Monday, April 27, 2009

Can Obama raise Solis from the Dead?

This is funny… from a Bloomberg article.
“The first case was seen in Mexico on April 13. The outbreak coincided with the President Barack Obama’s trip to Mexico City on April 16. Obama was received at Mexico’s anthropology museum in Mexico City by Felipe Solis, a distinguished archeologist who died the following day from symptoms similar to flu, Reforma newspaper reported. The newspaper didn’t confirm if Solis had swine flu or not.”
He must have died from a heart attack after meeting The Messiah. A deadly “Obamagasm”, if you will.

French President Sarkosy challenged Obama to walk on water...I challenge him to raise Solis from the dead.
If Obama is everything his followers claim him to be, surely he can perform the same miracle that Jesus performed when he brought back Lazarus.
Come on, Barry. You can do it!

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Progressives versus the constitution

I’ve got a friend who is a liberal—probably the only liberal I call a friend—with whom I have regular “discussions” about current events. I can have these conversations with him because, unlike other liberals, he can “take it” as well as “dish it out”, and doesn’t resort to the furious insults that most liberals belch out any time their “righteous” arguments are contradicted. In other words, he’s idealistic and (in my opinion) naïve, but not a narcissist.

This friend openly admits he hate guns. Hates them. When we discuss President Obama’s record on taxing guns, on AG Holder’s and Sec. of State Clinton’s wish to reinstate the “assault weapon” ban (“AWB” for short in this article), he agrees that they should be banned. Why? “No one needs an Uzi to hunt ducks”, he once told me.

As if the Founding Fathers wrote the second amendment to protect our access to sporting goods.

That statement led to a series of arguments about the Second Amendment, and about the statistics about how rarely the “assault weapons” are used in crime in the USA.

I found another interesting link about the ballistics of assault weapons, which revealed the amazing statistic debunking the myth about their “deadliness”. In short, the thesis goes this way: assault weapons and their ammunition are designed for use in combat, and are not designed necessarily to kill, but rather, to maim as many enemy combatants as possible. The full metal jacket on the rounds is designed to penetrate and exit the body, causing significant but not overly severe wounds. A man shot in the belly—even the chest—can survive if given timely medical treatment. So, by shooting an enemy with an M-16 round (.223) or an AK-47 round (7.62x39), you not only take out the victim, but also his comrades who have to evacuate him. And you create a costly mass of casualties that the enemy must treat in hospitals.

The author performed a study of several mass killings by criminals. Some used “assault weapons” such as the AK-47. Others used shotguns. He analyzed the survival rate of the victims and found a surprising result:

While victims of an AK-47 attack had a 76% survival rate, the victims of a 12-gauge shotgun attack only had a 33% survival rate. In one case, 35 people were shot with an AK-47, and 30 survived—five people tragically died. In another, 21 people were shot with a shotgun, and only seven survived.

In other words: shotguns are more than twice as deadly when used in a criminal attack as an assault weapon. So, logically, why stop with the AWB? Progressives, I argued, will never be happy with that limited ban.

When I pointed out that statistics show that assault weapons are used in less than ½ of 1% of all criminal acts in our country, and that Shotguns are actually twice as deadly, I asked him, why should we reinstate the AWB? His response: “Because five died.”

Five deaths were too many, and constitute a reason to abandon the second amendment?

If we extend this illogical reasoning, we could come to the following rationale:
· When Jeanine Garrafolo insulted the 100,000+ participants by calling them “tea-bagging racists”, which hurt their feelings. 100,000+ insulted people versus Free Speech. Better restrict the first amendment so we’ll all be happier.
· 10,000 people per year die because we have our guns…better eliminate the second amendment; it will save thousands of lives.
· Thousands of people die each year because we weren’t able to search the property of criminals without cumbersome legal constraints. If we eliminate the fourth amendment; it will save thousands of lives.
· Forty million babies have been aborted: better revoke Roe V. Wade immediately to stop this holocaust.
· Thousands of criminals are released each year because of due process laws that restrict our ability to lock away these dangerous villains. We should eliminate the fifth amendment; it will save thousands of lives.
· Thousands of criminals are released each year because a it was not possible to gather the required proof of guilt, since everyone has a right to a speedy trial. We should eliminate the sixth amendment; it will save thousands of lives.
· Thousands of criminals are released each year because trial-by-jury failed to prosecute the murderers, who were released and killed again. We should eliminate the seventh amendment; it will save thousands of lives.
· Police, FBI, CIA, cannot use coercive methods (such as water-boarding and bugs in boxes) to interrogate terrorists with information about upcoming attacks (such as the one “illegally” and “immorally” thwarted by the Bush administration that would have taken place in LA). Better eliminate the eighth amendment; that will save thousands of lives.

He responded to this sarcastic analysis thusly; “I have no interest in barring anyone from owning a gun. I think people should own guns. I just don’t like them. It’s a personal feeling that I have and I don’t {like} them. No one is going to repeal any of the amendments that you’re talking about.”

But our Dear Leader has already telegraphed his intentions. He and his cohorts have repeatedly mentioned the reinstatement of the ban, and even altered the statistical facts regarding Mexico’s drug war to try to gain political steam and press forward.

In fact, "progressives" just proposed a new ban on the possession of semi-automatic guns in specific zip codes in Illinois, mostly in primarily black and latino neighborhoods. And they have a provision in the law they passed that if there is too much outrage about it, they can simply remove the zip codes, making the law apply to all of Illinois.

So here’s your “good intentions” run amok again: because there is a high crime rate in certain neighborhoods, which also just happen to be primarily Black and Hispanic, they ban the legal possession of firearms there. This of course ensures that law abiding citizens in the most violent neighborhoods are unarmed, while the criminals can continue to be armed.

And, what’s the most astonishing aspect of the Democrat law? It unfairly targets minorities. No, progressives could NEVER be racist, or discriminate, or profile their constituents. They are too good, too kind hearted, for that kind of thing. That’s something only those evil ”tea-bagging racist” Republicans would do.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Obama failure at America's Summit

I listened to some of the America’s Summit speeches, in particular the statements by Nicaragua’s Ortega. No one has picked up on a very important omission by the “drive by media”. While some—including Fox and the AP—mentioned that Ortega sarcastically insulted the Summit by criticizing Cuba’s absence from the summit, what they missed was another statement he made at the same time.

Ortega stated that he didn’t support the summit because two countries were conspicuously absent. He went on to talk about Cuba, which was being punished for doing “nothing more” than stand up to the imperialist United States. That got reported, although no one challenged him on Cuba’s human rights violations.

Worse, Ortega also stated that the other nation absent was Puerto Rico, which is still “under the yoke” of the Americans, and that he “is confident” that someday PR will be freed of the imperialists and join the other free nations.

That is a clear violation of American sovereignty and was an intolerable slap to our faces, as well as an offensive distortion the fact that PR can simply vote for its independence but has chosen to remain a US territory repeatedly.

Is Obama unaware of this? Or just unconcerned?

None of those socialist leaders have tolerated even the mildest US statements about their internal issues, nor about conflicts with neighboring countries. A perfect example is the territorial disputes between Nicaragua and Colombia over several islands, or access to fishing grounds and petroleum fields. Yet when they violated US sovereignty and insulted our country, Obama remained naively quiet.

This is especially disturbing in light of the fact that Hugo Chavez has helped to organize and even fund the Separatist movement in PR through the Circulos Bolivarianos. I have Puerto Rican contacts who have attended their rallies and found Venezuelans trying to actively promote Puerto Rican independence. Obama’s silence on the issue amounts to tacit approval, and should be condemned.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Are we headed toward a second civil war?

I can’t express how worried I am—and I think you should be, too. We have a very serious problem, it goes beyond parties. We are in grave danger, it’s not an exaggeration, not just right-wing fear mongering. The constitutional violations keep mounting, starting with some of the ones the liberals worried about (such as abuse of executive privilege, warrantless wiretaps, a move toward a police state, pre-emptive military strikes), but the conservatives are also correct that the uncontrolled expansion of the government, the massive spending, the intent to control the means of production, banks etc. We are sliding toward a fascist state, I never believed we’d get to this point but over the past 15 years a slow slide has converted into a rapid decent. I worry about what will happen, what kind of country this can become for my kids.

I’ve been mocked and ridiculed for saying that we might be on the way to a civil war, because it sounds insane to say that. But the radical increase in military-class gun and ammunition sales indicates that there is a massive movement building to arm up in preparation for civil unrest. Yesterday’s declaration of state sovereignty by the Texas governor is serious business. If other states join the call, a movement toward secession may start. That will be the rallying cry and I have no doubt that tens of thousands of armed volunteers will respond, flocking to Texas. If Texas makes a move in that direction, you’ll see Alaska join. I hear that the people are talking openly of a revolt. They are increasing their arsenals, organizing, and preparing for a major conflict. The Tea Parties are a symbolic and peaceful action, but we must keep in mind the historical significance: in colonial days, these were the acts that galvanized the colonists into rebellion.

The spark that triggered open warfare was the “shot heard round the world”. To review: the British government had levied heavy taxes to pay for the French and Indian War, which had just ended. These taxes impacted the people heavily on goods they wanted and needed desperately. In protest, they organized rebellious acts such as the Boston Tea Party, dumping British goods into the harbor—a criminal act of civil resistance. The British got worried, and made moves to disarm the colonists, and formed a plan to seize the provincial stores of munitions at Concord. Spies warned the colonists of the impending action, resulting in the famous ride of Paul Revere. The Minutemen turned out to resist, the British fired on them, and the outrage spread across the colonies, resulting in the Revolutionary War.

The Constitution was written with these events in mind, hence the Second Amendment: the people are the militia who has the right to remain armed to defend against tyrannical governments.

Today’s conditions are shaping up very similarly. The outrage is deepening and spreading. Even the Federal government appears to be worried; that’s why they published the 9-page report warning of “right wing extremists”. The appearance of “tea parties” and the creation of groups such as “Minutemen” along the US-Mexico border are cultural reverberations of the previous conflict that are gaining ground. We should never ignore those. In 1775, Colonists dressed as Indians at the Boston Tea Party. Why is that important? It was a symbolic image evoking the recently ended French and Indian wars. At that time, it must have been an outrageously provocative act, because it showed a kind of solidarity with the Indians who had fought against the British.

The Russian analysts who are predicting a split within the United States are not far off. Oil rich states like Texas and Alaska really have very little interest in being part of the United States. The citizens love the country, and would like to stay a part of it, but only as long as it continues to resemble the United States of America as described in the Constitution. Unfortunately, as our government continues to morph into a “fascist state”, the citizens of more traditional, conservative states will begin to feel less solidarity with it.

Keep in mind, there will be massive support in the South among whites to revive the confederacy: the Confederate outrage against federalism is alive and well. In the South this will lead to a horrendous race war, because the blacks will obviously react fearfully to this movement, but they won’t just migrate to other states.

Here’s a prediction: the outrage we are witnessing now is going to grow exponentially. It will be focused on the two parties equally, opening an opportunity for third party candidates. Initially, most people are happy with that notion. The common thought is that we need a fresh approach; “we have to break the backs of the two parties”. But the benefit of two parties is to consistently promote centrist candidates. As much as I dislike Obama, as much as you disliked Bush, it can get worse, MUCH worse. This is how Hitler, Mussolini, Chavez were elected; the electorate vote was not split in two, but in thirds or even quarters. So you can actually elect a president in that case with as little as 34% of the voting electorate. How easy is it to get one-third of the electorate radicalized?

Monday, April 13, 2009

Obama, look to Jefferson, and not to Europe!

Here’s the current score: Yankees 4, Pirates ZERO.

Yes, I’m talking about the Somali pirates who had tried to hijack and American flagged ship and ended up kidnapping the American captain of the ship. I have praise for the American Navy for killing three of the pirates—who undoubtedly deserved what they got, even if they were just “untrained teens”.

Should we praise President Obama? In my book, it’s still too early to give him any real praise.

Why? Because the order he gave, giving the military the ability to make the call and decide when and if they had to use force to free the hostage, was a common-sense order that any president should have given. It was the right thing to do, and I’ll give him that. If he hadn’t, I’d be screaming bloody murder that he had betrayed our citizen and undermined our national honor.So he gets those kudos.

But is that enough? This is just one of the tests that Obama is taking, and in my opinion, the test is not over. And Obama is not scoring well, so far.

On the same day when the North Koreans launched an intercontinental missile, Obama declared that the USA would not respond, and what’s more, we would cut funds to missile defense technology. And while Iran rushes headlong toward obtaining nuclear technology that is probably intended for nuclear weapons, Obama is violating his campaign promise and is courting Iran, trying to negotiate with them. And meanwhile, Obama bowed to the Saudi King, violating American protocol and transmitting a message of submissiveness to the Middle East. Then his liberal supporters of the Congressional Black Caucus rushed off to kiss up to the dictatorial regime in Cuba, at the same time that another Democrat dashed to Venezuela to praise Chavez and the FARC apologist Piedad Córdoba. More costly mistakes on the test.

You’re headed toward a costly failure in international relations, Mr. President.

It is instructive to review the history of US endeavors to eliminate piracy off the African coast that started with President Thomas Jefferson, because not much has changed. Back then, the Europeans had a long standing policy of appeasement and had been giving ransom to Muslim pirates all along the Barbary coast of North Africa, from Morocco through Libya. This was a tradition, after all, that dated back to the years of the crusades, when Muslims attacked the “infidels” and held tens of thousands of them as hostages for ransom. Jefferson was a visionary for his times. He rightly argued that paying ransoms simply encouraged more of the same barbarous behavior—sound familiar?—and instead campaigned for years before his presidency for a more forceful response. But to no avail. He had been ambassador to France, and tried to get the Europeans to join in the effort. It should be of no surprise to know that the main European powers, including France, Germany, and Great Britain, did not want to pursue a violent solution. Other nations did agree in principal, but the American presidents at the time thought it would be cheaper to just keep paying tribute to free American hostages.

However, as soon as he was elected president, and after the Libyan dey charged an un-Godly amount of “protection money” to keep his subjects from attacking American ships, Jefferson got fed up and sent a few outfitted ships carrying U.S. Marines to deal a blow to the governments of Morocco, Algiers, and Libya. This forced those governments to stop preying on American ships, and it was from this effort that the Marine fight theme was born, referencing the famous line “From the Halls of Montezuma (Mexico) to the shores of Tripoli (Libya)…” It is also where the Marines got the name “Leathernecks”, from the protection they wore on their necks to shield them from Muslim scimitar blows.

This short story is just one more illustration of American exceptionalism from the annals of world history. While the cowardly Europeans clung to a tradition of acquiescence to foreign demands and a willingness to capitulate to the Muslim lords, the newly minted American nation was resolved to bow down to no king, nor to capitulate to any foreign tyrant.

Jefferson led by example. He didn’t need any global government or multi-nation “coalition” to move forward with his plan. And when one of our ships was sunk and the crew captured, causing uproar at home and a plummet in his popularity, he did not bend to public opinion polls. No, Jefferson ordered a surge in forces and dealt a punishing blow to the tyrant in Tripoli.

Twenty years later, the British finally tired of the onslaught of Barbary pirates and rallied forces to fight them. Soon, Europe as a whole followed the action.So, two hundred years later, international maritime law has disarmed the merchant marines, leaving them vulnerable once again to Muslim hoards seeking enrichment through organized criminal activity.

The Easter weekend victory over the four untrained teenage pirates is a minor one. Did anyone ever really believe that the United States Navy could be stalemated by a boatload of punks with AK-47 rifles? Please.

The real test is to come: Mr. President, do you have the exceptional fortitude that Jefferson displayed and that rallied Europe to bare its fists in defiance? Will you take on the problem by attacking it at the source?Or will you, like so many weaker men before you, simply send envoys to sue for a peaceful truce?

This President failed so many problems in this test already; it is hard to have faith in his judgment. But a decisive policy now would do wonders to restore American faith in his bumbling presidency.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Bowing to kings, praising tyrants

What is going on with the Democrats?

When the colonial leaders wrote the declaration of independence, and enshrined the value that “all men are created equal”, this was a ballsy slap at King George because that simple phrase declared that the King was not better than a commoner. Kings are not entitled to rights to which the commoner is not.

From that moment on, Americans—and especially Presidents—did not bow to foreign Kings. To do so demonstrates not politeness, as some want us to believe, or humility, as Obama apparently thinks, but subservience. It is a symbolic act of weakness, not respect.

Well, here’s a change, for sure.

To quote liberal (but honest) blogger Camille Paglia about Obama:
“There has been one needless gaffe after another -- from the president's tacky appearance on a late-night comedy show to the kitsch gifts given to the British prime minister, followed by the sweater-clad first lady's over-familiarity with the queen and culminating in the jaw-dropping spectacle of a president of the United States bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia.”

Click the link to her site to see the nauseating video of Obama being submissive to the Saudi King.
The outrage about this absurd act of subservience is being blasted as naïve, stupid, and insulting. And not just by pundits like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Another blogger writes:
“When the president bows to a foreign ruler he bows for all Americans. The United States is the world's foremost republic. It is utterly inappropriate for our head of state to make a gesture of submission to any kind of foreign ruler.”
Yet another says:
“U.S. Presidents by common protocol and common sense do not bow to foreign monarchs. The entire history of America is based on a Declaration of Independence that broke with royal rule and rebuked it. Immigrants of every description came here to free themselves of the tyranny of royal rulers. When taking an oath of office or service (mine was service in the U.S. Army), Americans vow to stand against the enemies of the nation, "foreign and domestic." What are we to make of our nation's elected leader who bows to the king of a nation that spawned the vast majority of the men who perpetrated the 9/11 attack on our nation?”

This latest idiotic gaffe must be taken in context with several other events that all are occurring during the same week. We have President Obama running around Europe blaming America for the economic crisis, which is actually global in nature, and apologizing for America’s “arrogance”. In return for his best groveling, the Europeans refused to send troops to help out in Afghanistan. “Thank you, merci, gracias, now bugger off, Mr. President.”

In videos of the event, Obama is surrounded by some of the worst socialist buffoons in recent decades.

I’m disturbed to see Obama gaily cavorting with Brazil’s Lula (who just stated that the global economic crisis was the fault of the “blue eyed white people”), Argentina’s Cristina de Kirchner (who won her presidential campaign by accepting millions of dollars smuggled illegally from Hugo Chavez, undermining Argentine autonomy from that foreign autocrat), and Spain’s Zapatero (the coward who surrendered to al Qaeda’s attacks and removed troops from Iraq, then decided to sell military hardware to Chavez).

Someone should advise Obama to be aware of the revised adage: “If you lie down with Dogs, Mr. President, you’re going to infect us all with fleas.”

Next, Obama treks to Turkey, where he clarifies that America is “not now at war” with Islam—as if America had been at war with Islam but, thanks to him, no longer is. He then happily visits a mosque.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, US Congressman William Delahunt has taken a jaunt to Venezuela to visit Chavez. The Venezuelan embassy reports:

The President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez and US Congress Representative William Delahunt spoke for hours at the Presidential Office in Caracas, Venezuela. The democrat Massachusetts representative is currently on an official visit to Venezuela. Rep. Delahunt is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight in Washington, DC, which oversees alleged cases of US companies financing the United Self-Defense of Colombia (AUC, Spanish acronym), an extreme right paramilitary organization in the South American nation. …During his visit to Colombia, Rep. Delahunt said: “I would like to recognize the positive role of Colombian Senator Piedad Córdoba and President (Hugo) Chávez. They were able to achieve a great leap forward; nevertheless, there is still a long way to go.”

This marks a new—and dangerously naïve—trend from the new administration. While the Bush administration recognized the Colombian government as being our strongest and best ally in Latin America, not only in the War on Drugs, but as a free democracy clinging to its capitalist values, to its betterment. For Delahunt to visit Colombia to praise Piedad Cordoba—an apologist and representative for the FARC terrorists—is stunning. But for him to then go to visit Chavez and try to “normalize” relations with the dictator who plots to destroy Capitalism in general, and America in particular—it’s frankly unforgivable.

But wait, there’s more! While Obama embarrasses America in Saudi Arabia, and Dellahunt undermines our values in South America, a group of representatives from the Black Congressional Congress go to Cuba and drool over the hemisphere’s worst tyrant, Fidel Castro. They were: Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.) and Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) , Melvin Watt (D-N.C.), Marcia L. Fudge (D-Ohio), Michael M. Honda (D-San Jose) and Laura Richardson (D-Long Beach).

Reporting on their marvelous experience, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Il.) said that he had told Fidel “In my household I told Castro he is known as the ultimate survivor,” and “It was almost like listening to an old friend.”
In a quotation that is nauseatingly similar to Bush’s quip about Russian President Putin ("I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul.”), Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Ca.) said Castro was receptive to President Obama’s message of turning the page in American foreign policy. She added that "He looked right into my eyes and he said, 'How can we help? How can we help President Obama?'"
Get that? A few years back, Hugo Chavez went to Papa Fidel, offered him economic support and in turn was offered “help” in Venezuela that eventually resulted in Cuban intelligence officers infiltrating the Venezuelan military, healthcare, education systems. Chavez shamelessly handed over Venezuelan sovereignty to Castro, and the country is suffering dearly for it. Now the American liberals are set to do the same thing.

Castro was later quoted as saying that “the delegation had expressed to him that a segment of American society ‘continues to be racist,’ and is at least partly to blame for the travel restrictions.” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) denies that this was ever said, claiming that “those remarks were not expressed in the meeting.”

This insignificant exchange should speak volumes about these moronic congressional “leaders”. Because either Castro told the truth, and the delegation did go to a foreign tyrant and declare that America is racist, or their beloved tyrant, in whom they are placing trust and with whom they wish to normalize relations—and who offered to help Obama—speaks with a forked tongue and is a liar.

In either case, the folly of these fools is blood chilling. And their willingness to undermine our principles, kowtow to foreign autocrats and dictators, should send a clear message that we are in dangerous times, indeed.

Friday, April 3, 2009

The tyrants fear our weapons

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This right, enshrined in the constitution to prevent the government from infringing upon it, had its clear intention to maintain an armed populace to be able to maintain a free state, both from outside interlopers, and from the natural process that all governments display toward tyrannical usurpation of rights and powers. In other words, the framers of the constitution did not write the second amendment to allow people to keep guns for hunting: they intended the people to be able to defend themselves from criminals, or their own government, when it has become despotic.

Modern liberals think it totally barbaric that average citizens keep and bear arms, and consider the second amendment an inconvenient anachronism that must be eliminated. Unfortunately for them, the Supreme Court recently upheld the interpretation of the second amendment to mean that individual citizens shall be given the right to keep and bear arms, and not just “militias” (interpreted by some as National Guard and other state-run organizations).

But it is clear that liberals, also known as socialists, have every hope of finding a way of restricting citizens’ rights to their weapons, and President Obama is no exception. A liberal friend of mine naively stated that the guns are safe; the liberals cannot take them away. But this silly argument overlooks the historical fact that in the 1990’s, under the leadership of President Bill Clinton, the government did in fact place a temporary ban on what they called “assault weapons” (AW). They believed that this was a “reasonable” restriction, and that “reasonable” people would see that there was no real need for the people to keep and bear “assault weapons”. So if they did it before, why could they not do it again?

If there were NO comments by Obama administration leaders, then I’d agree that it’s just hype. But when the Attorney General E. Holder says he would like to reinstate the AW Ban, but make it permanent, and then Sec. of State Clinton blatantly distorts the statistics on weapons decommissioned in Mexico to make it sound like the weapons being used come from the USA, it sure sounds to me as if there is a clear intention of infringing on the rights of citizens to possess this class of weapons.

In order for this discussion to be more instructive, I’d like to clarify some terms.

Assault Weapons”: Defined in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to include “certain semi-automatic so called "assault weapons" including military-style semiautomatic rifles, derived from assault rifles but with lesser capabilities. There was no legal definition of "assault weapons" prior to its enactment, but assault rifle is a technical term referring to rifles capable of semi-automatic and full-automatic fire…”

The first problem I have is with the term "military-style" weapons. Think about it: every rifle and pistol in use today had its origins in military designs. From the lever-action rifle, designed by Henry Firearms during the Civil war or the bolt-action hunting rifles that originated as infantry rifles and later became preferred as "sniper rifles", to revolvers and the semi-auto Colt 1911 .45 caliber pistols, from which the ubiquitous 9 mm semi autos evolved. The only difference between the lever-action or bolt-action rifles and the "assault rifles" is the self-loading nature of the newer designs, allowing more shots to be fired more quickly.

These are precisely the types of weapons that an armed populace would need in order to defend itself from the heavily armed gangs, such as the drug trafficking organizations that have spread around the country, or to combat a despotic government intent on oppressing the citizenry. In other words: these are just the latest evolution in firearms that the Founding Fathers wanted to defend, in order to keep a free people free!

The recent Supreme Court decision makes it much more difficult to ban the weapons outright. But there are other ways of making it difficult or impossible for citizens to acquire these weapons. One sneaky way is to tax them so heavily that the average citizen cannot afford to possess or fire them.

Some liberals claim that it is a myth that Obama is trying to tax guns and ammo. A Washington Post article supports that idea, and tries to debunk the “myth”. But there are some interesting misstatements. Obama was accused by the NRA of voting
…"to ban virtually all deer-hunting ammunition" and supporting "a ban on shotguns and rifles most of us use for hunting." The deer-hunting claim is based on Obama's support for an unsuccessful Senate amendment by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) that would have expanded the definition of "armor-piercing" ammunition. The other claim refers to semiautomatic rifles and pistols covered by the assault weapons ban, which expired in March 2004.
Contrary to Rusch's claim, the Kennedy proposal of July 2005, SA 1615, was not aimed at "virtually all deer-hunting ammunition." Instead, it would have authorized the attorney general to define types of illegal ammunition capable of penetrating body armor commonly used by law enforcement officials. During the Senate debate, Kennedy said that his amendment would "not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles," a point contested by the NRA.
However, what’s wrong about this article is that any common “assault rifle” ammunition defeats the most common law enforcement body armor because it does NOT contain metal plates (see info on the North Hollywood shootout). The 7.62x39 (AK round), as well as the common US military round (.223) both defeat their armor. The police armor is only rated to stop handgun rounds, such as the 9mm, .32, .38, and I think the .40 Colt and .45 ACP. “Deer hunting” rounds start at .243, .270, and up to the .308 (which just also happens to be the NATO military round). My 1944 Mosin Nagant bolt action 7.62x54 (equivalent to .308 round) would easily defeat their armor, especially in full metal jacket (FMJ).

There are many semi-auto big-game and varmint hunting guns that are used in the legal and sporting taking of game, but which could be banned if they reinstate the previous “assault weapon” ban. AR-15s, SKS, and AK-47 are used nowadays to hunt varmints (such as coyotes) and deer in some states. They are not full-auto, just semi-auto. Ballistically, they are less powerful than other semi-auto rifles used regularly for hunting such as the Remington 760. Even the US M-1 Garand, which uses a 30-06 round and was the standard issue battle rifle of the military in WWII, would be legal and can be found for about $900. There are 9 mm carbines that would bypass the ban but would be just as deadly in a killing spree. So banning AKs and SKS or AR rifles makes NO sense!

Further study shows that FactCheck also tries to contradict the “myth”:
FactCheck appears not to have studied Obama’s words carefully. For example, one NRA claim is that Obama wants to “Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns.” FactCheck accurately reports that Obama did endorse such a position in his 1996 Illinois State Senate race. (FactCheck also supplies the details of Obama’s 2008 claim that the questionnaire was filled out by an aide without Obama’s knowledge, even though Obama’s handwriting is on the cover of the questionnaire.) But FactCheck asserts that the NRA is lying because of Obama’s response to the same question in 2003: “While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety.”

However, note that Obama DID try to support a handgun ban before the Supreme Court knocked those kinds of laws down. That shows his intentions. His 2003 statement suggests that he still supports “reasonable restrictions” on handguns, such as the Washington DC ban on guns. Gun owners can’t trust the “reasonable restrictions” suggested by a dude that had suggested their complete ban only 4 years before.
· 1994 to 2001 - Obama was on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. This foundation is the largest funding source for radical anti-gun groups in the country.
· 1996 - Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
· 1999 - Obama proposed a 500 percent increase in the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. This tax would effectively punish gun owners for buying guns and ammunition.
· 2003 - Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois.
· 2004 - Obama voted against legislation intended to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion.
As was stated by Rights Pundits:
It’s hard to trust a man will uphold the Constitution {who} stated that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed.
In 2009, his AG and Sec. of State renewed their talks about reinstating the gun bans.

According to statistical reports, “assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes.” If this is true, then what is the logical explanation for all this talk of banning “assault weapons”? It surely cannot be to keep America safe from guns.

So, could it be intended to keep the tyrants safe from us?