Posts Tagged ‘gun control’

Another CLUELESS Democrat!!!!

June 18, 2014

This comes from the Great State of Colorado.  I hope you have heard that last year, the Democrats that hold majorities in the State Government as well as The Governor, UNILATERALLY (this means with NO support of the Republicans, and when I say NO support I mean ZERO) passed legislation that outlawed gun magazines that hold more than 15 bullets, as well as other probably UNCONSTITUTIONAL provisions.  This legislation resulted in the historic recall of 2 representatives and the resignation of a third that would have been recalled.  This was “historic” because it has NEVER happened in the history of the state of Colorado.

Earlier this week, the Governor, Mr. Hickenlooper, was attempting to apologize, while not really apologizing, to the State Sheriffs for NOT listening to ANY of their CONCERNS before he signed the bill into law.  Here is an article from Red State about this meeting.  I am sure that you can find video if you don’t trust their reporting, News 4, which is decidedly LIBERAL is covering this as well, a link is the article.  Here is the quote that I would like to comment on:

One of my staff made a committment that we’d sign it if it got passed. To be honest, no one in our office thought it would get through the legislature.”


One of YOUR staff???

First of all Mr. HickenLOSER Hickenlooper WE did not elect YOUR STAFF, WE elected YOU to be the Governor and make decisions.  When I say “we”, I don’t mean me because I voted for the other guy, but I mean we the citizens of Colorado.

Second, YOU hired YOUR staff.  This means that YOU are ultimately responsible.  When did YOU give YOUR staff authority to make commitments for YOU and the State of Colorado??  Is that even LEGAL??

Third, what other “commitments” has YOUR staff made??

Forth, when you say “we’d sign”, what does that mean??  I didn’t see any other signature, except YOURS.  YOU SIGNED IT….NO ONE ELSE.

Fifth, IF “no one in your office thought it would get through”, why were you working so hard with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, to get it passed??

Sixth, WHY did you think it would not get through, IF you were “unaware” that it would be so “controversial”??

From me to you, Mr. Hickenlooper, YOU ARE AN IDIOT OR A LIAR, and these statements are proving this.

I think you should start looking for a new job.

It was very hard to come up with a title for this post.  I am looking for good suggestions, if you have one, leave it in a comment.  If I like it, I will change it.

Bob Costas wants to make a BET???

April 3, 2014

Sometimes I have to laugh…..and SOMETIMES I like to GAMBLE…I have done both in my past, and I will say this, the offer that Costas has made is a “suckers bet”.  This means that if you “bet” Costas, like he wants you to, you cannot win.  Let me explain…

First, here is an article that describes the “bet” that Costas wants to make, from Mediaite:

Bob Costas Defends His ‘Gun Culture’ Comments to Seth Meyers

or if you don’t want to read the whole article, here is the “wager”

Costas proceeded to offer up a bet to “anybody to who, anytime they hear the word ‘guns’ automatically goes off like, ‘They’re going to repeal the Second Amendment!” Looking at news stories over the next five years, he predicted there will be more tragedy associated with athletes having guns than “good and constructive” things.


Let me get this straight, Bob, you want me to bet you, that there will be more “news stories” that are “good and constructive” than there will be “news stories” about tragedy associated with athletes and guns???  Hahahhahhahahhahhahahhhahahhahaaa

Stop, my side hurts, from LAUGHING AT YOU SO HARD!!!!  I can’t breathe…..

Hey, Bob, HOW MANY “NEWS ARTICLES” do you see today that are “good and constructive”???  I am talking about ANY “NEWS ARTICLES”, not just ones that deal with those big and scary weapons that fire lead at a high velocity, I’m talking about ANY “NEWS ARTICLES”!!! 

Seriously, Bob, that isn’t a “bet”, that would be stealing.  A true gamble is one where you would take either side, Bob.  If you want to GAMBLE, count me in, but don’t try to STEAL from me, you LEFTIST MORON!!!! 

Just to conduct an experiment, I went and looked for stories about the 150 MILLION guns that are NEVER INVOLVED IN “TRAGEDY”, and guess how many I found???

I know, I couldn’t believe it either.  Can you believe that violence and tragedy sells news???  If you were to start a “newspaper” and only tell stories about guns that people own that did nothing but travel to the range and other times stay holstered, how long do you think you would stay in business??  I am not making a judgement, here, on what sells news papers, it just IS.  (If you need the definition of “is”, I suggest you ask Billy Clinton.)

Or how about stories that I would consider a “tragedy” in some way, but mostly are “good and constructive”, because the victim used a firearm to stop or KILL THE BAD PERSON??  It is a “tragedy” that an INNOCENT person was put in that situation by the BAD PERSON to begin with, but I am grateful that they had access to a firearm, and used it to PROTECT THEMSELVES.

What about those articles, Bob?  How would YOU classify those??  Tragedy? or Good and Constructive??

When YOU, Bob, start reporting about the athlete, or non athlete, that owns guns, AND HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG WITH THOSE GUNS, then maybe we can talk about a wager.  Until then, continue to be protected by your own ARMED SECURITY, AND STFU!!!!  Because you are a LIBERAL and do NOT want to ACKNOWLEDGE THE REAL WORLD FACTS.

Here is a “bet” that I will make with you Bob Costas….I will bet that you have no clue how many “athletes” own a gun.  What say you Bob, do we have a bet?

Gun Magazines Larger Than 10 Rounds???

January 17, 2013

I have been hearing, A LOT lately, about how the President and Democrats want to limit the magazine size of guns to less than 10 bullets.   This has become THE BIG NEWS STORY since the tragic massacre in Newtown, by a psychologically disturbed madman who killed his own mother and stole her guns to perpetrate the slaughter in a gun free zone.

Why We Must Ban High-Capacity Gun Magazines” – Huffington Post

Gun control advocates target high-capacity magazines” – USA Today

Obama gun control plan riles Hudson Valley critics” – Newsday

Emanuel Calls Obama Gun Laws “Common Sense”” – NBC Chicago

I’m positive that you can find many, many more articles, but these give the basics.  Obama wants to ban “high capacity gun magazines.

For years, gun control advocates have tried to ban high-capacity magazines, arguing they have no place in civil society.”

The proposed legislation would impose a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines

I’m sure you get the argument, I mean, NO ONE NEEDS more than 10 bullets for “self-defense“!!  Here is a quote from the President:

“…while there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try.”

Don’t you see, we need to save ONE LIFE!!!

And now for my opinion.

I’ll make a deal with the President, I will consider a ban on “high capacity magazines”, IF he will enact the following:

He will sign no bill into law that is longer than 10 pages.  AND, he will eliminate any current law that is more than 10 pages. 

I mean, who needs more than 10 pages to tell people what they cannot do??  Who needs 2,471 pages for a new law, like ObamaCare??

But, is it really that number of pages?  I don’t think that it is.  It’s much, much more.

The bill is filled with references to other laws, bills, and regulations, and those references are not explained in context with the language of the bill.
For example.

(2) in subsection (c)(2)(C)—
(A) by striking ‘‘9.8 percent’’ in clauses (i)(II) and (iv)
and inserting ‘‘9.5 percent’’; and
(B) by striking ‘‘(b)(3)(A)(iii)’’ in clause (iv) and
inserting ‘‘(b)(3)(A)(ii)’’.
(b) COST SHARING.—Section 1402(c) of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(i)—
(A) in subclause (I), by striking ‘‘90’’ and inserting
(B) in subclause (II)—
(i) by striking ‘‘80’’ and inserting ‘‘87’’; and
(ii) by striking ‘‘and’’; and H. R. 4872—4
(C) by striking subclause (III) and inserting the following:


Would somebody tell me just exactly what the hell any of that means?  Is there one person on the whole freaking planet that can understand that gobbledygook?  I don’t think so.

Or how about this.

Replaced by section 10101(d).
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan (other than a self-insured
plan) shall satisfy the requirements of section 105(h)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to prohibition on discrimination
in favor of highly compensated individuals).

So this paragraph is meaningless unless we drag out the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and read section 105(h)(2).

But guess what?  You can’t find section 105(h)(2).  In an hour of searching, I found ten-page summaries, and three-page summaries, and twenty-page summaries of that section.  All from links on the IRS site that point to non IRS sources, so these summaries all had a disclaimer to the effect of “This a summary, and not the actual law, and should not be the basis of a legal decision”, or similar wording.

So, if you base a legal decision on the wording of a non IRS summary that the IRS directed you to, and some bureaucrat decides to make your life miserable, he can just blow the dust off of his secret copy of the actual document, and find something in it not covered by the summary, which you had no way of knowing, and he can stick it to you for violating a rule that NOBODY, not even the bureaucrat, knew existed before he started looking for a way to mess with you.

I don’t mean to impugn all bureaucrats.  I presume that most aren’t inclined to use their power as a hammer on other people, but we’ve all encountered bureaucrats who are petty, small minded jerks who take their frustrations out on the general public for no other reason than the fact that they can.

There is not one single person on Planet Earth who can understand or explain this law in its entirety.  Not even the people who drafted it, since it was drafted in pieces.  You might find someone who could do a passable job of explaining pages 50 through 100, or 300 through 350, but no one who could explain it all.

The examples I’ve given are just a drop in the bucket.  The bill is riddled with references to other bills.  My best guess is that if you wanted to really understand the President’s health care plan, you would not only have to gather the two thousand plus pages of the bill itself, but about twenty thousand pages of other bills that it refers to.

You simply can’t understand this bill.  I don’t understand it.  Nancy Pelosi doesn’t understand it.  Harry Reid doesn’t understand it.  And the President doesn’t understand it.

So, to those people who are of the opinion that our country’s health care needs are better served with a large amount of government involvement, please think about the complexity of the bill.  Why did they make it so incomprehensible?  If the Obama/Reid/Pelosi triumvirate really had your best interests at heart, wouldn’t they have insisted on a bill that could be read and understood by the average person?”Neill Arnhart

Or who needs MORE THAN 70,000 pages to tell Americans how much they need to pay the US Government in TAXES??

The federal tax code, which was 400 pages long in 1913, has swollen to about 70,000. Americans now spend 7.6 billion hours a year grappling with an incomprehensible tangle of deductions, loopholes and arcane reporting requirements. That is the equivalent of 3.8 million skilled workers toiling full-time, year-round, just to handle the paperwork. By this measure, the tax-compliance industry is six times larger than car-making.

An incredible 82 percent of taxpayers are so flummoxed that they pay for help. Some 60 percent hire an accountant or tax preparer, while another 22 percent use tax software.

The Economist points out that “even the head of the Internal Revenue Service, Douglas Shulman, gets someone else to do his taxes.” I don’t know how the Economist reporters know that, but if that’s true it’s exhibit A in why we need tax reform.

Here’s exhibit B: The Annual Report of the National Taxpayer Advocate, who works on taxpayers’ behalf at the IRS, says that the most serious problem for taxpayers is that the IRS only answers their toll-free phones 71 percent of the time. I don’t think that’s the most serious problem when it comes to paying taxes.” – USNews

So what say you Mr. President??  Will you put a stop to the Bills and Laws that KILLING Grandmas and Babies??  How come you don’t care?? 


Let me know what you think.