You know, pretty much all along I have been saying that one of the reasons Obama has been quiet on gun control is because the Democratic party is still stinging from some previous blowback. However, in a second term, where re-election is no longer an issue, he can impose whatever he wants with virtually no consequence. This is what I believed and some folks actually called me out on it saying not only was Obama not anti-gun he supported pro-gun legislation and that I was just being paranoid and dogmatic.
Please allow me to draw your attention in this direction for a moment:
President Obama tonight said he’s interested in seeing an assault weapons ban reintroduced, breaking his silence on the legislation, which has persisted in spite of at least five mass shootings during his term.
“My belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.
“But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”
As a candidate in 2008, Obama campaigned on permanent reinstatement of the expired assault weapons ban, and Attorney General Eric Holder in 2009 indicated that the administration would lobby for a bill. But that never materialized and the White House has largely avoided talking about it.
Can’t make it much clearer than that. I promise you that tomorrow morning every manufacturer of AR receivers is going to feel like it’s Christmas.
Just so. Saves me the trouble of finding someone to rough this guy up.
His BS excuse:
“Having trained, professional, well-equipped people saying it’s too risky to go up there to get a dog out of there, I couldn’t see the responsibility or how it would make sense for me to get untrained, unequipped, not professional people to go risk their lives to get the dog,” Ortolani said at a news conference on Sunday.
And yet, thats exactly how the dog was rescued. The rescuers retort:
“I just don’t think that his actions have shown that he is a responsible dog owner,” Scott Washburn said. “We understand that he had to leave her there. My wife and I did the same thing. But we ended up going back for her, and we went to some pretty extreme lengths to do so. In my opinion, that is not a responsible dog owner, who doesn’t really care about her.”
I can understand having to leave the dog behind. I really do. But what is utterly beyond redemption is that this guy’s efforts to retrieve his dog did not extend past a few phone calls. Dude, I could be anesthetized, lobotomized, and deep-frozen and you would still have to break my legs to keep me from gearing up, shanghaiing some friends, making every superhuman effort possible and
try to retrieve. my. dog.
This isn’t over. This guy needs to be on some sorta blacklist where if anyone ever sees him with a dog he gets a ride in the back of a police car.
Washburn and his wife this past Saturday, Aug. 11, were on a leisurely hike up Mount Bierstadt in Clear Creek County, a 14,000-foot peak near Denver that is categorized as a “14er” because, as Washburn said, “the peak is over 14,000 feet high and considered a Class 3, meaning it is not the most difficult – but it’s too difficult for a dog to be on it or an inexperienced person.
“We were hiking to this ridge and we got off course and I was a little ahead of my wife,” he said. “She called out to me and said, ‘Hey I found a dog,’ and figured I misheard her ’cause there was no way a dog was where we were.”
This is reprehensible and intolerable behavior from the owner of this dog. This guy takes his dog where he shouldn’t have, leaves the injured dog behind, assumes it is dead and doesn’t even go back for it. Meanwhile the injured dog is slowly dying. Happy ending is that some folks got together and rescued this dog. Happier ending would be the dog not being returned to the sack of crap that abandoned it. Best ending is that sack of crap getting a beatdown to the point he has hysterical flashbacks if he ever comes near another dog.
How someone can do this is beyond me. A dog is willing to do anything for you, follow you endlessly, take tremendous abuse, and still die to protect you. You don’t abandon it at the first sign of trouble and you definitely don’t leave it for dead if there’s even a chance its still alive. When I got Nuke I made it clear that there was a contract between us…we were all part of a team and we do not abandon each other. Ever. He trusts me to take care of him and I trust him to always be there for me. Thats how it works with dogs.
Grrr…now I really wanna go to Colorado and kick this guy in the nuts.
Tam, over at View From The Porch, has a lovely piece about someone stepping on his own dick over the proposal being bandied about to ban the internet/mailorder purchase of ammo by lowly civilians. His idea is that if we surrender Poland, maybe the Germans will leave the rest of Europe alone.
At which point, his Facebook exploded.
So, a guy who makes his business selling ammo is supporting restrictions that will force people to come to him for his ammo. Okay, it’s a bit self-serving, but at least I can understand that. But then it gets clouded in the Neville Chamberlain-ing Bill Ruger-ing of ‘maybe if we throw this one guy out of the sled, the wolves will stop chasing us.’
Back-pedalling and ‘what I really meant was…’ has already started. I dunno about you but if the zombie apocalypse was going on and this guy was the last source for 9mm ammo, I’d forget about my Glocks, go all Daryl Dixon on the zombies and lead ‘em straight to this guys shop.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is in charge of determining whether a gun model is legal, but the agency won’t say much about its criteria.
Despite overseeing an industry that includes machine guns and other deadly weapons, ATF regulations for the manufacture of weapons are often unclear, leading to reliance on a secretive system by which firearms manufacturers can submit proposed weapons for testing and find out one at a time whether they comply with the law, critics say.
The ATF recommends that manufacturers voluntarily submit weapons for case-by-case determination. But those judgments are private and, it turns out, sometimes contradictory. Critics say nearly identical prototypes can be approved for one manufacturer but denied for another.
It’s like some sort of government-institutionalized version of Calvinball.
Pearl Harbor Day today. A good reminder that sometimes things can change in a heartbeat.
Speaking of sneak attacks, the mainstream media (kinda) is catching on to one of the more outrageous things about ATFE’s “Fast and Furious” program. They let thousands of guns go into Mexico and then used the excuse of thousands of guns being in Mexico as cause to try to enact more regulations. This is like the moms at MADD going out to bars, getting liquored up, and then purposely driving their cars into pedestrians in order to encourage tougher DUI laws. It really is the classic case of government creating a problem so it can position itself as the solution. And, mind you, this is just an instance of this sort of behavior that we know about. Perhaps they’ve done this sort of thing before.
But, remember, this administration has no agenda for gun control. None. We’re all just paranoid bitter clingers.
Not as good as having his head in a sack, but you take what you can get. I’m guessing that he’s taking one for the team and he’s just the sacrificial anode in a hot water tank full of corruption. Still, anything that makes ATFE look bad is good enough for me. Article.
I normally refrain from using profanity in blog posts because with the huge amount of verbiage available to me in the English language there should be plenty, more descriptive, and more accurate terms available to get my point across.
But, to no ones surprise, discussing the TSA brings out the George Carlin in me.
I really dislike talking about it, but I once spent 6 hours with my hands cuffed behind my back in a jail cell because the TSA goons didnt know the difference between firearms packaged correctly for airline travel and those that werent. Since then, I put TSA employess in the same category as the guys in the death camp guard towers…dont tell me “its just a job”.
So, the goons at TSA are now saying that once you go into the inspection/detection process youre committed. If you refuse, you can be arrested and face about $10k in fines. Personally, Im not seeing where the TSA actually has the authority to physically detain anyone. However, if I have to go through this absurd and, to me, unconstitutional process I have no intention of making it easy. I’m gonna wear my Utilikilt, sans underwear of course, and if it looks like theyre gonna put on the gloves and start groping I am gonna close my eyes, concentrate on my favorite high-definition internet porn, and conjure up a massive erection so that when that waste of life starts groping under the kilt he finds a deadly weapon alright……
Ever hear the old expression about how “when the revolution gets here, the first ones up against the wall are gonna be….”? I , of course, dont mean it literally….really. But metaphorically, when the political revolution gets here I hope the first agency ‘up against the wall’ is the TSA and a few of the other goons at Fatherland Security.
TSA: Making America Safe One Strip-Searched Grandmother At A Time