I Don’t Think They Thought This Through…

So Mom’s Demand Action, a wholly owned subsidiary of Michael Bloomberg, Inc. issued the following statement.  Most of note was this line:

The right of mothers to protect our children SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Evidently in their twisted view of the world there are only a few acceptable means of defending your children.  One small problem with that, their statement in and of itself is full of hypocrisy.  Why?  Let me illustrate with 1000 words with help from A Girl.


A Girl and her daughter E.

You see, my immediate thought when I read that line of garbage, and it is garbage, was of her and E.  Immediately followed by my friend Laurel:

Image via Oleg Volk.

I could continue down the list of mothers I thought of who would stand opposed to what “Moms Demand Action” is claiming to be right.  Not only do they stand opposed, but the desires of Moms Demand Action stands as a direct infringement to prevent them from doing what they claim to be protecting.

No one is forcing you to pick up a rifle to defend your family.  If you don’t want to, fine, that’s your choice and your business.  If however someone does want to pick up a rifle to defend their family, no one has any right whatsoever to tell them they cannot.   Any attempt to tell a woman she cannot pick up a rifle to defend her children is an infringement on the right to protect their children.  As such, any attempt at gun control whereby arms are removed from the hands of law-abiding citizens is just such an infringement.

So I went through and fixed up their document while adding commentary:

A Mother’s Bill of Rights

We, as mothers, have the absolute right to protect our children families from harm. We have the right to know our children are safe from gun violence, from the moment they leave our arms in the morning until they return home later in the day.  (That sentence is false, see Warren v. District of Columbia.)  We have a right and responsibility to defend our families from those who might do them violence.  But the rights of Americans mothers are under attack by criminals, the gun lobby, and legislators and puritans  who wish to trample those rights while still sticking them with the responsibility are unable to stand up for common-sense gun reforms. The right of mothers people to protect their families our children SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

As mothers people, we have the right to…


  • Expect that assault weapons will remain in the hands of our military, not civilians that our right to keep and bear arms in defense of our families and children shall not be infringed.
  • Preserve our children’s innocence and shield them from gun any violence by taking any means necessary to stop it abruptly and swiftly without prejudice. in America, real and scripted(Really, scripted, why don’t you just turn off the TV instead of attacking Free Speech).
  • Demand that all public places remain gun-free zones;’ except private homes and shooting ranges allow the carry of defensive arms by those legally entitled to do so.
  • Know our children are safe in their schools: any school, anywhere, by allowing those who wish to defend our children the tools to do so.
  • Expect our teachers to be focused on teaching our children, not training to become armed guards.  (Because what a teacher does in their own time to defend themselves and your children is a bad horrible thing?)
  •  Demand that our government create the same strong regulations for guns as they have for toys, cars and food.  (Umm, did you miss the fact that firearms are more heavily regulated than all those things combined?)
  • Expect our leaders to put our children’s safety above the profit desire for power and influence of the gun industry those who hate and wish to deny us our rights and personal liberties.
  • Have access to complete, accurate information about the impact of gun violence on our families and communities personal responsibilities we have in ensuring our own family’s safety and wellbeing.
  • Hold our elected officials accountable for keeping our children safe from gun violence breaking their oath to support and defend the constitution.

Seriously, in what world does anything they wrote count as not an infringement.  You all keep using these words rights and infringements and I don’t think any of you on the other side really understand what a right is and what it means to infringe on one.

Not to mention it seems that they think some how their opinion is worth more merely because they are mothers.  Tell me, does the father’s opinion not matter?  Does the opinion of the desire of the husband to defend his wife count for nothing?  Just the same, does the opinion of the wife and mother to carry for the defense of her own family not matter?  No they would rather tell you, me, and everyone else how to live our lives.  Our opinion to them counts for jack.

It doesn’t matter we respect them and their decision not to carry firearms, but they want to force their decisions on the rest of us.  To them I say, “NO!”  I’ve had enough of you taking my cake and you will not get a single solitary inch until you give something back.  I am sick of “compromising” where I give up everything and you give up nothing.  GO TO HELL!  There’s a reason I get angry.

I think this version of the picture of A Girl with some additional text says it best:

Everyone has a right to choose their own tools.

Everyone has a right to choose their own tools.

h/t to Sean.

*If you’d like to use the spoof logo I created:

Moms Demand Action

Feel free to use this, just give me credit if anyone asks. 🙂

Quote of the Day – Joe Huffman (4/18/2013)

Yes. It was shameful that so many people put so much effort into attempting to infringe upon a specific enumerated right. This forced millions of other people to put their own effort into stopping that attempt. The entire country, especially the politicians, had important other things to do and we had to take time out to fight the statist scum.

Joe Huffman – Quote of the day—President Barack Obama

April 18th, 2013

[QTFMT.  I spent a lot more time over the past 4 months defending my rights and civil liberties than I should have had to.  I could have invested that time elsewhere but instead I had to fight to the best of my ability to protect my rights and those of my future children.

The good news is we won this battle.  Apparently Obama is guaranteeing that there will be a round two.  Good luck with that.  You’ve now placed a target on a large number of your senators backs and midterm elections are always moving closer.  Nice of you to force other politicians to fall on your sword for idiotic policies Mr. President.

Now pardon me while I go spend some time with friends and family like I should have been the past 4 months. -B]


Quote of the Day – Barack Obama (4/17/2013)

The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill.

Barack Obama – In Response to the Gun Control Vote

April 17th, 2013

[Said like a true politician.

No Mr. Obama, we just don’t take kindly to being lied to, abused, mistreated, and being held responsible for the actions of others.  You and your cohorts tried to pass a bill and we merely read it and told everyone one’s in it.  You can go read in the bill yourself about every statement I’ve made regarding the bill.

You’re upset because you couldn’t pull the wool over our eyes and we fought back.

Lastly Mr. President, what part of “Shall Not Be Infringed” is so hard and difficult for you to understand?-B]

Our own worst enemies

Seriously folks, we are our own worst enemies.


Pardon my straight face but I spent this morning searching for where the NRA is supporting the compromise.  Seriously  I went through all the NRA-ILA feed again trying to find it.  Tried to find it using Google.  Lastly I sent an email to Sebastian asking him to confirm this stance if possible.

I did find this which I am reposting in full just to illustrate the sheer “WTFO!?” moment I had when I saw the above image on Facebook.

Dear Senator,

I am writing regarding the National Rifle Association’s position on several firearms-related proposals under consideration in the Senate.

S. 649, the “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013”, introduced on March 21, contains a number of provisions that would unfairly infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.  This legislation would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by honest citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. The NRA is unequivocally opposed to S. 649.

In addition, the NRA will oppose any amendments offered to S. 649 that restrict fundamental Second Amendment freedoms; including, but not limited to, proposals that would ban commonly and lawfully owned firearms and magazines or criminalize the private transfer of firearms through an expansion of background checks.  This includes the misguided “compromise” proposal drafted by Senators Joe Manchin, Pat Toomey and Chuck Schumer.  As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools.  Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.

Rather than focus its efforts on restricting the rights of America’s 100 million law-abiding gun owners, there are things Congress can do to fix our broken mental health system; increase prosecutions of violent criminals; and make our schools safer.  During consideration of S. 649, should one or more amendments be offered that adequately address these important issues while protecting the fundamental rights of law-abiding gun owners, the NRA will offer our enthusiastic support and consider those votes in our future candidate evaluations as well.

We hope the Senate will replace the current provisions of S. 649 with language that is properly focused on addressing mental health inadequacies; prosecuting violent criminals; and keeping our kids safe in their schools.  Should it fail to do so, the NRA will make an exception to our standard policy of not “scoring” procedural votes and strongly oppose a cloture motion to move to final passage of S. 649.

Chris W. Cox

Tell me, where in that letter does it say the NRA is accepting the “compromise”?  An hour ago the NRA-ILA feed was posting information about the possible filibuster from Paul and the other Republicans.

There was another comment from the NRA-ILA as well, found via Sabastian.

Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’s “universal” background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows. The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone. President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.

That isn’t a statement to accept it, it’s a statement of, if you’re serious about fixing “the problem” then actually do so!

Why do we need to drive a wedge between gun owners for particular groups?  More specifically why do some people feel the need to spread lies and falsehoods to vilify those who are on the same side?  What service does that do other than damage those who support you?

Seriously folks, don’t believe everything you see, especially on Facebook and even the blogs.  Not everyone spends time and effort trying to confirm or disprove the facts.  Just because it has a thousand likes, or has been shared hundreds of times doesn’t make it true.

Update from Sebastian: The Graham Bill clarified mental adjudication and is perceived,  at least by him, it was an attempt to get Dems to bite on something.  When it comes to vote vs. filibuster, since the NRA will be scoring cloture on S. 649, they would like to put some of these folks on record to hang them in 2014 and 2016.  NAGR is merely criticizing because they don’t have the risks or ability to decide strategically what happens in this fight.

*My comments on the email I got from Sebastian.  It makes sense but I have NOT found anything to confirm that the NRA is against the filibuster either.  Honestly I think this was just a big fat troll to drive a wedge.

This seems to be a pattern…

First here’s what was snapped out of a recent article that hit Drudge today.

The bill’s sponsor, Democrat Sen. Steve Hobbs of Lake Stevens, said Tuesday that he had not read the amendment, but he was aware of concerns from high-tech industries.

The bill in question would mean that I could be compelled to release my user credentials to a prospective employer for my online account.  Who here thinks this is either a good or acceptable idea?  Anyone?  Bueller?

Now I bring this up because just a short while ago we saw the same response regarding a bill that would have violated people’s 4th amendment rights.

One of the bill’s sponsors, State Sen. Adam Kline (D-Seattle), told the Seattle Times that he didn’t properly vet the bill prior to jumping on board. He claims he didn’t realize the bill authorized police searches.

Joe wants people to be held accountable for the laws they push.  This includes sponsoring a law.  If you cannot be bothered to spend the time reading a bill, you should not be sponsoring it.  Even more than that, you should be held accountable for what’s written in it.  Ignorance of what is hidden within isn’t an excuse and you should be held accountable no matter what.

Quote of the Day – Robert Steed (3/25/2013)

The Constitution did not guarantee public safety, it guaranteed liberty.  And sometimes what comes with liberty is tragedy, unfortunately.

Robert Steed
March 14th, 2013

[His whole speech was fantastic, but that quote was down right priceless.

DFS!  I must say he was also very well spoken.  Well done and said sir!  -B]

h/t Sebastian.

Quote of the Day: Michael Bane (3/22/2013)

Of course, you’ve got to pay your attorney, and because your car, guns and magazines were “seized for cause,” that is, the property was confiscated because you in fact broke a law, you will probably get your car back, but Denver and surrounding municipalities have a policy that NO guns “seized for cause” will be returned.

That’s the minor “inconvenience” that the Governor says is definitely worth inflicting on law-abiding Colorado citizens for a law that will, according to B-Ho’s own Justice Department says will have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on crime.

Michael BaneColorado ClusterF%$k

March 21st, 2013

[If you want a clue at the real intent of these laws, look no further than New York and this recent discovery:

Nearly a year before signing the nation’s most stringent gun control measure into law, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo launched a hotline that allows state residents to report illegal gun owners in exchange for a $500 reward.

Tell me, if this was really about lowering violent crime rates, why not actually offer that reward for catching people actually doing bad things?  Instead they created this broad bill that criminalizes every gun owner and are encouraging neighbors to stab each other in the back.

Here’s a tip for anyone living in that crap hole, get a 30 round mag from across the border and toss it in your local representatives car and have someone else call it in.  Even better toss it in their spouses car.  Even better if they’re a Fudd and just more than willing to throw you under the bus while they enjoy the rights they would deny you like Gabby Giffords and her husband.

There is no question in the intent of these laws, doubly so as the people supporting them also scream about confiscation. Next time someone tells you they’re not out to confiscate weapons, call bullshit.  There’s enough on the table now that anyone who says that is merely lying or not paying attention.  Frankly if you’re not paying attention, STFU, you have no business talking with regards to this conversation. –B ]

Quote of the Day–Kevin Baker (3/20/2013)

When dealing with the State, the citizen acts at his peril.

Kevin Baker“When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril.”

March 20, 2013

[And as Kevin points out, that’s not how it is supposed to be.  I find this a much more applicable description.

I should not be fearful that someone is calling the state because I took a picture of my child with a firearm.  I should not be afraid that the state is going to come kick down my door because someone provides some false information for the “war on drugs”.  We are living in a police state.

I have an idea for a post but I’m just not sure how to write it or string the thought out completely.  The premise though is the meaning of the law is becoming worthless.  More and more laws are being created, laws the creators admit are unenforceable.  This leaves two different options:

  • The law no longer really matters and is nothing more than an empty symbol.
  • The law now exists as a tool to manipulate, scare, and intimidate those they deem undesirable.

Tell me, what good do these new gun control laws do?  How does that actually benefit society, especially given they admit it will not make a difference and innocents will be caught in the crossfire?  The actual effects will cause people to choose between being safe or committing a felony.

But that’s their goal, scare and intimidate law-abiding people into giving up their rights.  Cause them to have to be unsafe to adhere to the asinine laws.  I’m of the opinion if the law has degenerated to the point that it is criminalizing the free exercise of a right, that it’s sole action is to criminalize the innocent, I might as well just accept the fact they want to treat me as a criminal.  If that’s the case and I’m going to be punished for owning something or doing something that doesn’t affect anyone else, maybe I should actually do something worthy of being called a criminal.  If I’m going to be given a penalty anyway, why not actually do something to earn it?*

The law is loosing its worth and these people are rejoicing at it’s destruction.  They don’t seem to understand it’s perversion is being done in such a way so the state can consume them just the same as it consumes us. –B]

*I am not saying one should currently, but certainly this does factor into the tripwire question.