The Minuteman » Tag » War on Nouns

Tag Archives: War on Nouns

SSCC: Rio Hondo

By | | , ,
Comments Off on SSCC: Rio Hondo

A federal judge in Brownsville sentenced 31-year-old Armando Duenez (DWHEN’-ehz). He pleaded guilty in January to conspiracy to export firearms and failure to appear.

Investigators say Duenez was a Rio Hondo police officer at the time of the scheme to export rifles from the U.S. to Mexico.

Maybe he was the pilot program for Fast and Furious?

State Sponsored Criminal: Armando Duenez

Because he should have gone to work for the ATF instead.

h/t Bob S.

Well This Sucks…

By | | , , , ,
3 Comments

I’ve hated GE for a long while.  Well one of the biggest issues with GE is they are an overly large conglomerate that has their fingers in just about everything.  Well one of their conglomerate parts is doing something to make me hate them even more.

This month, Glenn Duncan, owner of Duncan’s Outdoor Store in Bay City, Mich., said he received a letter from GE Capital Retail Bank in which the lender said it had made “the difficult decision” to stop providing financing services to his store. Other gun dealers have received similar notices.

GE is at least the second big financial firm to retreat from the gun business following the school shootings, which claimed the lives of 20 first-graders and six adults in December.

Here’s the really bad news, you can try really hard but I doubt you’ll be able to fully escape the reach of GE.  That said, I’m going to try really hard, harder than I currently do.

If I could I would create my own financial institution specifically to fill the gap.  In this horrible economy there has been one section doing well consistently.  Seriously you would be daft to go bail on firearms or ammo manufacturers currently.  If you’re looking out for your company or your investors, other than BS government regulations, what threat is there to your product and market, none.

Given the fact that the market is seeing a sustained peak of demand, manufactures can not keep up, and stock prices keep going up how would this be a smart economical move?

If you said it wasn’t you’d be right.  The CEO of GE is a big Obama supporter and has received many favors for his support.  Obama I think just called in a favor.

Quote of the Day – Paul Barrett (4/24/2013)

By | | , , , , ,
Comments Off on Quote of the Day – Paul Barrett (4/24/2013)

The gun debate has been tilting toward the pro-gun side for more than a dozen years. The Boston Marathon bombings will continue that trend.

Paul Barrett – The Boston Terror Will Benefit the NRA, Hurt Gun Control

April 23rd, 2013

[Let me start off by saying, Paul was trying to be fair though there were a few comments that I don’t really agree with.  For example attacking Wayne LaPierre or this little bit at the end of his article.

But the NRA and some of its friends are not interested in rational discourse. They thrive on slippery-slope reasoning, according to which any limit on guns is a mere precursor to firearm registration and confiscation. As any gun manufacturer will tell you, the 9/11 attacks helped sales at firearm counters around the country and strengthened the NRA’s hand in lobbying against greater federal restrictions.

Paul most people, even the NRA, are willing to have a rational discourse.  The problem is there are so many irrational people on the other side trying to control the conversation the only reasonable thing is to just shut it all down.  For example look at Fienstein and what she was pushing and trying to tack on to that bill.  Moving further forward that bill honestly didn’t have anything really to do with background checks.  The people pushing for the bill even admit it would have not made any difference at  any of the mass shootings.

So is it irrational that we want to put on the breaks, let the emotion die, and approach this in a rational and reasoned manner instead of an emotional hysteria?

There were a few other errors, such as the comment regarding background checks for commercial firearms sales.  That is already required by federal law, so are we redefining commercial sales to include any sale?  Including letting someone borrow a firearm? At which point if you exempt it, today’s exemption is tomorrows loophole, not to mention how do you define and prove “borrowing”.

Paul’s conclusion though is correct and can easily be seen with this poll.

Sixty-nine percent say if they were in a situation similar to Bostonians, they would want a gun in their house.  

That includes a large 88-percent majority of those in gun-owner households, as well as 50 percent of those in non-gun homes.

As noted by Weer’d the lock-down also occurred in one of the most difficult areas to get a gun permit.  I expect there will be a large influx of new owners in that area.  Many of them will have an experience much like this individual.

“You’ll need a license for that,” the clerk informed me when I asked to see a modestly-priced BB gun.  Surprised but undaunted, I whipped out my drivers license and slid it across the counter.  At which point it was obvious to me that it was obvious to him I’m not a gun person. 

“To buy a gun in New Jersey you need a Firearm Purchaser ID Card from your Township’s police chief.  Even a BB gun.  Can’t even take one down to show you without it.”

Many had a wake up call last Friday.  Couple that with incidents like this, it’s no wonder people want to buy firearms for their own defense.

Then Angela Kramer softly pleads for help as the gunman who killed her parents and brother seconds earlier searches for her inside the family’s Darien home.

“I’m in my house. There’s shooting,” Kramer tells the operator in a low voice immediately after the loud gunshot.

…

Kramer’s 911 call lasted for more than 55 minutes until police searched the darkened house and rescued her from her hiding place.

Boy, Chicago’s restrictive gun laws while pushing reliance on the police really helped that family now didn’t it.

Last weeks incident served as wake-up call to many, doubly so since it was a citizen who was confined to his house that found the man on the run after they lifted the lock-down.  I’m sure that man probably would prefer to have a firearm the next time he investigates something out of place.

*As an additional aside.  I’ve met Paul and his wife both and they were both extremely nice.  I do not think Paul was trying to slight gun owners as a whole or even directly wanted was was really in that bill.  Odds are the particular publication for which he works had a serious hand in the tone of the article.

I do not know of any gun owner who actively supports giving firearms to criminals.  We all know damn well how that would have a negative affect on us and our rights.  What we don’t want though is the state coming in and arbitrarily denying or delaying the rights of law-abiding people because in the end, we know the criminals will still get their hands on a firearm.  The comments within that article do nothing more than aid in driving a wedge and turning off the other side causing them to ignore you and your position.

I do not think any firearm owner would complain about providing additional tools to aid people in “doing the right thing”.  Where we all have a problem is trying to trace that and enforce it under law.  It becomes this complicated problem fraught with danger because it will become all to easy to criminalize someone who would actually be innocent. -B]

 

Yet Another Lie From Our Fearless Leader…

By | | , , ,
2 Comments

“The Administration strongly supports S. 743, which will level the playing field for local small business retailers that are in competition every day with large out-of-state online companies,” reads the Obama administration’s statement on the policy.

*Blink*.  Seriously anyone who believes that helps small business is a burger, fries, and a drink short of a Happy Meal.  All you have is an empty box full of napkins.

All this serves to do is raise costs equally across everyone, small and large businesses alike.  In the end that will affect small businesses more because it will trim down their profit margin if they attempt to stay competitive.  Larger retailers have a larger profit margin and can eat the smaller loss.

The assumption for the above is that the majority of my business is coming from local states.  Not only that, but that I can in no way compete with local companies merely because of sales tax.  Further many of the large retailers do have to charge sales tax because they have store fronts within the state.

So all this law would do, is cause small businesses to have to raise prices and append an additional tax.  Large companies would have to do it just the same but they could more easily eat the cost giving them an advantage over small business.  This is merely another example of how this Administration hates small business owners.

As a small business owner the mere mention of this while claiming it will help me is down right offensive, doubly so since that no talent ass-clown of a President accused me last Wednesday of being a liar for telling the truth.  Here we are not even a week later and that narcissist is lying and trying to tell me swallow this pill of cyanide because it will help my business.  This coming from a man who’s never run a business in his life.

Mr. President, shut the hell up and stop trying to destroy my business.  It’s hard enough to get the damn thing rolling without you meddling in it and causing us to have to raise prices.

State Sponsored Criminals: FBI and BATFE

By | | , , , , ,
4 Comments

Given today is the 20th anniversary of the end of the Waco siege, it stands to reason that I would place that event on the list.  The acts committed this day were horrible and no one was ever held accountable for the decisions and actions that led to the deaths of 76 people, including 27 children.

I remember coming home from school that day.  I remember going up to my dad while he sat in his chair fixated on the TV.  I do not remember what it was I had done that I wanted his attention for.  I do remember him promptly picking me up as I started to speak and putting me on his lap while telling me to be quiet.  When I looked at the TV, this is what I saw.

BRANCH DAVIDIAN

At the time I didn’t understand what was going on.  I didn’t understand what my dad knew happened 8 months earlier.

I was in 3rd grade, I had no real concept of the details of what was going on.  Later I would receive that education, my dad would make sure I was aware of what I saw in the flickering glow of that television.  This day marks one of two major events that molded my relationship with the state.  It was a lesson delivered front and center about power and the abuses that can be dealt to citizens without any fear of consequence.

I am not putting a number with this.  Frankly I’m getting tired of trying to keep track of which number I’m on.  Further this event was so horrible and had so many actors one can not easily list them, much less enumerate them.

State Sponsored Criminals: The BATFE and FBI

Because by all means kill the victims you claim to be there to save, that’s how you make yourself look good right?

SSCC #570: San Diego County

By | | , ,
Comments Off on SSCC #570: San Diego County

San Diego County and a sheriff’s detective might be liable for using excessive force and conspiring against a deputy’s ex-girlfriend with a “SWAT-like” raid of her home, the 9th Circuit ruled Tuesday.

The federal appeals panel in Pasadena, Calif., revived Michelle Cameron’s excessive force and conspiracy claims against San Diego County and Sheriff’s Detective Michelle Craig.

Why would the officer do such a thing?  To intimidate his ex to gain an advantage in the ongoing custody dispute.

State Sponsored Criminal #570: Michelle Craig

Because when you’re a cop in a custody dispute, use physical force and hide behind the law while doing so to intimidate your ex-spouse.

I did not want to get involved, but…

By | | , , , ,
2 Comments

A person on twitter decided to make derogatory statements towards me, behind my husband’s back, so to speak. She had the audacity, without knowing me, to call me fat. My husband was in a debate/argument with her about firearms, more specifically the AR 15 platform. She went into PSH and escalated from there.

Her statement makes me believe that she is a bitter old hag who is angry at life for having a disability. The disability she mentions I don’t have much sympathy for.

Especially since she still has her fucking foot. My dad is an amputee. My disability, radial nerve palsy, has essentially rendered my dominate hand useless. I empathize with people who have disabilities. Also, she seems to not have reading comprehension since my husband did not generalize disabilities. He specifically stated that she doesn’t understand MY disability.


Further, the AR15 platform she is freaking out about has provided a way for me to safely and effectively shoot a rifle.

For starters, it has a low recoil and therefore doesn’t kill my muscle atrophied shoulder. The pistol grip allows me to hold the rifle so as to not torque my wrist like a standard rifle. The front post gives me stability to safely fire the firearm without causing strain to my good/working arm. Due to my disability a bolt-action rifle is not a viable option for me.  I can not easily operate a bolt with my injured hand.

This woman is nothing more than a miserable old person intent on spreading her misery to others.  Which isn’t surprising since “Gun Control is a Movement of Old White People.”

I’m not miserable or upset by my disability unlike that woman.  Why?  Because I had one of the best role models in the world for dealing with it.  She is dead set on spreading her misery and ensuring that everyone be as miserable as her.  Heaven forbid they find the freedom and empowerment that comes with shooting firearms.

Lastly, my family hunts to stock their freezer.  The meat is by far healthier for our family and we know full well where our food came from.  You don’t get much more “free range” or “organic” than bagging your own buck.

Then again she doesn’t really care, she just hates anyone who does anything that she doesn’t like.  If you looked up the word “Puritan” in the dictionary, you would find her face next to it as a shining example.

Our own worst enemies

By | | , ,
1 Comment

Seriously folks, we are our own worst enemies.

image

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.

Sincerely,
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.