This equivocation by Judge Sotomayor is not surprising, given that she was nominated to the Supreme Court by Barack Obama, who has made numerous appointments of persons hostile to the Second Amendment, e.g., Biden, Emmanuel, Clinton, Sebilius, and Napolitano, to name a few.  (If you are a gun owner who voted for Obama, curse yourself and send a large contribution to a pro-gun organization.  Think of your donation as compensatory damages for a really dumb vote.)

If you have not already done so, please call your US Senators and ask them to oppose Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the highest court in the land.  She will almost undoubtedly be confirmed over our objections, but we can at least let the Senate know that Americans are watching their actions and will hold them accountable during the next election and beyond.  (See my post, “Obama picks anti-gun Supreme Court nominee,” 05-28-09, tagged, “Sotomayor.”) 

Def Mech

The two young men, one of whom had long pink and purple hair, obviously believed Obama, when he said that he supported the Second Amendment and that he wasn’t going to take any one’s guns.  I have trouble with that rationale, since Obama has never voted for individual self-defense rights, as far as I can tell.  He has sponsored anti-gun legislation, made anti-gun rights statements, and favored gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C.  He picked anti-gun Joe Biden as his running mate and appointed anti-gun Emmanuel and Holder to key positions.  I hope the young men are right about Obama.

The reluctant voter opined that Obama will be too busy with economic issues, health care legislation, and foreign policy problems to tinker with the Second Amendment.  This gun show visitor anticipates a deepening oil crisis as seasonal consumption increases and supplies dwindle.  I have trouble with this belief as it relates to the Second Amendment.  There were at least fourteen anti-gun bills in Congress in 2008 that can be renumbered and effortlessly reintroduced for the approval of the Democrat-controlled House and Senate and the Signature of “The Chosen One,” if he decides to pay the likely political price for such actions. (See my post, “If Obama wins, you lose legal gun rights. He only has to sign the bills.” 10-30-2008, Category: “Elections.”)

The loquacious Liberal, so affectionately nicknamed, because he was willing to talk about the issues, felt that pro-gun rights organizations serve only as promoters of gun and ammunition makers and dealers.  It is his view that no one is going to try to take guns away from American Citizens.  Like many Liberals, he displayed a remarkable ignorance of the history and science of the debate on individual liberty.  He was unaware of the research by Gary Kleck out of Florida on the estimated 2 million defensive uses of firearms every year in response to criminal attacks.

He was also unaware of gun confiscation in New York, New Jersey, and California.  You can’t blame this individual for not being aware of these issues, since they are seldom if ever mentioned in the Liberal-controlled Mainstream Media.

He also didn’t believe in the NRA and Firearms Coalition of Colorado characterizations of the often draconian and unrealistic elements in many anti-gun rights bills.  I personally read many of the bills and have concluded that the NRA and FCC descriptions are usually spot on.

This gentleman was also skeptical about any sort of centrally-controlled plan by rich and powerful people to put Obama in the White House and establish a permanent Liberal dynasty in American politics.  He politely accused me of paranoia.  I responded by saying that my paranoia doesn’t mean there isn’t a threat.  I hope I am merely paranoid.  The Constitution and the country are much safer, if I am only paranoid.  I urged this man to read The Shadow Party by Horowitz and Poe.

The loquacious Liberal was upset over gun crime.  I assured him that honest gun owners support prosecution of illegal gun use.  I should have mentioned that NRA-certified instructors do most of the police firearms training in America.  I neglected to mention important scientific studies, which indicate that gun control laws don’t seem to reduce crime and that guns don’t cause crime.  (CDC Study, NAS Study, Small Arms Study) I did mention to him that Prohibition corrupted the police, fostered widespread disobedience of the law, and promoted the rise of criminal gangs made wealthy by black market alcohol sales.  He agreed that we do not seem to be winning the War on Drugs.

This man did understand that gun control isn’t working in Mexico.  He admitted that gun control divides citizens into classes-those that may legally defend themselves and those that may not.  Strangely, he didn’t seem to be bothered by the distinction.  He did seem to have some sense that the Individual Rights Movement has as a goal the prevention of tyranny.

All of these people apparently believe that a Democrat Party funded by George Soros, Move on, the Joyce Foundation, the Bell Campaign, the Brady Campaign, and the Violence Policy Center will not seriously try to weaken the rights recognized by the Second Amendment.  The four seem to think that the Party with 14 draconian anti-individual rights bills in Congress will somehow forget about the goals embodied in those proposed regulations.  The gun show patrons in question must think that the Obama Transition Team’s four point anti-gun agenda will somehow get lost in the political shuffle.  Maybe it’s all just rhetoric and window dressing. (My post, “Anti-gun Obama takes off the mask!” 11-08-2008, Category: “Elections.”)

You know, I hope those four are right.  I would like nothing better than to be able to report at the end of Obama’s first term that there were no attempted infringements of the natural, fundamental rights of the American People to armed self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide.

I hope I’m wrong.  I hope the NRA, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Gun Owners of America, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the Pikes Peak Firearms Coalition, and all the other Second Amendment civil rights organizations are mistaken.  Unfortunately, I don’t expect to be surprised, given the records and pronouncements of Obama, Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Dodd, Holder, Emmanuel, et al.  Too many leopards would have to change their spots.

Def Mech

This absence of early activity does not mean that a spree killing with a semi-automatic weapon in a “gun free,” criminal-safe free fire zone could not provoke a storm of anti-Second Amendment legislation. There is still much time available for bills to be introduced that could negatively impact the legal rights of Coloradoans to armed self-defense from crime, tyranny, and genocide.

The early calm could also mean that state gun control radicals are waiting to see what happens at the federal level under a decidedly anti-gun Obama Administration. There are currently about 14 anti-individual rights bills before Congress. The Obama Transition Team has listed four anti-gun priorities. See my posts, If Obama wins, you lose gun rights. He only has to sign the bills,” and “Anti-gun Obama takes off the mask,” under the Category, “Elections.”

Hopefully, the Democrats at the state and federal levels will find better things to do than tinker with the fundamental individual rights of Colorado Citizens that were recognized by the Second Amendment. Stay alert!

Def Mech

What the News article didn’t mention is that Rocky Mountain News/Denver Post Columnist David Kopel deconstructed the factcheck.org analysis in a post on the Volokh Conspiracy.  (The News and the Denver Post are both owned by the same company, the Denver Newspaper Agency.  I don’t suppose the writers of the newspaper article read posts on the Volokh Conspiracy Website.)

Still, on balance, the News article presented a more even-handed approach to reporting on the gun issue than I am accustomed to finding in the Mainstream Media.  The Rocky Mountain News is currently in financial trouble and may have to close.  It would be a shame to lose a relatively impartial Colorado newspaper source.  Hopefully, the Rocky  will be picked up by someone who will try to maintain a hint of objectivity with regard to the individual right to armed self-defence against crime and tyranny recognized by the Second Amendment.

Def Mech

According to the Brady Campaign, the new regulation was to go into effect on January 9th, allowing almost two weeks of unbridled carnage in the national parks, before the incoming administration kills the rule change forever.  My previous post on the subject was apparently incorrect in that the new regulations have not yet, and probably will never take effect.  (See the post, “Look for five weeks of legal concealed carry in national parks,” under the Category “Concealed Carry.”)

I had previously predicted that there would be five weeks of concealed carry before “The Chosen One” and his minions again infringed on the natural, fundamental rights of American Citizens to armed self-defense against crime and tyranny.

According to the Brady press release referenced above, concerned school teachers were “canceling or curtailing school trips,” to national parks, because of rampant hoplophobia, i.e. the fear of legally armed citizens in those areas.  If the Brady Campaign and its supporters were not incredibly well-funded and as serious as a heart attack about disarming American Citizens, their actions would be simply unbelievable to the point of absurdity, in my humble opinion.

Please see my posts under the Category “Psychology” to gain additional information about how seemingly rational people can come to believe that disarming honest citizens reduces crime.  The Brady press release refers to “numerous studies” that purport to show that concealed carry increases crime. Naturally, they fail to cite any such “studies.”

“The Chosen One” has promised everything to everybody.  I think some people are going to be disappointed.  Hopefully the Brady Campaign and its supporters will be among the crestfallen.

Def Mech

“I’m not going to be able to do you much good,” the man from the United Kingdom told me.  “We’ve already lost our rights.  You can’t even own a pistol.  Once they get their foot in the door, they just keep pushing.”

“Understand,” to use a favorite expression of our “Ruler-Elect,” the UK is the “Gold Standard” for American gun control fanatics.  It is their Utopia, their “Holy Grail.”  “If only the U.S. could be like the oh so sophisticated British!”

What American gun ban advocates are really saying is that, “If we could only be subjects instead of citizens, then Liberal elitists could think for us and protect us from ourselves.”  The question is, once they make America a prison, “Who will guard the guards?”

If we do not stand up for the legal right of the People to keep and bear arms without government infringement, we will indeed become subjects, not citizens.  The next election cycle has started.  Contact your elected representatives to express your support of the rights recognized, not granted, by the Second Amendment.  Join pro-individual rights organizations.  Associate yourself with candidates that will defend your natural, fundamental right to armed self-defense against crime and tyranny.  Do it now! Deserve to be called a Citizen, not a Subject!

Def Mech

If this belief were close to reality, Liberals should be terrified of the police, the military, security guards, and yes, of felons who carry illegal guns.  I would think that park volunteers should currently be more worried about the marijuana farmers, muggers, rapists, and murderers that already “roam” the national parks looking for victims in criminal safe, free-fire zones created by previous government bans on possession of defensive weapons.

Concealed carry permit holders have proven to be more law-abiding than the general population.  In Colorado, to get a concealed carry permit you have to pass a background check and attend a training course.  The above mentioned criminals didn’t bother to comply with the laws.  (Darned mean-spirited, irresponsible criminals!)  As one young gang banger said on a Denver talk show a few years ago, “If you’re going to smoke somebody, you don’t need no paperwork.”

Mr. Tempel and others with concerns about the “demonic” nature of guns can rest easy.  I will be surprised if the easing of the national park restrictions survives the first month of the Obama Administration.  (See my post, “Look for five weeks of legal concealed carry in national parks,” 12-06-08, under the Category, “Concealed Carry.”)

I guess I do have a question about the desirability of more severe restrictions on guns in this country.  After the Liberal Elites turn America into one of the largest prisons in the world, “Who will guard the guards?”

Def Mech

The research found that the so-call “Gun Show Loophole” (private sales without background checks between individual citizens) did not impact murder and suicide rates in the month after the shows that were studied. Admittedly, one study doesn’t necessarily provide conclusive proof, but 3,400 shows seems like a decent sample size.

Evidence contines to mount in support of the intuitive conclusion that restricting the rights of honest citizens doesn’t have a beneficial effect for society with regard to the felonious use of firearms. This is not surprising to objective, serious students of the fundamental, individual right to armed self-defense against crime and tyranny recognized by the Second Amendment.

Had this study come out favorable to gun control, you probably would have seen it in the Mainstream Media. By the way, the “Ruler-Elect” wants legislation to close what seems to be the non-existent “Gun Show Loophole.”

Def Mech

It seems “fifteen Illinois law enforcement officers” were busted by an FBI sting for taking money to protect drug dealers in “The Windy City,” AKA “that tumblin’ town.”  Funny how draconian anti-gun laws seem to go hand in hand with violence and corruption in places like Chicago, D.C.,  Jamaica, and Mexico.  (See my posts on Categories “Foreign Gun Laws,” and “Gun Law Failures” for more information.)

Wonder if President-Elect Obama, AKA “The Chosen One,” will send troops to take over police duties in his old stomping grounds.  The Mexican Government has resorted to that drastic measure, because of the corruption of police agencies by the drug trade south of the border.  (Prohibition-type laws just don’t seem to work, do they?)

I anticipate that Obama will decide that police corruption can best be fought across our country by imposing Chicago-style gun laws on the rest of us.  Hopefully we will escape the corruption of Chicago-style politics and the violence inherent in a crime-ridden disarmed society, but I doubt it.

Def Mech

Churchill said, “Politics are almost as exciting as war, and quite as dangerous.  In war you can only be killed once, but in politics many times.” 

In war, one of the ways that you anticipate “imminence of hostilities” (IOH) (the other side coming to kill you) is the amount of artillery fire and aerial bombardment that the enemy devotes to a particular position that you hold. Another way to foretell an attack is to analyze intelligence information about the location of the enemy’s tank and infantry units. If they are massing in front of one of your positions, they are probably going to try to overrun it.

A buildup in the area of a particular position, accompanied by bombardment on and behind the potential enemy objective are usually strong indicators of IOH in a particular sector of the battlefield. The intelligence officer or commander also must look at the history of the enemy. Is he cautious or aggressive? What maneuvers has he used in the past? Does he attack directly or rely on misdirection and diversionary raids. The friendly analyst and unit leader must also be aware that the enemy will try to mislead our people as to his true intentions by disinformation. (The enemy will try to fake us out and lie about what he plans to do. He may even lie to his own troops.)

On some occasions, when the enemy believes that he has an overwhelming advantage in numbers, equipment, and machines, he will simply tell you about his plans in the hope of demoralizing your troops and civilian population. Propaganda leaflets, radio and TV broadcasts, newspaper and magazine articles, and bombastic speeches often play a part in these campaigns of intimidation.

Does the enemy have the capability to attack? What forces does he have available? How are they equipped? Do they have the ammunition, food and transportation that they need to sustain offensive operations against us? As Pearl Harbor so painfully proved on December 7^th in 1941, failure to acquire, correctly interpret, and act on IOH information can have catastrophic consequences.

How does the war metaphor apply to the current situation of law-abiding gun owners in America? I believe there are strong IOH indicators of impending infringements by the incoming Obama Administration against the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the rights recognized by that important pronouncement.

In politics, the battlefield scenario is made up of public opinion, legislative muscle, and political will. Propaganda translates into artillery and air preparation for an attack in the war metaphor. I have recently seen three examples of Liberal attempts to propagandize the American Public with regard to the desirability of gun control.

 Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore’s slanted indictment of “The Gun Culture” has been showing up more often than usual on cable TV.

Dear Wendy, a movie about a bunch of teenage losers and the “true (evil) nature” of guns, seems to be getting more air time than it has in the recent past. The Sundance Channel, a reliably Liberal media outlet aired this naked propaganda flick last week. Look for it again and again, as the Left ramps up their anti-gun rights campaign.

On 12-06-08, MSNBC, that paragon of “even-handed” reporting presented “Armed in America,” a documentary (first in a series) that purports to “describe how guns wind up in the hands of criminals,” and “the role that guns play in gang violence and drug trafficking.” (See my post: “Has your gun caused “personal injuries or property damage?” under the category, “Psychology.”)

With regard to the massing of forces, the Dems have at least thirteen anti-Second Amendment bills in Congress. One of them allows the Attorney General to declare that you are a terrorist based on hearsay information. Once you have been branded, you will not be able to fly on a commercial flight and you will not be able to legally own a gun. Confront your accuser? Not! “National Security” concerns trump your constitutional rights. (See my post: “If Obama wins, you lose legal gun rights. He only has to sign the bills,” under the category, “Legislation.”)

Obama’s record on guns is not a good one.  The Democrats have a long history of anti-individual rights activity. This questionable past includes the anti-immigrant NYC Sullivan Law, Jim Crow Laws in the Post-Civil War South, the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Clinton “Assault Weapons” Ban, the Lautenberg Amendment that retroactively denies legal gun ownership to persons previously convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, and gun bans in Chicago, New York City, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. (See my post: Democrat-controlled cities most violent. Go figure!” under the category, “Gun Law Failures.”) Democrats have promoted predatory lawsuits against gun makers, ammunition taxes, confiscation of citizens’ weapons during natural disasters, and a host of other “nanny state” restrictions on the rights of Americans to armed self-defense against crime and tyranny.

Barack Obama keeps assuring “bitter” gun owners that he is not going to “take” their firearms. However, he supports the Chicago handgun ban and the Washington, D.C. Council in their defiance of the Heller ruling with regard to a ban on semi-automatic weapons and the continuing requirement that guns be disassembled or locked up until an actual home invasion. (See my post: “Heller goes after D.C. once more with feeling,” under the category, “Courts.”) Does BHO support the Second Amendment? Is he spreading disinformation? You make the call.

The Democrats look like they will have a 58-vote edge in the U.S. Senate. That number is just two votes shy of a 60-vote, filibuster-proof “supermajority.” How many Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) are there in the Senate? The Democrats certainly have to capability to eviscerate the Second Amendment, if they want to spend the political capital to do so.

A cautionary note! The Dems might do well to recollect what happened in 1994, after the Clinton “Assault Weapons” Ban, when they lost both Houses of Congress. Are there enough “Blue Dog” Conservative Democrats to offset the RINOs, who will probably defect to the Left on votes affecting the fundamental individual rights of their constituents?

Will the GOP be able to enforce party discipline to keep the RINOs in line? Will Obama learn from Clinton’s mistakes? Will reinforcements arrive in time to save the American patrol from the Al Qaeda terrorists? (Oops! Not politically correct!) Revisionist version-Will the main force units of the imperialist, Eurocentric, running dog occupiers arrive in time to fight off the righteously indignant, morally equivalent, indigenous freedom fighters, who are not necessarily connected with any religious sect? Whew? That was close! (For those of you recently educated in American Public Schools, that was sarcasm.)

I believe, based on the available information, that the Obama Administration is about to launch a massive offensive against the Second Amendment. I hope that I am wrong about this important issue.

If I am right about the impending offensive, I believe the only thing capable of saving the fundamental individual rights of American Citizens recognized by the Second Amendment is a massive public outcry like the one we saw last spring that derailed the impending Immigration Bill. If eighty-million U.S. gun owners stand up and say, “No!” even the Hard Left Democrats will have to listen.

Def Mech