The Fort Collins company, which makes sights, recoil pads and other accessories, started in 1996. But like Magpul Industries Inc. of Boulder County, HiViz said it’s not happy with the gun control measures approved by the Colorado Legislature and signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper. Magpul Industries announced last month it will be leaving Colorado.
Pass anti-gun bills, expect gun companies to leave. Leftists are happy with this, but that’s because there’s still someone making guns for their enforcers, and other than that, they want to destroy all gun companies. They will find that their enforcers will be denied a lot of tools now, though.
“I make this announcement with mixed emotions,” Phillip Howe, president and CEO of HiViz, said in a statement. “Colorado is a beautiful state with great people, but we cannot in clear conscience support with our taxes a state that has proven through recent legislation a willingness to infringe upon the constitutional rights of our customer base.”
HiViz gets it. And they’ll be keeping their customer base by supporting them.
There is no “unauthorized”, there is illegal. That’s like saying “unauthorized sexual partner” for rapist, or “unauthorized euthanasia provider” for murderer.
These are illegal aliens, in the country illegally. They are criminals.
The “these are civil rights” argument is nonsense. It’s collectivism stealing words from righteous causes. This is amnesty for barbarism.
The person who is accepted into your family, works to join your house because he wants to be a part of it, works to contribute to your property, asks for your daughters’ hand, and sleeps in a bed in your house with your daughter because he’s a member of your family is now being replaced by the barbarian who invades your home. Holder speaks in collectivist bullshit, wherein everyone in the world who can break into your house now somehow has a right to your property, has a right to what you worked for, has a right to eat your food and rape your children – and because they’ve done so, is now a member of your house.
This is leftist collectivist redistribution of property, wealth, and national identity by declaring that what the US has created isn’t ours, and is the property of anyone who can take it. This amnesty is the legal framework for justifying complete obliteration of the nation – because now they have a “civil right” to what’s yours.
Their might, their decision to break the law, their decision to invade, now grants them a “civil right” to everything you have and have worked for.
-
As for how he treats his actual “friends and neighbors”, he sent guns to Mexican narcoterrorist cartels to kill Mexican citizens. Those who want to better their own country were his target.
Before the Boston Marathon bombings, the Obama administration argued for years that there is a big difference between terrorists and the tenets of Islam.
A senior White House aide in 2009 publicly urged Washington to cease using the term “jihadist” — asserting that terrorists are simply extremists. Two years later, the White House ordered a cleansing of training materials that Islamic groups deemed offensive.
Now, some analysts are asking whether the 2009 edict and others that followed have dampened law enforcement’s appetite to thoroughly investigate terrorism suspects for fear of offending higher-ups or the American Muslim lobby.
It’s not just suspected. The most recent fedgov-sponsored anti-terrorism course I took spent the first few hours going over the SPLC’s laundry list of evil white terrorist organizations that to any sane person, aren’t more than a footnote.
In October 2011, 57 Islamic groups wrote a letter to John O. Brennan, now CIA director, but then President Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser.
Citing news reports, the groups complained of “biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam” inside the federal government’s instructional halls.
“While recent news reports have highlighted the FBI’s use of biased experts and training materials, we have learned that this problem extends far beyond the FBI and has infected other government agencies, including the U.S. Attorney’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Councils, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Army,” the letter read.
Muslims objected to several training guides, such as a 2009 report produced at the Army Command and General Staff at the Fort Leavenworth School of Advanced Military Studies.
“Moderate Muslims are not exercising moderation; they are simply applying other means to accomplish the same goal of establishing global Islamic dominance,” it quoted the report as saying.
At least two of the 57 groups were listed by the Justice Department as unindicted co-conspirators and as being connected to the Muslim Brotherhood in the prosecution of a Texas charity for funding Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. The groups are the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America.
The organizations’ letter demanded that biased trainers be disciplined, that all instructors undergo retraining and that materials deemed offensive by Muslim activists be purged.
Want to know why we can’t effectively fight jihadi terrorists? Why we keep having Fort Hoods and Bostons?
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
- Sun Tzu
Sun Tzu’s reflections on the Obama administration would probably be something like: “If you deny yourself knowledge of the enemy and even deny the enemy’s existence because you don’t want to offend the enemy, you have already been defeated.“
John Guandolo, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, has spent years studying the global Muslim Brotherhood movement and its links to American Islamic groups. The FBI relies on some of them to guide its training. The political left has branded Mr. Guandolo an “Islamophobe.”
“There is no strategy in the FBI,” he told The Times. “At FBI headquarters, it is a daily fire drill. The threats come in, and they run around to deal with them and run them down. But because none of it can have anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood’s movement in the U.S. or Islam, they never address the root cause and common investigative realities.”
Mr. Emerson, who maintains back-channel ties to law enforcement, said any slide presentation on Islamic extremism now has to be submitted to a special Justice Department panel.
He said one slide that was required to be omitted showed the famous photo of captured Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The photo of a disheveled and unshaven Mohammed was deemed “offensive to Islam,” Mr. Emerson said.
There is a strategy in the FBI. It’s a strategy of concession and defeat.
… the president does not “see this challenge as a fight against ‘jihadists.’ Describing terrorists in this way — using a legitimate term, jihad, meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal — risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.”
Some analysts disagree with that interpretation, saying the Koran clearly states that jihad is a “holy war.”
Jihad is war.
Denying it and pretending that it’s simply “internal jihad” denies reality. The struggle in Islam is further submission to the will of Allah – Islam means submission. Salaam and the peace of Allah is all about submission to Allah’s will. People with an internal “my struggle” tend to be types who are worth keeping an eye on anyway.
Beyond that point, it doesn’t actually matter what the US says. Contrary to American popular belief, the world does not actually revolve around us. The right knows we’re big and important and we have an important role to play, but we’re ultimately not everything; the left mocks our actual importance, but then thinks every evil in the world is caused by our interference and instead blames America for everything as though we are the cause of all evil in the world – a far more powerful egocentric belief.
Jihadis who are willing to kill themselves to strike a blow against the West in a desire to further the plans for the caliphate do not care what you or I think of them. The US saying “Islamic jihadi terrorists are Islamic jihadi terrorists” doesn’t change much.
They don’t need our opinion to make themselves legitimate. They are, by their own actions, legitimating themselves. They strike terror against the west and they prove they are jihadis. The US understanding and saying “they’re jihadis” does not magically make them jihadis. That they are blowing themselves up for jihad makes them jihadis. This is a question of acknowledging reality. They aren’t seeking our approval to make them jihadis.
For your nation to protect itself does demand that it acknowledge what it is fighting.
“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.”
- Osama bin Laden
Frankly, when we’re acting befuddled because we can’t understand jihad, it doesn’t make us the strong horse. When our government, filled with mush-brained liberals at best; and jihad-allies leftists as well, tells you with their rose-colored glasses and romantic worldview (or straight up leftist redistributive propaganda) that these are a peaceful, peaceable, highly spiritual wise people with a history that goes back thousands of years, wise exotic mystics who travel the deserts and kept alive the knowledge that racist bigoted white European Christians threw away, and then were attacked by ruthless murderous Christian fundamentalist Crusaders who sought to kill them for some reason… it sets up a ridiculous worldview.
The leftist worldview doesn’t allow for acknowledging who the enemy is.
“They say our enemy is violent extremism,” Mr. Lieberman said. “It’s not. It’s not animal rights extremists or white supremacy extremists. It’s Islamic extremism.”
Lieberman’s one redeeming virtue is that he somewhat understands this. At the same time, it’s not extremism.
This is extremism:
Rubio also has part of the problem recognized, but this is still a problem:
Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, told Fox News this week that the administration will not recognize the terrorists for what they are — radicalized Islamists.
These are radical muslims:
Notably, those muslim snowboarders aren’t jihadis. Or at least, probably not (Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a Golden Gloves boxer, after all).
“My problem with this administration is they refuse to acknowledge the existence of this kind of terrorism,” Mr. Rubio said.
He noted that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic complex in Benghazi, Libya, the White House refused to call it terrorism and blamed it on everyday demonstrators.
To really explain that further, the White House’s so-called “demonstrators” brought mortars. The White House story is that they brought fire support to yell about a video that no one had ever seen.
You don’t bring indirect fire area-effect weapons to a protest.
I voice my continued objection to the new zoning regulations! No new strip centers!
This is a Second Amendment protest – a protest about guns and the right of the people too keep and bear arms in order to throw off oppression – up to and including possibly overthrowing a corrupt government:
And they didn’t bring any artillery. They also aren’t jihadis.
Update: It also looks like the Tsarnaevs’ bombs required some additional training and expertise to make, as though they might not be a “lone wolf” operation as the administration claims, as though there might actually be some kind of global movement that’s doing this bombing extremist stuff (for no discernable reason)… like there’s maybe a group of people who believe in the same thing (extremism and radicalness, sayeth the administration) and are out to spread terrorism for the sake of terrorism. Whoa. (How you can have two people working together and still call them a “lone” wolf ignores what the word “lone” means, but I digress.)
(Newser) – The push for stricter gun laws might not be quite so dead after all in the Senate. The New York Times reports that efforts are “quietly” underway to get something done on background checks and illegal trafficking. Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey, the co-sponsors of the background-check bill that got yanked last week, say they have been talking to colleagues to get rid of some objectionable loopholes. One potential compromise would allow a person who lives in a rural area to sell a weapon to someone without having to find a sporting goods store to facilitate.
So they’re admitting that they’re targeting “urban” people? At least they’re getting more honest about their racism.
Looks like that’ll be a 14th Amendment violation for lack of equal protection under the law.
A separate initiative to crack down on illegal trafficking, which includes buying a weapon for someone who can’t legally own one, is being spearheaded by Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand and Republicans Kelly Ayotte and Chuck Grassley.
That last name is very interesting. Chuck Grassley has been the spearhead of the senate move against Obama’s Fast and Furious program wherein the ATF gave guns to the Mexican narcoterrorist cartels. He’s well aware of how anti-gun this administration is, he’s seen how the Department of Justice has held back and said nothing about Fast and Furious, and he’s well aware of the violent hatred of the Constitution demonstrated by this adminstration when it used the ATF to undermine the Second Amendment in order to push for gun control and oppression of citizens. He’s very knowledgeable on the subject.
The story notes this at the end:
Gun-control supporters are working on a national campaign to put pressure on those in the “no” camp.
Yup. They never stop. Ever. They have a need to destroy your rights. It’s what they do, it’s all they do, and they will never, ever stop until they have their boot stamping on a human face forever.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday introduced a bill that would require background checks to be run on anyone buying explosive powder, a reaction to last week’s Boston Marathon bombing.
Reid introduced the bill, S. 792, for Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who has been out sick for much of the year. But in a press statement, Lautenberg said the Boston bombing shows that background checks are needed for explosive materials.
“It defies common sense that anyone, even a terrorist, can walk into a store in America and buy explosive powders without a background check or any questions asked,” Lautenberg said Tuesday. “Requiring a background check for an explosives permit is a small price to pay to ensure the safety of our communities.
Note the clever wordplay. What they want to ban is blackpowder, gunpowder, reloading supplies, and everything else associated with ammunition and firearms ownership. Frank Lautenberg is famous for being as anti-gun as they get. The shoddy attempt at avoiding saying “we want to ban gunpowder and disarm the citizenry” and instead saying “explosive powders” makes it sound like we’re getting attacked by Persian sorcerors.
If one were to look at it logically, they’d find that the Boston terrorists didn’t use gunpowder for ammunition, or black powder, or anything else related to guns. I’ve mentioned it before, but terrorists and US gun culture are mutually opposed. People in US gun culture are the type who either fancy themselves as someone who would stop terrorists… or are people who have stopped terrorists.
A New Hampshire fireworks store has told the FBI that it sold four-hundred dollars worth of fireworks in February to accused Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
The gunpowder in fireworks is often used in bombs.
“He just wanted the biggest, loudest stuff we had in the store,” said Megan Kearns, the assistant manager of Phantom Fireworks, in an interview with ABC News affiliate WMUR.
So the proposed bill, which regulates only gun owners, and is only targeted at gun owners, would do absolutely nothing when it comes to what terrorists have done. Lautenberg’s bill exists only to harass gun owners and reloaders and destroy American gun culture. Firework gunpowder and ammunition gunpowder have been very different things for a long, long time now.
From the Hill:
Under current law, people can buy up to 50 pounds of explosive “black powder” with no background check, and can buy unlimited amounts of other explosive powders, such as “black powder substitute” and “smokeless powder.”
Lautenberg’s bill would require a background check for the purchase of any of these powders.
It would also let the attorney general stop the sale of explosives if a background check shows the applicant is a known or suspected terrorist, and if there is a belief the explosives will be used for terrorism.
He is going after gunpowder, not after what the bombers used. They bought fireworks and disassembled them. Lautenberg wants to destroy US gun culture one piece at a time.
It would also require a permit to make homemade explosives, and direct the government to study how to better trace the use of explosive powders.
So is Lautenberg that stupid or does he just think you are? Terrorists would try to get permits to make homemade explosives? Really?
There also seems to be a cultural component to this. I’m sure once he’s banned guns, next Lautenberg will be the type to want to ban fireworks, and leave all fireworks displays to specific fireworks-trained government-appointed authorities on fireworks who will handle that dangerous work and keep fireworks out of the hands of dangerous terrorists like you, so peons like you can celebrate International Workers Day and see the glorious fireworks of the state. Were he on a smaller scale, he’d be the type to ban fireworks for “the children” because some North Park kid got his hand blown off, leaving you with snakes and snap-pops.
He’s surely that kind of nanny-state asshole as well as dictator wannabe.
Part 1 here, mostly about food and people who want the government to dictate to them how they should eat.
And today, part 2, as we look at a Time Magazine piece titled “Tread on Me“.
America was born from resistance to tyranny, and our skepticism of authority is a healthy tradition. But we’re pretty free.
That’s good enough, right? We’re “pretty free”. It’s about time we move on in the Tytler Cycle and get back to bondage! Woo-hoo! Bondage! The state will make us free from responsibility and dangers of the world! They know what’s best for me!
the Don’t Tread on Me slippery-slopers on both ends of the political spectrum tend to forget that Big Government helps protect other important rights
Doesn’t work that way. This is a question of whether people believe in more or less government control. Americans believe in less government control, have traditionally always believed in less government control, and only ever believe in having government control them when they’ve been brainwashed and programmed.
But standby for incoming collectivist BS…
Like the right of a child to watch a marathon or attend first grade without getting massacred—or, for that matter, the right to live near a fertilizer factory without it blowing up your house.
There are no such rights. To be free from danger is not only impossible, but even reduction of danger is not a right – it something paid for by someone’s work – whether it be the soldier, policeman, or factory manager and safety staff.
I guess you could call me a statist.
How about one who will lick the hand that feeds with his chains resting upon him, and someone who I would wish posterity would forget was my countryman?
Go ahead, quote the Ben Franklin line about those who would sacrifice some liberty for security deserving neither.
You forgot the last part – they deserve neither – and will lose both.
But what about the rights of 8-year-old Martin Richard, blown away after watching his dad finish the marathon? Who safeguarded the liberty of 6-year-old Charlotte Bacon, gunned down in her classroom in her new pink dress? What about Perry Calvin and Morris Bridges and the other victims of the West Texas explosion? Nobody read them their rights.
There are no such rights as to be free from danger – and there can be none.
This kind of high-minded utopian fantasy was cranked out back in the 1930s and 1940s by the FDR administration. There were even oaths made to defend the freedom from want and freedom from fear.
Photo by ShortTimer
It is, by itself, nonsense.
Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What ‘right’ to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.
- Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers
You cannot legislate industrial accidents out of existence (unless you obliterate industry entirely – which is a goal of the left as a tool to fight Manbearpig).
You cannot legislate madmen out of existence. You can forcibly disarm the populace, and leave them at the mercy of governmental ruler madmen like maniac cop Chris Dorner. You can leave them at the mercy of government to make them “safe”.
You do all of those by destroying liberty, something that high-minded collectivist utopians have done in the past to construct human nature into what they want it to be – to “mold the world closer to their hearts’ desire”.
And it almost always looks the same in the end.
In contrast to those statist desires, you can safeguard the liberty of 6 year-old Charlotte Bacon. You need a rough man ready to do violence on her behalf to safeguard that liberty – that liberty needs to be bought, but the left is terrified of the tools of violence to the point where they irrationally declare that to make the gazelle safe from the lion, you must strip the gazelle’s horns.
By the left’s logic, to make the child safe, you must leave her unguarded; and target those who would do her no harm but instead do seek to protect her. There are people who are actively willing to put their own lives in harm’s way, but they are called monsters for demanding real security. They are demonized for understanding the tools and nature of violence as defense and deterrent.
You can begin to defend the life of 8 year-old Martin Richard more by identifying the threat and dealing with the threat when it rears its head. What killed him was islamic terrorism. We know this. We all know this, but our government denies it on the basis that their ideology rejects making that judgement. By the response of the authorities in the Boston bombing case, there will be no more fatalities from those particular two terrorists. The hundreds of lives saved, like the baker’s new suit in the Broken Window Fallacy, are easily forgotten because they never materialized. There were no more terrorist attacks from those two because the terrorists were pursued (at a cost of life and harm) and stopped.
Yet there are still high-minded utopians who believe that if they just apologize enough, that if they are sensitive enough, they can stop people who chant for their deaths in the street through just well wishes.
And here’s where the Time writer gets worse:
Our rights are not inviolate. Just as the First Amendment doesn’t let us shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, the Second Amendment shouldn’t let us have assault weapons designed for mass slaughter.
This is, as Jonah Goldberg would say, bonesnappingly stupid.
The First Amendment totally and completely does let us shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
If the government could mandate a white-noise generator that would specifically tune into the sound of a human voice shouting the word “Fire!” so that it could never again be said in a theater and the First Amendment were restricted, what would happen when there is a fire and no one can shout the word? What happens when no one can give the alarm? What happens when that lifesaving tool is denied? It would result in people burned to death.
The Second Amendment totally and completely does let us have modern firearms. I have yet to take or instruct a firearms class wherein I have taught or been taught to use an “assault weapon” for “mass slaughter”. Sorry, just doesn’t work that way.
The Second Amendment protects the natural right of self defense. It codifies it in the Constitution and ensures that the tools of self defense will not be denied. It does the same in that sense as the First Amendment protecting the word “Fire!”. It exists as the last full response against oppression, large and small, whether it be a lone criminal or the force of a dictatorial government.
If used improperly or abused, it’s a crime, just like yelling fire when there’s no fire. If used properly, it’s a wholly necessary lifesaving right; and it protects tools that allow for lives to be saved. And just like the loss of yelling “Fire!”, if it is taken away, it ends up the same – the result is people burned to death.
–
To revisit this quote from the “Tread on Me” masochist:
Those of us who support aggressive government action to protect the public ought to acknowledge that it does, at the margins, limit individual rights—the rights of gun owners, the rights of business owners, the rights of the accused. Go ahead, quote the Ben Franklin line about those who would sacrifice some liberty for security deserving neither. But what about the rights of 8-year-old Martin Richard, blown away after watching his dad finish the marathon? Who safeguarded the liberty of 6-year-old Charlotte Bacon, gunned down in her classroom in her new pink dress? What about Perry Calvin and Morris Bridges and the other victims of the West Texas explosion? Nobody read them their rights.
The Bill of Rights is there to limit government. Governments create oppression. In a state of nature, there may be terror, but there is no all-encompassing institution that can deny you your natural rights. The Constitution is there as a contract of free men that created a limited government with the intention of protecting all of our natural rights possible while providing us tools to ensure greater protection for all as well.
I’ve been told that invoking the death of innocents is an emotional appeal rather than a logical argument. And I do admit these tragedies make me angry. But I think it would be logical for our government to try to limit these tragedies in the future.
You want to protect people, do it yourself. You want to prevent tragedies, do it yourself. You want to tread on me because you’re a coward? Then you become an oppressor, Mr. Grunwald, and you are trading bought-and-paid-for liberty for security that is not only fleeting, but wholly nonexistent.
We already sacrifice liberty all the time—our right to automatic weapons, our right to walk through airport security with our shoes on, our right to run our businesses however we please.
The writer is an amoebic poltroon who kneels before the might of the state. We shouldn’t sacrafice our right to automatic weapons, our right to walk through airport security with shoes on, or our right to run our businesses however we please. Excluding abuse of our rights, which infringes on someone else’s natural rights, it’s not the place of the government to do anything. Just because the government has abused rights in the past, doesn’t mean we should tolerate it any further.
The rights of the next Martin Richard and the next Charlotte Bacon matter, too.
Yes, and the next Martin and the next Charlotte may be killed by leftists with utopian wishes who demand schools be gun-free zones, ensuring that only criminals and madmen intent on mayhem will be armed. The next Martin and Charlotte, if they survived being left in a defenseless free-fire zone for 12 years of mandated government schooling, may not like being x-rayed by government lackeys who see them nude any time they get on a plane. They may not like that when they go to start a business, that their government demands so much from them that it’s easier just to not start the business, that their freedom has been curtailed so much that they don’t have options for a business.
But they may grow up thinking they’re “pretty free”, because there’s always something worse.
The next Martin and the next Charlotte are not one or two children, they are millions of children who will grow into adults in a nation where they are less free. The next boy may be bashed for being gay because he’s left disarmed against a mob, the next girl may be another Amanda Collins, who was raped because she was disarmed by government. The next boy may have developed the motor that runs on static electricity, but will never make it because the government has regulated him into oblivion. The next girl may not want to have her privacy violated by government every time she enters a private contract with an aircraft company to fly her somewhere.
-
There are no shortages of people demanding destruction of liberty. From Cass “We Must Dominate You For Your Own Good” Sunstein, to any of the intellectuals Thomas Sowell criticizes as dominating sheperds who demand you be their sheep, there is never a shortage of men who wish to dominate and control their fellow man.
There is always a question of how many people believe that becoming sheep is noble, and how many reject that destructive notion of bondage.
Ryan Grim, Washington bureau chief for The Huffington Post, explains to MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell how he and other “journalists” prevented Capitol Hill police from removing an anti-gun advocate from the Senate gallery after she yelled at Senators who voted down an amendment to expand background checks.
And so says the leftist reporter:
GRIM: I interviewed her along with a number of other journalists right afterwards. They were trying to escort her out of the building, but journalists kind of formed a human shield around her because they all had their microphone in front of her. The Capitol Police realized perhaps arresting a hero of Tucson, right after the Senate knocked down this sensible gun bill, wasn’t the best move, so they let her continue to talk.
There is nothing sensible about the bill. It criminalizes citizens who have done nothing wrong, it would’ve subjected you to additional regulation while doing nothing to stop crime.
Americans should not decide their opinions about the Boston terror attacks until the government decides its own opinion, President Barack Obama told the nation late Friday night.
Really.
…when a tragedy like this happens … it’s important that we do this right,” he claimed. “That’s why we have investigations … That’s why we have courts. And that’s why…”
This is justification for the next line.
“…we take care not to rush to judgment — not about the motivations of these individuals; certainly not about entire groups of people,” Obama insisted.
The fact is, the Boston marathon bombers were islamic terrorists. There’s no denying reality, but there are people who still try. The White House, in order to deflect blame, has decided to tell the truth slowly to mitigate the damage.
Within the US, about one of twelve to one in six muslims (depending on subgroup, as seen above) believe suicide bombing is often/sometimes justified. In some other polls, there was a “never” option and a “rarely” option to differentiate between those who do support terrorism, but just so fervently as to say “often” or “sometimes”.
The number of pro-suicide bombing muslims jumps to around 13%. So more than one in eight muslims are ultimately pro-suicide bombing within the US.
The problem is that government for the last few years (or even decades) has chosen never to make a judgement, based on two flawed ideologies. The Bush administration, run by squishy neocons, went to great pains to call Islam the “religion of peace” and not offend the easily offended. The Obama government, run by leftist ideologues, has focused on what they think is the enemy – the domestic right that opposes their leftist changes in government, and their destruction of the Constitution. To the left, which is in power, people like you and me are the enemy because our focus on the American virtues of liberty represents opposition to their fundamentally anti-American worldview. By contrast, islamic ideology to them, as an enemy of traditional US virtues and the West that they view as an “oppressor” in the world, is an ally.
And as you’re reading this on your own time (if you’re not, tell the Major I’d like four cups of tea sent up, please), you’re being introduced to data that goes against the media and party line – so even if you are on the left, you’ll probably find yourself considered a “right-wing extremist” soon enough. Consider what happened to Eric Allen Bell – a leftist filmmaker who used to write for fanatically leftist DailyKos and Michael Moore but ended up doing his own research and had his open-minded sensibilities challenged by reality. He found it’s very hard to be a universal hippy believer in human rights on the left and simultaneously maintain blind lefty support of an ideology that actively oppresses gays and women.
–
If you take all this into account, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, swims like a duck and flies like a duck, then Obama tells you not to rush to judgement, it could be a giraffe.
The head of the National Rifle Association mocked President Obama’s Rose Garden “tantrum” after losing the gun control fight in the Senate, charging Thursday that Obama suffered the worst defeat of his presidency because “he bit off more than he could chew.”
David Keene told Secrets that the president and his team misplayed their hand because they don’t have a sense of the public’s attitude toward gun control. “They just can’t gauge the public reaction to what they do because they don’t have any sense that the public has feelings different than they do,” said Keene.
“He thought and his folks thought that Newtown changed everything. Newtown was a tragedy but that doesn’t change people’s basic values and feelings,” added the NRA president.
Fact is, people are opposed to it. The culture of the nation is opposed to having the government chip, chip, chip away at our rights. This is the Country Class telling the Ruling Class “no”.
The loss devastated the president, who ranted about the NRA’s power during his Rose Garden address after Wednesday’s vote.
Keene, however, saw it differently. “It was the biggest legislative defeat he suffered but that does not justify the unseemly picture of a president of the United States throwing a public tantrum.”
Keene is spot-on here. Obama was mad and ranting, calling the NRA and the pro-rights lobby “liars”. Mind you, this is the same president who had the ATF send guns to Mexican narcoterrorist cartels and then claim executive privilege to hush it up.
Keene said that many lawmakers who voted against the background check expansion felt that if it passed, gun control advocates would simply return to the issue to chip away more at the Second Amendment, so they decided to “just stop it now.”
All you have to do is listen to what the Democrat anti-rights activists say:
In a way, Keene signaled that to the sponsors of the Senate compromise, Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin. Keene recalled that he took a day off last week to fish for trout on the Missouri River in Montana. “Unfortunately, I took my cellphone with me and my cellphone rings in the midst of my float and it’s Joe Manchin, who’s talking about how reasonable his idea is. And finally I said, ‘Look, I’m in the middle of the Missouri River, I’ve got a trout on the line. I don’t agree, you will have to make your own decisions, and I hung up. You have to keep your priorities straight.”
There is no compromise, and there’s no use in talking to someone who just wants to stick in the tip a little bit, baby. No means no.
On April 17, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg issued a statement to the public that he intends to propose a bill or amendment to regulate black powder, and other forms of explosive components, in the wake of the Boston Marathon Massacre. The bill would demand full Federal background checks of anyone seeking to purchase the minor explosive, similar to recent attempts by Congress to require full background checks on the sale of firearms.
In the wake of the deadly bombing attacks in Boston, U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) today announced that he will reintroduce legislation he has proposed in a prior Congress to require that sales of explosive powder be subject to a background check. He will also file the legislation as an amendment to the gun violence prevention bill currently on the Senate floor
“It is outrageous that anyone, even a known terrorist, can walk into a store in America and buy explosives without any questions asked,” said Senator Lautenberg. “If we are serious about public safety, we must put these common-sense safeguards in place. While the police have not revealed what specific explosive materials were used in Boston, what we do know is that explosive powder is too easy to anonymously purchase across the country.”
See, in 48 other states, you can walk to a gas pump and fill your tank with gallons upon gallons of gasoline.
In 48 states, you can go and pump as much gas as you can afford into your car or an approved container. In New Jersey and Oregon, you have to kneel before the might of lobbyists and you have an attendant pump gas for you, but you can still buy as much gas as you want.
Fortunately, highly combustible, flammable, and also explosive gasoline has never been used to kill anyone in any kind of attack, ever ever. Well, except for killing 87 people at once. And it’s used all the time by arsonists.
So gasoline is totally more dangerous. It shows again that there are dangerous chemicals and things all around us, and it’s the people we have to deal with, not the tools… because a dedicated villain will always find the tools.
But Lautenberg, who lives in a state where people are considered too stupid to pump their own gas, demands that we regulate black powder.
Of the $27.8 Billion spent each year on firearms, ammunition, clothing, reloading equipment, optics, and accessories by the American public, only about 7-8% of all gun owners reload their own ammunition on a regular basis. This means that only a relatively small amount of people purchase black powder explosives each year, and in comparison to other flammable, explosive, and dangerous household products such as fertilizer and gasoline, the singling out of black powder for stricter regulation bears little statistical evidence that its use in criminal activity is widespread.
Gunpowder is classified as a low explosive because of its relatively slow decomposition rate and consequently low brisance. Low explosives deflagrate (i.e., burn) at subsonic speeds, whereas high explosives detonate, producing a supersonic wave.
From Lautenberg’s site:
Current law allows an individual to purchase as much as 50 pounds of explosive “black powder” without a background check, and also permits an individual to purchase unlimited amounts of dangerous “smokeless powder” and “black powder substitute” without a background check.
And it will cost you shipping out the wazoo. It’s not cheap to ship that stuff, because you have to comply with DOT regulations and hazmat to ship it already. Smokeless powder is just a chemical that burns quickly. When in a shell, with a primer on one end and a bullet on the other, and inside a steel chamber, it becomes useful. Until then, it’s just a fast-burning chemical compound, and one that happens to be an intrinsic part of the Second Amendment, as ammunition is part of bearing arms.
If one were a terrorist, again, by contrast, you can buy all the gasoline you want. So you could buy hundreds or even thousands of gallons of gasoline and do whatever you wanted with it.
Ignoring all of that for a moment, consider that Al Qaeda’s online publication, Inspire magazine, has directions on how to make very specific types of explosives. They detailed the pressure cooker bomb, but they also detail how to use chemicals to mix much more destructive explosives. The internet is full of destructive bomb-making recipes for those looking for them, and Lautenberg, along with the rest of his dictatorial cohorts, is apparently completely lost on the first word in the acronym IED.
Improvised explosive device.
Where there’s a will, there’s a way. There is always a way for the motivated terrorist.
War is not a contest of force, whether conventional or unconventional, declared or undeclared. It is a question of will.
If you ban one thing, they will find another to use. The more you ban, the more liberties are lost, the more the terrorists have terrorized you into crushing your own citizenry and treating everyone like criminals. They will have won, as the American people will feel defeated by the actions of their own government against the citizenry in knee-jerk response to terrorists who will never follow a law.
You have to stop the individual terrorists. Ultimately, it is the terrorist that kills, and he is who you have to stop.
-
As an aside, while we’re on the subject of background checks for everything, how about we do background checks on who comes into the country, and we stop letting in terrorists and people who will reasonably become terrorists, huh? Then maybe us US citizens can stop getting screwed with every time we go to do anything? And how about we do background checks on senators and congressmen and presidents, so if they show any tendencies towards grossly violating oaths to the Constitution and trying to stomp on citizens rights, we don’t let them work in government?
