PINAR DEL RIO


support babalú


Your donations help fund
our continued operation

do you babalú?

what they’re saying


bestlatinosmall.jpg

quotes.gif

activism


ozt_bilingual


buclbanner

recommended reading





babalú features





recent comments


  • antonio2009: It seems that you have recuperated back to your usual self. Felicidades.

  • Gusano: ¡que comebola!

  • asombra: “Cubans who think differently but have common values.” Right. Values like the continuation of the Castro system with...

  • asombra: “Fierce defenders of Cuban sovereignty.” Which one? The one that was turned over to Soviet Russia for 30 years until...

  • asombra: Carlos, at least Weissenstein is not Cuban, which makes him better than Saladrigas. As for the “independents,” well,...

search babalu

babalú archives

frequent topics


elsewhere on the net



realclearworld

Americans Must “Demand” Gun Control for “Change” to Come

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

And what "change" would that be by taking away our gun barrels?

In life we are told and conditioned to not act hastily in situations, not to make emotional decisions. Our Founding Fathers clearly understood this as a keystone of governing in a representative republic. That is why they set up a system of checks and balances. But in this age of "Never let a good crisis go to waste", which oozes with taking advantage of people who are beside themselves with terror, horror, grief, we find those who increasingly decided every aspect of our lives in great spite of our Constitutional rights are basing their decisions on feelings...

This morning, before Biden and Obama had their scripted event in front of the cameras, with "a wallpapaer of children" surrounding them, I heard a democrat Congresswoman being interviewed on FOX News Channel. She was debating with someone who is anti-gun control. (I apologize for the lack of names. I had hoped FNC would offer the clip on their site but they haven't. The Congresswoman looks familiar, but I didn't catch her name.) This elected Congresswoman was insisting that "we (the government) need to act" by "the feelings" of "the people" while she was discounting a poll that showed the people do not want any more gun control.THIS is how the current 'representative' government is now 'governing'??? FEELINGS??? So, I suppose the Congresswoman would have had no problem if the day after 9/11 the feeling of a vengeful American people was for then Pres. Bush to nuke the terrorist training nation of Afghanistan into green glass? Note to the Congresswoman, the feelings of over 75% of the American people were AGAINST you passing ObamaCare into law, but you did so anyway. And the feelings of those over 75% were far more informed about 'what was in the bill' than the vast majority of you pinheaded Congresscritters because they had read the damn thing, and YOU didn't. You took an Oath to "Protect and Defend" the US Constitution that protects "We The People", you idiots.

However, this was the tone Obama decided to take in his speech. He decided to tap into the letters written from children across the country while shielding himself with said children in order to deflect and marginalize any opposition his "executive actions" against the Second Amendment would spark. If you listen to or read the speech it is rife with "feelings", and the attempt to invoke them.

This will be difficult. There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical, all-out assault on liberty -- not because that’s true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves. And behind the scenes, they’ll do everything they can to block any common-sense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever.

The only way we will be able to change is if their audience, their constituents, their membership says this time must be different -- that this time, we must do something to protect our communities and our kids.

I will put everything I've got into this, and so will Joe. But I tell you, the only way we can change is if the American people demand it. And by the way, that doesn’t just mean from certain parts of the country. We're going to need voices in those areas, in those congressional districts, where the tradition of gun ownership is strong to speak up and to say this is important. It can't just be the usual suspects.

I highlighted that last line because I thought I would mention how lately the democrats are using such criminal/violent rhetoric. Whether it is equating the GOP to "suicide bombers" and are "holding the US economy hostage" because of the debt ceiling opposition, or Obama's press conference the other day where he said the GOP was "holding a gun at the head of the American people". This is helpful how? This is levelheaded leadership how? Because THIS is exactly the core of what is wrong with our society right now that enables the desensitizing to violence, and the cheapening of another person who simply does not agree with your views. Playing to the feelings of the people instead of logic and reasoning.

Which brings me to the 23 "Executive actions" Obama outlined today... Even the White House admits none of the 23 demands would have stopped what happened in a grade school in Newtown, or a movie theater in Colorado, or a shopping mall, or anywhere else a mad man decides to rip apart and change the lives of countless innocent people before (typically) ending his own life.

Some of it is laughable.

#4: Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

#6: Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

#9 Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

#10 Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

It is as if AG Holder's and the ATF's failed, bloody, illegal, gunwalking "Fast and Furious" project, that forced legal gun shop owners to illegally sell thousands of weapons to illegal alien Mexican drug cartels that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans (some of them children), and a U.S. Border Patrol Agent and a U.S. I.C.E. Agent. As Humberto would say, "Unreal!"

Much of it sounds like the typical pile-on of failed government bureaucratic redundancies (most already being addressed on the state/local/institutional levels for the past several years) and the jamming of everyone into an almighty Big Brother federal data base, amounting to roughly a half a billion dollars of more government spending. But the ones that are the most alarming are those involving ... healthcare. Well, why not? I mean, ObamaCare didn't involve healthcare. Obama gun control should:

#2 Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

#16 Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

#17 Release a letter to health-care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law-enforcement authorities.

#18 Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

#19 Develop model emergency-response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

So, what now ... no more HIPAA? You know, that little privacy rule document your doctor(s) have you sign in their office every year? The one that guarantees and protects patient/doctor trust and privacy ... but mostly the patient's privacy. Oh, and having doctors ask patients if they have a gun in the home? Hell you say! My doctor owns guns. Here is more of that ObamaCare seepage:

#20 Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental-health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

Here is Sen. Marco Rubio's view on Obama and the Second Amendment with his official press release (below the fold):

Rubio Reiterates Support for 2nd Amendment Following President's Gun Policy Announcement

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) today issued the following statement reiterating his support for the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, in light of President Obama’s announcement regarding gun policy in America:

“As the father of four young children, I was deeply saddened by the murder of innocent kids at Sandy Hook. In the aftermath of this terrible tragedy, I expressed my hope that President Obama and our elected leaders would take a sober look at how we can prevent such heinous murders in the future. Doing so would require addressing the underlying causes of these evil acts, and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill without curtailing the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

“Nothing the President is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook. President Obama is targeting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence. Rolling back responsible citizens’ rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill. Making matters worse is that President Obama is again abusing his power by imposing his policies via executive fiat instead of allowing them to be debated in Congress. President Obama’s frustration with our republic and the way it works doesn’t give him license to ignore the Constitution.

“Guns are not the problem; criminals with evil in their hearts and mentally ill people prone to violence are. Rather than sweeping measures that make it harder for responsible, law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms, we should focus on the root causes of gun violence and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

“As a strong defender of the 2nd Amendment, I will oppose the President’s attempts to undermine Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms.”

A bit of interesting history (HT: The Gateway Pundit) on the origins of the much demonized NRA that today's media love to trash...

On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-American Republicans in Opelousas, Louisiana. The savagery began when racist Democrats attacked a newspaper editor, a white Republican and schoolteacher for ex-slaves. Several African-Americans rushed to the assistance of their friend, and in response, Democrats went on a “Negro hunt,” killing every African-American (all of whom were Republicans) in the area they could find. (Via Grand Old Partisan)

Which brings us to today…

Asshat Jason Whitlock, the Kansas City columnist whose article on Jovan Belcher‘s murder-suicide inspired an anti-gun rant by NBC’s Bob Costas, now says that the pro-Second Amendment National Rifle Association is “the new KKK” ...

Read in full...

Somebody needs to clue-in old Guam-tipper Hank Johnson.

Halt! Who goes there?

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country."

Astonishingly First Amendment champions are too stupid to understand our Second Amendment protects their right to open their mouths and roll complete propaganda off their forked tongues:

A news media that was founded on being a watchdog for the public by seeking facts and truth, that has morphed into an entity priding itself on the shallow art of For the sake of argument...

A news media that offers less and less everyday to the American people...

2 comments to Americans Must “Demand” Gun Control for “Change” to Come