Google Custom Search

Saturday, February 02, 2008

Gun-Free Chicago: 5 Women Shot Dead Shopping

As is commonly known throughout the blogosphere among Second Amendment rights activists, Chicago has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation.

Yet, once again in this 'gun free zone,' i.e., a clothing store in the Chicago area, 5 women were gunned down as they shopped.

Add this one to the Mall shootings, Virginia Tech, and all the rest of the murdering rampages that have occurred of late in supposed 'gun free zones.'

Why doesn't the government just go ahead and come clean about the matter and admit they want us all to go 'gun free' so that thugs with guns can have free reign and rid the population of the expendable ones?

Here is the story:

Second Amendment News Roundup for 2/2/08

Well, folks, we have some catching up to do, so here we go.....

Focusing on guns and politics, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:

Mike McCarville notes that conservatives in Oklahoma and elsewhere are jumping onto the Romney bandwagon:

McCarville also reports that conservatives Senator Tom Coburn and former Governor Frank Keating explain why they support John McCain:

JR at A Keyboard and a .45 passes along info on a school shooting that had a happy ending:

JR also sums up his relationship of late with the sentiments exactly, if not worse:

Roberta X submits the Brady Gang's rating of her state regarding firearms:

Berkeley, California has told the Marines to get out of their town. All American Blogger shows why I am VERY proud of South Carolina Republican and U.S. Senator Jim DeMint. Click here to read DeMint's marvelous response to the Commies who live in and control Berkeley:

Alphecca reports on the Brady Gang's rating of the state of Vermont on firearms:

Armed and Safe says that there is a 'super dialogue' taking place tonight at 6 PM on featuring Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton:

Blogonomicon has a vintage gun ad from 1962:

Blogstitution presents yet another reason why Democrats are bad for America:

Born Again Redneck has the latest GOP Super Tuesday poll, state by state:

Dustin's Gun Blog reminds us that girls like the shooting sports also:

Syd shows us that Barack Obama has been out on the campaign trail lying about his record on gun control and the Second Amendment:

Of Arms and the Law has an interesting post on D.C. vs. Heller and the standard of review:

Ryan Horsely at Red's says he is attending the Shot Show this weekend in Las Vegas and will be consulting with some powerful voices in the gun rights movement:

Say Uncle reports that some numbskull politicians down in Mississippi want to ban restaurants from serving 'fat people.' I kid you not:

The MUST-read of the day is by Robb Allen at Sharp as a Marble! And it is chilling yet very true:

Sebastian has a comparative analysis on how much it would cost Americans to pay for the proposals of the various candidates, Democrat and Republican:

Squeaky has some VERY appropriate comments on the idiot who suggested that cheating on taxes is a 'crime against humanity.' Read all the way to the end for the context:

The Bitch Girls present some info on the gun business, which should be of interest to us all, since eventually whatever takes place at the corporate level will trickle down to us:

Breda posts this little interesting item from Don's Guns:

You gotta see this over at Liberty Zone entitled, 'Those Evil Guns':

David Codrea at The War on Guns hits the nail on the head here:

Traction Control posts great commentary on a study which claims our military is unprepared for an attack on the U.S. homeland:

I just love these sorts of things. Tam has a pic of a gun manufacturered in 1881. Go take a look:

John Lott provides good reading on the all-too-common reactions to gun ownership from the sheeple:

Ann Coulter has been wrongly condemned for supposedly saying she 'supports' Hillary over McCain. What she said is that Hillary would be preferrable over McCain because only with Hillary in the White House and Democrats controlling the Congress will the numbskulled idiots who now run the GOP be jolted awake to the fact that they CANNOT diss the conservative principles of Reagan and get elected! I, too, am convinced this is the only way to reclaim the GOP from RINOS:

Michelle Malkin has an excellent piece on the distortion of the Reagan record by the McCain crowd:

Eugene Volokh writes about a Muslim soldier's religiously motivated refusal to be deployed to Iraq:

Gun Law News provides vital information on Senate Bill 2577, which will establish background check procedures at gun shows:

Thursday, January 31, 2008

McCain May Not Get my Vote, Either...

Although I'm still not well, I felt compelled to comment on the McCain bandwagon in light of Rudy Giuliani's exit from the race.

In a recent post I stated that I could not endorse ANY of the present candidates in either Party, but that I would certainly vote for any of the GOP candidates over Hillary or Obama.

This was before Rudy pulled out of the race, meaning that moderate to liberal Republicans have jumped over to McCain. The conservative base of the Party is still split between Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney, with none of them receiving enthusiastic support from the majority of this base.

This means, of course, that the moderate to liberal element within the GOP is having its way with the nomination process, leaving conservatives split and basically powerless, at least for now.

It occurred to me, why encourage the McCain bandwagon with assurances that he will get my vote, if not my endorsement, in a matchup with Hillary or Obama? This does nothing but encourage and reinforce his bad behavior.

I am not going to vote for John McCain unless MAJOR concessions are made to the conservative base, and that includes a complete repudiation of McCain-Feingold, an unfettered expression of support of the Second Amendment as an indiviual right WITH NO STIPULATIONS, and a promise of NO SPECIAL PATH to citizenship for dishonorable illegal aliens, who MUST get in the back of the line with those who are honorable enough to come here LEGALLY.

The ONLY 'path to citizenship' is the legal path already contained in the LAW!

McCain claims to have been a foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution in 1980. If this is the case, then the former President must have rolled over in his grave enough times to creat an earthquake.

McCain's votes may have reflected the conservative principles of Reagan for the first 10 years of his service in the Senate, but since 1990 or so, he has shifted decidedly to the Left on various matters such as gun rights and free speech.

We conservatives won't have any of it!

Unless he reaches out to us with solid, verifiable promises to keep the conservative base of the Party intact, we will jump ship...throwing the election to Hillary or Obama. I have come to the conclusion that only such a threat will get the attention of the numbskulls who now run the GOP and who are running as fast as they can away from the Reagan Coalition.

On the Presiential ballot, one can add a write-in. A movement has begun in South Carolina to do exactly that. They are calling themselves 'The Conservative Party,' and they plan to type or write in the name of Fred Thompson on the ballot.

I just may well do that.

If McCain chooses Fred Thompson as his running mate, that would be a great development, but McCain himself is going to have to personally address the conservative base of the GOP to make assurances that he will not throw us under the bus when it comes to taxes, illegal aliens, gun rights, and free speech.

If he cannot do that, then even Thompson on the ballot won't be enough.

Illness has caused me to do a lot of thinking over the past four days. And I have determined that I'll be damned before I let a group of turncoat RINOS destroy the Reagan Coalition without a fight.

Monday, January 28, 2008


Sorry, folks, but illness has prevented me from posting the Second Amendment News Roundup today. While I am sidelined I will continue to check email and comments to posts, but the Roundup will be on temporary and hopefully, shortlived, hiatus.

Needless to say, I appreciate your thoughts and prayers, and I hope to be back soon.


JFK's Daughter Weighs In on Clinton-Obama Flap

Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy, endorsed Barack Obama with two central concepts in mind.

First, she wanted to send a signal to the Clintons that she vehemently disapproves of their campaign tactics and reputation. Ms. Kennedy's father may have been considered by some to be 'liberal' for his day, but he was clearly not mean-spirited, the proof of which is in the late Barry Goldwater's assessment of the President.

Goldwater, who ran as the quintessential conservative Republican in the 1964 Presidential campaign, stated that he was looking forward to running against John Kennedy. The two had even discussed conducting a nationwide series of friendly debates during which the issues and not personalities would be discussed.

However, fate would have it that Kennedy would never have the chance to run again, and Goldwater was stuck with running against Lyndon Baines Johnson, whom he described as the absolute most despicable human being ever to occupy the White House.

The Johnson campaign proved Goldwater's point. By falsely scaring the public into thinking Goldwater was a 'war-monger' who would get us into a nuclear war, including the airing of commercials showing mushroom clouds in the background as innocent American children played in the grass, Johnson succeeded in beating the socks off of Goldwater on a totally false premise.

In fact, it was actually JOHNSON who was the war-monger, and the Viet Nam War ruined his chances of running for a second term.

Kennedy was, no doubt, an amicable human being who would have run a clean, positive campaign in 1964, as Caroline Kennedy says Barack Obama is doing now.

Second, Ms. Kennedy claims that Obama would 'be a President like my father.'

This is where the comparison breaks down and highlights contrasts more than comparisons.

Obama sets a tone in a campaign that is similar to Kennedy's, but his views cannot be considered consistent with the late President's. For example, John F. Kennedy was a lifetime member of the NRA. Barack Obama has voted for every single piece of gun control legislaton that was put forth during his terms of office in Illinois, as well as in the U.S. Senate.

It is also worth noting that contrary to popular opinion, Kennedy was no big government statist. The massive growth of government occurred during Johnson's term of office. In addition, Kennedy supported and was able to pass a major tax cut similar to Ronald Reagan's in the early 1980s.

In short, Kennedy kept the growth of government in check and gave the citizens a prudent tax cut. If one reads Obama's proposals, one cannot in any circumstance refer to him as anything other than a big government statist in the mold of Lyndon Baines Johnson, without the Johnson corruption and mean-spiritedness.

The big news in the midst of all of this is that the Kennedy endorsement of Obama indicates that the 'old guard' in the Democratic Party is turning away from the Clintons. This could well spell the end of her campaign following Super Tuesday.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Clinton Strategy a Major Failure

In the first major test of Hillary Clinton's strength in a major southern primary, one thing has become clear. The Clinton strategy is a major failure.

Not only did Hillary lose, but she lost big. Senator Barack Obama won in a major landslide with 55% of the vote. Hillary finished a distant 2nd with 27%. And South Carolina native son John Edwards came in 3rd with 18% of the vote.

Clinton had a 3-pronged strategy going into the South Carolina primary. First, unleash husband Bill as an attack dog on Barack Obama. Second, attack Obama relentlessly during the pre-primary debate. Third, use the race card to subtly link Obama with the Black vote in order to scare older white voters into supporting Hillary.

The intended result of this strategy was to send some of Obama's support from white voters over to Hillary.

It did not work. Not only did it not work but it may have backfired.

Obama received a respectable showing of white support in the South Carolina primary. When the totals are fully tallied we will see that Obama received roughly 30-35% of the white vote. Hillary received roughly 45% of this vote. And John Edwards received roughly 15-20% of the white vote.

This means that Obama is poised to do very well with white voters on Super Tuesday--a fact that looms ominously over the heads of the Clintons who expected Obama to be another Jessie Jackson whose appeal is limited almost exclusively to black voters.

In fact, Bill Clinton said as much during remarks following Hillary's concession to Obama in South Carolina. The former President stated that Obama has run a good campaign, 'just like Jessie Jackson did in South Carolina in 1984 and 1988.'

The problem is that Jackson was not running against a former First Lady and her husband, a former President of the United States. In addition, Jackson got almost NONE of the white vote in those years.

Rush Limbaugh and Dick Morris have postulated a theory that the Clintons wanted to lose South Carolina so they could say afterward that they fully expected Obama to win 'because of the large African-American vote in the state,' and thus scare white people into the Clinton camp.

If, in fact, the Clinton strategy was to lose, once again the plan backfired. They wanted her to lose but not by 30 percentage points, which puts her entire campaign in trouble.

Exit polls in S.C. show that voters were turned off by the Clintons' playing the race card and conducting a highly negative campaign. Thus, the entire Clinton campaign strategy must be re-evaluated just a little over two weeks away from Super Tuesday.

And they surely did not want Obama picking up the level of support he received from white voters.

Obama now has big momentum going into Super Tuesday, and the Clintons are wondering what went wrong.