Vote tracking: Identifying blue "republicans" and other rinos by their actions.
Coming soon!
Thursday, May 27, 2021
Saturday, April 6, 2013
EDITORIAL: Harassing gun owners
The Democrats go after people who ‘cling to guns’
Illustration by Greg Groesch for The Washington Times more >
U.S. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney’s proposed Firearm Risk Protection Act would make it a federal crime to buy a pistol without first purchasing a government-approved insurance policy. If enacted, this would most affect a single mom in the inner city who just wants to protect her family and can’t afford the expense. Malefactors of her sort would face a fine of $10,000.
Mrs. Maloney, New York Democrat, cites the Commerce Clause as her constitutional authority. Presumably the lesson she drew from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his Obamacare decision was that the federal government has the authority to force citizens to buy insurance for anything the state can think up. (She apparently forgot to call the $10,000 fine a tax.)
Mrs. Maloney’s legislation is what to expect from someone who thinks the only people who own guns are ignorant bumpkins. That’s the view Barack Obama let slip on the campaign trail in 2008, when he described the people who live in industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania or small towns in the Midwest as hayseeds who came to town on the turnip truck. “So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, and they cling to guns or religion,” he said.
Gun control measures such as mandatory insurance aren’t meant to solve actual problems, but to send a punitive message to the “clingers.” Surveys suggest that there’s a gun in up to half of all U.S. households, so it’s hard to argue there’s an uninsured-gun crisis in America.Should Mrs. Maloney’s bill become law, the owner of an uninsured gun in Connecticut would find himself on the “dangerous- weapon offender” registry that a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers wants to create. It’s a subtle way of associating gun owners with sex offenders, the other people listed on a government roll of shame.
The Connecticut lawmakers came up with 10 new gun restrictions. The most outlandish of them would create an “ammunition eligibility certificate” that forbids anyone from buying a single bullet or gun magazine without first undergoing a background check. A firearm magazine is a box made of polymer or steel with a spring inside; it poses no inherent danger to anyone, except to a mouse looking for a piece of cheese. Making it a crime to purchase one without the state’s prior approval is a mean-spirited hurdle to gun ownership.
Imposing a 10-round limit on rifle and pistol magazines is meant to discourage gun owners in the same way that New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s ban on soda cups of more than a 16-ounce capacity was meant, in the mind of politicians such as Mr. Bloomberg, to force individuals to give up sugary drinks.
Creating barriers to gun ownership is “infringement” on the right to keep and bear arms that the Founders, who wrote the Constitution in the clear and forthright language so despised by certain judges, sought to prevent. These unconstitutional proposals must be rejected.
The Washington Times
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Jim Carrey: To dumb to breathe
If these liberal hollywood idiots would keep their stupidity to themselves, we wouldnt have to boycott them. You brought it on yourself Jim.
http://twitchy.com/2013/03/24/jim-carreys-cold-dead-hand-hey-heres-a-song-for-heartless-motherfckers-unwilling-to-bend-for-the-safety-of-our-kids/
http://twitchy.com/2013/03/24/jim-carreys-cold-dead-hand-hey-heres-a-song-for-heartless-motherfckers-unwilling-to-bend-for-the-safety-of-our-kids/
Friday, February 15, 2013
Olympic Arms to New York State – Take Your Business Elsewhere
Olympic Arms to New York State – Take Your Business Elsewhere
Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York.
Olympic Arms
One of those Rights is that to Keep and Bear Arms.Legislation recently passed in the State of New York outlaws the AR15 and many other firearms, and will make it illegal for the good and free citizens of New York to own a large selection of legal and safe firearms and magazines.
We feel as though the passage of this legislation exceeds the authority granted to the government of New York by its citizens, and violates the Constitution of the United States, ignoring such SCOTUS rulings as District of Columbia v. Heller – 554, U.S. 570 of 2008, McDonald v. Chicago – 561 U.S. 3025 of 2010, and specifically the case of United States v. Miller – 307 U.S. 174 of 1939.
Due the passing of this legislation, Olympic Arms would like to announce that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity – will no longer be served as customers.
In short, Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York – henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people.If the leaders of the State of New York are willing to limit the right of the free and law abiding citizens of New York to arm themselves as they see fit under the Rights enumerate to all citizens of the United State through the Second Amendment, we feel as though the legislators and government entities within the State of New York should have to abide by the same restrictions.
This action has caused a division of the people into classes: Those the government deems valuable enough to protect with modern firearms, and those whose lives have been deemed as having less value, and whom the government has decided do not deserve the right to protect themselves with the same firearms. Olympic Arms will not support such behavior or policy against any citizen of this great nation.
Olympic Arms invites all firearms manufacturers, distributors and firearms dealers to join us in this action to refuse to do business with the State of New York. We must stand together, or we shall surely fall divided.Sincerely,
Brian Schuetz
President
Olympic Arms, Inc. AmmoLand supports and recommends Olympic Arms please visit these patriots and support their brand. www.olyarms.com . If you think SIG, Smith & Wesson, and Glock should do the same you can email them at with the tool found here: http://tiny.cc/k9resw .
Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/olympic-arms-to-new-york-state-take-your-business-elsewhere/#ixzz2KxFnN4vJ
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Obam lied abount % of unchecked gun purchases, even his own hand picked data doesn't support his goal of gun confiscation from honest citizens.
Obama lied about the percent of unchecked gun purchases. 1) the data is from TWO DECADES AGO pre brady bill, and 2) According to the original researcher the correct number is 14-22% at that time. Today that number would be even less. Oh, and by the way, according to the same researcher 85% of criminals get their guns through the "secondary"(black) market. I think we can safely assume the rest are through theft. As has been stated, these laws will have no effect on criminals, just on honest citizens. Obama has to lie because even his own hand picked data doesn't support his goal of gun confiscation from honest citizens.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/update-obama-claim-on-background-checks-moved-from-verdict-pending-to-2-pinocchios/2013/01/25/59caeca6-672f-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/update-obama-claim-on-background-checks-moved-from-verdict-pending-to-2-pinocchios/2013/01/25/59caeca6-672f-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html
Monday, January 28, 2013
Any time congress exempts itself from a new law, it's a bad law.
Any time congress exempts itself from a new law, it's a bad law.
Congress is exempted from Obamacare and Feinstein's gun ban. You do the
math.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/feinstein-gun-control-bill-exempt-government-officials_697732.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/feinstein-gun-control-bill-exempt-government-officials_697732.html
OBAMA DECLARED UNCONSTITUITIONAL.
How long have I been saying it?
In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.
The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments he made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and hence the five-person board did not have a quorum to operate.
But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intra-session” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks. They said Mr. Obama erred when he said he could claim the power to determine when he could make appointments.
“Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers,” the judges said in their opinion.
The judges said presidents’ recess powers only apply after Congress has adjourned a session permanently, which in modern times usually means only at the end of a year. If the ruling withstands Supreme Court scrutiny, it would dramatically constrain presidents in the future.
And the court ruled that the only vacancies that the president can use his powers on are ones that arise when the Senate is in one of those end-of-session breaks. That would all but eliminate the list of positions the president could fill with his recess powers.
In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.
The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments he made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and hence the five-person board did not have a quorum to operate.
But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intra-session” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks. They said Mr. Obama erred when he said he could claim the power to determine when he could make appointments.
“Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers,” the judges said in their opinion.
The judges said presidents’ recess powers only apply after Congress has adjourned a session permanently, which in modern times usually means only at the end of a year. If the ruling withstands Supreme Court scrutiny, it would dramatically constrain presidents in the future.
And the court ruled that the only vacancies that the president can use his powers on are ones that arise when the Senate is in one of those end-of-session breaks. That would all but eliminate the list of positions the president could fill with his recess powers.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)