Saturday, February 7, 2009


Immediately after the election, I vowed to never ever bring anyone who voted for Obama to the range with me. They had voted for the most anti-gun candidate ever, a man who said "yes" to the question "Do you support state legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" so I decided I would not allow a liberal to touch my guns or use my ammunition. The protection of the Second Amendment was clearly not an issue they cared about - they were dazzled by hope! and change! despite all warnings that perhaps what they would end up getting would be the opposite of what they wanted - so I clung. Bitterly.

Time passed, I calmed down and for a while now I've wavered. I've thought that perhaps I could convert them somehow through my love of shooting, gently bring them into the fold, show them that being a free person means being able to take care of yourself. I vacillated, thinking that perhaps I'd take them to the range if they asked and paid their own way. I was willing to compromise.

But today, I woke up to this video. It was posted on almost every gunblog I've read so far this morning.

I'm done compromising.

*Am I on the list? Are you? Also, recently overheard at a gunshow : "Why does the government assume that they are the only ones with a list?"


DJMooreTX said...

One possible exception:

A first-time shooter who's wavering and wants to see what the fuss is about. Never turn down the opportunity to educate.


Aside from that, yup. Anybody who shoots, and voted for Obama, is On The Other Side.

Shun them. Shun them publicly and as harshly as possible. Make them cry; make their children ask them why they hate freedom.

reflectoscope said...

His argument sounds about as cogent as Ms. North Carolina's.


Weer'd Beard said...

You very well might be on the watch list.

Ted Kennedy is on it because some IRA terrorist uses that name as an Alias (or it's the same name, I forget).

Nothing but the gun grabbers getting that pesky due-process out of the way.

Hypnagogue said...

I think I just had a Dead Zone moment.

Rachel said...

Agh. You know, this would still be really draconian and terrible (where's all the outrage from the leftists who foam at the mouth about the Patriot Act? Not that I'm a huge fan of it, but sheesh) even if the no-fly list weren't a total joke, rife with errors, with no real way of telling if it's THIS John Smith or THAT John Smith, and no means for citizens to find out if they're on it or to clear their names if they are and shouldn't be. Innocent until proven what?

We have gun-owning friends who are strong on the second amendment and yet voted for Obama. They were so dazzled by the hopechange -- or in some cases by his melanin levels -- that they insisted he would NEVER take away our gun rights, even with all evidence to the contrary, because at one point he said he wouldn't. Can't take them shooting anyway, because obviously they're stone blind.

sigdoc said...

The Left is the natural intellectual home of totalitarianism.

Rustmeister said...

So, if I heard him correctly, one the AWB was allowed to sunset, handgun crime went up.

M'kay. 2+2 must equal five in his world.

Sean said...

I would love to actually see the reports showing that increase in violence. Every survey I've seen per capita dropped. Just saying.

Mike W. said...

Sean & Rusty - Well he couldn't be a gun-grabber without being a straight up liar.

hiroshi_tea said...

"baaa! baaaa! baaaa!"
that's what i heard when the people started clapping. it's shameful

Brian in California said...

At the end of his rambling he states that the expiration of the "assault weapon" ban lead to a 35% increase in violent crime with hand guns. Really Rahm? So he's stating that the expiration of a ban on semi-automatic long guns with certain cosmetic features has caused people to commit more crimes using hand guns, a class of firearms not banned by the AWB? Only in bizarro-world does this logic make sense.

AztecRed said...

Where are all the libs who were screaming about Bush's "shredding" of the Constitution?

Not a peep from them. Hmmm...

45superman said...

Does anyone know when Rahm The Thug delievered that speech?

Not that it really matters--I'm just curious.

Robert said...

The most vile evil is done behind a screen of good intentions.

Robert said...

I'd take them, but make the point that in the future, this will all be illegal.

TJP said...

I'm laughing at the video. The disarmers are the bull in the china shop. I don't think civilization has previously witnessed such a clumsy attempt at controlling the populace. They aren't even attempting to mask their ignorance. How do they expect to officiate when they don't even understand the game? They don't realize that they are uniting the opposition by attacking the way they do. (And then they look like a bunch of kookbats when they blame it on a big NRA conspiracy when the fractured "gun culture" unites to counterattack. Idiots.)

Breda! I know you don't like to be told what to do on your own blog, but consider this: what would we be reading now if Mike had simply assumed that one particular female Democrat we know wasn't worth the effort?

sigdoc said...
The Left is the natural intellectual home of totalitarianism.

The left was the first to propose that the state possess all rights and powers, but the only difference between the wings right now is expansionism versus nationalism.

Breda said...

TJP - you have a good point. But I do want to say that the enlightenment I came to on my own, the guns and shooting were secondary.

GreyBeard said...

"Sean & Rusty - Well he couldn't be a gun-grabber without being a straight up liar"

Point well taken, I can't help but wonder is this jerk, wouldn't be happiest, if he could put ALL Constition believers on this list!

Heath said...

There's a reason I loaned Mike Unintended Consequences...

Anonymous said...

So I guess if some individual with your name is on the no-fly list you have no rights recognized by the Constitution? No free speech, no habeas corpus, no right against self incrimination or right of due process, no right against unreasonable search and seizure, no right of a trial by a jury of your peers, no right against any cruel or unusual punishment, and how about no abolition of slavery. If you take away one, why not take away all of them? Seems like the next logical step to me. Then put everyone on the no-fly list then you've done away with that pesky constitution and allow the president to rule until he decides he decides he doesn't want to anymore since there aren't term limits anymore and no more elections.

We're really close to that slippery slope friends.

Margie K said...

Where did he get his STATS? Did he just make them up?

trebor1415 said...


I know several shooters and RKBA supporters who started either with zero interest in guns or who were specifically anti-gun.

One is my wife. She had no interest in guns and the idea of voting *against* someone because they favored gun control would have mystified her. Guns and gun rights just weren't on her radar.

Now she's a shooter and is very aware of these issues and, since her co-workers know she's into guns and married to an instructor, she's the "go to" person when someone wants to learn how to shoot.

The best way to educate someone as to why gun control laws are BAD is to take them shooting. Once they try shooting for themselves, they'll understand that guns are not mystical tailisman's of evil.

And, once they try a gun that holds more the 10 rounds, or how a "semi auto assault weapon" is really NOT a machine gun, they'll be more likely to understand why laws banning those are just idiotic.

I've actually said, "Oh, you liked that gun. Just so you know, it's one of the guns that was banned for 10 years and they are trying to ban again," and they got it.

So, don't give up on the libs or Obama voters. A little education goes a long way and every person we expose to shooting NOW is one LESS vote for a gun control agenda in the future.

We lost the last election. Let's educate more people so we win the next one.


Tam said...


"Does anyone know when Rahm The Thug delievered that speech?

Not that it really matters--I'm just curious.

I believe it dates to 2007.

45superman said...

'Kay--thanks, Tam.

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

confirmed May 2007.

i'm sure ram is more nuanced and realistic NOW....

Anonymous said...


As a fellow Ohioan and a conservative firearms owner, I ask you to reconsider. Most of those liberal anti-gun voting people are just ignorant. Ignorant of history, ignorant of politics and ignorant about the liberal propoganda machine called the mainstream media.

My wife was scared of guns and an anti when I first met her. The first time she came to my house, she backed out of the bedroom faster than she entered when she saw the 12 ga. shotgun leaning in the corner.

Three years ago she was working at a firearms distributor and bout bouth of our girls 22 rifles. She doesn't shoot a lot but, she now understands the lies of the liberals and has changed sides.

Never give up an opportunity to educate someone. It is the only way we can survive the liberal slant that everyone gets from the media and our educational system.

Take a liberal shooting today and plant the seeds of a new conservative.

Anonymous said...

Breda, I believe you are action on emotion and fail to understand that the ignorant and ill educated are not the enemies. To paraphrase” Please forgive them because they do not see”. The Rahm Emmanuel’s of the world have only the same power that each one of us have, the ability to persuade. If you leave the field to him he shall have the power you choose not to use.

So do not hold against the Obama voters because gun rights were not that important to them. There are many important issues and I / you do not have the right to declare that everyone shares our important issue.

You can change the ideas and emotions about guns with your one-person/ shooting range education plan. Think of it as compound interest. Each person educated and who becomes an enthusiast and later brings along others to become educated and enthusiast has a compound result that you cannot see at the stage.

You can make a difference and so do all the other gunnies that have taken up your idea to take one anti and fearful one to the range and indoctrinate the newbie into the joys and issues of gun rights.


Dimitri said...

Firstly, not all liberals are pro gun control.

Secondly, partisanship is retarded.

Thirdly, choosing a candidate because of one issue is silly.

Robert said...

My experience is that if people don't understand the 2nd Amendment issue, they don't understand any of it.
One issue tells you all you need to know. And that's not just me being stupid.

Yes, partisanship is retarded. I wish Obama and the Democrats would wise up.

Wild Deuce said...

For the unborn, one particular issue isn't silly ... it's the only issue. said...

That brings to mind a simple question:

What *other* rights should someone whose name appears on the no-fly list be deprived of, without due process of law, burden of proof for placement, or legal recourse for removal?

Remember, these people are (or are named the same as people who are) so dangerous that they are neither allowed to own a firearm or fly on an airplane! I think it's a reasonable expectation that if they are that dangerous they don't need to mix with society.

RickR said...

The thing is, those are RIGHTS, period. They haven't done anything to legally lose them.

That list is so befuddled, you will be taking the RIGHTS away from thousands of people whose only crime is to have a similar name.

A friend of mine has been picked up by the cops twice because a guy down the road from him is a two-bit crook with a similar name. They don't look alike, they are not the same age. The name just flags & here comes Barney Fife & company.

I have a very common name, I sure as hell don't want to have my RIGHTS violated every time some moron can't tell the difference between me and the crook/terrorist down the steet.

Just another stupid idea to make it look like they are doing their jobs as they spend the country into ruin.

SpeakDog said...

It's very telling that on the website, when you look at the Bill of Rights section, it says this:

"The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms."

Check again, you power grubbing assholes. The 2nd Amendment doesn't GIVE us anything. It PROTECTS our right to bear arms.

I never in my wildest dreams thought I'd ever actually fear for the future of the Republic. I honestly wonder if we can recover from the damage being done by Obama and his minions.

B Smith said...

Here in Southwest Ohio, our notorious sheriff has closed one jail due to 'lack of funding' and has laid off a rather large portion of his force. Hence, our jails are overcrowded, and criminals are being given 'deferred sentencing' until jail space is freed up for them---"go home, and come back to serve your sentence on such-and-such date" !!
It doesn't take a criminal mastermind to know how THAT is turning out.
I am on the verge, I really am, of just shrugging my shoulders and embracing (or at least resignedly accepting) the title 'criminal'. The LAWS changed, not right nor wrong, nor me.

Assrot said...

I'd like to know where this idiot gets his statistics on homicide and violent crime rates.

It sure as hell isn't from any valid, scientific study of the available data.

You can't cure stupid. It's born in a lot of Democrats and other such Liberal folks.

A very few have life altering events that make them see the light but it is rare. I'd say impossible in this idiots case.


tanksoldier said...

A candidate's stand on the 2nd Amendment is an excellent barometer of their place on other issues. Since the One has virtually no voting record to look at we kinda have to go with what we do have.

A pro-gun candidate will almost always take the side of personal responsibility whatever the issue.

Anti-gunners will almost always be in favor of the nanny-state.

NoelArmourson said...

The text over the comment input box reads "Be polite, please." That's difficult when commenting about this lying anti-freedom power-grabbing statist who has just been elevated on my own disgusting persons list.

Lil said...

November 2008 was the first time I voted Republican (not just my vote for President, but pretty much across the board) since I registered to vote in 1987. The Second Amendment issues weren't my only reason, but they were far from the least reason why I've jumped the fence. Most of the Democrats who were on my November ballot scared the hell out of me. Makes me want to get a concealed carry permit while I still can.

benEzra said...

I don't know who originally said this (it is usually cited as "Arabian proverb," but has also been attributed to both Lao-tzu and Bruce Lee), but I think it may be applicable here:

"There are four sorts of men:

"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not; he is a fool, shun him.

"He who knows not, and knows that he knows not; he is simple, teach him.

"He who knows, and knows not that he knows; he is asleep, wake him.

"He who knows, and knows that he knows; he is wise, follow him."

(Quoted in William Shepard Walsh, _Handy-Book of Literary Curiosities_ (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1909), 593,

In my experience, if someone is willing to go to the range with you, or rationally discuss the issue with you without sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "lalalala" or refusing to face facts, they are probably in the second category above. Teach them. Some will learn.

John B said...

Reason I got my carry permit.
On the Seattle side of the state there's a person with my exact name. He has 7 charges of assaulting a police officer, and then he whines in court that the cops pick on him because he's black.
NICS will always make me wait a week to even pick up a rifle, because of this winner.

I don't even want to meet the John B on the no fly list!

Firehand said...

So far as single-issue voting, I can't remember who said that the stand of a politician on the 2nd Amendment tells you what they think of you: whether you're an adult citizen capable of acting responsibly, or whether he thinks you're a peasant too stupid or untrustworthy to be allowed to make your own decisions.

45superman said...

I imagine you're thinking of former TX state Rep. Suzanna Hupp, who watched as her parents were gunned down in Luby's Cafeteria, because her gun, in accordance with Texas law at the time, was left in her car, leaving her unable to defend them.

tkdkerry said...

Thirdly, choosing a candidate because of one issue is silly.

I'm a little late to the party, but tell us, Dmitri, how many issues does it take to be serious? Does this look about right?

1 = Silly
2 = Fluffy
3 = Light hearted
4 = Concerned
5 = Semi-serious
6 = Serious
7 = Dead serious
8 = Don't f*** with me!

cmacivor said...

What you are suggesting is really a non sequitor. Not all liberals want gun control. Most of my progressive friends do not want any. I get distressed when I hear about all of the gun violence, and an assault weapons ban has some appeal, but it is rather low on the list. So low in fact i have never checked anyone's voting record on that issue prior to voting.

MY father and my brother have / have had guns. I have been shooting with my brother. I would go again because i enjoyed it.

My only issue is that I do not understand why people need assault weapons, but that does not mean that I want guns banned, although I originally favored an assault weapons ban.

benEzra said...


"Assault weapon" is gun-ban-lobby-speak for the most popular non-automatic civilian rifles in the United States. They dominate recreational and competitive centerfire target shooting in the USA, and are by far the most common defensive carbines in U.S. homes.

Proposed bans on "assault weapons" are very much like bans on "subversive speech" aimed at stifling political expression. The term is intended to shut down critical thought and provoke a response based on fear or anger rather than reason, and to make draconian restrictions seem reasonable.

More Americans lawfully own so-called "assault weapons", as defined by H.R.1022 et seq, than hunt. And given that all rifles combined account for only 3% of U.S. murders, they are hardly a menace to society. But banning the most lawfully owned guns is the raison d'etre of the U.S. gun-control lobby, and the "assault weapon" fraud is a means to that end.

Further reading, if you're interested, that may give you an idea where we're coming from:

Mike W. said...

"My only issue is that I do not understand why people need assault weapons, but that does not mean that I want guns banned, although I originally favored an assault weapons ban."

It's not about "need." Why do you "need" a computer and a blog? Maybe we should ban those and you can go back to using pen & paper to express yourself.

You say you "don't want guns banned" then say you "originally favored an AWB." If you support a BAN, then it'd logically follow that you want guns banned.

Why do you support banning "assault weapons?" Do you know what they are? Do you support banning "assault speech" too, merely because you think it might be scary or dangerous? said...

Mike's response is classically a turn off. Hostile and confrontational. I won't even dignify it with a response.

Thank you Ben Ezra for your rational response and polite response. I'll be happy to check out the article.