Is Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik responsible for death threats against Tucson Tea Party Co-founder?
Only hours after the tragic shooting in front of the Safeway grocery store in Tucson and without any evidence to substantiate his claim Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik blamed the shooting on everyone including but not limited to, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox News and the Tea Party. Apparently the shooter, Jared Loughner had no culpability in the shooting. He was just a victim of the so-called ‘vitriolic’ talk from the aforementioned. ‘Vitriol’, for the uninformed is any talk that goes against liberal policy.
Even after it was learned that the shooter didn’t listen to Sarah Palin, Limbaugh, Beck or Fox News Dupnik and others continued their rant, apparently in a shameless effort to subscribe to White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel’s credo of, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
Since the ‘Duper’ planted the notion that the Tea Party was one of the guilty parties responsible for the shooting one can only deduct that it was that vitriolic talk from the sheriff that inspired Tucson liberal activist Eric Fuller to turn to Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries, point a camera at him, take his picture and yell, “you’re dead!”
As Fuller was being forcibly led from the nationally televised News program he was calling members of the audience, “whores”. He also was quoted as saying he wouldn’t appear on Fox News because they would attack him and he would yell at them that they were whores. He apparently likes the term. Probably something only Freud could properly address.
The only thing that we are sure about at this time is according to Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, the shooting was the fault of Sarah Palin, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, people who disagree with the far left liberal agenda and the Tea Party. We also know that Eric Fuller also blames the same group for the shooting and likes to call people ‘whores’.
Fuller is currently under psychiatric observation and he faces charges of threats and intimidation and disorderly conduct. The charges will be dropped, however if Tea Party member, Humphries decides not to press charges. Personally I would press charges. I think it’s save to say Fuller would be short-stroking it when it came to pressing charges against Humphries if the rolls were reversed. Oh, and about ‘good will’ – forget about that. Playing nice with liberals will not buy you any gratitude or points. It’s a one-way street as far as they are concerned.
The final, and possibly most important thing we know is that the ‘Duper’ and Fuller, along with the media whores (sorry, I’m just trying to get a feel for why Fuller likes to use the term so much) have in common is they don’t have a shred of evidence to back their claims – especially since we now know that Jared Loughner didn’t listen to any of the outlets that Dupnik and Fuller claim are responsible. Do facts really matter with liberals? Nah; facts only get in the way. Same thing for standards. They have a double set. One for them and one for the rest of us.
One last thought, will Fuller be a prohibited possessor of a firearm now? He should be, in my opinion. If Fuller murders someone down the road, will Dupnik accept blame for Fuller’s actions? Nah, it’s a rhetorical question.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Breaking news
This just in from my friend, Mark (MiB)
BREAKING NEWS !!
Over 200 million guns were NOT used in crime today.
MiB
BREAKING NEWS !!
Over 200 million guns were NOT used in crime today.
MiB
Tucson tragedy predictably re-ignites gun control attempts
We didn't have to wait long for the anti-gun community to attempt to capitalize on the shooting tragedy in Tucson, AZ.
They predictably prescribe to the Rahn Emanuel credo of: "Never let a good crisis go to waste." They are, in my mind despicable.
There are over 20,000 gun control laws on the books right now. Do they really think number 20,001 is going to be the one that does it? They are illogical morons with no intellectual credibility. They will attempt to equate any resistance to their nonsenseical rhetoric to those of us who use logic, rather than hype as being callous.
Don't fall for it and don't let their attempts go unchallenged.
For full text on latest attempts go to:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/11/lawmakers-talk-gun-control-start-packing-heat/
They predictably prescribe to the Rahn Emanuel credo of: "Never let a good crisis go to waste." They are, in my mind despicable.
There are over 20,000 gun control laws on the books right now. Do they really think number 20,001 is going to be the one that does it? They are illogical morons with no intellectual credibility. They will attempt to equate any resistance to their nonsenseical rhetoric to those of us who use logic, rather than hype as being callous.
Don't fall for it and don't let their attempts go unchallenged.
For full text on latest attempts go to:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/11/lawmakers-talk-gun-control-start-packing-heat/
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Never let a good crisis go to waste
Tucson, AZ 01/09/2011
“Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
Yesterday was a sad day for Tucson, for the nation and for the friends and families of the murdered and wounded at a town hall meeting in Tucson.
Gabrielle Giffords was holding one of her many town hall meetings at a local strip mall on the northwest side of Tucson.
It’s reported that approximately 10 minutes into the meet and greet a lone gunman, 22-year-old Jared Loughner walked up to Congresswoman Giffords and shot her in the head at point-blank range. He then began firing his 9 mm. Glock 19 indiscriminately, resulting in the deaths of 5 others, including a federal judge and a 9-year-old little girl.
As the shooter attempted to put a fresh mag in the firearm a woman in the crowd wrestled them away from him. Two men in the crowd wrestled the shooter to the ground. One of them was grazed by a bullet but refused medical treatment until the others were attended to. The woman and the two men are heroes.
As is so often the case, there was much misinformation at first. The news initially reported that Giffords had been shot in the head at close range. Then they reported that she had died. It was later learned that she was in surgery and was in critical condition but they were cautiously optimistic.
In the interest of full disclosure I will offer that I disagree with Congresswoman Giffords on many issues and agree with her on some others. When I heard of the shooting it was as though a friend had been shot, however. When it was reported that she had died from her wound it was as though I had lost a friend. We weren’t friends who went out for dinner or exchanged gifts. As a matter of fact she wouldn’t know me if I was standing beside her in a restaurant. Still, I could disagree on political policies with her and not consider her inherently evil. She never struck me as that kind of person.
In my mind another tragedy was committed following the horrendous act that needlessly took the lives of innocent people and left others wounded. That tragedy was the interview by Pima County Sheriff, Clearance Dupnik. The good sheriff, a man visibly, and understandably shaken by the events of the day decided to subscribe to former White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel’s credo of, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
Dupnik, not content to merely give, “just the facts”, opted to go on a rant in a thinly-veiled attack on right-wing media, the tea-party and ostensibly anyone who disagrees with the far-left radical movement and implying that it was in some way their fault for the shooting.
When the sheriff was first introduced he gave a brief statement and said he would be followed by the Arizona state representative for the FBI. He looked as though he was irritated that another agency would dare infringe on his authority. He introduced the FBI agent as, “Nate Gray”, then he looked back toward the agent as though he was annoyed that it was a new person and said, “Used to be, Green.” It was at that point Dupnik shrugged his shoulders as if to say, “Whatever” and went back to addressing the news people.
After a brief sit rep (situation report), Dupnik went into typical Dupnik/Rahn Emanuel mode and launch into a nonsensical tirade on those he thought to be responsible for the senseless shooting.
“The suspected shooter is Jared Lee Loughner, a 22-year-old who lives on the northwest side. He is mentally unstable and may have had an accomplice, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said Saturday evening.”
I’m not a real psychiatrist and don’t even play one on TV, but I would submit that I find Clarence to be mentally unstable and decidedly an anti-gun, elitist ideologue who attempted to blame the tragedy on the “…vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day-to-day from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business. This has not become the nice United States of America that most of us grew up in.” The sheriff went on to say, ala: Raul Grijalva, Arizona has become the capital of bigotness and prejudice. Sort of reminds me of an old proverb that states it's better to be a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it. Sheriff, you really shouldn't miss a good oportunity to shut up when you're making a fool of yourself on national TV.
Megan Kelly, a news anchor on Fox News and a very accomplished attorney asked Dupnik if he had anything in his investigation to substantiate his claim of the so-called vitriol of TV and radio inflaming the shooter.
Dupnik went on a diatribe that had nothing to do with the question. In true Megan Kelly fashion, Kelly kept pressing the sheriff as to whether he had anything to back his claims of whether the shooter had even listened to TV or radio commentators. In the end he had to admit that it was only his opinion. When Megan asked if he should be adding fuel to the fire he answered, "I guess that will be for your viewers to decide." The man is a moron! I don't want him shot, either. I just want him voted out. He's an embarrasment to our comunity.
It doesn’t take a giant leap to figure out who that statement was directed at – any radio or television host who disagrees with far left Democrat ideologues or people bothered by the constant attack on the Right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens. He’s never been bashful about his views on private ownership of firearms.
Rest assured that Dupnik, Obama and all the anti-gun populace will be short-stroking this tragedy in an attempt to advance their anti-gun agenda and their quest for endless gun laws. Lest you think I'm exagerating:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4490428/did-vitriol-on-airwaves-trigger-arizona-attack/
As someone who is trained in personal protection I can assure you that anytime you have someone who is willing to trade their life for yours, you have a tough road to hoe. It is already illegal to murder someone. The law is very tough on the murder or attempted murder of a Congress person and especially a federal judge. Clearly he was not going to be deterred by any law – especially a gun law. This guy was a nut job (don’t ya love people knowledgeable in medical terms), in my opinion. He had a long history, going back to high school days as an outcast and very disturbed.
I, and many others have political disagreements with our politicians. Having a political disagreement with someone doesn’t equate to a desire to murder those who disagree with us, however. Lord knows I disagree with how our current President is running our country. I also disagreed many times with how President Bush was running the country. I know of many who feel the same, but like me have never entertained the idea of killing them. You simply work to have them voted out of office next time and hope for the best.
What this terrible tragedy has shown us is
1. If someone is willing to trade their life for yours, gun laws won’t stop them.
2. Democrats like Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and others will not pass up an opportunity to subscribe to the Rahm Emanuel credo of, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
3. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik really is worse than even I thought and needs to be replaced in the next election. He’s a politician – not a sheriff.
The shooter is a deranged person who’s problems have been well-documented long before the so-called ‘vitriol’ Dupnik spoke of.
Here’s to a full and speedy recovery, Gabby. I’ll be praying for it.
“Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
Yesterday was a sad day for Tucson, for the nation and for the friends and families of the murdered and wounded at a town hall meeting in Tucson.
Gabrielle Giffords was holding one of her many town hall meetings at a local strip mall on the northwest side of Tucson.
It’s reported that approximately 10 minutes into the meet and greet a lone gunman, 22-year-old Jared Loughner walked up to Congresswoman Giffords and shot her in the head at point-blank range. He then began firing his 9 mm. Glock 19 indiscriminately, resulting in the deaths of 5 others, including a federal judge and a 9-year-old little girl.
As the shooter attempted to put a fresh mag in the firearm a woman in the crowd wrestled them away from him. Two men in the crowd wrestled the shooter to the ground. One of them was grazed by a bullet but refused medical treatment until the others were attended to. The woman and the two men are heroes.
As is so often the case, there was much misinformation at first. The news initially reported that Giffords had been shot in the head at close range. Then they reported that she had died. It was later learned that she was in surgery and was in critical condition but they were cautiously optimistic.
In the interest of full disclosure I will offer that I disagree with Congresswoman Giffords on many issues and agree with her on some others. When I heard of the shooting it was as though a friend had been shot, however. When it was reported that she had died from her wound it was as though I had lost a friend. We weren’t friends who went out for dinner or exchanged gifts. As a matter of fact she wouldn’t know me if I was standing beside her in a restaurant. Still, I could disagree on political policies with her and not consider her inherently evil. She never struck me as that kind of person.
In my mind another tragedy was committed following the horrendous act that needlessly took the lives of innocent people and left others wounded. That tragedy was the interview by Pima County Sheriff, Clearance Dupnik. The good sheriff, a man visibly, and understandably shaken by the events of the day decided to subscribe to former White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel’s credo of, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
Dupnik, not content to merely give, “just the facts”, opted to go on a rant in a thinly-veiled attack on right-wing media, the tea-party and ostensibly anyone who disagrees with the far-left radical movement and implying that it was in some way their fault for the shooting.
When the sheriff was first introduced he gave a brief statement and said he would be followed by the Arizona state representative for the FBI. He looked as though he was irritated that another agency would dare infringe on his authority. He introduced the FBI agent as, “Nate Gray”, then he looked back toward the agent as though he was annoyed that it was a new person and said, “Used to be, Green.” It was at that point Dupnik shrugged his shoulders as if to say, “Whatever” and went back to addressing the news people.
After a brief sit rep (situation report), Dupnik went into typical Dupnik/Rahn Emanuel mode and launch into a nonsensical tirade on those he thought to be responsible for the senseless shooting.
“The suspected shooter is Jared Lee Loughner, a 22-year-old who lives on the northwest side. He is mentally unstable and may have had an accomplice, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said Saturday evening.”
I’m not a real psychiatrist and don’t even play one on TV, but I would submit that I find Clarence to be mentally unstable and decidedly an anti-gun, elitist ideologue who attempted to blame the tragedy on the “…vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day-to-day from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business. This has not become the nice United States of America that most of us grew up in.” The sheriff went on to say, ala: Raul Grijalva, Arizona has become the capital of bigotness and prejudice. Sort of reminds me of an old proverb that states it's better to be a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it. Sheriff, you really shouldn't miss a good oportunity to shut up when you're making a fool of yourself on national TV.
Megan Kelly, a news anchor on Fox News and a very accomplished attorney asked Dupnik if he had anything in his investigation to substantiate his claim of the so-called vitriol of TV and radio inflaming the shooter.
Dupnik went on a diatribe that had nothing to do with the question. In true Megan Kelly fashion, Kelly kept pressing the sheriff as to whether he had anything to back his claims of whether the shooter had even listened to TV or radio commentators. In the end he had to admit that it was only his opinion. When Megan asked if he should be adding fuel to the fire he answered, "I guess that will be for your viewers to decide." The man is a moron! I don't want him shot, either. I just want him voted out. He's an embarrasment to our comunity.
It doesn’t take a giant leap to figure out who that statement was directed at – any radio or television host who disagrees with far left Democrat ideologues or people bothered by the constant attack on the Right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens. He’s never been bashful about his views on private ownership of firearms.
Rest assured that Dupnik, Obama and all the anti-gun populace will be short-stroking this tragedy in an attempt to advance their anti-gun agenda and their quest for endless gun laws. Lest you think I'm exagerating:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4490428/did-vitriol-on-airwaves-trigger-arizona-attack/
As someone who is trained in personal protection I can assure you that anytime you have someone who is willing to trade their life for yours, you have a tough road to hoe. It is already illegal to murder someone. The law is very tough on the murder or attempted murder of a Congress person and especially a federal judge. Clearly he was not going to be deterred by any law – especially a gun law. This guy was a nut job (don’t ya love people knowledgeable in medical terms), in my opinion. He had a long history, going back to high school days as an outcast and very disturbed.
I, and many others have political disagreements with our politicians. Having a political disagreement with someone doesn’t equate to a desire to murder those who disagree with us, however. Lord knows I disagree with how our current President is running our country. I also disagreed many times with how President Bush was running the country. I know of many who feel the same, but like me have never entertained the idea of killing them. You simply work to have them voted out of office next time and hope for the best.
What this terrible tragedy has shown us is
1. If someone is willing to trade their life for yours, gun laws won’t stop them.
2. Democrats like Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and others will not pass up an opportunity to subscribe to the Rahm Emanuel credo of, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
3. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik really is worse than even I thought and needs to be replaced in the next election. He’s a politician – not a sheriff.
The shooter is a deranged person who’s problems have been well-documented long before the so-called ‘vitriol’ Dupnik spoke of.
Here’s to a full and speedy recovery, Gabby. I’ll be praying for it.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Start Treaty folly
"Obama warns that failure to ratify a new arms control treaty with Russia will undercut American leadership on scores of challenges it faces worldwide."
And does anyone, aside from the very naive believe that we can actually trust the Russians, anymore than they think they can trust us?
Of course in typical Obama/Democrat fashion they crammed it down our throats 3 days before Christmas recess.
And now that they signed this ridiculous treaty that they claim *had* to be passed as a matter of National security -- even though they say it's non-binding, the Russians are saying, not so fast. It's going to be at least a month before they can decide if it's what they want. Do keep in mind that for every one tactical nuke the U.S. has, the Russians have 10!
Medeved and Putin are laughing at this Harvard grad for being such an idiot. Obama is like the geek who doesn't realize the other kids are laughing with him; they're laughing *at* him and all of his so-called 'progressives' for being so stupid.
I will say it again, he and his ilk have done more to destroy this nation in two years than the Russians could ever hope to accomplish in decades. He's willing to jeopardize the welfare of our great nation, at any price, so long as he thinks our enemies love him. Here's a tip for you, Barry, they don't love you, they're using you and you're too wrapped up in your own ego and Marxist agenda to realize it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/19/senate-return-sunday-debate-russia-nuclear-arms-reduction-treaty/
And does anyone, aside from the very naive believe that we can actually trust the Russians, anymore than they think they can trust us?
Of course in typical Obama/Democrat fashion they crammed it down our throats 3 days before Christmas recess.
And now that they signed this ridiculous treaty that they claim *had* to be passed as a matter of National security -- even though they say it's non-binding, the Russians are saying, not so fast. It's going to be at least a month before they can decide if it's what they want. Do keep in mind that for every one tactical nuke the U.S. has, the Russians have 10!
Medeved and Putin are laughing at this Harvard grad for being such an idiot. Obama is like the geek who doesn't realize the other kids are laughing with him; they're laughing *at* him and all of his so-called 'progressives' for being so stupid.
I will say it again, he and his ilk have done more to destroy this nation in two years than the Russians could ever hope to accomplish in decades. He's willing to jeopardize the welfare of our great nation, at any price, so long as he thinks our enemies love him. Here's a tip for you, Barry, they don't love you, they're using you and you're too wrapped up in your own ego and Marxist agenda to realize it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/19/senate-return-sunday-debate-russia-nuclear-arms-reduction-treaty/
Is 'Big Brother' watching you from the sky?
Think the government is being on the up and up with how they're violating your Rights and whether your 4th Amendment Rights are being violated?
You need to click on to this link and see what they're up to. Of course everything they do is in the name of security and making you safer. Safer from whom? Who is going to protect us from them?
Does police state come to mind when watching this? This is a must-see video.
http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/security/houston-police-use-drones-to-spy-on-public.html
You need to click on to this link and see what they're up to. Of course everything they do is in the name of security and making you safer. Safer from whom? Who is going to protect us from them?
Does police state come to mind when watching this? This is a must-see video.
http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/security/houston-police-use-drones-to-spy-on-public.html
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org
Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?
On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn't true, is it?
Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org
Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?
On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn't true, is it?
Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
