This Clown wants to be Govenor?

Scary Evil Killing Machine(Used in less than 1% of violent crimes)>
Necessary Tool (42,000 people killed per year in the U.S. in car accidents)

Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan, a Democratic candidate for Maryland governor, testified in Annapolis last week in support of a state ban on military-style weapons. "I lived through what one of these weapons can do during the sniper shootings," Mr. Duncan said, referring to the shooting spree in October 2002 that killed 10 persons and terrorized the Washington area for three weeks. "We don't need these guns on the streets."

Well Mr Duncan, I see that you are really concerned for keeping us safe.
Doug Duncan is trying to save us all here in Maryland from horrible evils like assault weapons, but he is fighting tooth and nail to see that the lunatic who pulled the trigger in the 2002 sniper shootings does not get the death penalty. You figure it out. And callin ol' Johnny Mo a sniper is an insult to people like the late Carlos Hathcock. Hathcock was a sniper, John Mohamed is a nut who just figured out which end the lead came out of.

The Media Blows It Again

By Kristi Heim
Seattle Times business reporter;
One of the most popular guns for home protection turned out to be the gun of choice for Kyle Huff, suspected of Saturday's shooting rampage.
The 12-gauge shotgun does maximum damage to the body of its target. It's easy to purchase. No permit is required, and an instant background check over the phone can be as fast as credit-card approval for someone with no prior felony conviction...
Huff was no stranger to shotgun violence. He was booked on criminal-mischief charges in Montana in 2000 on suspicion of blasting an outdoor sculpture of a moose.

Why is the article focused on how easy the gun is to purchase when Kyle Huff (The bonehead in the report) was a criminal who purchased the Gun illegally? I'd love to see an article written on how easy it is for criminals to buy guns on the street, and how low the violent crime rate is for law abiding gun owners. Who are the only ones following the stupid rules on buying a gun anyway.

Evil guns in Illinois?

SPRINGFIELD - Just two days after winning the Democratic nomination for the 2006 general election, Gov. Rod Blagojevich called on the General Assembly Thursday to approve an assault weapons ban over the objections of the National Rifle Association.He pointed to the recent slayings of two Chicago girls, Starkesia Reed and Siretha White, who died from wounds inflicted by stray gunfire in the Englewood neighborhood."There’s no reason not to do it unless you are afraid of the NRA," the governor said. "I don’t think it’s a hard decision. In fact, it’s really an easy decision"...."How many more have to die?" Acevedo told a crowd of about 100 people from Chicago who were bused to Springfield to lobby for the legislation.

Here we go again with this ridiculous "assault weapon" stuff. Can I explain to you what an assault weapon is?A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states. What the left has done is classify it as a military LOOKING firearm, It doesn't actually do anything special, it just looks like its military counterpart. Assault weapons are not machine guns, only one bullet per pull of the trigger.An example of assault weapon legislation is the 1994 Clinton gun ban. The bill in part outlaws new civilian manufacture of certain semi-automatic assault weapons. It also prohibits new civilian manufacture of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" declared certain weapons as assault weapons, and states a semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:
A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
A grenade launcher

How many crimes are committed each year using a bayonet? And I know how bad those pesky grenade launchers are getting in our cities. The truth is, "assault weapons" are used in a small percentage of crimes, and the last time I checked, "crime" was already illegal. So punish the bad guys for robbing the bank, or killing or whatever the crime was, and you will see a reduction in crime. Ban more guns, and crime will go up.


.

Kansas gov. vetos crime reduction bill

TOPEKA — Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed a bill Tuesday that would allow Kansans to carry concealed weapons, setting up a face-off with lawmakers already vowing to attempt to overrule her.
In a statement attached to her veto of the concealed-weapons bill, Sebelius said she could not “support allowing hidden weapons into businesses, restaurants, malls and any number of other public places.”

Now will someone please tell me why an elected official, who knows that concealed carry laws lower crime, would veto this bill. Do the liberals really want more crime? She must know that the "bad guys" already have "hidden weapons in businesses, restaurants, malls and any number of other public places.”

“I continue to hear from the police chiefs and other law enforcement officials, members of the clergy, health-care workers and employers throughout our state that concealed weapons on the streets make our citizens less safe and secure,” she said.

What about the statistics that say self defense saves lives, Governor? Everywhere CCW laws took effect, crime went down, regardless of what Deputy Dog, Father Mahoney, and Dr. Spock say. And the worse part is, she knows it, she just hopes you are to stupid to know it.

Its really not that hard

From the Washington Times today; (Click on title to read the whole article)

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales yesterday said Atlanta would become the 23rd U.S. city assigned a federal Violent Crime Impact Team in an aggressive effort to make that city safer. "The citizens of the city of Atlanta deserve to live free from violent crime," Mr. Gonzales said in announcing the law-enforcement initiative during a press conference at the U.S. attorney's office in Atlanta. "VCIT will help make Atlanta safer through a coordinated campaign to investigate and prosecute those individuals who threaten our communities with guns and violence."


Why is it so hard to figure out that violent crime cannot be defeated by law enforcement? Look back to the "gangster days" of the 20's, Did law enforcement end that ? No, the end of prohibition did. What brought back gangs and crime in the cities? Prohibition. This time it is drugs, not alcohol. I am not for drug use neither do I do any kind of drug, but how is it Uncle Sam's decision to stop someone from being a junkie? I know people won't agree with this because we are supposed to be in the war on drugs, but why can't we do what works for a change instead of what looks good on a press release? And if the citizens deserve to live free, why doesn't the government encourage the people to defend themselves, it works every time its tried. Look, if Joe Blow wants to get high, he's gonna get high, law or not, but if he wants to hurt me or mine, well that can be stopped.

D.C. gets a "B"

This is from the NRA's site ;

In last week’s Grassroots Alert, we reported on the annual ritual of the Brady Campaign issuing its “grades” to states based on the group’s opinion of state gun laws. To reinforce the silliness of the Brady Campaign’s grading system, one only needs to look at the group’s grade for Washington, D.C., released this week.
In breaking from past tradition to “grade” only states, the Brady Bunch gives the District a “B,” citing the city’s law on juveniles possessing guns, its egregious ban on keeping an assembled firearm in the home for self-defense, and its lack of a Right-to-Carry provision. Noticeably absent on the list of criteria for D.C. earning a “B” was the city’s handgun ban.


You gotta wonder how you get an "A"

Self Defense in Maryland? Nope

Its a Peaceful Thursday night, you are on your way home from a friends house when you realize your hunger, so you decide to stop for a bite. You realize that you don't have any cash on you so you make a quick stop at the ATM for $20. As you pull up to the bank, you can see there is no one else around, so you park your car and walk up to the ATM. Just as you normally do, you pull out your card and insert it into the machine, and as soon as you enter your PIN, there's a noise from the side of the building....
Your a young college girl leaving a late class one night. Talking to your friends after class, you realize the time and say your goodbyes. Walking to your car just as you do every night, anxious to get home to bed because of your early class in the morning, you hear footsteps behind you...
What could this mean? Could be someone to use the ATM, or another college student walking to their car...or it could be something else. Maybe someone who sees an easy few dollars, or a sick little pervert looking for a some fun. Options? Run? He may be faster. Stay and fight? He may be stronger. Spray him with pepper spray? Doesn't always work or have much effect on someone who might be high or is wearing glasses. How about my favorite. You reach into your concealed holster and pull out the compact 9mm you have stashed for just this occasion. What? You don't have one? Why the heck not? Oh, you live in Maryland or one of the only 13 states that do not allow concealed carry. Well, sorry bout your luck, you've just been mugged, raped, or killed. You see how ridiculous this is? I live in a state that does not allow its citizens to protect themselves outside of their home, Maryland. What could possibly be the reason for such a foolish act. The left wing . They for some reason believe that you can just call Andy Griffith or Barney Fife and they will "protect and serve" you. Well I live in the real world, not T.V. land. Here you don't have time to call the cops, you have time only to take action yourself. And self defense classes don't prepare you for a 250 pound man who's only thought is having his way with you. Unfortunately to many women have been robbed or rapped because they had no way to defend their selves. Is some goofy political view, or an ignorant unfounded fear of guns a good reason to become a victim of a crime? Or would you like to be able to save yourself? Here are some numbers that shouldn't surprise you, but probably will.
You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:

Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%
When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when unarmed

You see, You are being lied to about your safety and don't even realize it. But I know some will still think they are safer if only police have guns and we all just smile more. I have one question, If we just ban all guns and let only police carry them, we would be very safe right? Well just ask yourself, if all guns were illegal, then why would police still need them? If you said because the bad guys would too, ding, ding, ding, your right! We have to arm ourselves with the knowledge to fight back against those who would hurt people just because they can. We need to arm ourselves physically with the proper tools to defend against a physical attack. But unfortunately in my home state of Maryland, I would be the criminal if I did. Hopefully one day that will change, or I'll move to a more reasonable state.
I know some will read this and think I'm crazy, and that's fine-n-dandy, but tell what you would do, and not hypotheticals, pretend its your wife, mother, daughter, girlfriend, or any of your loved ones, how would you have them protect themselves?

( statistics taken from"Gun Facts" by Guy Smith also at www.gunfact.info )

Goys and Birls

At what point in our society did it no longer matter that boys and girls are different? There used to be a large distinction between what was "masculine" and what was "feminine". Now, it seems there is little or no difference at all. The phrase, "Girls can do anything boys can do" has taken a firm hold on our society, and it is pretty sad. When I read books about a time long ago, I see little boys playing cowboys and Indians(now we're not even allowed to say Indian), and girls playing with baby dolls, and having tea parties. But now, boys have dolls, and girls have football. We have played a perverted game of role reversal with our children, and traditional values are being trampled on in the process. Boys are taught emotion, compassion, and feelings, while girls are taught to be tough and to show the boys that she can keep up or beat them. Whatever happened to females being the "weaker vessel"(1Pe 3:7 You husbands, in like manner, live with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor to the woman, as to the weaker vessel, as being also joint heirs of the grace of life; that your prayers may not be hindered. ) It does not stop at childhood though, this attitude now is brought to the workplace and into the marriage. It was an honor to a man to be able to defend a woman, now we hear about women defending men. It was an honor for a man to provide for his family, now we see stay at home dads being provided for by their wives. There is no place for a man to be a man. A man no longer has the pride of knowing that he has provided for his family and without him, they wouldn't make it, nor does he have the pride of knowing that his protection is needed . She can do it just as good as him. And whats worse than that, is now Dads send their little girls to fight in wars for us. And it must be OK, because Disney made a movie about just that, "Mulan". Dad was to old and sick, and it was up to his daughter to save the day, they couldn't have done it without her, right. Wrong. I don't care how old or sick I am, the burden of battle will not be one any of my little girls will ever have to carry, and I don't see how any man with an ounce of dignity could see it any other way.
Now I'm sure most people reading this have already dismissed me as a chauvinistic, sexist pig. But this has nothing to do with male supremacy, or superiority, it has to do with cherishing, and honoring the women that God has blessed us with. My wife gets coddled, and doted on daily, I want her to feel she is the queen of my life, living in the castle I have provided for her(1,400 sq. ft ain't quite Camelot, but we manage). She relies on my support and income so she can raise our children at home. She depends on my strength to protect her from all kinds of evil. A knight in shining armor used to be every girls fantasy, but the modern woman doesn't need one anymore. A man relies on the emotion, compassion, and comfort that a woman provides, but now that women do it all, what does a man have to offer a woman. Nothing, and we wonder why marriages fall apart by the thousands. I'm not resting total blame of divorce on women, I'm just making the point that if both parties involved in a marriage do not have something to offer each other, then the relationship is destined to fail.
But as for me, I have one wild Indian, or Knight, or cowboy, or whatever wild thing he decides he is at the moment, and three princesses, or little mommies, or ballerinas, or whatever precious thing they are imitating. You see, my girls know that their big brother will protect them, because we haven't ingrained in their heads that they need to be stronger than him. And my boy will protect them from that terrible dragon and monster problem we have in our backyard. And what they see between me and my wife is not a competition, but a fully functional unit that has strengths and weaknesses that complement each other. Where I lack in emotion, or compassion, and tenderness my wife can even the balance. And where she lacks in logic, and physical strength. I fill in the gap. We are able to complete one another, not compete with one another. We each have a role, and we're proud to do it.
So, for the sake of the next generation, treat your girls like the princesses they are, and keep the pink shirts away from your boys, their marriage could depend on it.(And you just might get rid of that pesky dragon in your backyard)

"The Arabs Bought What!?"

I am a patriotic American, I love my country, I love my family, and I want to keep them safe as much as the next guy. So when I hear that Mohamed Jihad from East What's-it-stan is going to have control of our ports, I don't get all warm-n-fuzzy inside. I mean who can sleep at night knowing that the "God blast the U.S.A." crowd is in charge of what comes into our country. You may be able to deal with America being turned into a crater, but I have better, less explosive plans for my life. So with all that said, why am I not furious about the Dubia port deal? Because the media has ( you'd better sit down for this) lied and mislead you again. You surprised? I didn't think so. Here is how it is being portrayed;
--There is growing concern in the US over a multi-billion dollar deal giving control of ports to an Arab company(BBC)
-- He proposed selling the shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to an Arab-owned company. The President is defending the deal.
But Republicans and Democrats alike are questioning the logic of out-sourcing the management of the sea ports.
Two million tons of cargo passes through U.S. Ports each year.
Security officials are worried that terrorists could use the ports to smuggle in weapons of mass destruction. (msnbc)
--"This whole notion that Dubai is going to control or set standards for U.S. ports is a canard.(cnn)
With the news reports like this, that we get from the mainstream media, I can't see how anyone would allow such a deal. But Thankfully, with alternative forms of media, and good common sense, we now have the ability to see through the smoke. The truth is this,
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is always in charge of the nations port security, not the private company that operates facilities within the ports. Nothing will change with this transaction. DHS, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and other Federal agencies, sets the standards for port security and ensures that all port facility owners and operators comply with these standards.The transaction is not about port security or even port ownership, but only about operations in port. DP World will not manage port security, nor will it own any ports. DP World would take on the functions now performed by the British firm P&O basically the off- and on-loading of cargo. Employees will still have to be U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. No private company currently manages any U.S. port. Rather, private companies such as P&O and DP World simply manage and operate individual terminals within ports. So then why are we being led to believe things like, an Arab company is buying our ports, and port security in controlled by the Arabs, and my favorite, now terrorists could use the ports to smuggle in WMD's (why bother, Bill Clinton already made it to easy to bring them across the U.S.- Mexico border). Because it's another chance to jump on the "I hate Bush bandwagon". Just sit back and think for a minute, and let the logic and common sense warm up, and ask yourself, why would a man who has spent the last 6 years fighting terrorism, and put his presidency on the line more than a few times for the safety and security of this country, allow a deal that would put the very thing he vowed to defend, in jeopardy. You have heard the lies, and the rhetoric, but before you crucify Bush, consider the facts, and keep in mind, the media has as much of an agenda as any political party, and stories like this show their true colors. But when has the media ever let the truth get in the way of a good story?

(info on port deal obtained from fox news unless otherwise noted)