Saturday, June 25, 2016

“If I Had A Gun A Crook Would Just Take It”

PHOENIX, Arizona – -( If this myth had any serious grain of truth we’d be in a world of hurt, because guns would be useless oxymorons and we’d be defenseless slaves by now. Everyone would be slaves, even the slave masters. This myth could never work. It’s circular logic that never ends. Lookit:

If you had a gun to protect yourself, but the crook could just take it from you, you wouldn’t need a gun. You could just take the crook’s gun and use that.

Folks, guns just don’t work that way. If they did, guards could never guard anyone, slaves could simply shoot their masters, the masters could then just shoot the slaves, it’s absurd. The one with the gun gets things done son.

“The crook would just take it” myth has enormous value because it lights up the scrambled eggs that pass for brains in the progressives and anti-rights bigots who offer up that silliness when the issue of self defense and guns is addressed.

So many of the people we battle over our gun rights are so terrified of guns they can only picture themselves like Don Knotts from the Andy Griffith show, fumbling and bumbling, doing themselves total harm and failing incompetently, with the crook masterfully overpowering them.

Guns Make You Strong

Anti-gun-rights advocates have no idea of the empowerment a firearm provides. They have no space in their psyche for true empowerment, the very idea is abhorrent and inconceivable. So they concoct this magic of a gun simply being wrested away, instead of fired and stopping an adversary cold. Isn’t that what the gun is for?

The party of the teachers union (democrats), the people who consider themselves so much better educated and capable than the knuckle-dragging republicans who tout and laud guns — how ironic that they are the ones who can’t imagine having gone to a class and learning anything about a gun before venturing out with one and getting it snatched.

The idea that they might be trained, know how to hold onto the darned thing, grip it tightly, keep their distance, even know how to avoid the criminal in the first place… All their minds fill with is this notion that: “If I had a gun the criminal would take it and then I’d really be in trouble.”

Can you imagine living your life like that?

Never feeling a sense of competence, ability, feeling like an adult who could handle and persevere in a difficult situation, especially given the overwhelming power a gun provides? God made us, Sam Colt made us equal. Not in their book.

Sure, it is possible to lose a firearm in a struggle. Police are shot with their own firearms. There are retention holsters and retention techniques and all sorts of steps a person can take to prevent that frightful awful experience from occurring. Shoot happens. But hinging your safety on the idea that a criminal might best you in an incident, and so deciding not to be able to respond, well, that’s a choice you’re free to make for yourself, but not for anyone else.

If a person doesn’t want a gun because they harbor an internal terror that an attacker might get it (and I’ve met plenty of people like this) I counsel them in no uncertain terms, “You should NOT have a gun.” That puts their fears to rest. Sometimes. Takes the pressure off. Whew, I don’t have to have a gun. No one ever really told them that in so many words. Release. I would never insist a person have a gun, and in fact I know people who I’m convinced should not have a gun, for all kind of reasons.

On the other hand, once some people hear that, especially “I think you should never have a gun,” some of them feel left out, a sort of, “What, you’re special and I’m not?” kind of reverse psychology motivation, and suddenly the only thing they’re interested in is owning a gun. Or three. They’re not all too happy living with their recognized ‘fraidy cat disability. Might maybe I should try that more often.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Senate Democrats Voted AGAINST Gun Control

The news has been chock full of stories about Republicans and the NRA blocking "common sense" gun control.  Liberal Democrats have been filibustering and performing kabuki theater sit-ins to protest the bloodthirsty vast Right-Wing conspiracy against them.

 You think I'm Joking about that Sit-in?
Here is a photo of Democrat Representatives sitting on the House Floor today, June 22.

But get this:

Every single Democrat in the Senate voted AGAINST Senate Amendment 4749.

Don't believe me?  Here is a link to the actual votes:

Why did the Democrats do this?  There are two reasons.

  • 1:  It was the Republicans with support of the NRA that brought this bill to the Senate for a vote.
  • 2:  The official stated purpose of the amendment:
 To Secure our Homeland from radical Islamists by Enhancing Law enforcement Detection ("SHIELD").

See that?  Those Democrats just can't stomach anything that actually writes the phrase "radical Islamists" into Law.

That amendment, which was sponsored by Republicans and backed by the NRA, would have done exactly what the Democrats have been demanding for months: make it impossible for terrorists on the “terrorist watchlist” to purchase a firearm. Don’t take my word for it — read the raw text of the amendment for yourself.
[T]he Attorney General may delay the transfer of the firearm or explosive for a period not to exceed 3 business days and file an emergency petition in a court of competent jurisdiction to prevent the transfer of the firearm or explosive, and such emergency petition and subsequent hearing shall receive the highest possible priority on the docket of the court of competent jurisdiction and be subject to the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.);
That’s exactly what the Democrats wanted, right? A law which would immediately prohibit known terrorists from purchasing firearms, and give the Attorney General discretion in who qualifies as a terrorist. The sole difference between this proposal and the ones the Democrats were backing is that in this version the Attorney General simply has to file a court order within three days to make the NICS denial permanent. Not obtain — file. That’s it.

The bottom line is this:  Don't believe ANYTHING you see on Network TV, Google, USA Today, New York Times, Yahoo News, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

If you want the truth, come to The Badger Lake Observer.

Friday, June 17, 2016

Ryan Threatens to Sue Trump! WTF? What about Obama?

Paul Ryan says he will bring a lawsuit against Trump IF Trump becomes President, and IF Trump oversteps his authority.
Un-fucking believable.
What about the current President that has blatantly and maliciously overstepped his authority on many occasions?
The hypocrisy of the GOP leadership is absolutely stunning.  I can hardly wait until their integrity reaches another low - it'll probably happen tomorrow.
I think I'm gonna puke.

If Democrats Stopped Shooting People, 68% of Firearm Related Murders Would Be Eliminated

TV and the Interwebs are constantly telling me that Republicans and the NRA are responsible for “gun violence” and are the reason why “common sense gun reform” laws need to be enacted.   From what follows below, that is a completely bogus fabrication.

According to the Center for Disease Control WISHERS website,  there were 10,945 murders involving firearms in 2014.

According to the US Department of Justice’s homicide report published in 2011,  the murder rates by race are:
  • 52.5% were black perpetrators
  • 45.3% were white perpetrators
  • 2.2% were perpetrators of other races

  • 5,746.12 firearms murders by blacks (10,945 x .525)
  • 4,958.09 firearm murders by whites (10,945 x .453)
  • 240.79 firearm murders by others (10,945 x .022)

According to Cornell University,  the voting rates for the Democrats broken down by race are:
  • 93% of blacks voted Democrat
  • 39% of whites voted Democrat
  • 67% of everyone else (average of all races other than black/white) voted Democrat.  Therefore:

Here are the calculations for 2014 firearm murders by race and Democrat affiliation:

  • 5,343.89 firearm murders by black Democrats (5,746.12 x .93)
  • 1,933.66 firearm murders by white Democrats (4,958.09 x .39)
  • 161.33 firearm murders by other Democrats (240.79 x .67)
  • 7,438.88 total firearm murders by Democrats (5,343.89 + 1,933.66 + 161.33)

67.97% of firearm murders were perpetrated by Democrats in 2014 (7,438.88/10,945)

About 68% of all firearm murders in 2014 were committed by Democrats. This means that Democrats committed more twice the number of firearm related murders than everyone else. This leads to three very important conclusions:
  • Republicans aren’t to blame for the number of firearm murders, as the Democrats try to claim
  • If Democrats stopped shooting people, we could reduce our firearm related murders by almost 70% 
  • Guns aren’t the problem, Democrats are.

Obama Asks for a Bigger Better Border Wall - and Gets it!

Bigger, Stronger, Taller, Thicker. 

Obama wants to keep illegals away from him, but doesn't give a hoot about the rest of us.

WASHINGTON – A plan to increase the overall height of the fence surrounding the White House by approximately 6 feet, about doubling its current height, won preliminary approval from a Washington arts commission Thursday.
The move follows high-profile security breaches at the executive mansion over the past two years. The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts gave its concept approval Thursday to the new design, which also includes thicker and stronger metal fence pickets. The new design still must be reviewed by a second commission, the National Capital Planning Commission. The final design also must win approval from both commissions.

Secret Service and National Park Service officials said in a statement that they hope to begin constructing the new fence by 2018.

The plans follow several fence breaches. In September 2014, a Texas man, Omar Gonzalez, managed to scale the fence, enter the executive mansion and run deep into the building. Gonzalez, who was found to be carrying a folding knife, was ultimately sentenced to 17 months in prison. The security breach prompted officials to put up a second, shorter barrier several feet in front of the fence and to restrict people from entering the space in between the two barriers. Signs tell visitors: "Restricted area" and "Do not enter." The Secret Service polices the area.

A month after Gonzalez was arrested, another man also got over the fence. In 2015 a second layer of steel spikes was added atop the fence, but a college student draped in an American flag got over the fence later in the year.

The new design raises the steel fence's height from 6 feet to 11 feet 7 inches. The fence will be even taller still because it currently sits on a stone base that is 1 to 2 feet depending on the slope of the ground. The base of the new proposed fence would be 6 inches higher.

Officials have compared the height of the White House fence to other fences at buildings in the United States and abroad. A fence around the parliament building in Brussels totals approximately 13 feet while the fence around London's Buckingham Palace is about 11 ½. The height of a fence at Mississippi's governor's mansion totals 12 ½ feet and the height of a fence at Drumthwacket, the official residence of New Jersey's governor, is 7 feet tall.

The White House fence proposal is expected to go before the National Capital Planning Commission this summer. Officials will then refine plans and return to both the arts and planning commissions for final approval in the winter, said National Park Service spokeswoman Jenny Anzelmo-Sarles. Officials have not said what the fence is expected to cost.

Thomas Luebke, secretary of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, says commission members are interested in seeing a mock-up of the fence before giving final approval. They want to make sure that the proportion, scale, details and color of the fence work, he said. "It's a big change. There's no question about it," Luebke said.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Biker Bar vs. Gay Bar

Why, do you suppose, that Islamist Terrorists have never attacked a biker bar?
What would be the result if they did?
Simple - the body count would be limited to a maximum of two:  One Biker struck with the first bullet, and then the terrorist riddled with dozens of slugs fired by the rest of the bar patrons.

Heed Trump's Warning

Here is an interesting piece my caffeine fueled noggin came upon this morning.  It was found at . The author commits the sin of disingenuously (that means he is lying) interpreting Trump's position and policy to mean a Ban on ALL Muslims, and that ALL Muslims are evil.

He then goes on to agree with Trump that there are some big ugly flies in the Muslim Immigration ointment, and that we'd better start listening to Trump because he is spot-on.  However, the author's solution is to merely "ask" potential immigrants if they are bad or good, before admission.

If they say they'll be bad:  No America for you.
If they'll be good: Welcome to the promised land.

I'm not kidding.  He really said that.

This is the big one, Elizabeth.
Send Lawyers Guns and Money.    On second thought; forget about those lawyers.

Here is the pure, unadulterated copy from Politico.
One of Donald Trump’s political skills is giving widely condemned speeches.

His post-Orlando jeremiad fit the pattern, but the speech was a little like Wagner’s music as described in the famous Mark Twain line: Not as bad as it sounds. There is something so inherently inflammatory in Trump’s delivery that he could read the Gettysburg Address and some listeners would wonder how he could possibly say such a thing.

The kernel of Trump’s speech was rather obvious: “The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here. That is a fact, and it’s a fact we need to talk about.”

The reaction of much of the opinion elite was nearly instantaneous: Whatever we do, let’s not talk about that fact.

Countless articles have been written on how much better we are at assimilating Muslim immigrants than Europe is, usually with a heavy element of back-patting over our openness and fluidity as a society in contrast to the self-defeating insularity of a country like France.

This may well be true, but the assumption that we have the magic formula is, at the very least, under stress now that we’ve repeatedly suffered mass killings by second-generation immigrants.

The Islamic State model of inspiring “lone wolves” already here is dependent on loosely assimilated American Muslims susceptible to its hateful appeals. Disturbingly, it is finding takers.

In six months, terrorists have killed more than 60 people on our shores; two of the perpetrators were the sons of immigrants, and one an immigrant herself.

It may be that one of the reasons we have avoided the problems of a France is sheer numbers. France has 50 percent more Muslim immigrants than we do, even though it is a much smaller country. Only 1 percent of the U.S. population is Muslim; 7.5 percent of the French population is.

The Somali community in Minneapolis, seeded with refugees and then replenished with chain migration, has proved a rich recruiting ground for Islamist extremists of all stripes. This suggests that when we have our own enclaves of poor Muslim immigrants, the experience isn’t a happy one.

On the current trajectory, we will take in 1 million Muslim immigrants or more over the next decade. It can’t be racist or out of bounds to ask whether that’s a good idea.

Or it shouldn’t be. The immigration debate is so encrusted with clich├ęs, unexamined pieties and politically correct virtue-signaling that any suggestion that we reduce the number or the composition of the current immigrant flow is taken as an attempt to kneecap the Statue of Liberty.

We are indeed a nation of immigrants, but that doesn’t necessarily dictate ever-higher levels of immigration. We were still America in 1970 when the foreign-born population was 4.7 percent, significantly less than the current 13.1 percent. We would still be America if we decided to change course and not to reach the projected historic high for the foreign-born population less than a decade from now.

At bottom, the Trump doctrine on immigration is that our policy should serve our values and interests, and the status quo fails on both counts.

As usual, though, Trump hurt his own case in his speech. He refused to make basic concessions — for example, that the vast majority of Muslims in this country are perfectly law-abiding, instead making the sweeping, incendiary accusation that Muslims knew about the San Bernardino and Orlando attacks in advance (although Omar Mateen’s wife might have known in advance).

His proposed Muslim ban is a mistake. It communicates a hostility to all Muslims and, besides, is unworkable.

Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies outlines a more sensible course. He suggests a return to a Cold War-era ideological test for new arrivals, geared to the new struggle against radical Islam. It would ask potential immigrants questions such as whether they support killing religious converts or homosexuals. Anyone answering “yes” would be excluded. Applicants could lie, but at least such an exercise would send a signal about what constitutes a lowest-common denominator of American civic life.

Responsibility for Omar Mateen’s heinous act is all his own, but it is certainly relevant that his Dear Old Dad supports the Taliban and hates gays. He is exactly the kind of immigrant you would hope to deny the priceless privilege of coming here.

Krikorian also proposes to reduce overall legal immigration. If we eliminated the visa lottery, tightened the criteria for family unification and accepted fewer refugees we would diminish the number of low-skilled immigrants who have trouble thriving here, and at the margins, the number of new Muslim entrants.

Donald Trump does the cause of immigration restriction a disservice by rendering it in caricature. But the questions he raises won’t go away, and they shouldn’t.