• Follow me on Twitter

  • 1 With A Bullet

It’s About the Next 40 years, Not the Next 4

Get out and vote!  Vote straight ticket Republican and take a friend, coworker, neighbor or anybody else that will also vote straight ticket Republican.  Straight ticket because we need the House and the Senate to overturn the damage that has already been done. Furthermore even if the local dogcatcher has a ‘D’ after their name, it’s an acknowledgement that they accept the leadership and policies of Obama (and Pelosi, and Reid, and Holder, and Schumer, etc.) and I don’t want any of my local government supporting and tax money paying for that.

For those that don’t think Obama has done anything to restrict your firearm rights, think again.  GunBanObama.com has the extensive list of anti-gun actions he has already committed.

Remember also his comment to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, “After my election I have more flexibility.”  A tacit admission that without the fear of having to be elected again, the brakes would be competely off for the next term for any and all regulation and restrictions he seeks to impose.

And that brings me to the title of this article.  All federal judges, not just those on the Supreme Court, are appointed for life.  Obama has already attempted to stack the deck against our Second Amendment by the appointments he has already made.  All appointments [hundreds] made during the next four years will impact our Rights for the next 40.

We the People won the Heller and McDonald cases by one vote.  Our natural rights were affirmed by one person deciding in our favor in both cases in a 5 to 4 decision.  The next President may have as many as three Supreme Court appointments.  Just imagine another three Kagans, Sotomayers or Holders.  Beyond that, only an infintesimal percentage of cases make it to the SCOTUS, almost all decisions from the lower courts stand.  Another four years means going from having the deck stacked against us to not even having a seat at the table.  To use another metaphor: Obama will salt the Earth against your gun rights.

Look, I realize that we rarely ever get a choice between good and better;  it’s often a choice between bad and worse.  However, the way to fix a party is from within it; look at the influence the Tea Party movement has had so far.  Yes, Mitt Romney did sign “Assault Weapons” legislation, but that law was endorsed by gun owners and served as a ‘fix’ for already existing law.  Mitt’s not the ideal candidate (and since I’m not running, no one is) but he’s better than the alternative.  I understand the urge to vote for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, but I also remember that in 1992, thanks to Ross Perot, we wound up with eight years of Bill Clinton, who won his first term with only 43% of the overall vote.  And Clinton gave us the ’94 Assault Weapons (i.e. semi-automatic) Ban.  That one had a 10 year sunset; Obama’s won’t.  Do you remember folks paying $120 for a single full-capacity Glock 17 magazine?  I do.

These thoughts are why this superb piece by Bill Whittle resonates so strongly with me:

So if you haven’t done so already, please go vote today.  Vote for Mitt Romney and every other Republican you can.  And for Heaven’s sake don’t let the mainstream media outlets discourage you from voting.  They will try and call states early for the Democrats in hope of convincing later voters to stay home.  If you are in the line to vote when the polls close you still get to cast your ballot.  Your vote matters and we have to win by a larger margin than they can cheat.


Concealed Carry Permit holder helped subdue Giffords’ shooter

A concealed carry permit holder was one of those brave citizens that tackled the lone whack job that shot Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed and wounded many others.  Joe Zamudio was leaving a Walgreen’s pharmacy when he heard gunshots… and ran toward them to see if he could help.

Update: (found the Fox interview)

Update 2: had to change links; try this one to see an interview

Also see interview with Geraldo Rivera here. [link is defunct]



Please note that Joe was just one of the several heroes on the scene.  Patricia Maisch ran to disarm the assassin by grabbing the magazine.  Roger Salzgeber and Col. Bill Badger also tackled and held the shooter down.  Col. Badger [74 years old!] actually suffered a gunshot wound to the head before taking action.  All are true citizen heroes.

I bring attention to Joe Zamudio primarily because most of the national media, judging by reporting on similar previous stories, will likely downplay or ignore the fact that he is a concealed permit holder.

Here is a man that heard gunshots and ran towards them in an effort to help however he could.  He did this without knowing the situation or who was in danger.  Arriving on scene he recognized that the criminal was no longer a threat and provided assistance in restraining the assassin.  Several things should be noted:

  • He did not draw a firearm and charge into an unknown situation.  That would have added to the confusion, possibly leading to him being identified as a second gunman.
  • He was aware that there was a crowd and recognized the danger of hitting bystanders.
  • A person other than the assassin was in control of the firearm when Joe arrived.  He did not misidentify the criminal and fire on an innocent.
  • He did not act as “judge, jury and executioner”.
  • He has stated (on the Fox and Friends interview) that he has no special training for such situations.

Please keep these in mind as in the wake of this tragedy, the blood dancers wail and moan about the need to ban guns, ammo, and full capacity magazines (the shooter used a 31 round mag in his Glock).  The gun banners will say that only cops have the training and ability to use firearms and stop criminals.  This incident highlights that citizens are capable and the cops are always second responders.  Here we have a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun and it was the bad guy who sprayed bullets into the crowd.  It’s not the implement; it’s the criminal.

Do not let anyone tell you that your freedoms must be restricted because of the actions of criminals.  If the consequences of the crime of premeditated murder won’t stop a lone nut from shooting a congresswoman and into a crowd, more laws won’t stop another from doing the same.  Gun bans only create more victims.

Additional links:

American thinker asks, “Would you run towards the sound of gunfire?

Local AZ news interview of Joe

Father of slain 9 year old does not want restrictions on freedom

Will ObamaCare Ban Guns?

Via the Gun Owners of America:

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has something to say to gun owners:  “Own a gun; lose your coverage!”

Baucus’ socialized health care bill comes up for a Finance Committee vote on Tuesday.  We have waited and waited and waited for the shifty Baucus to release legislative language.  But he has refused to release anything but a summary — and we will never have a Congressional Budget Office cost assessment based on actual legislation.  Even the summary was kept secret for a long time.

But, on the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill (which is still unnumbered) tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law — nor the consequences.  It simply says:

* “all U.S. citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase coverage through (1) the individual market…”;

* “individuals would be required to report on their federal income tax return the months for which they maintain the required minimum health coverage…”;

* in addition to an extensive list of statutorily mandated coverage, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be empowered to “define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services…” within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting “required minimum health coverage.”

ObamaCare and gun control

It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities.  And, given Sebelius’ well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment — she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas — we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm.  It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

Please read the rest and then call your Senators to strongly oppose the Baucus Bill.

It’s the criminals, Stupid

Via Drudge I found this story wherein I found this:

Some gun-control advocates question the administration’s timing as Duncan and Holder arrive after a highly publicized beating that didn’t involve a gun.

Missed Opportunities

“Where there have been opportunities for the president to speak out about the issue of firearm violence, he has missed any number of opportunities,” said Thom Mannard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

Doing so in the Albert case “provides the cover” to address youth violence without confronting the gun lobby, said Mannard, whose group’s board of directors included Duncan until he left for his current post.

Which prompted me to write this letter to the author:

I found your article through a Drudge link.  I’ve read it through twice now and I can’t seem to find a point.

Are you trying to say that in a town where handguns are completely banned (yet still holds status as one of the most deadly places of ‘gun violence’ in the U.S.) Obama should expend more ‘political capital’ by speaking for the cause of banning guns?  [BTW, I think that is a GREAT idea!]

Or that the argument for doing so was unfortunately sideswiped by the murder committed with railroad ties?

Or that Arne Duncan admits (last paragraph of your article) to the total failure of gun bans to reduce violence?

Or that violence occurs because of the actions of criminals and not the implements used?

Throw me a bone, here.


I eagerly await his response.