EPA--the most dangerous agency in America

Since the idiotic ruling by the Supreme Court that the EPA can regulate any and all sources of the harmless gas CO2, the potential power grabs by the federal government of literally every facet of our lives, included breathing, are moving forward.

Because bullets necessarily contain lead, and the EPA defines lead as an environmental contaminant, they believe that they have the authority to ban all bullets(bullets containing other materials are considered armor piercing and are therefore illegal already) effectively rendering all privately owned weapons useless. But this stealth assault on the 2nd amendment by the voracious federal bureaucracy is precisely what we would expect from the adolescent Marxist in the white house. A disarmed populace is an easily controlled populace. Meanwhile the EPA is stockpiling weapons for enforcement purposes. Be afraid!

20 months ago it would have been farcical to envision a time in which the EPA, having been given unlimited powers of regulation and enforcement, assumed authoritarian power over the citizenry. But now, it's very imaginable if not likely.

Go out and buy all the guns and ammo you can afford before our petty, tyrannical overlords get the ban in place.

Home invaders get schooled on the 2nd Amendment

The pitiful main-stream media won't report it as such because they are 2nd Amendment opponents but, this is a 2nd Amendment story through and through....

Police said two men forced their way into an apartment at 2:54 a.m. Sunday, where about 10 people were celebrating at a birthday party.

After robbing them of cellphones and wallets, the men and women were moved to different areas of the home. One of the male victims, who had a gun, shot Lavant, who was found dead outside the complex.

The moral of the story: armed citizens are rarely victims of violent crime. By employing the use of a weapon, this private citizen prevented all these people from becoming victims. Good for him.

If you are as inspired by this story as I am, go out tomorrow and purchase a hand-gun and load up on ammo.

"Well, I shot him again, and I guess that was it,"

Apparently a young couple with children were attacked in a home invasion by two thugs armed with a shotgun. The couple decided that on this particular day, they would not be victims. They struggled with the gunmen and by the time it was over, one was as dead as a door-nail and the other was skulking off somewhere, wounded. And the family walked away.....good for them!

This is what happens when individuals decide to defend themselves, their families, and their property from armed intruders. And individuals defending themselves is what liberal elitists can't tolerate in society. We should all remain unarmed and dependent on the government for our protection, despite the fact that the police are reactionary, they don't prevent crime before it happens.

You can go here and read the whole story. Then if you decide that you don't want to be a victim either, go out and buy a gun for self-defense.

Three ways.....

Nicki over at Liberty Zone has a friend who designed this T-shirt with this image on it. I think, more than any other promotion about the usefullness of a weapon in the hands of a would-be victim, this simple message pretty much sums it up. Do you want to be a victim, or do you want to NOT be a victim? I'm thinking of getting one and you should too, especially if you live in a liberal, anti-gun community, and you'd really like to not just annoy, but antagonize your insufferable, anti-2nd amendment neighbors. Click the link to get yours today.

You gotta love the Nuge'!

Crazy rocker and gun nut Ted Nugent was giving a concert in England, where most private ownership of guns is banned, and where they've had a rash of knife attacks lately. Well, the Nuge', never at a loss for words, had this to say to the crowd in between songs....[WARNING: suggestive, off-color content]

"Now I understand that London has a knife problem. That's because you took everybody's guns away. If you had a [bleeping] gun, you could shoot the mother [bleepers] with the knife. Do you need me to explain that to you dumb Limey mother [bleepers]? In Detroit, we don't have a knife problem. The knife mother [bleepers] got a Ted problem. You wonder why we win all the vegetable-growing contests? Because we fertilize our gardens with dead mother [bleeping] ass [bleeps]."

I'm sorry, but that's funny! And he's right on the money.....I guess the Brit government expects regular people to defend themselves, their property, and their families with close-quarters, hand-to-hand combat. That is if they're expected to defend themselves at all. In the bizarro world of English political correctness, the criminals have all the rights.

It's rare that I get to use the "music" and "guns" tags on the same post.

Reader Mail

Reader Hamster brought up some good points in the comments thread of this post about guns last week.

Hamster, good points all. Let me address one or two of them...

The founding fathers knew what an oppressive government could do to individual freedom. It's in part why they left Great Britain. Even if you reject that the entire Bill of Rights describes individual rights, without individual gun ownership, the government can oppress the people whenever it wants. The framers recognized that a man's home, land, and body are sacred and without absolute ownership and protection from the government, he's not really a free man. Guns are not only an actual protection against government tyranny, they are symbolic as well.

Abortion, prohibition, homosexuality, suffrage, are all examples of choice-based population behavior. They are not examples of the aggressive interaction between individuals and their government. You suggested that we should let the people vote on every issue. What if a majority voted to not let women vote? We'd always have a republican President, that's for sure. That's the difference. Gun ownership plays a non-legislative, fundamental role in our lives, regardless of current popular culture trends. Those other things are just life-style choices. Besides, without guns, how would the colonies have thrown off the yolk of British tyranny?

In a less philosophical argument, by our Constitution, our police force can only be reactionary, not preventative. They cannot do anything to anybody who hasn't committed a crime. And that's a good thing. But for that reason alone, individuals must be able to protect themselves from the gun massacres you fear. There's not single mom from Virginia Tech who wouldn't give her own life if just one student or teacher had carried a weapon into class that day and killed that lunatic before he slaughtered 31 or whatever the body count was.

When the police force/government can absolutely guarantee that we are totally safe from gun violence and victimization no matter what, and that the government will never, never try to seize my property unlawfully, then we can discuss a reduction in gun ownership. Until then, don't even think about robbing my house or taking away my guns.

States rights are exactly what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and all the limits on government it includes. The federal courts have usurped those rights until there is almost no such thing as states rights any more. Yes, let the people decide. Theoretically we already do...every time we vote. The problem with letting every state make up different laws for every issue is that essentially we'd have 50 little fiefdoms operating independently. There should be some consistency when it comes to many issues, but states should be able to alter the laws a little here and there. For instance: everybody can own a gun but the qualifications that must be met vary from state to state.

Lastly, we don't want democracy. Democracy is mob rule. You have democracy when two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner. The form of government we have is a representative republic. At least that's how it's supposed to work. Our representatives write the laws as we direct them to, and the courts interpret them as to constitutionality. If we don't like the laws they write, we throw the bums out at the next election. The problems arise when the judges become activists and rule based on their personal politics rather than on strict constitutionality. Which brings us around to the differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals see activist judges as a means to get their whacky, anti-American agenda into law, where conservatives think that regardless of whether the judge likes the law or not, the only question is, is it constitutional? That's why election and voting are so important. Republicans tend to nominate strict constitutionalists while democrats always nominate activist pinheads who legislate from their bench.

Anyway, I hope this clears up my positions on guns, the role of the judiciary, the Constitution, and individual rights.

Now, I have some ribs and baked beans to eat. Happy 4th TRR readers!

Semper Fi mofo's!

For all you anti-gun zealots out there who think people with guns are more likely to commit crimes, read this....

PLANTATION, Fla. -- A retired United States Marine disrupted a robbery in progress when he shot two men who attempted to rob a Subway sandwich shop, fatally wounding one of them, police said.

According to Plantation police, two armed men barged into the Subway at 1949 Pine Island Road shortly after 11 p.m. Wednesday, demanding money from the employee behind the counter.

When they tried to force John Lovell into the bathroom, he pulled out a gun and shot both men, police said.

Donicio Arrindell, 22, was shot in the head and later died at the hospital. Fredrick Gadson, 21, was shot in the chest and ran from the Subway, but police found him in hiding in some bushes on the property of a nearby BankAtlantic.

I absolutely delight in retired military guys sending would-be thugs off to their eternal dirt nap. Now, if anybody would like to object with this guy's right to carry his weapon, and use it, I would love, love to hear your argument.

With conceal/carry, everybody is safer....except the criminals.

More guns equal less crime

A new conceal/carry law went into effect today in Georgia...

The new state law, which Bearden(R-Villa Rica) sponsored, permits licensed gun owners to carry concealed firearms in parks, on public transportation and in restaurants that serve liquor.

I predict, contrary to bed-wetting, liberal hysterics about guns, violent crime will plummet as as result of this legislation. When the criminals don't know who has a gun and who doesn't, they tend to select carefully their victims. Good for Georgia.

Aside: this guy Bearden was planning on taking his weapon to the Atlanta airport to pick up a relative in order to test the TSA's ban on firearms in airports. Wisely, TSA said he'd be arrested the second he steps foot on airport property. Carrying a gun around your neighborhood is one thing but where security is provided, they should have the right to ban them if there is a compelling reason to do so...psychiatric facilities, airports, and police stations are three places that come to mind.

We are citizens, not subjects

For the first time ever, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the restriction of privately owned handguns. It turned out exactly as I predicted in a 5-4 ruling with liberals Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens dissenting. My favorite Justice Scalia, wrote for the majority. Here's part of the article over on Breitbart.com....

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

Excellent ruling today! This ought to shut up, once and for all, the harping by anti-gun nuts and liberals who want an unarmed society in which only the criminals and the government have guns.

UPDATE: From reading the coverage of this slim victory of constitutionalists like me, I've gathered these points: 1. That this victory hinged on how Justice Kennedy felt when he got up this morning is scary. 2. That 4 Justices ruled against the second amendment is even scarier. 3. If Gore or Kerry were President, it would be all but impossible to purchase or own a firearm in America. 4. When Obama becomes President and the liberals control the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ginsberg and maybe Kennedy will almost certainly retire. Ginsberg will be replace by another raving mad liberal, but Kennedy, the lone centrist, will also be replace by a raving mad liberal. Then the balance of the court will be 5 liberals to 4 conservatives. Then you'd better hide your guns.

Citizens or subjects

A big decision comes down from the Supremes tomorrow regarding gun control...

The U.S. Supreme Court today did not release its long-awaited ruling on whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. That means the potentially landmark decision will almost certainly come tomorrow morning when the court is planning to issue the last of its rulings for the term. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, could settle the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.

I predict Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas will overturn the ban, with Kennedy siding with the majority. Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens, and Souter will predictably uphold the ban. As liberals, they loathe the idea of individuals being able to defend themselves against the tyranny of the State or from other individuals.

I read this comment on another blog today and it fit so perfectly my gun-ownership ideas, I decided to repeat it....

"Citizens are armed, subjects are not. We shall remain armed"

Let's hope that's how it turns out.

Aggrieved families shakedown taxpayers

This story is getting a lot of attention today. Everybody's asking, "Aren't the lives of those children worth more than 11million divided 21 ways?" I'm not asking that. Instead, I'm asking, why in the world do the taxpayers of Virginia owe these families anything at all?

ROANOKE, Va. - Most families of victims of the Virginia Tech shootings have agreed to an $11 million state settlement to compensate families who lost loved ones, pay survivors' medical costs and avoid a court battle over whether anyone besides the gunman was to blame.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said Thursday a "substantial majority" of families of victims of the Virginia Tech shootings agreed to the settlement.

Peter Grenier and Douglas Fierberg, who represent 21 families, said the settlement was worth more than $11 million, but neither they nor the governor would discuss its terms until final papers are drawn in a few days.

Grenier and Fierberg said seriously injured victims "will be well compensated and have their health care needs taken care of forever," and that families who lost loved ones would be "similarly compensated and cared for."

So, by virtue of the fact that they suffered a very public loss, they have a right to seize some of their fellow tax-payers' earnings? Call me a thoughtless ass if you want but, if something bad happens to a member of my family, do I get to extort fabulous cash and prizes from the taxpayers of my state as obscene compensation for my loss? What burden of responsibility to the taxpayers of Virginia have, that they must provide lifelong health-care? Do these families not have life insurance policies on their kids? Why are the taxpayers of Virginia on the hook for a shooting in a gun-free zone? For that matter, why were the American taxpayers on the hook for compensation($7billion) to the 9/11 families or Katrina families? Why are they owed more than what they provided for themselves with life insurance?

I'm sorry, these lawyers have convinced these families(for a handsome 30% fee no doubt) to extort money from their fellow taxpayers while everybody still feels sorry for them. It's a shakedown operation plain and simple. You either pay us now to go away, or pay us later when we drag weeping parents in front of a jury and blame VaTech, the state, and anybody else with lots of cash on hand for their grief. And the disappointing thing is that I'll bet not one family member stood up and said, wait a minute, this isn't right. They probably genuinely believe the tax-payers owe them something.

What a perverse, distorted world in which one person believes he has the right to the fruits of the labor of another person simply because something bad happend to him.

Gun buy-back programs.....utter failures

In liberal Oakland recently, the police, in an effort to placate the rabid anti-gun nuts, held another idiotic gun buy-back event. (I'm told that the money comes not from taxes but from siezed money from criminals.) You could bring any gun you wanted down and the cops would give you $250 and ask no questions. And that's not even the ridiculous part....the guns were supposed to be melted down and made into a statue of peace of some sort, no doubt to appease the sniveling, penny loafer wearing elitists who envision a strife-free, social utopia in which violence exists only in the minds of us Alabama neanderthals.

If I'm a serial murderer, I would love no questions asked buy-back programs. The cops would thoughtfully destroy the evidence of my latest crimes and I could use the money to buy a new guns that have no ballistics history for the cops to trace. Getting guns off the street sounds like a good idea but it's not like taking Percodans out of a bowl at Farrah Fawcetts house. It's not a closed system. New guns are available to replace the old ones. New guns that shoot straighter. Besides the statistics show that only 1 out of every 60,000 lawfully owned hand-guns is ever used in a crime so the efficiency numbers are kind of thin. Buy-back programs only serve to make some people defenseless when they weren't before, and give the murderers a down-payment toward a purchase of new weapons.

"But Ed" you whine, "what about the drug addicts and mental folks? Do you want them walking around armed? Isn't it better if they show up to turn in a gun?"

Sure, but for $250, what do you think a crack-head or a psycho would do to get a gun if he didn't already have one. He'd break into your house, shoot you with yours and then sell it to the cops for $250 with which he'd buy more crack. The cops would ask no questions and melt down the weapon that killed you to make an ironic monument to peace and your murder would remain unsolved. The next day, they'd bust the crack dealer who sold your murderer his crack and seize his money to fund another gun buy-back program, whereupon the crackheads and psychos would go out into the suburbs, where you live, looking for guns.

I like to call that the Circle of Stupidity.

Gun-free zone menaced by gunman

Once again we were treated over the weekend to the tragic news of a disturbed kid shooting up a college campus in Northern Illinois...

Shortly after 3 p.m., Thursday, Feb. 14, tragedy struck the campus of Northern Illinois University. A gunman entered a class in Cole Hall, shooting and killing five NIU students and injuring 18 other students before taking his own life.

I guess that kid didn't hear about the gun-free zone on campus. Of course the MSM will bleat and sniffle about how stricter gun-control laws would have prevented this tragedy. Illinois has some of the toughest gun laws in the country....and some of the stupidest. When are these people going to learn that gun-free zones only makes defenseless victims out of everybody? How many parents of those 23 dead or injured kids do you think would have objected to one trained, armed student taking action in that classroom? It's a rhetorical question because the answer obviously is ZERO!

The tragedy is that there are no laws mandating gun-free zones. These "zones" are contrived by politically correct, bureaucrat loons because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside to imagine a world where peace, harmony, hemp, and petchouli abound. The reality is that there are nuts out there who mean us harm and disarming ourselves makes us easy victims.

If you are a sniveling, liberal, anti-gun moron, then show how stridently you believe in gun-control by placing a sign in your front yard this Friday or Saturday night that reads, "This house is proud to be a gun-free zone". Then see how long into the night your lives last.