Undeniable Proof That Gun Control Works

Remember Great Britain? It's that civilized and enlightened liberal paradise where a decade ago and in the name of public safety people were asked to surrender their guns?
It was "for the children" of course. But how's the liberal anti-guntopia worked out so far for the Brits you may ask?

From UK's Telegraph:

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.

In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.



Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

'We're now on our fourth Home Secretary this parliament, and all we are getting is a rehash of old initiatives that didn't work the first time round. More than ever Britain needs a change of direction.'

The figures, compiled by the Tories, are considered the most accurate and up-to-date available.

But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.

In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.

There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007.

Experts say there are a number of reasons why violence is soaring in the UK. These include Labour's decision to relax the licensing laws to allow round-the-clock opening, which has led to a rise in the number of serious assaults taking place in the early hours of the morning.

But Police Minister David Hanson said: 'These figures are misleading.
Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.

'Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do. That is why last year we published 'Saving lives. Reducing harm. Protecting the public. An Action Plan for Tackling Violence 2008-11'.'

The timing of the Europe-wide violence figures is a blow for Mr Johnson, who will today seek to reassert Labour's law and order credentials.

In his first major speech on crime since becoming Home Secretary, Mr Johnson is expected to promise a concerted crack down on antisocial behaviour.

He wants to set up a website to allow the public to see what is taking place in their neighbourhood, such as the number of louts who have been served with Asbos.

Mr Johnson is also known to support early intervention to stop children going off the rails.

AP: 5 Miami Men Convicted Of Sears Tower Attack Plot

MIAMI (AP) — It took three trials, three juries and nearly three years, but federal prosecutors finally succeeded Tuesday in convicting five Miami men of plotting to start an anti-government insurrection by destroying Chicago's Sears Tower and bombing FBI offices. One man was acquitted.

When the FBI swarmed the downtrodden Liberty City neighborhood to make the arrests in June 2006, the administration of President George W. Bush hailed the case as a prime example of the Justice Department's post-Sept. 11 policy of disrupting potential terror plots in the earliest possible stages.

Yet hours of FBI recordings of terrorist talk contrasted with little concrete evidence of an evolving plot, triggering two mistrials because juries could not agree on verdicts against ringleader Narseal Batiste or five followers. One of the original seven defendants was acquitted after the first trial.

"Any cases that involve someone's mental intent, their intention when they made certain statements, are always difficult," said Matthew Orwig, former U.S. attorney in Texas who has monitored the Miami case. "It was a must-win for the government. They needed some vindication."

Finally, this third jury found the way on its sixth day of deliberations.

It wasn't the only victory Tuesday for terrorism prosecutors. In a separate case in New York, a jury convicted a Lebanese-born Swede of trying to set up a terror training camp in Oregon in 1999. The verdict against Oussama Kassir capped a three-week trial.

In the Miami case, Batiste, 35, was the only one convicted of all four terrorism-related conspiracy counts, including plotting to provide material support to terrorists and conspiring to wage war against the U.S. Batiste, who was on the vast majority of FBI recordings, faces up to 70 years in prison.

Batiste's right-hand man, 29-year-old Patrick Abraham, was convicted on three counts and faces 50 years behind bars. Convicted on two counts and facing 30 years are 24-year-old Burson Augustin, 25-year-old Rotschild Augustine and 33-year-old Stanley Grant Phanor. Naudimar Herrera, 25, was cleared of all four charges.

U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard set sentencing for July 27 for the five convicted men, most of whom are Haitian or have Haitian ancestry.

Read the rest here

This calls for remembering a quote from the famous 600 lb. left wing crockumentary maker and poster child of the American liberals, Michael Moore:

Cure For Constipation

Got it in an email so no credit for this one:

Cure For Constipation

Announcement


If you are bothered by occasional or frequent constipation, look in the mirror and repeat the following phrase three
times in succession when symptoms occur:

"My financial and personal well being are totally in the
hands of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Tim Geithner, Rahm Emmanual, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Al Gore"

If that doesn't scare the crap out of you, then you are
probably destined to be backed up for the rest of your life.

There is no need to thank me for this advice, I'm just
doing a public service.

America As A Mental Institution

NANNY STATE: GOVERNMENT WEBSITE TO WARN OF SADNESS/CRYING OVER ECONOMY
Mon Mar 30 2009 1856 ET

The U.S. government is set to offer an online emotional rescue kit!

"Getting Through Tough Economic Times" will launch Tuesday with a media push across all platforms.

The site is meant to help people identify health concerns related to financial worries.

The feds will warn of depression, suicidal thinking and other serious mental illnesses. It will raise warning flags for: Persistent sadness/crying; Excessive anxiety; Lack of sleep/constant fatigue; Excessive irritability/anger.

The guide will be available starting at midnight at http://www.samhsa.gov/economy.

Developing...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashns.htm

Have news for the current administration in regards to this plan: not all Americans are liberals. Now that you know not all people are in need of emotional rescue will likely save you money, you can supplement the emotional rescue kit with a bottle of Prozac. That should come in handy to those who voted for the Light Worker hoping to have their mortgages, car payments and gasoline paid by the government.

Daily Kos Lite Comments On Coulter's Speech At CPAC

Charles Johnson and his Daily Kos Lite err...Little Green Footballs contributors are commenting on Ann Coulter's CPAC speech:

Charles 2/28/09 9:40:02
It looks like we are about to be treated to some Coulter.
I wonder which minority she'll insult today?

Liberals, RINOS, sellouts. Pick the category you feel most comfortable with, Charlie.



Mich-again 2/28/09 9:40:58
I'm betting us. The rational Conservatives.

You rational? Don't say?



Charles 2/28/09 9:40:51
Irony alert. They're playing Queen.

Poor Freddie Mercury... I'm guessing you believe Coulter infected him with AIDS, not gay sex.


Mich-again 2/28/09 9:41:34
Decent rack.

Sexist pig


engineer 2/28/09 9:41:52
I'm thinking inserts or push-ups

Another sexist pig


Taqyia2Me 2/28/09 9:42:24
Let's set up a fund to send her to a steak house, you CAN be too thin.

Envious, fattie?


Charles 2/28/09 9:42:46
Does anyone see anything slightly hypocritical about playing the music of an openly gay artist, to introduce a person who is a virulent gay-hater?

Virulent gay hater? Sounds very familiar. Damn Markos, is that you?


Hengineer 2/28/09 9:44:34
I don't get it are these supposed to be jokes?

You don't get many things, but that's OK, you have an important role in society. God created stupid people like you to entertain the rest of us.


notutopia 2/28/09 9:49:06
Obama bashing....anything else Ann?

Obama's honor and good name must be defended, comrades. Who does she think she is?



Charles 2/28/09 9:52:04
Bashing McCain now.

Like McCain doesn't deserve it.


wrenchwench 2/28/09 10:04:13
There it is--she hates young people.

You got it wrong genius. She doesn't hate anybody; she just makes fun of morons. Like you.

Yep, this is the new and improved Little Green Footballs, people. Also known as Daily Kos lite.

OC Register: Sheriff stands firm on gun permit plan

Sheriff stands firm on gun permit plan
Hutchens tell activists, supervisors her policy to reduce permits remains
BY NORBERTO SANTANA JR.


Sheriff Sandra Hutchens stood firm Tuesday against the county board of supervisors and hundreds of gun-owners threatening recall because of her controversial plan to reduce concealed weapons permits.

Hutchens, in the third public hearing on the issue in four months, told the crowd and county supervisors that her position had not changed since she first unveiled the new policy last fall -- despite some minor adjustments on how she plans to revoke more than 400 permits.

"I don't make the law. But I am required to enforce the law," said Hutchens, reiterating her view that California state law only allows certain exceptions to the ban on concealed guns in public.

"I realize this is a very passionate issue," Hutchens said. "I suppose the safe course of action would be to ignore the law and find a way around it."

While refusing to budge on the gun permits, Hutchens seemed to attempt a conciliatory tone, wearing a pants suit instead of her official uniform, and bringing a smaller entourage that did not include a top aide disciplined for exchanging disparaging text messages during a previous hearing.

Hutchens noted state statutes that give sheriffs wide discretion in granting gun permits. Former Sheriff Mike Carona was an avid supporter of gun rights and expanding the concealed weapons permits in Orange County.

But after federal prosecutors accused Carona of trading gun permits for campaign contributions, Hutchens decided to adopt a more restrictive policy and apply it retroactively.

Hutchens believes the law provides limited exceptions.

While all five county supervisors told her they did not agree, and warned Hutchens that she is misreading Orange County culture, they said they were powerlessness on the issue Tuesday.

"I do believe this policy remains overly restrictive for our county," said board Chairwoman Pat Bates.

But Bates admitted to the crowd, "the board really can't do much more than make our views known."

She announced this was the last hearing on the issue.

Supervisor Bill Campbell lamented publicly that he could have done a better job of sensing Hutchens views before voting to appoint her sheriff in June.

While Hutchens seemed to withstand the critiques of gun activists and county supervisors, it hasn't come without some damage.

Three different investigations are ongoing into her department's actions during the previous two gun hearings.

Hutchens launched an internal probe into a series of embarrassing text messages that her command staff sent to each other during a Nov. 18 hearing. She also launched another internal investigation into an incident where security cameras operated by a sheriff's investigator focused on the notes of two supervisors.

Meanwhile, the Office of Independent Review is monitoring another investigation into the increased security by sheriff's officials at a Jan. 13 hearing on the permits. Gun owners who attended that meeting have accused the department of trying to intimidate them.

And on Tuesday, county supervisors moved closer to removing the sheriff's department from providing security at the Hall of Administration. The Santa Ana Police Department has indicated interest in providing security to replace the sheriff's department, officials said.

Also, a dispute between the board and Hutchens over the ownership of the security tapes from the January board meeting is still simmering despite an offer by Hutchens Tuesday to abide by conditions set by supervisors for viewing the tapes.

Liberal Insanity: Senior High School Student Faces Expulsion Over Fake Drill Team Rifles

I believe that 17 year old Marie Morrow, senior at Cherokee Trail High School in Aurora was punished with suspension (and possibly with expulsion) not because she had fake drill guns made out of wood, plastic and duct tape in the trunk of her SUV; even a 2 year old has enough expertise to tell the rifles are not real. The cops who took the rifle props in custody said Marie didn't do anything wrong and she can stop to pick them up on the way home. So that's not what triggered Marie's expulsion. I also believe the zero-tolerance law used by the so-called "educators" to explain Marie's unjust punishment just doesn't cut it. I don't buy it.

Nope.
Marie was punished because she represented the kind of American the liberals infesting our public school system despise most: the best of us. The young men and women who put on the military uniform and go everywhere they are needed to defend our country and our way of life. And that's a capital sin in the eyes of the 60's and 70's peace hippies raised sucking at the tits of Saul Alinsky and Noam Chomsky and who are now in charge of our schools. These despicable libs feel their mission in life is to brainwash our kids into hating America and its imperialist military. Marie Morrow deserved to be taught a lesson because she chose not to listen to them.

Link to source here

Pathetic can't describe this: UK Foster Mom Fired Because Girl Became Christian

Rule Britannia...ruled by Islamic mobs and their Sharia enforcers*

Christian foster mother struck off after Muslim girl converts
UK Telegraph

The woman has been banned by her local council for failing to prevent the teenager from getting baptised, even though the girl was 16 and made up her own mind to change religion.

The carer, a churchgoer in her 50s who has fostered more than 80 children, has now been forced to move out of her home.

She has lost the farmhouse she rented to look after vulnerable teenagers, due to the loss of income.

Another girl she was looking after has been taken back into care.

The woman, who has launched a legal challenge to the council's challenge, told the Daily Telegraph: "I just want to get my life back.

"I still hope to resolve this so that I can possibly foster again in the future as I simply enjoy helping young people."
--------------------
The ruling has increased concerns that Christians are becoming victims of discrimination in Britain, following the case of Caroline Petrie, the nurse suspended for offering to pray for a patient.

She was subsequently reinstated.

The foster mother, who cannot be named for legal reasons, insists that she did not pressurise the teenager to convert, and actually tried to discourage her initial interest.

The girl, who is now 17, was taken into care after being assaulted by a family member, saw baptism "as a washing away of the horrible things she had been through and a symbol of a new start," the woman said.

"I offered her alternatives. I offered to find her places to practise her own religion.

"I offered to take her to friends or family. But she said to me from the word go: 'I am interested and I want to come [to church]'."

The carer claims that social services were aware that the girl was attending her evangelical church, and council bosses only objected when she they found out she had been baptised.

Apostasy – the repudiation of one's faith – is strongly condemned in the Koran and is considered taboo in Muslim communities.

Officials advised the teenager to reconsider her decision and stop attending Christian meetings, and in November struck the carer off their register, claiming she breached her duty of care as a foster parent.

"They consider that in some way she should have taken steps to prevent the conversion," said solicitor Nigel Priestley, who is representing the carer.

He is demanding a judicial review into the council's decision, claiming they have breached Article 9 of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees freedom of religion for both the carer and the girl.

He said that the teenager, who is now back with her parents, was "distressed" that her private faith had had such repercussions, and is supporting her former carer's legal bid.

Mike Judge of the Christian Institute, which is funding the carer's legal case, said: "I cannot imagine that an atheist foster carer would be struck off if a Christian child in her care stopped believing in God.

"This is the sort of double standard that Christians are facing in Britain."

Mr Priestley said that the council had now offered to review its decision, but said his client was prepared to pursue legal action if her case was not resolved.

The council in the north of Englandm, which also cannot be named, declined to comment on "sensitive issues surrounding a child in care".

(*Sharia enforcers = liberal elites)

San Francisco Total Legal Bills For Trying To Ban Guns Within City Limits: $800,000

Only one objection: they should have put that tab on Chris Daly and Gavin Newsom's salary.

FAIL

San Francisco Pays NRA $380,000 for Successful Proposition H Lawsuits

Total Tab to City for Unsuccessful Defense of Illegal Gun Ban Approaches $800,000

Friday, February 06, 2009

Fairfax, Va. – The City of San Francisco has paid $380,000 to the National Rifle Association (NRA) as reimbursement for legal fees incurred while striking down Proposition H, passed by San Francisco voters in November 2005.

“Freedom and common sense prevailed in San Francisco. Proposition H was a foolish scheme by anti-gun politicians to disarm only the law-abiding in San Francisco,” said NRA chief lobbyist Chris Cox. “NRA promised we would do everything we could to overturn this ill-conceived gun ban, and I am pleased to say that we have delivered on that promise. We will now put these funds back into use to advance self-defense civil rights in legislatures and courts.”

Combined with more than $200,000 in fees paid to City lawyers defending the ordinance and an equal value of lawyers time donated to the City for the unsuccessful defense of this case, the total costs to City taxpayers in defending against Proposition H, a civilian disarmament attempt, approaches $800,000.

Proposition H would have banned civilian handgun possession by city residents and banned the sale, transfer or distribution of any firearm or ammunition within the city. In addition, all San Francisco residents would have been jailed for a minimum of 90 days and up to six months if caught in possession of a handgun. All gun and ammunition sales and transfers would have been prohibited, and the one gun store and two antique firearm auction houses in San Francisco would have been forced out of business. Additionally, since action films involved the transfer of real prop firearms, no such films could have been made in the city.

"This is a tremendous victory, and we are thankful for the efforts of Chuck Michel and his legal team,” continued Cox. “Regrettably, San Francisco taxpayers have to bear the considerable financial burden caused by city officials’ selfish efforts to play politics with the self defense rights of law-abiding people.”

The lawsuits that struck down Proposition H were funded primarily by NRA and were supported by an NRA-led coalition of like-minded self-defense civil rights groups including the Second Amendment Foundation, California Association of Firearm Retailers, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and San Francisco Veterans Police Officers Association. Amicus brief efforts were led by the California Rifle & Pistol Association and joined by Gun Owners of California, The Madison Society, American Entertainment Armorers Association, San Francisco Police Officers Association, Pink Pistols, and California Sportsman’s Lobby.
Source NRA-ILA

Slick Willie Wants A New Gun Ban

But...but...but...Democrats learned their lesson not to mess with the Second Amendment or try to pass a new Assault Weapon Ban, right? At least that's what every liberal who is also a gun owner by a freak accident of nature is trying to convince us. And you'll find at least one of these fork tongued libs on pretty much every gun forum on the Internet. Liars and backstabbing creeps taking the rest of us for fools or not? Judge for yourself.

Clinton Pushes For New Gun And Magazine Ban

NRA ILA GRASSROOTS ALERT, Vol. 16, No. 5 02/06/09:


With President Barack Obama stating that his “urban agenda” includes reimposing the former federal ban on “assault weapons” and “large” magazines, it’s out-of-date to refer to that law as it was known at the time--the Clinton Gun Ban.

On second thought, maybe not just yet.

In January, speaking at a meeting of the anti-gun U.S. Conference of Mayors, former president Bill Clinton took credit for the old ban, praised the Brady Campaign for continuing to lobby Congress for a new ban, and suggested that the mood in Washington might be more favorable toward a ban now than it had been during the last eight years.

What's funny about this is that Clinton has said many times that the old ban cost Democrats Senate and Congressional seats and that maybe they shouldn't have done it. Then again, we are talking about Bill Clinton and Democrats. If they would have the brains to learn from their own mistakes they wouldn't be Democrats, right?

Breaking! Time Traveler Brings Back Snapshot From The Future

I just received this picture in the email form a very close friend who is running a super secret time travel program for a super secret government agency belonging to an unspecified foreign country. He writes:

02/04/2009
Dear Transsylvania Phoenix,

How are you and your family? I hope you all are doing great in these times of hope and change.
I just came back from another test time travel jump, this time to the year 2012 and wanted to share with you a picture I took in the front of the White House in Washington DC.
You will surely notice the surprisingly fast morphological and physiological changes future Americans will go through in only 4 short years under the leadership of the 44th President of the United States.
The reason I am writing you this email is to ask you for a little investment advice: do you think I should start investing in textiles manufacturing stock?

Best regards, your friend
Dr.XXX

New Hampshire Reclaims State Supremacy. What Will Obama Do?

I wonder what Obama will do if he will move on to enact new Federal firearms registration laws or another so called "assault" weapon ban after the New Hampshire legislative passes HCR6.
Will Obama order his Brown Shirts...errr... National Civilian Forces to invade New Hampshire and restore hope and change?

New Hampshire Reclaims State Supremacy

by Gary Wood (conservative libertarian), Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Leading by example the people of New Hampshire have boldly put the federal government on notice with HCR 6 - A Resolution affirming States' rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

Can you imagine any state in today's economic turmoil putting the federal government on notice? Well, that is exactly what New Hampshire has done and all other states should follow their example. With their House Concurrent Resolution they've spelled out exactly what violations will no longer be tolerated. More over the resolution doesn't stop at a mere legislative warning but carries it to the executive and judicial realms as well. Listen to the language from the resolution; hear it echo in your mind.

------------------------------
Following this is a listing of actions which would cause the nullification. A caveat to the list is that it is not all limiting yet only an example of abuses which the federal government must no longer undertake. Clearly stating the consequences HRC 6 continues, "That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually."

Anyone believing they are alone in our struggle for a restoration of our foundational principles must now realize they are not. Here is a legislature willing to lead by way of active legislative resolution. Reading through the entire resolution anyone will be bolstered with pride who stands against the tyrannical course our immerging socialist democracy is currently on. As we see this level of resistance we can take heart in knowing our time of restoration is coming.

--------------------------------

Does your state have the integrity and intestinal fortitude to follow suit? I'm not sure mine does but we must at least make each of the other 49 states aware of this example and ask the question. If they do not then elections may take on a whole new meaning as we strive to continue our search for honorable representatives who embrace the core principles that gave birth to our wonderful country. Thank you New Hampshire, I for one salutes your stance for liberty and freedom!

In 1799 Thomas Jefferson laid out New Hampshire's right for this resolution when he said;

"RESOLVED: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy."

http://www.nolanchart.com/article5941.html

New Hampshire's HRC 6

Seems that those doggone Constitutionalists up in New Hampshire are pulling Washington's chain again with a piece of legislation called HRC 6. Basically, the New Hampshire bill would tell the federal government to take a hike on matters where power has not been given to the feds.

Specifically:

"That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the
Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America.

Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and

That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State's legislature.'

Pelosi IQ < Bag Of Hammers

The Genial Thinker Of The Bay Area claims that 500,000,000 (that's correct, five hundred million) Americans will lose their jobs every month if her trillion dollar mega-pork bill doesn't pass




This statement just begs for a question: 500 million Americans will lose their jobs in all 57 states?

They Warned Us. We Didn't Listen

Recognize the character?

"Let's make sure we have an assault weapon ban, a Brady bill with the full force of the law"

"If you are on No Fly List, No Gun!"

They are only doing what they told us they will do. No surprise here.

New Gun Bans High On Obama, Democrat Party Priorities

This is what the "holier that thou" conservative and libertarian gun owners deserve for staying at home election day to "teach Bush and those Republican politicians a lesson"

This is what gullible swing-vote gun owners are getting for being stupid enough to believe Obama and Biden's campaign promises that they won't touch their guns.

This is what everyone who bought into the "Democrats learned their lesson not to mess with the gun rights" mantra espoused time and again by the backstabbing liberal trolls on various gun forums is getting - for being criminally naive.

Firearms industry may top Obama’s list
Jim Shepherd
January 27, 2009

Beginning this week, the firearms industry will find itself squarely in the gunsight of a new administration dedicated to the regulation of virtually everything related to guns, from so-called assault weapons to the elements used in ammunition. Regulation, incidentally, will be defined as “the regulation of everything, and the potential removal of anything we say you don’t need.”

The leaders of that assault, unfortunately, won’t give a tinker’s damn about the Second Amendment. Their long-term plans will address that piece of “outdated thinking.” But a new political expediency will move firearms — more specifically their nebulous assault weapons — front and center.

Democratic insiders are telling us the firearms industry will be used as an object lesson to both sides of the aisle.

To the left, it’s the always-popular smackdown of a group of right-wing loonies (that’s you and me, by the way) who want gunfights on the streets of our hometowns.

To the right, it will represent a little payback for the rhetoric that was taken very personally by the incoming administration. In other words, a little taste of the whip should keep both sides nicely in line.

To put it another way, last year’s unquestioned gun salesman of the year — Barack Obama — will turn his attention toward a group that has been unrelenting in opposing him throughout his political career. When that happens, a billion-dollar industry will take another body blow.

Despite the new administration’s insistence that jobs and the economy will be the top priority beginning Jan. 20, insiders say payback to the National Rifle Association and other pro-Second Amendment groups is high on the agenda. Democratic advisors say the Republican party is “disorganized, disheartened, and dissolving” and it’s a good time for the incoming administration to take them on in a core issue — the assault weapons ban (AWB) is one of three topics they’re evaluating.

If the AWB is chosen, everyone expects a pitched battle with no quarter given.

If the attempt to pass this drastically expanded AWB succeeds, the administration will have proven itself virtually unbeatable in matters of policy. They will also further fracture the Republican Party and simultaneously serve notice on any pro-gun Democrats that they’d better get with the new program, too.

If this new administration goes after firearms, a billion-dollar industry that has never asked for a dime of bailouts and annually contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to conservation and environmental work via taxes will be hammered. That will most certainly result in lost jobs and tax revenues. Entire communities will be negatively impacted.

The Obama administration has said its number one priority will be the economy. I hope they keep that promise — and genuinely hope they are wildly successful at creating a renewed vibrancy. I believe the firearms industry should be prepared on a moment’s notice to clearly demonstrate to local and regional media that banning guns is tantamount to eliminating jobs in their areas.

I also believe Obama’s administration will almost immediately seek to begin to dismantle or disregard any laws with which they disagree and embark on the total disenfranchisement of anyone who disagrees with their political positions. That would include firearms owners and the firearms industry. I’d love to be wrong.

Trust in God and keep your powder dry, brothers.

Quote Of The Day: The Definition Of Gun Control

Gun control defined: The theory that people who are willing to ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm.

H/T Hawk

Yep, that makes a lot of sense. Brilliant theory - if you are a brain dead liberal.

America Turned The Page On Racism?

Just give Obama a couple of years and you'll see how racism is history.
Racism on blacks and minorities, of course. Racism on whites, that's another story. You should ask my wife who's unsuccessfully looking for a job right now and it seems that all positions she applied for in the last six months have been occupied by other candidates belonging to minorities, with less work experience and less education.

Or just read the following story:

Court to pay $424k for white discrimination


Detroit's 36th District Court must pay a longtime white employee $424,000 because he was repeatedly denied promotions in favor of black applicants.

The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday let stand a jury's discrimination verdict for Kenneth Sciotti in 2005.

Sciotti had shown at trial that in the departments he applied to, all but one of the supervisors were black. All nine supervisory jobs he wanted in a four-year period were filled by blacks.

Sciotti, who started at the court in 1979, said he was passed over for less-qualified applicants.

The district court also has to pay Sciotti at least $151,000 in attorney fees and costs. The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the verdict in 2007 before it was appealed again.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are NOT expected to demonstrate.

Here is how the current Obama Administration plans to deal with the issue: