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."

True Enough...

Lt. Col Ralph Peters

Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' 'bout!!

Bash served. Bash Returned.

What is up with media today?
We've got "journalists" arguing with the people whom they've chosen to question.

We've got actress/comedians giving "expert" advice on the inner workings of our brains because they must have gone through pre-comedy med school.

We're told that everyone is allowed pride in their heritage except the white guy.
And apparently, name calling is justified and acceptable from one political side but when the tables are are turned, it's called racism.

I'll clarify that for my part in all this "tax revolt" stuff, it's not about race. It's not about party affiliations. It's about bad policy and stupid decisions, and I'm an equal opportunity hater. I wouldn't care if the guy was green and purple...he's still a schmuck.

Did you hear the public outcry?

OMG! Did you see that horrible Republican political figure on that late night show making backhanded slams at retarded people by saying his bowling scores were "like the Special Olympics or something"?
Wow, it's just burning up the all the media outlets with organizations and groups of citizens demanding apologies and picketing the guy's office with "You big meanie" signs. His mail and website have been inundated with concerned people calling out his entire party (who now have all been tagged "heartless bigots" by association).

Wait...it wasn't that Republican guy...it was that other guy.
Must be why the only sound is crickets chirping.
My bad.
P.S. Don't call him out on it. That's racist.

A Special Day For Americans

Yesterday, I searched for an appropriate way to mark the passing of an historic day. A day which brings us one step closer to the Socialism that my country has voted for and one step closer to banning the guns that I bitterly cling to.
I celebrated by going to the gun store and purchasing some boom bling for Ms.Kimber.
Mmm...her favorite: MagTech in 45ACP


If we've learned nothing else from the passing of the past several months, we've learned that if "some" is good, then "more" is better. Right?
Moar


Well that's all fine and dandy, but the day was all about accepting diversity, right?
I tossed in some Remington.


I still didn't feel that my idea was quite living up to the concept or intent of the day. I searched my mind for what it could be that I was leaving out...
I had already covered "more is better than some", and I threw "diversity" in there...but what was missing? What did the day end up really being about in the eyes of not just our country, but the world? Ah, yes! Color! I needed color.
Thank my friends from the Czech Republic, Sellier & Bellot.
Here's some:


You should have learned better than to leave it at that, by now. So here's MOAR!


God bless all you bitter clingers.
Hope you celebrated your day accordingly.
~Annie

Backing Down

From the Indiana Gun Owners’ forum (linked on the left as “Hoosier Shooters”), member “Full-Auto” had this info to share and didn’t mind me replicating it here. Thanks, Full-Auto!

Within hours of obtaining the status of "President-Elect", this appeared on Obama's site:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

The NRA news letter:

"Yes We Can . . . Ban Guns"--Obama Announces Gun Ban Agenda Before The Final Vote Count Is In

Friday, November 07, 2008

Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign slogan, "the audacity of hope," should have instead been "the audacity of deceit." After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby--four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business:

"Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent." Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists. Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban's expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation's murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime. Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime-about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with "assault weapons." Obama says that "assault weapons" are machine guns that "belong on foreign battlefields," but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet.

"Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment." The amendment--endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police--prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation. Anti-gun activists oppose the restriction, because it prevents them from obtaining tracing information and using it in frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearm manufacturers. Their lawsuits seek to obtain huge financial judgments against firearm manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun to inflict harm, even though the manufacturers have complied with all applicable laws.

"Closing the gun show loophole." There is no "loophole." Under federal law, a firearm dealer must conduct a background check on anyone to whom he sells a gun, regardless of where the sale takes place. A person who is not a dealer may sell a gun from his personal collection without conducting a check. Gun prohibitionists claim that many criminals obtain guns from gun shows, though the most recent federal survey of convicted felons put the figure at only 0.7 percent. They also claim that non-dealers should be required to conduct checks when selling guns at shows, but the legislation they support goes far beyond imposing that lone requirement. In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure, holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business.

"Making guns in this country childproof." "Childproof" is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems. While no one opposes keeping children safe, the fact is that accidental firearm-related deaths among children have decreased 86 percent since 1975, even as the numbers of children and guns have risen dramatically. Today, the chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident are less than one in a million.

Then Full-Auto observed the following page and captured a screen shot for us:


"NEWS FLASH: Obama's team has removed the entire page from their site. It would seem an NRA email alert was sent out roughly at the same time and pointed their members to the same page. In response, Obama's cronies removed the page.
That's honesty for you people... We're in some deeeeeeeep excrement." ~Full-Auto.

Regarding Colors...

Red/Blue/Black/White

But it's not about color, right?
I had to go to bed before my state was called. It was a tight race in my state, which is notoriously red. I woke up this morning in a blue state.
I looked at a few of the headlines on the news pages and the predominant theme was “America’s first black president”…but it’s never been about race, right?
Well…the media has their darling, but here’s another little prediction for them; “the honeymoon will wear off after a few months in office”. It will be right around the time when they realize that the citizens of this country will still have to pay their own mortgages and their gas won’t be free.
Not even with Obamanomics.


The question isn't "who is John Galt?" it's "where is he?"

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.

Dan Cooper FIRED

Final UPDATE in the Cooper Firearms Drama:
Cooper changed its page again...

In response to the recent article highlighting Dan Cooper’s personal political donations, the board of directors,shareholders and employees of Cooper Firearms of Montana, Inc would like to issue the following statement:
The employees,shareholders and board of directors of Cooper Firearms of Montana do not share the personal political views of Dan Cooper.
Although we all believe everyone has a right to vote and donate as they see fit, it has become apparent that the fallout may affect more than just Mr. Cooper. It may also affect the employees and the shareholders of Cooper Firearms.
The board of directors has asked Mr. Cooper to resign as President of Cooper Firearms of Montana, Inc.
Daily operations will continue with the competent staff currently in place in Stevensville, MT producing the finest, most accurate rifles money can buy.

Dan Cooper has spentall of his working life producing the highest quality rifles built here in the USA. He started with nothing but the American Dream and built that into firearms company anyone would be proud of. We firmly believe Dan stands by the2nd amendment.
We wish him all of the best in his future pursuits.

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:

They Just Don't Get It.

What are these people so ardently protesting?
I'll give you a hint!

Q: What do you call it when a guy (or gal) buys a firearm privately from another guy (or gal) in their home, driveway, on a country road, in a restaurant parking lot, etc.?
A: a completely legal “face to face” transaction.

Q: What do you call it when that exact same guy (or gal) buys that exact same firearm from the exact same other guy (or gal) in the exact same fashion in the parking lot of a swap meet or gun show?
A: A “Gun Show Loophole”!



Seriously.

The anti-gun lobbyists and the media have spun a completely legal action into some dark back alley connotation that most assuredly must only be happening among the most shady mobster-gangbanger types.
“Gun show loophole” is a misnomer wrought from fear. If two law abiding citizens can buy, sell, or trade firearms face to face one transaction at a time and strike up such an alarmist mind-set, can you just imagine what kind of panic sets in when they think about parking lots full of people doing exactly the same thing?
I’m sure it’s no accident that the term “loophole” was used, as it conjures the notion that it must some how be “skirting the law” or dishonest and underhanded in some way.

It really ticks me off. But you know what ticks me off even more? The fact that I personally have done nothing to stand in the way of legislators and media steam rolling my legal rights and my law abiding actions to the point of making me feel like a criminal for participating in completely LEGAL transactions. Until today. I decided I don’t have a right to complain if I’m just sitting on my butt doing nothing about it, so this morning I got involved! Yay me.

All’s Fair in Politics- UPDATED w/ HAT PIC

~
We decided to go to our county’s little fair tonight and walk around. I’m not really fond of big crowds and especially not fond of the bump and push of them. I’ll go further to say that I’m extremely not fond of the bump and push of big crowds that mostly look like they walked off a Jerry Springer stage. In fact, one woman was wearing a t-shirt that said in big bolded letters “White Trash”. And she kind of was…and not even the good kind of white trash like Brittney Spears. For me to say that, it’s really saying something.
In our little walk-about, we decided to visit the vendor tents. The spousal unit bought me a black cowgirl hat with a silver studded leather hat band. It’s very cool and some guy even made hungry eyes at me. Of course he was about 400 pounds and I was carrying a bag of cotton candy to give to MiniMe when she gets home from the football game, but that’s not the point. The point is that now I must be referred to as “The Hat”. Not unlike “The Donald”, but without the significant cash flow.
Anyhow, back to the events that took place in the vendor tents. I was getting quickly (easily) bored with seeing the same thing booth after booth, table after table and I was about to tell the spousal unit that whenever he was ready to leave, we could go. All of the sudden, like a gift from God a bright beacon of heavenly light shown down from above and angelically lit the democrat party’s campaign booth. I turned to the spousal unit and smiled wickedly and asked, “would you like to have some fun?” No, he would the hell not. Fine. *I* wanted to have fun, so I stepped up to the table and was approached by one of the four workers. What follows is the conversation near as I can recall. For lack of knowing their names, the two workers that ended up speaking with me for 15 or 20 minutes will be referred to as ObamaSupporterDood#1 and ObamaSupporterDood#2, because it’s past The Hat’s bedtime, but I want to blog it before I forget it and I’m not so creative past 10pm. I’m pushing really hard to get this all out before my cotton candy sugar rush burns out on me, so bear with me:
ObamaSupporterDood#1: Hi. Can I help you with anything? Need a bumper sticker or pin? Leaflet? Pencil?
Me: Actually, if you have a minute I have a couple questions.
ObamaSupporterDood#1: Great. I’ll do what I can to answer them.
Me: Well, first off, I’m not a republican but I’m not a democrat either. So my vote isn’t automatically owned by any party. I’m libertarian by general definition and I’d like you (if you could) to give me some information that could help me solidify my vote.
ObamaSupporterDood#1: OK, well we think Obama is what this country needs for change in the right direction.
Me: Do you think that he’s the right person because of his work in the senate?
ObamaSupporterDood#1: That’s right. He’s really working for this country to change it for the better.
Me: Better is always good. What is it so far that he’s done as a senator that has helped change things in a positive direction?
ObamaSupporterDood#1: Well, Obama is for the people. He’s not in politics to be a politician so he’s really working to make things better for the common people and that’s what we need.
Me: Great. Like what things?
ObamaSupporterDood#1: Well, like bringing community together. Obama is good at bridging gaps between all people and really giving them a sense of community to work together and that’s what our country needs especially with the war in Iraq and everything.
Me: So he’s bringing the community together in the senate?
ObamaSupporterDood#1: Well, no. Community is just what he’s good at.
Me: Oh. I’m sorry, what was the part again about what he’s done in the senate?
ObamaSupporterDood#1: He’s working in the senate for us. The people. Because he really cares about community.
Me: Oh, thanks. My other question is about that circle symbol on your shirt with the mountain and blue arch… what exactly does that mean?
ObamaSupporterDood#1: Oh, it’s um… It’s an “O” and it’s his symbol that he made.
Me: Does it mean something significant?
ObamaSupporterDood#1: (gesturing to Dood#2) Let me get him over here, I think he knows all this stuff better than me.
ObamaSupporterDood#2: Hi there. Got a question for me?
Me: (reiterated my non-party affiliation) … I was just asking your campaign partner here about that symbol that Obama uses. What does it mean?
ObamaSupporterDood#2: That is Obama’s symbol that he uses all over.
Me: Right. Does it have a meaning behind the picture? I mean, does it stand for something in particular?
ObamaSupporterDood#2: Oh he has all sorts of symbols. He even has a special one that says “Women for Obama”. It’s really kind of neat.
Me: I see. Does this one mean something specific like that?
ObamaSupporterDood#2: You can go to his website and see all of them. He really has several. In fact all you have to do is probably get online and type in “Obama symbol” and you’ll probably see most of them on any websites it takes you to.
Me: Oh. Thanks. I was asking your co-campaigner about Obama’s time in the senate so far. Do you know much about what he’s voted for or against?
ObamaSupporterDood#2: I’d actually have to get online and go look.
Me: I was hoping maybe you could tell me where to find that. Every place I look really doesn’t have much by way of his voting record except voting “present”.
ObamaSupporterDood#2: Well, you’ll get that. A lot of websites are very slanted.
Me; Oh. I understand that some people are voting Obama because they think he’ll change America. I’ve actually gone to several places to read about both candidates. Most recently I went to Reason.com and read a piece called “the Libertarian case for Obama” and another called “the Libertarian case for McCain. Are you familiar with that magazine or website?
ObamaSupporterDood#2: No, I’m not.
Me: Oh. Can you give me a reason why you’re voting for him? Personally?
ObamaSupporterDood#2: Oh, yes! I’m voting for him because he cares about the people. He really cares about middle class because Obama comes from middle class. He understands us. He doesn’t have seven houses. I don’t have seven houses. Nobody I work with has seven houses. It’s just like in the company I work for. The jobs aren’t there. They’ve been outsourced or cut completely. Obama doesn’t like all the jobs leaving America and us having to pay China so much money for cheap things and it’s not fair that the jobs over there aren’t even taxed.
Me: So he has a plan to fix that?
ObamaSupporterDood#2: Yes.
Me: Obama has a plan to bring those jobs back?
ObamaSupporterDood#2: Well, no but he thinks it’s not fair that they aren’t taxed.
Me: So he’s going to tax them?
ObamaSupporterDood#2: I think that’s the plan.
Me: China? He’s going to tax China?
ObamaSupporterDood#2: Well I don’t know. I don’t know if he can do that. Maybe not.
Me: …
ObamaSupporterDood#2: Another reason is that with the war and everything, people really need to work together and Obama is the person that can bring different people together.
ObamaSupporterDood#1: (jumping back into the conversation) Yes, that’s what I was saying. It would probably be a good idea to read what he has to say on his website.
ObamaSupporterDood#2: Yes, that’s what I’d do if I had questions. We really don’t have all the answers, but if you go there, I’m sure you’ll find what you need.
ObamaSupporterDood#1: Yes, there’s way more information there than we have but the reasons why we’re voting for him are all there.
ObamaSupporterDood#2: Really good information. Check it out.
Me: (feeling the bum's rush) Alrighty then. Thank you for your time, gentlemen.
ObamaSupporterDood#1&2: You’re welcome. Thanks for stopping.
I walked away from the table and headed towards the opponent’s booth to ask a few pointed questions about McCain’s campaign and stances. Specifically the Second Amendment. When we passed the table for the republican party, there wasn’t a soul to be found. I guess they felt pretty confident.

UPDATE:
Per reader request, I give you: The Hat

Why Does Sarah Tick Off the Feminists?

Here's a 3 minute interview with Cathy Young, one of my favorite contributors at Reason.com :

Let me direct your attention to

~
LAWDOG.
~

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.

Wives Club

I’ve never really searched out anything about the wives of any political male candidate, but this one sort of fell into my lap.
There’s much being bounced around about Michelle Obama’s blatant racist attitude and we all now know her feelings about her husband wanting to run a country that she doesn’t even like. Not to mention the whining and foot stomping about how hard it is to pay back college loans… What a gracious first lady she’d make.
But this entry isn’t about ObamaMama.
It’s about Cindy McCain.

Here’s a little background:
In B.Obama’s speech in Berlin a couple days ago he said,
“Now the world will watch and remember what we do here – what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice?
Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty…?” It goes on.

Talking the talk.
Well, Mrs.McCain has walked the walk.

In 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage couldn't provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the baby home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about.
Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation. "I hope she can stay with us," she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget.

There was a second infant Mrs. McCain brought back. She ended up being adopted by a young McCain aide and his wife.
"We were called at midnight by Cindy," Wes Gullett remembers, and "five days later we met our new daughter Nicki at the L.A. airport wearing the only clothing Cindy could find on the trip back, a 7-Up T-shirt she bought in the Bangkok airport." Today, Nicki is a high school sophomore. Mr. Gullett told me, "I never saw a hospital bill" for her care.

Cindy McCain. Classy act.
My two cents.

Bitter Bill

~
This story about Bill Clinton's sour grapes really didn't surprise me. But the picture reminded me of Jeff Dunham's puppet "Walter" (who curiously is running for president).
I report. You decide.

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.