about our sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, cousins, brothers, sisters, and friends turning on their family for the "sake of security". They would rather turn their rifles on the tyrants than on the patriots.
And if not, which I highly doubt, we who love freedom shall not go quietly. WE MAY DIE FIGHTING BUT IT IS BETTER TO DIE STANDING AS A FREE MAN DEFENDING FREEDOM THAN LIVE KNEELING AS A SLAVE BEGGING FOR THE MORSELS OF IT!!!
Let's hear some more of this great bullshit:
"The more important consideration is public safety. It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns. Gun violence is increasingly widespread in the United States. According to the DOJ/FBI’s Crime In The United States: 2003 report, 45,197 people in the United States were murdered with guns between 1999 and 2003. That averages out to more than 9,000 people murdered per year. Nearly three times the number of lives lost in the tragic 9/11 attacks are murdered annually as a direct result of guns."
The first resort of a bullshitter is quoting statistics. How do we know those victims were not criminals who were stopped by an honest citizen? It is quite safe to carry in public. Places that have adopted such legislation are quite impressed at how well concealed carry goes over. Why?
Because criminals do not get licenses to carry. They break the law anyway, what does it matter if they violate a silly gun law? But if you have armed citizens who love the law and obey it, you have a major deterrent to criminals running amok. Even if only a third of the people allowed to carry did so, it leaves a chance that the average mugger may not want to risk it.
THUGS AND TYRANTS ARE COWARDS AT HEART!!!
These morons then go on to quote crimes that were committed by extremists and seem to want to pass it off as all gun owners are only a hair breadth away from going trigger happy on the nearest playground:
"Examples of wanton violence are all around. One particularly heinous incident of gun violence occurred in 1998 when former Aryan Nation member Buford Furrow shot and wounded three young boys, a teenage girl and a receptionist at the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles and then shot and killed a Filipino-American postal worker.
Another occurred in July 1999 when white supremacist Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, a member of the World Church of the Creator, went on a weekend shooting spree, targeting Blacks, Jews and Asians. By the time Smith was done he had wounded six Orthodox Jews returning from services, and killed one African-American and one Korean-American.
Just recently, in Ulster, NY, a 24 year old man carrying a Hesse Arms Model 47, an AK-47 clone assault rifle, randomly shot people in a local mall. While the Justice Department did not label this murder a terrorist attack, all the signs were there. The Ulster, New York shooting is an ominous warning of what lies ahead. Terrorism can be a homegrown act committed by anyone with a gun and is not unique to a “Middle Eastern-looking man with a bomb.” As long as the public is allowed to own guns, the threat of similar terrorist attacks remains real."
Make no mistake, these are tragic events. These things should not happen but they do, regardless of what kind of laws you make. Murderers still commit murder, rapists rape, muggers mug. It's a sad fact of life. YOU ARE NEVER GUARANTEED SAFETY! Even at home you could be robbed. It's sad but it's true. There is no easy ride in life.
Then probably one of the most heinous things they could have said comes up:
"The idea of curtailing rights in the name of homeland security does not seem implausible given the current state of civil liberties in the United States. The war on terror has already taken an enormous toll on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and thus far, very few Americans have objected. In light of this precedence, it seems reasonable that scaling back or even repealing the right to bear arms would be an easy task."
This is just disgusting. Just because few people object does not make something right. Few people objected to extermination of Jews, Slavs, Mentally Handicap, etc. for a while and that did not make millions of lives lost "okay".
The Nazis used the idea of homeland security to strip people of their rights. As the JPFO and others say, NEVER AGAIN!
Please, good reader, keep on:
"In fact, it will be a very difficult task. So far the civil liberties curtailment has affected generally disenfranchised groups such as immigrants, people of color and religious minorities. An assault on the Second Amendment will impact a much more powerful constituency.
According to the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2002 41 percent of American households owned at least one gun. According to these same statistics, 50 percent of the owners were male, 43 percent were white and 48 percent were Republican. More than 50 percent of the gun owners were college educated and earned more than $50,000 per year. Regrettably, these folks are going to marshal their considerable resources to protect their special interest.
This is a shame. Instead of laying waste to the civil rights and civil liberties that are at the core of free society, and rather than squandering precious time and money on amending the U.S. Constitution for such things as “preserving marriage between a man and woman,” the nation ought to focus its attention on the havoc guns cause in society and debate the merits of gun ownership in this era of terrorism."
It will be a very difficult task at least in my home. When the Gestapo comes to my door knocking and saying, "Hand over your guns, comrade." I'll simply smile, and make my AK-47 (whom I have named Ivana) do my talking. She's loud, she kicks, and when she hits you, you don't have a nice day.
The turd baskets finish off with this pathetic appeal to emotion:
"So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.
The Second Amendment is not worth such risks."
There will be a threat regardless of what laws are passed. The Second Amendment is worth the risks. It is worth our Bill of Rights. Without it, all that the BOR is merely a piece of paper with fancy writing on it.
In closing, good reader:
Gun owners, not the military (though I do support such brave men and women) nor the police nor any government agent, are the true defenders of our freedom. The military has gone bad before, both in this wonderful land and the great country of Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Russia, and so on. The police have among their numbers corrupt, racist, bigot, unbalanced, and hateful people among their ranks (they do a hard job but they are only human). Don't even get me started on government agents.
WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who are charged to defend Liberty in all of her glory. We shall make no small burp to do so. My AK-47 does the talking when it comes to liberty. I shall hope yours does as well.
(NOTE: the text is red for the bullshit.)
"The idea of terrorist cells operating clandestinely in the United States, quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages in our malls, is right out of Tom Clancy’s most recent novel. If not for the fact that the 9/11 attacks were also foreshadowed in a Clancy novel, I would have given the idea no further thought."
Very good, so you're not a bloodthirsty maniac. Neither are most gun owners because we obey the law quite well. I always find it amusing when people claim the guns cause people to do bad things.
I remember one guy yelled at me because a kid he knew blew his brains out with his dad's revolver. The kid would have done it anyway, had there been no gun. He could have easily jumped off a bridge, strangled himself, picked a fight with a big biker, had sex with Rosie O'Donnell, etc. The gun did not magically call out to him to use it to blow his brains out. The young man was disturbed and needed help. But I digress
Criminals scoff at gun laws because what is going to stop a murderer: a guy ready to defend himself with a gun or a gun law saying "No-No, that's illegal!". Doesn't take a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to figure that one out.
"This leads to a bigger policy issue. In the post 9/11 world where supposedly “everything has changed,” perhaps it is time for Americans to reconsider the value of public gun ownership. "
You're right on that one. We should reconsider how much of our rights have been taken away. The government has no business knowing what I am doing unless I am doing something overtly illegal. If I own several rifles that are "assault" rifles, then it's my own damn business until I do something bad like shoot a bunch of people. Ask people who own AR-15's, AK-47's, G3's, etc. how many people they have killed and you'll be in for a shock: almost none. Back to this fun adventure in hyperbole.
"The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore. The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a “well-regulated militia.” At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists."
Actually it's alive and kicking. The Founding Fathers (whom you have decided to drag into your shit fest like a little daddy's whore) would be at odds with such an apathetic view. WE SHOULD NEVER TRUST THE GOVERNMENT, ANY GOVERNMENT, NO MATTER WHAT PROMISES IT MAKES!
As Thomas Jefferson once said: "Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have."
And who can forget this pearl of wisdom: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. "
Or this wonderful classic: "What signify a few lives lost in a generation or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
But let's get back to this hilarious tragedy:
"Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-Nazi and white supremacist goups (Note: They spelled 'groups' wrong) view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States’ armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt."
Gun control advocates love using Waco as a way to sneer: "See, you can't stop the government." Actually we can if push came to shove. The Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar and his ministers by having an armed populace who grew tired of being neglected. Ever wonder why after that so many countries adopted gun control? The rulers realized that WE THE PEOPLE do not tolerate crap for too long if given the chance to make them pay for it in the shorts.
Or what about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising where the brave Jews fought valiantly against one of the most evil men to walk this Earth? They did not go silently into the night. If every law-abiding citizen had a rifle, a handgun, and plenty of ammo, we would outnumber the military and police by at least 10 to 1. That's a conservative figure. Only about 1% of the population is in the military and most of those are not infantry units so their abilities with weapons is questionable.
Not to mention that most soldiers would refuse such an illegal action. We have to remember we are talking about our sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, cousins, brothers, sisters, and friends turning on their family for the "sake of security". They would rather turn their rifles on the tyrants than on the patriots.
And if not, which I highly doubt, we who love freedom shall not go quietly. WE MAY DIE FIGHTING BUT IT IS BETTER TO DIE STANDING AS A FREE MAN DEFENDING FREEDOM THAN LIVE KNEELING AS A SLAVE BEGGING FOR THE MORSELS OF IT!!!
Let's hear some more of this great bullshit:
"The more important consideration is public safety. It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns. Gun violence is increasingly widespread in the United States. According to the DOJ/FBI’s Crime In The United States: 2003 report, 45,197 people in the United States were murdered with guns between 1999 and 2003. That averages out to more than 9,000 people murdered per year. Nearly three times the number of lives lost in the tragic 9/11 attacks are murdered annually as a direct result of guns."
The first resort of a bullshitter is quoting statistics. How do we know those victims were not criminals who were stopped by an honest citizen? It is quite safe to carry in public. Places that have adopted such legislation are quite impressed at how well concealed carry goes over. Why?
Because criminals do not get licenses to carry. They break the law anyway, what does it matter if they violate a silly gun law? But if you have armed citizens who love the law and obey it, you have a major deterrent to criminals running amok. Even if only a third of the people allowed to carry did so, it leaves a chance that the average mugger may not want to risk it.
THUGS AND TYRANTS ARE COWARDS AT HEART!!!
These morons then go on to quote crimes that were committed by extremists and seem to want to pass it off as all gun owners are only a hair breadth away from going trigger happy on the nearest playground:
"Examples of wanton violence are all around. One particularly heinous incident of gun violence occurred in 1998 when former Aryan Nation member Buford Furrow shot and wounded three young boys, a teenage girl and a receptionist at the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles and then shot and killed a Filipino-American postal worker.
Another occurred in July 1999 when white supremacist Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, a member of the World Church of the Creator, went on a weekend shooting spree, targeting Blacks, Jews and Asians. By the time Smith was done he had wounded six Orthodox Jews returning from services, and killed one African-American and one Korean-American.
Just recently, in Ulster, NY, a 24 year old man carrying a Hesse Arms Model 47, an AK-47 clone assault rifle, randomly shot people in a local mall. While the Justice Department did not label this murder a terrorist attack, all the signs were there. The Ulster, New York shooting is an ominous warning of what lies ahead. Terrorism can be a homegrown act committed by anyone with a gun and is not unique to a “Middle Eastern-looking man with a bomb.” As long as the public is allowed to own guns, the threat of similar terrorist attacks remains real."
Make no mistake, these are tragic events. These things should not happen but they do, regardless of what kind of laws you make. Murderers still commit murder, rapists rape, muggers mug. It's a sad fact of life. YOU ARE NEVER GUARANTEED SAFETY! Even at home you could be robbed. It's sad but it's true. There is no easy ride in life.
Then probably one of the most heinous things they could have said comes up:
"The idea of curtailing rights in the name of homeland security does not seem implausible given the current state of civil liberties in the United States. The war on terror has already taken an enormous toll on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and thus far, very few Americans have objected. In light of this precedence, it seems reasonable that scaling back or even repealing the right to bear arms would be an easy task."
This is just disgusting. Just because few people object does not make something right. Few people objected to extermination of Jews, Slavs, Mentally Handicap, etc. for a while and that did not make millions of lives lost "okay".
The Nazis used the idea of homeland security to strip people of their rights. As the JPFO and others say, NEVER AGAIN!
Please, good reader, keep on:
"In fact, it will be a very difficult task. So far the civil liberties curtailment has affected generally disenfranchised groups such as immigrants, people of color and religious minorities. An assault on the Second Amendment will impact a much more powerful constituency.
According to the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2002 41 percent of American households owned at least one gun. According to these same statistics, 50 percent of the owners were male, 43 percent were white and 48 percent were Republican. More than 50 percent of the gun owners were college educated and earned more than $50,000 per year. Regrettably, these folks are going to marshal their considerable resources to protect their special interest.
This is a shame. Instead of laying waste to the civil rights and civil liberties that are at the core of free society, and rather than squandering precious time and money on amending the U.S. Constitution for such things as “preserving marriage between a man and woman,” the nation ought to focus its attention on the havoc guns cause in society and debate the merits of gun ownership in this era of terrorism."
It will be a very difficult task at least in my home. When the Gestapo comes to my door knocking and saying, "Hand over your guns, comrade." I'll simply smile, and make my AK-47 (whom I have named Ivana) do my talking. She's loud, she kicks, and when she hits you, you don't have a nice day.
The turd baskets finish off with this pathetic appeal to emotion:
"So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.
The Second Amendment is not worth such risks."
There will be a threat regardless of what laws are passed. The Second Amendment is worth the risks. It is worth our Bill of Rights. Without it, all that the BOR is merely a piece of paper with fancy writing on it.
In closing, good reader:
Gun owners, not the military (though I do support such brave men and women) nor the police nor any government agent, are the true defenders of our freedom. The military has gone bad before, both in this wonderful land and the great country of Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Russia, and so on. The police have among their numbers corrupt, racist, bigot, unbalanced, and hateful people among their ranks (they do a hard job but they are only human). Don't even get me started on government agents.
WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who are charged to defend Liberty in all of her glory. We shall make no small burp to do so. My AK-47 does the talking when it comes to liberty. I shall hope yours does as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)