Feinstein: A Gift That Keeps on Giving

Gun control extremist Diane Feinstein is one of the best gifts conservatives and Republicans could have hoped for, as her pressuring of Democrats not in a safe state as she is will result in them being thrown out by voters in the next election if they vote for her bill on so-called assault rifles.

The bill has never had a chance to be passed, and Harry Reid noted he can only guarantee, in the best-case-scenario, about 40 votes. Still Feinstein whiningly presses on, seemingly oblivious to the career-ending results awaiting her colleagues. It doesn't get better than this for those of us wanting more of these radicals thrown out of office.

If they do in fact vote for Feinsteins bill, it will be their last year as politicians.

What's hilarious about this is Feinstein is stomping her feet and throwing a tantrum over the possibility the bill won't even be brought to the floor for a vote by Reid, who understands the dilemma he faces, and will probably make a political enemy out of Feinstein, who is being made to look like a bigger fool every day that passes.

Americans don't want this bill, as evidenced by the fact so few politicians are willing to vote for it. They have heard from their constituents, and even though some believe wrongly in the bill, they will have to vote against the people they represent to assuage those beliefs.

Now the question comes down to whether or not they're bold enough to vote their beliefs or to vote in a way that goes along with the wishes of the people they represent. Poor politicians.

There is no way out for any of them. Either Harry Reid will made to look a liar for telling Feinstein he will bring the legislation to the floor for a vote; the liberal Democrats will vote for the bill if it is brought to the floor; or Feinstein will look extremely weak and without influence.

All of this is great for conservatives and Republicans. It doesn't get much better than this.

We can hope the Democrats are forced to vote on the bill, which will alter the political landscape in favor of more conservative politicians. It's a win now no matter what happens in the outcome.

This is another reason why Bill Clinton warned his fellow Democrats to not aggressively pursue gun control. They're learning through hard experience why.

Proposed Assault Weapons Ban Dropped in Defeat

In another blow to anti-Second Amendment politicians, Harry Reid let extremist Dianne Feinstein know that her bill to ban assault weapons was being dropped from existing legislation. In the best-case-scenario the bill only had 40 supporters.

All this was was a giant waste of time apparently initiated for political theater which the liberal, mainstream media ate up. It was never going to happen. Period!

Feinstein is even trying to recoup some dignity after being publicly trounced by the electorate, which overwhelmingly oppose the liberal from California.

Even the media watching it die attempt to offer support to Feinstein, saying it could come up for a vote later. Who cares? It's dead. It's going to be voted down and trounced again if it is brought up.

The disingenuous Reid read the handwriting on the wall and knew the moderate Democrats being pressured to vote for the legislation would get hammered in the next election, which could result in a huge shift in power for the Republicans.

This happened with Obamacare, and will no doubt happen again if these draconian attempts at taking away the right of Americans to bear arms is passed.

The pathetic Feinstein is living in the ultimate state of denial by again blaming the NRA for all of this. It sounds like Hillary Clinton when talking about the "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Liberal nuts like these can't see that it's the American people that oppose all of this, not special interest groups that exist as a representative of that opposition. If there were no NRA there would still be just as much opposition to gun control as there is now.

While this is one victory we have to be careful, as this, in my estimation, has always been a set up to get other legislation passed which now appears to be less intrusive to Second Amendment advocates.

What is being proposed now is to combine the other bills together in order to put pressure on conservatives and moderate Democrats to vote for it. Unless they're totally blinded to the immense support they have, they would have to be politically suicidal to sign on to any of these ridiculous bills.

Just a little while ago sequestration was being presented as a disaster for Republicans. No one even cares about it in the aftermath, and things are going along just fine now.

Not only will that be the same with guns, but it will be even more beneficial for Republicans and conservatives going forward.

"New Ketucky Rifle" Demand Soaring for Kentucky Craftsman

The Kentucky Rifle is famous in America for playing a major part in winning independence by America in the Revolutionary War. Now the "old" Kentucky rifle - a muzzleloader - has been set aside as the AR-15 is now considered by many to be the "new" Kentucky rifle.

To that end master craftsman Keith Pitt in Lexington Kentucky has built a solid business manufacturing these amazingly high quality guns which he can't keep up with the orders on, and has had to shut down the ordering mechanism on his website because of the huge demand after Sandy Hook and in wake of political focus on the AR-15.

Larue County News reports:

Before the mass killing at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Keith Pitt's AR-15 business in Lexington, Kentucky was growing at a good pace, but after the murders he couldn't keep up with orders, as people bombarded his online store in anticipation of the possibility AR-15s would be banned or restricted.

Orders became so robust that Keith has had to temporarily close his online store, which is found at Accurate Armory.  

On the front page of the popular site there is a message that says this: "Due to the overwhelming demand for AR-15 rifles in the current political climate, we are so back ordered that we have taken our online store offline, temporarily."

continue reading ...

Twisted Thinking of Anti-Gun Oregon Columnist

Writing for Oregon Live, Ronald Berkheimer, who thinks he knows what the meaning of the Second Amendment really is, participates in the typical tortuous thinking which makes all of his ilk look ignorant and lazy in their homework.

As many other have done, he attempts to place the meaning of the Second Amendment in a history he believes in. Supposedly those conditions negate the right to bear arms in some instances.
Here are the words of this sad, challenged soul:

There is an obvious difference between shotguns or hunting rifles and assault weapons. Even Wayne LaPierre has not claimed assault weapons have any other purpose but to kill human beings as quickly as possible. They should be available only to the nation's armed forces.

First of all, let's look at his projection of his thoughts on those of Wayne LaPierre. Since he says Wayne LaPierre has not made any claims that so-called assault weapons, and so that has to mean he also believes they are only made for the purpose of killing human beings, is as silly a conclusion I've ever heard in an attempt to defend any idea. It's ludicrous, disingenuous, and completely dishonest.

To impose those ideas on LaPierre is nothing more than an outright lie by Berkheimer. Some how he has evidently figured out how to know what someone thinks by their not saying anything about it. Great gift he thinks he has.

That's not the worse thing in his column though. It's the continual repeating of the term "assault weapon" which is the biggest lie. There are no such things as assault weapons. Period.

Now I'm making that statement coming from data related to rifle used in homicides in general in the United States. For example, in 2009, less then 350 rifles were used to murder people. That's in a country of over 300 million. It's statistically irrelevant (although not to the victims of course).

The point is what are called assault weapons aren't even a significant factor in the 10,000 or so homicide deaths coming from guns annually. The term is used in an attempt for that to be the base for starting to restrict gun ownership in America.

Anyone with a brain knows that automatic and semi-automatic guns are primarily used recreationally, and secondarily as protection. The major purpose could be protection, but I'm referring to usage, not intent here.

Also notice the term weapon. Now an rifle of this type isn't just a rifle, or even an assault rifle, it's now an assault weapon. The reason gun opponents are using that phrase is it eliminates the idea of recreational use, which is what is done with the guns by most people.

Again, people can buy them for protection, but unless a dangerous situation occurs, the only use they have is for practice and fun.

This data-challenged columnist, filled with his anti-gun rhetoric, looks completely silly in his article.

No Consensus for Connecticut Lawmakers on Gun Laws

The inability for Connecticut lawmakers to reach an agreement on gun-control laws shows how deeply Americans resent politicians interfering with their right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

As usual, Democrats attempted to restrict guns, wanting to ban so-called assault weapons which account for very few homicide deaths in the United States.

The usual idea of limiting magazines to a small number of rounds was part of the legislation, as was the attempt to expand the number of "assault" weapons that would be banned.

Republicans rejected both laws, although they support strengthening background checks of some sort.

When the crazy nut killed 20 children at the elementary school, and the public still supports the right to bear arms in that state, it means lawmakers need to think in a totally different way to address the problem.

Rand Paul has offered the best idea, which many others agree with, and that is to have trained and armed school employees on hand in order to protect the children and others. That is the only way to limit the damage and make killers think twice about entering the advertised gun-free zones that the public schools are.

Other public areas like churches already have armed personnel on hand, which has cut back on the attempts to kill members of the congregations.

As for those willing to kill people using firearms, they aren't going to be deterred by penalties of stiffer jail sentences. A person reaching that decision has already lost rationality and control.

No law can protect people, and so defense needs to be the way this is handled.

Never Give Up Your Guns

As a Department of Justice memo communicates, there are very few crimes associated with high capacity magazines and assault weapons, and ridding the country of them would do extremely little to affect the number of gun deaths in America.

Nevertheless, they are using the lie in order to terrify American citizens about something that doesn't exist, in order to give the illusion of a problem so the real outcome of banning as many guns as they can is implemented.

Here's what some of the Department of Justice memo said:

Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime. The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions...Therefore a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides...

There you have it. Period. It's a non-factor, and in fact there really is no such thing as an assault weapon in America because there aren't any statistically relevant crimes they are used in.

As a matter of fact, homicides attributed to rifles in 2009 came under 350. That's only a little over one person killed in America per million using a rifle.

The bottom line is the gun owners in America need to understand we should never give up our guns for any reason.

We have a right to bear arms, and no government entity in the United States has the authority to countermand the Second Amendment, no matter how the evil authorities and mainstream media attempt to spin it.

Authorities know they can't end the right to bear arms in a single swoop. What they'll do is take a little at a time away from gun owners if we allow them to. We can't allow that to happen, and need to be vigilant and resist.

No one is going to be allowed to take guns away from Americans unless they can be manipulated into believing it's the right thing to do, and is done voluntarily.

Law enforcement knows there is no way even a fraction of guns can be confiscated, and so will work upon the weak conscious of many people in hopes of wearing down resistance so they'll meekly give them up in the years ahead.
 
This is why it's important for the enemies of the right to bear arms and protect ourselves and our families are working so hard to get anything passed at the federal or state level. Once something is in place, they'll use that as a foundation to expand gun restrictions and regulations.

Why should we never give up our guns? Because this has nothing to do with gun control, but everything to do with people control. That is the end-game in America, and we can never let that happen, no matter what the cost.

.

Federal Gun Control Efforts a Charade

The growing resistance to any type of federal gun control law reveals the anemic and and weak position gun control fanatics have over the majority who support the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms.

Most of the hype is media-induced, and other than liberal conclaves in large urban areas, there aren't many places that really want to do anything to interfere with gun ownership.

As data are revealed as to the real numbers associated with guns used in murders, it is found that there are in fact very few murders a year that include four or more victims. The average per year is only 35 deaths within those parameters, referring to a specific place and time.

The other reason the gun control supporters are losing is the data also obliterate the false narrative that so-called assault rifles need to be heavily regulated. The truth is there is no such thing as an assault rifle, if it's being measured by murders, as it's accountable for under 350 murders a year, according to 2009 statistics.

So when media focus on these rifles, they're clueless or liars as to the danger posed by them. As far as them being banned, the huge number of these types of rifles are so plentiful, that it would be impossible to make a serious attempt to round them up.

It makes no sense whatsoever when the vast majority of murders as a result of guns are not done using a rifle. Consequently, this is a meaningless and fruitless exercise not based at all in reality.

Background checks are also being strongly resisted because there is no will to expand to private citizens the requirement to keep records of sales to other private citizens. This is another unenforceable joke, whether or not it was ever implemented. Politicians would pay a huge price if they attempted it in most places in the country.

Bloomberg's inept and obvious attempt to make U.S. citizens and politicians think there is a rising tide in people wanting to adapt gun control by his spending over $2.2 million for a gun control candidate to win in Chicago, only underscores the feeble and weak movement that it is.

How does a extreme liberal Chicago district which simply replaced one gun control supporter with another translate into a statement of any kind? As a matter of fact, the opponent of Robin Kelly had as good a chance at winning as Kelly did until a last minute media blitz paid for by Bloomberg turned the tide.

What that means if Bloomberg didn't come in to really change the outlook and perception of those that understand the issue and the Chicago political scene, rather it was a desperate move to combat the reality that even in Chicago people preferred a pro-gun candidate. It would have been a disaster for the gun control movement to be humiliated there, which it should have been without the outside interference.

Bloomberg can't buy every election, even with his deep pockets, and it only confirms the extreme weakness and lack of support for trashing the Second Amendment by rich thugs like Bloomberg.

In the end, we will probably see a full retreat by right to bear arms opponents. As people understand the data and facts, they are beginning to smell a rat with those trying to trash the Second Amendment, and that's why even Bill Clinton, whether you like him or not, is politically astute as to which way the political winds are blowing. He warned Obama and the Democrats not to try to attack gun rights and the Second Amendment, and he obviously was right.

The good news is liberal Democrats could take a beating in the next election for daring to shred the constitution even further than they already have.

Media Manipulating Gun Rights Battle

If you do some online searches, you'll find when you search for stories on the gun control, the stories increasingly filling the top spots are states that are favorable to restricting gun use in some form.

That hasn't been the case over the last several weeks, but as the stakes get higher and opposition to gun control rises, the media are trying to make it appear as if a vast majority of Americans are behind gun control, when in fact they are far more supportive of the Second Amendment.

When doing some searching today, all I saw were liberal states like Washington, Colorado, Maryland, Chicago, and Los Angeles on the front search page when searching for gun control.

You can tell they see the handwriting on the wall when the media does as much as it can to influence the minds and hearts of America by making it appear to be a minority that support the right to bear arms.

Along with that, the media continue to identify rifles as assault rifles, even though rifles only account for under 350 (2009) of the approximate 9,000 murders using guns in America. In fact, there is really no such thing as an assault rifle, if you measure it by any statistic for the reasons already mentioned: very few people are killed by them.

In other words, if it's called an "assault" rifle, there must be measurable statistics to show they are used in many killings in comparison with other firearms. How come we don't hear about assault handguns, or assault pistols? That would make more sense when using the inflammatory phrase of assault rifle, as handguns are by far the most used firearm in murders in America.

The mainstream media are trying to paint a united front as the narrative in the battle against the right to bear arms, and by doing that, are hoping to sway politicians to vote in the way the want them to.

If politicians believe there are more favoring gun control, then they will go with it. It's not the case, but the media are attempting to make that false story believable. We need to convince our representative otherwise, and remind them of the consequences of voting to restrict our Second Amendment rights.