Andrew Horning (Revisited)

One of my FaceBook friends is a guy who tossed his hat into the political race not too long ago.

I really enjoy reading the stuff he writes around the net (FaceBook, Blogs and such)...

Tonight, he referenced auditing the Fed and said along with the audit, the "moneychangers" should be driven out. Someone inquired "WWJD to the moneychangers?"...

To which he replied (one of the best things I've read in awhile);
"You know, what with all the sinners that Christ forgave, we should take note of the one kind of person that He physically attacked."

Regarding Colors...

Election Day

We got up early this morning because the spousal unit had to vote before work since he wouldn't be back in town until after the polls closed.
We drove to the building being used for our district and arrived about 15 minutes after the doors opened. The parking lot was packed. Both sides of the street were lined with parked cars as far as we could see in the dark. We figured we'd have a solid two hours to wait, but the long lines moved a little faster than we thought.
It took just under an hour and the time passed quickly because we pretty much chatted it up with people we knew (it's a really small community).
There was a guy checking photo I.D.s in line making sure people weren't waiting the whole time just to be turned away for being in the wrong district or forgetting their I.D.. I enjoyed (very much) flipping my wallet open sharply in his face and announcing "FBI". No, I'm not FBI...
When I got as far as the table where you have to sign in, they were talking about the fact that the school used to be the polling place for our district and I recounted my first time voting there...there was a security camera RIGHT OVER THE VOTING MACHINE!! I was ticked. Apparently, the school officials said there was no way to turn off the cameras. That really peeved me. I was interviewed on the news about it and the whole nine yards. I wanted to say "Secret ballot, my butt", but I didn't. :p
So anyway...this year, I had completely made up my mind to NOT vote McCain or Obama. As far as my understanding, McCain is a socialist disguised as a republican and Obama is a Marxist disguised as a democrat. I could not in good conscience vote for either of them. I was, in fact, a Ron Paul supporter. But he's not on the ballot and I'm just not keen on Barr.
I came to the realization that voting for a third party or abstaining from voting would really not be in my best interests as far as my Second (and now First) Amendment rights are concerned. One candidate is vehemently opposed to my freedom and his running mate is even more rabid about it. The other candidate has voted on both sides of the fence, but his running mate is a staunch believer in individual rights and freedoms and that's about as close as I can get to someone on any ticket who represents my ideals. My vote was cast not so much in support of one...but more in opposition of the other. I am happy with how I've chosen to vote. It was a hard won decision and I hope in the end it matters. It mattered to me.
My voting place isn't at a school any longer, so I was within my legal right to carry while I voted. Which I did. Principle of the matter and symbolic of my personal stance and all that jazz.
Mz.Kimber1911 votes to stay on my hip!
I pushed the big red "Cast Ballot" button in favor of that.

Who is Dan Cooper? Updated and UPDATED AGAIN

• CEO of Cooper Firearms
• NRA Member
• Republican

What is Obama’s stance on guns?
• voted to allow lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry
• voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition
• endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership
• endorses prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense
• supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park
…and several other things mentioned here.

What does Dan Cooper think about this? He must not mind too much because he’s contributed over $3,300 to Obama’s campaign and is endorsing him for president.
What’s wrong with this picture?
UPDATE:
From the Cooper Arms Front page:

Regarding the USA Today Article. Cooper Firearms of Montana, Inc. did not contribute and does not support in any fashion the campaign of Senator Obama.
Nine months ago Dan Cooper (personally) made an online donation to the campaign in an effort to help defeat Hillary Clinton and in protest of American plant closures and the shipping of jobs overseas. Three months ago he made yet another donation to the McCain campaign and the RNC totaling over twice that given to Obama campaign.
There is no doubt that the article in USA Today has caused a considerable response. To this end we are encouraged and stand with our fellow NRA members and supporters of the Second Amendment and against those who oppose it.
~Cooper Firearms of Montana

UPDATE # 2
Allegedly, this morning Cooper told his worried-for-their-jobs staff that this would all "blow over" after the election when Obama wins. After Obama gets in and "they" (us) see that everything is fine, "they" (us) will forget all about it. Their (our) memories are short, he reportedly said.
According to his personal political donation paper trail, he lied in the USA Today story and on the Cooper web page, he's clearly been on Team Obama for quite some time and with numerous donations instead of the two reported. This account also proves his website claim to have donated to McCain/Palin is also false. Obviously, he can donate to whomever he likes, but lying about it to underhandedly fund Obama’s campaign with money gained under deceit is revolting to the people who would have made different choices with their money if informed with the truth.
"Dear Dan,
You are so screwed.
Your friend,
Jim Zumbo"

Satire for Friday

I lurve The Onion.

Friday Vid Roast

Instead of the Friday tunes, please enjoy McCain and Obama poking fun at each other and also at themselves. It was refreshing to watch them tap into their comical sides and just look like real people for a few minutes. They both seemed to have a self-deprecating sense of humor that made it all the more funny.
Enjoy:

Andrew Horning (L)

One of the candidates running for governor here in Indiana is Libertarian Andrew Horning. I watched the debate he participated in with Jill Long-Thompson (D) and current governor Mitch Daniels (R). I was impressed with his views and the conviction he had when expressing his opinion. When looking for sound bytes of the debate, I ran across this little clip that says so much in so little time. It’s kind of hard to hear in spots because there’s a lot of background chatter. I don’t know what the conversation was leading up to this, but here’s what I understood him to say:
(If you think it’s different, please post to that end in the comments)

[voice off camera: “So when applied to governments, liberties and freedoms have to be actually properly selected by the majority…’cause we have an issue with majority could actually choose to do very very bad things…do they have the liberty to do so?]

Mr. Horning: Well, government is an abstraction, remember…
There’s no such unit as “government”. Government is a fiction that we created and what we have to remember is that that fiction is composed entirely of violence. You know, government can’t do anything without at least the threat of violence.

[voice off camera: Or the monopoly on violence…]

Mr. Horning: Well, I mean to whatever the degree there is a monopoly, that is the government. So if a gang becomes powerful enough, it is the government. So, you know, basically, government is violence. Violence is, to some degree, government. Because to do whatever kind of restraining or whatever governing you wish to do, you have to impose force on something. So government being violence…you have to understand that giving violence liberties; giving it “freedoms”, is an extraordinarily dangerous thing to do. And that, you know, the history of humans, and their abstraction of “government” is really a 100% failure. To the degree with which we succeed at all for any period of time in civilization is how long and how well we restrain that violence. So if you put a leash on your politicians (whether that’s the leash of “law”; we call that “rule of law”), or whether you have [video trails off]

Dang. I really want to hear the rest of that. I think I will email him and ask him where it might be found if it exists.
Here’s the video:

Madam Vice President!

Has a nice ring to it doesn't it? With John McCain's smart move to pick a woman to run on his ticket, he's effectively blown Obama out of the water. Today was supposed to be the democratic hopeful's first official campaign day and I'm sure he thought he'd be reveling in the praise and worship of the press after his acceptance speech last night.
Then BAM, McCain plays the Sarah Barracuda card and steals his fricken thunder! YEAH!!
She's smart, funny witty, a lifetime NRA member, and top it all off she's a former Miss Alaska. The whole country is turned on.

The Bullet Ballot

Everyone seems to be wringing their hands over the economics of a new administration. Here’s the deal, people… spending will happen. I don’t care who it is or how they spin it, your pocket will be picked in the name of the state. Period. During the last administration it was corporate breaks, subsidies and war.. During the next it will be either more of the same or a swan dive into social programs. No way out of it, in either case. So let’s just come to an understanding and get over that part.

Now let’s switch gears to what’s near and dear to my heart, when picking a representative for myself. The Second Amendment (which backs up all the others).
Let’s just take a peek at who thinks what and who stands where.

We’ll start with Mr. HopeChange himself, Obama.

During the primaries, he tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that he is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties.
Here’s a little snippet from his political career:

He voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry. Isn’t that like suing Betty Crocker if you get fat?

He wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban. I guess he hasn’t figured out why it failed and what exactly “discredited” means.

He voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting. That really just translates into “most commonly used calibers”, which affects me. Obviously this bites.

He has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership. Way into my 3 foot space with this one.

He supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities to lower gun crime rates. I guess he never heard of Kennesaw, Georgia.

He voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense. So basically, if a bad guy breaks into MY home and I stop them … he’d rather I go to jail for protecting my life and my family.

He supports requiring law-abiding gun owners to register their firearms. This is just so wrong on so many levels. There’s no reason to do this other than the government wants to know the whereabouts of every single gun. If that had happened early on, this country wouldn’t be what it is today.

He wants to eliminate your Right to Carry. And mine.

He supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park. Try this; grab a map of your area and pin point every place that sells guns (this includes pawn shops, sporting goods stores, the Wal-Marts that still have them, etc.). Draw a circle with a five mile radius around each one. Not a whole lot of space left is there? Is there even a spot that could qualify as a place to put a store at that rate? One that’s not in the middle of the desert or sticks?

He supports mandatory micro-stamping. A quick Google search will show you exactly what a fiasco this would create.

He supports mandatory waiting periods. I don’t recall where time limits were imposed in any part of the Second Amendment.

He supports “one-gun-a-month” sales restrictions. This is just ridiculous.

He supports a ban on inexpensive handguns. Because, lord knows if a reason crops up that you need to protect yourself and you may not be rolling in the dough…you should be made to just hand your life over to your stalker, your abusive ex, your violent neighbor, whomever. If you can’t afford that shiny Kimber, you best just fold.

He supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms. I can’t even wrap my mind around why this is an issue.

He supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21. Laughable. I suppose it would make it quite difficult for our young service men and women volunteering for the military…and not being old enough to be issued a firearm.

OK, then. Moving on to Ms.MommyOfTheGlobe, H.Clinton. Although it’s improbable that she’ll be revisiting the White House as a squatter for the next four years, I do think she’ll be an active part in whatever is going down. So it bears flushing out her stance as well.

Here are a few gems from her camp:

She’d like to give local police access to federal gun tracking info.

Gotta give her this one, though…
She claimed to want to let states & cities determine local gun laws. I can live with that in theory. Otherwise, there'd have been no forward thinking in such a case like Kennesaw (mentioned earlier).

But…she’s a flip flopper. At first, she was all for a national licensing registration plan on guns, but then she backed off. But now she’s on it again.

Although she wants to get assault weapons & guns off the street, I have yet to read a defining statement as to what exactly an “assault weapon” is. Doesn’t really matter much, though…since I plan on owning one any way.

She stated in 2000 that she’d like to “Keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them”. Frankly, that’s a little too vague for my taste. If she means two- year olds on the merry go ‘round at the park, then I can go with that. If she means me…screw her.

She also wants to limit access to weapons by way of a waiting period between gun purchases.

She wants gun control that “protects our children” by way of endorsing questionnaires from physician visits about guns in the home. Invasion of privacy anyone?

She also voted “no” on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence.

She’s endorsing that “smart gun” technology that supposedly prevents unauthorized firearm use. Mkay…a veritable resale nightmare.

OK, I need a shower after all that…but unfortunately, we aren’t done yet.
We have to take a look at John Mc-Chain-Me-to-Iraq.

I must admit that when a friend and I were discussing McCain, I didn’t think he was too far behind the other two. I’ve read in different places that he’s not a friend of gun owners and that coupled with his views about human civil rights, I cringe.
Civil liberties aside, jumping into his voting record surprised me. At first. But then the all too familiar slide on the slippery slope happened. You'll see...

Let’s jump right in with a quote from an interview asking him about personal ownership of firearms: “I know how to use guns. I just don't own one now.”

Here we go:
He voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry. McCain says, "Neither justice nor domestic peace are served by holding the innocent responsible for the acts of the criminal."

He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing."

He consistently votes against restrictions on so-called "assault rifles". He opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations. This is looking “up”, no?

But now we take a dark turn…
He has a proposal to close the gun show loophole and everybody who’s anybody knows that there really is no such “loophole”. That’s a whole ‘nother blog…

He also favors outlawing cheaply made handguns called Saturday night specials, and favors mandating safety locks on certain guns. He said he is intrigued by new technology that electronically identifies a person handling a gun, allowing only the owner to fire it. *sigh*…so much for the roll he was on.

He said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details. Totally lost bonus points there, John.

Here’s a little flip flop of his own. First he votes “yes” to background checks at gun shows, then he votes “no”. I guess he figures that means he’s neutral now.

He voted to kill an amendment to make it unlawful for gun dealers to sell handguns without providing trigger locks. OK, so we get that he’s got opinions on both sides of the fence. This doesn’t really help all that much. Not as much as I thought it might.

Unfortunately, even though he’s all over the map where it concerns the Second Amendment, he still seems to be the lesser of evils on Election Day. That being said, lesser evil is still evil. Bah.