David Mamet "gets it"

Here's a column to read and read again. Some highlights:

Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm Jan 29, 2013 12:00 AM EST

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so. By David Mamet.

• "As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law."

• "The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals."

Obama has the full admiration and approval of the Communist Party USA

This comes as no surprise:

"Communist Party USA is on board with President Obama’s plan to attack Americans’ right to keep and bear arms as a means to “end gun violence.” A cardinal feature of communist regimes, like all dictatorships, is the prohibition of private ownership of arms, creating a monopoly of force in the hands of the State.

In a January 18 article, People’s World, an official publication of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), declared that “the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right — one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.”

Comrade Obama may very well be on the way to another Nobel Peace Prize.

"the teen liked violent video games....."

Who doesn't think the Obama admin is giving Hollywood and the video game industry a free pass on this mass murder outbreak we're experiencing? Anyone who doesn't believe pure evil exists, here he is. 15 years old with an serious attraction to violent video games. Oh yeah, he was pissed at his mom:

Murders his mother, father 9 year old brother and sisters ages 5 and 2.

"ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — The New Mexico teenager accused of gunning down five family members over the weekend ambushed his father as he returned home from an overnight shift at a rescue mission, then reloaded his rifles and planned to go to a Wal-Mart and randomly shoot people, authorities said Tuesday.

Instead, 15-year-old Nehemiah Griego texted a picture of his dead mother to his 12-year-old girlfriend, then spent much of Saturday with the girl and her family, authorities said. That evening, he went to the church where Griego’s father had been a pastor, and Griego eventually confessed to killing his parents and three younger siblings.

“The motive, as articulated by the suspect, was purely that he was frustrated with his mother,”

Get your self organized for the fight.

We're in a battle for our second amendment rights, and what happens in the next year will have an enormous effect on the future of firearms ownership. New legislation banning so-called "assault weapons" is popping up at the state and local levels every day, and Dianne Feinstein's AWB is due to hit the US Senate any time now. We're going to be fighting this effort to ban semi-auto firearms for the foreseeable future. It seems just as we've put out one fire, another erupts in a another place.  Due to the amount of new legislation being introduced, the process of contacting your legislators now has become a routine exercise.  By understanding how your elected officials collect information you can communicate your message in a manner that achieves maximum impact. 

Letters, fax and email: Have a standardized letter written and ready to go that you can easily edit and personalize to fit the circumstances before sending. Remember, your legislators and elected officials probably won't be reading each and every communication they receive. Most legislators have staffers who screen all incoming calls, emails, letters and faxes. The staffers simply keep a tally of for/against any specific issue. Nothing more. Keep it short and to the point, without emotion. And just because you've sent an email doesn't mean you can't call and send a fax also.

Tips on writing to congress here.

Know who your state and federal legislators are, and how to contact them quickly. Here are a couple links to keep handy:

FIND YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS HERE

CALL THE US CAPITOL CONGRESSIONAL SWITCHBOARD HERE

Expressing your views via telephone to your US Congressman is as easy as this: 

"To find your senators' and representative's phone numbers, you may use our searchable online congressional directory or call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 and ask for your senators' and/or representative's office.

 Remember that telephone calls are usually taken by a staff member, not the member of Congress. Ask to speak with the aide who handles the issue about which you wish to comment. 

After identifying yourself, tell the aide you would like to leave a brief message, such as: "Please tell Senator/Representative (Name) that I support/oppose (S.___/H.R.___)."

You will also want to state reasons for your support or opposition to the bill. Ask for your senators' or representative's position on the bill. You may also request a written response to your telephone call."

Stay organized for a targeted, rapid response. And remember, you'll always find these legislative contact links in the right side column of this blog. 

Why do you need an "assault rifle"???

The smugness, it just oozes from this question when asked by some self-righteous liberal. It's supposed to be a loaded question, the person asking it thinks they've painted you into a corner where any answer you give will only support their argument. But the true answer brings the core of this issue into sharp focus: I need a military style semi-auto rifle just like Rosa Parks needed to sit at the front of the bus. I know that comparison is going to make a lot of liberal heads explode, but it's an honest and valid comparison. 

Rosa Parks didn't need to sit at the front of the bus. See, that bus was taking the same route regardless of where Ms. Parks sat, front, back or anywhere in between. It wasn't getting there any faster with her up front. Fuel economy would be the same. Maybe Rosa was in a hurry that day and it would have helped if she could exit the bus a little faster? No, Rosa's bus had a second set of doors in the back for the convenience of rear seat passengers so they could exit just as quickly as someone seated up front. 

Did Rosa Parks "need" to sit up front. No, Rosa Parks wanted to sit up front, and as an American, that makes her a free woman to sit where she chooses. She had every right to choose her seat on that bus. Rosa's actions that day led to much protest and civil disobedience. As a direct result many were sprayed with fire hoses, attacked by dogs, police, beaten, and even murdered, all totally unjustified. Had she sat to the rear as she was told, many African Americans would not have suffered at the hands of angry whites fueled by bigotry and rage. Should Rosa Parks have sat in the back seat like she was told? Hell no. Screw anyone that tries to intimidate and criminalize an honest America for exercising their constitutional rights. 

But I digress. Back to the original question: "Need" an assault rifle? I'm an American, that makes me a free man to own and possess military style semi-auto firearms if I choose. Rosa Parks made her constitutionally guaranteed choice, I've made mine. 

UPDATE: The most common response I get to this comparison is this: "It's not the same thing, it's not the same thing!!!! Rosa park's bus seat didn't kill 26....." 

No, a bus seat is not the same as a semi-auto firearm, but that's not what's at the core of this issue. This is a debate regarding the Second Amendment of the Constitution and whether we will continue to recognize what it says and what our founding fathers intended for it to mean. In the end it will find it's way to the Supreme Court, and over there the only thing that matters is the Constitution. They've very recently ruled on two cases regarding the Second Amendment, and ruled in favor of handgun ownership as it relates to self-defense, Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago. The Second Amendment is quite simple and specific in it's language. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Let's review, shall we: 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say "may be infringed a little bit", or "feel free to disregard". No, "shall not be infringed " is pretty specific language. You don't like what the Second Amendment says, well the Constitution has protocols for changing the amendments. So go ahead, get started. Until then, the second amendment stands as written. And in the same manner the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to Rosa Park's actions that day on the bus, the Second amendment applies to private firearms ownership.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This is a debate about constitutional rights, nothing more. So yeah, it is a valid comparison.