ANGRY! man of the week

Oh brother. Talk about doing us no favors.

Check out the video:

[powerpress]

The Story:

In a video posted to YouTube and Facebook on Wednesday, Tactical Response CEO James Yeager went ballistic over reports that the president could take executive action with minor gun control measures after the mass shooting of 20 school children in Connecticut last month.

After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress.

“Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control,” Yeager explained in his video message. “Fuck that.”

“I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. You shouldn’t put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight.”

The CEO concluded: “I’m not fucking putting up with this. I’m not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”

via Unhinged Tactical Response CEO Threatens to ‘Start Killing People’ Over Obama’s Gun Control | Video Cafe.

Just like Alex Jones going on Piers Morgan and ranting like a mad man did the second amendment folk no favors. This idiot did none either. I look for this guy to either be arrested or find himself being watched for a while.

Some people, I tell ya… 🙄

Others: Talking Points MemoAMERICAblogNo More Mister Nice BlogPost PoliticsThe Mahablog,Hullabaloo and The Raw Story (via Memeorandum)

Honestly, why would NRA expect anything different?

This seems to be a bit silly, but I really think the NRA did not know what was coming:

Via the Weekly Standard:

NRA.gif“The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again.  We attended today’s White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals,” reads the NRA statement.

“We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment.  While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners – honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans.  It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems.  We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen.  Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works – and what does not.”

I hate to be the one to say “Well Duh!” but….um…:

The NRA should have known better than to even remotely think that they were going to get anything other than what they got from this Presidential Administration. This is why they need to hire me to do their political consultant work. I can tell them everything that they need to know about guns and Democrats. 😀

White House considering executive action on guns

I knew this was coming, it was just a matter of time; and unlike this idiot here, who believes that the following headline was overdone. I happen to believe it to be very true:

drudgeheadline

From the Weekly Standard:

Vice President Joe Biden revealed that President Barack Obama might use an executive order to deal with guns. 

“The president is going to act,” said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. “There are executives orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”

Biden said that this is a moral issue and that “it’s critically important that we act.”

Biden talked also about taking responsible action. “As the president said, if you’re actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking. But I’m convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of americans and take thousands of people out of harm’s way if we act responsibly.”

Biden, as he himself noted, helped write the Brady bill.

Eric Holder was scheduled to be at the meeting that’s currently take place at the White House. 

Ah yes, this ought to be very interesting to see what these Marxist gun grabbers come up with; as the Godfather of Chicago said, never let a crisis go to waste. As for what the idiot above that I linked to said about Drudge’s headline, I give you the words of Lew Rockwell:

In my experience, gun controllers are violent people, and private gun-owners are not. That is, gun controllers support mass murder; they just want it to be a monopoly of soldiers, police, etc. They would be glad to see Alex and the rest of us shot. Gun owners tend to abhor personal violence, and would only use it in defense of their family, themselves, and their property. And this is not a left-right issue. Non-commissar leftists like the late Alexander Cockburn are anti-gun control; neocons like Bill Kristol or the Randites are pro-gun control. Here is something that all good people across the spectrum can agree on: the state should be disarmed; the people should be packing.

It will be an amazing thing to see just whom on the right caves to the Marxist’s demands of gun surrender, or “control” as they like to call it. I just wonder which one of the Neoconservatives will fall first and say, :”Well, we have to have some sort of control!” I expect that Podhoretz or Kristol will be the first ones to falter to the demands of this administration.

Again, I do not know if having Alex Jones coming out as the circus act for the far right was a good idea, it may have just given the White House the ammo (sorry…) it needed to get what it wanted to carry out. Needless to say, there is going to be political fallout from something like this and it is not going to be good for the Democrats. I just hope that the GOP is ready to stage a comeback in 2014 or 2016. But from the looks of things at the moment, the GOP has some serious image issues, especially when it comes to the middle class.

UPDATE : Alex Jones versus Piers Morgan

I have written in here before about how I am not a fan of Piers Morgan and I am not really. But this right here, did us no favors at all, those of us who believe in the second amendment:

If that was not bad enough, there is this:

http://youtu.be/v0sE9hAXXB4

Again, I am sympathetic to the second amendment cause as anyone; but putting Alex Jones on to rant about an American revolution is just not the way to fight for gun rights. I also notice that this story very quickly disappeared from Drudge’s front page and for good reason. I don’t believe we need Alex Jones as our spokesman for the second amendment.

 

—–

Update: I watched the second video. My impression is this, Alex Jones is either telling the truth or he is one hell of a good actor. Jones is not too far away from the truth about the Mafia and the New World Order stuff. Truth is, he did go into the belly of the beast there in New York.

As for Alex Jones himself, I believe that Morgan got the reaction he wanted from Jones and it suited his agenda well. It might have backfired against the gun defenders however, because toward the end, Jones sounded a bit like he was challenging Bloomberg to a duel or something. Again, it is not that I don’t support what the right believes in gun rights, I do. I still just do not believe that the purpose of gun rights was served well here.

—–

AllahPundit Snarks:

It’s like criticizing a skeptic for inviting the “experts” from “Ancient Aliens” on and then not asking thoughtful questions about aerodynamics. Just wind ‘em up and let ‘em go.

Now that, is funny. Ha! AP also asks for followup question. So, here’s mine. Who the hell had the idiotic idea of allowing this idiot on to defend gun rights!?!?! 😯

You can get Alex Jones version of events here.  I didn’t watch the video, I didn’t have the stomach.

Update #2: Mitch Berg is thinking along the same lines as me.

Others, Via MemeorandumCNNThe Moderate Voicehis vorpal swordMediaiteHot AirGuardianMashable! and p m carpenter’s commentarymore at Mediagazer »

Oh Wonderful: The GOP is about to cave on gun control

It figures, you can’t trust a neoconservative to maintain principles for anything. This is why I despise them so much:

Republicans need to “have a discussion on guns” in the wake of last week’s grade-school massacre in Newtown, Conn., Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told his conference Tuesday.

Speaking to his troops at a closed-door meeting in the Capitol, Boehner was mindful of conservatives’ traditional opposition to new gun restrictions, emphasizing that Republicans wouldn’t do “anything knee-jerk,” according to a lawmaker in the room. 

But the Speaker also said he wants to “de-politicize” the issue of gun violence, which has been thrust dreadfully into the national spotlight following the murder of 26 people — 20 of them young school children — at Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday.

Since the massacre, President Obama and a long list of congressional Democrats have urged tougher gun laws — including a reinstatement of the assault-weapons ban and the elimination of the gun-show loophole — but GOP leaders have remained largely silent about a violence-prevention strategy. The discrepancy has lent partisan undertones to the Sandy Hook response that Boehner clearly wants to eliminate.

Boehner said the GOP’s strategy would be to examine the reasons that the mass shootings of recent years have been carried out, almost exclusively, by young, white males with mental illnesses, according to the lawmaker in the room.

“We need to have a discussion about guns,” the lawmaker said, relaying Boehner’s remarks, “and that doesn’t mean that all of a sudden we abandon the Second Amendment or the NRA [National Rifle Association] or anything like that. But there needs to be a discussion and everybody needs to participate and we need to depoliticize it.”

Boehner also told Republicans that they need to be “circumspect” in their observations, the lawmaker said, warning that “it’s not helpful” for lawmakers to call for arming teachers as a way to prevent mass shootings. 

via Boehner calls for ‘discussion’ on guns – The Hill.

 

Basically, that means, we’re screwed. They are going to pass a broad ban on all weapons that are not considered for personal protection. Which means that everyone needs to seriously look into buying that gun that you have wanted, before the ban goes into effect, and get your high-capacity magazines and ammo; before they outlaw you from buying it.

In my sidebars, I have two great places, one for ammo and one for guns. Please do check them out. I believe that everyone should be able to own a gun. This idea that guns were responsible for this tragic event is asinine. The only person responsible was the shooter’s mother, who was too stupid to not have her guns, where her mentally ill son could not get to them.

However, this will not stop this Marxist president; He and Hillary Clinton will not rest until there is a British-style gun ban in America. So, you know what means, don’t you?

 

…and by the way, Hit My Tip Jar too; so that I can maybe get some as well… Thanks!

One time support




 

Monthly Support

(Please note: These donation level titles are humorous)


Donation Amount Options



Please note: You can always:



Others: MediaiteThe Hill and The Caucus (via Memeorandum)

NRA finally puts out a statement

It’s about time:

The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.

The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21.

Details will be released to the media at the appropriate time.

via NRA.

Took ’em long enough…

Blogger Round Up.

 

 

Video: Bob Costas explains himself

The only real quibble I have with this, is this: The gun culture that Bob Costas is referring to, is mostly promoted by Gangster Rap. Most of those guns that are in the inner cities are illegally bought and owned. Most legal gun owners are upstanding citizens, and not deranged nut jobs like the guy who shot up that theater or the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords.

The painful truth is, that both of these guys bought these guns legally, and even I, as strong of a supporter of the second amendment as I am; I will concede that background checks would be a good idea, on the state level, with states sharing information. Now that would be a good idea. As for what kind of background, I believe checking for like serious health illnesses, such as mental illness and whether that person takes medication for some sort of illness is not unreasonable.

Either way, this video is very good. I think Costas defended his position well, I do not agree with it. I do not believe that the “Gun Culture” is necessarily a bad thing. The problem is that it has been exploited, by the gangsta rap culture.

(Via Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News Page)

Why is the Wounded Warrior Project against guns?

This does not sound good at all. (H/T to Fred Propheter on facebook)

Although the controversy is just making its way to the mainstream radar, the Wounded Warrior Project has been disassociating itself with firearms and knives for the past couple of years. References on its website have changed from “firearms” to “weapons.” Corporate sponsors such as Savage Arms are now replaced with Acosta Sales and Marketing and UHAUL.

Listening to a recent interview with Wounded Warrior Project’s CEO Steve Nardizzi, well, you would have thought it was ‘ol Slick Willy dodging the question. He started off by saying the WWP supported the Second Amendment and was happy to participate in hunting adventures and shoots as fundraisers—yet it prohibits using the WWP logo at such events.

Nardizzi went on to explain that the Wounded Warrior Project would not co-brand with firearm or knife manufacturers and retailers. He explained, “The return on investment just wasn’t there.” Return on investment? How much investment is WWP putting into the pot? It has no problem taking the firearm industry’s money; it just doesn’t want to be seen in public with us. So, essentially, the Wounded Warrior Project’s stance is that it does not want to be seen kissing us after it is done poking us?

What a great message this sends to our wounded heroes: “You were trusted with assault weapons (real ones, not what politician’s term ‘assault weapons’ when seeking reelection) until you were injured in service to our country.” Then…well, you might decide to hurt yourself so—in defense of the WWP’s reputation, not your future well being—we cannot be seen as partnering with ‘those companies’ in public.”

The author was one of the lucky ones managing to return home unharmed and with a few fond memories such as enjoying a few rounds of skeet while aboard ship. Other returning veterans were not as lucky and need our support.

This was brought out in Leslie A. Coleman’s—public relations director for WWP—response to an e-mail message asking for a clarification to its stance, “Our position regarding firearms and alcohol is in response to the struggles that many injured service members face with substance abuse and suicide and the roles those items often play in those issues.” I wonder if WWP even considered the fact that the extra money could go toward additional support and treatment. Sweeping it under the carpet by playing politics sure as hell isn’t going to prevent a tragedy, but funds and support might!

If WWP does not want to play with the firearms industry, and it is all about the money, well WWP picked which side of the fence it wanted to be on, not me. And let’s go a step further in seeking the truth. It is not about the money. While being interviewed Nardizzi explained that co-branding requires significant internal coordination with lawyers, PR people and others to manage it and finished by stating that we wouldn’t understand it. Really? I certainly do.

Nardizzi was then countered with the suggestion of an offer to cover all WWP internal expenses, then co-brand (use WWP’s logo on guns and knives) as a way to contribute to WWP. Nardizzi refused to give a straight answer. So if it is all about the money and you offer to cover all costs, why wouldn’t WWP jump at the opportunity? Because it is not now, nor has it ever been about the money—it’s about the politics.

During the interview, Nardizzi took the offensive, saying, he “can’t believe donors would withhold donations from wounded vets because we don’t get anything out of it” (use of the logo). Yet, WWP would risk losing donations by playing politics instead of focusing on raising the funds to help our vets.

via Wounded Warrior Project Draws a Line in the Sand Against Guns and Knives.

Go read the rest of that…

I think it is time to raise a stink about this one and let these people know that they are either on the side of liberty or tyranny. Pick a side WWP or get the hell out of business of the Military.