If you like your gun, you can keep your gun

21guns_fire600Gun owners and freedom-loving Americans are often considered by anti-gunners to be conspiracy theorists when arguing that the government’s intended plan is not just gun control, but gun confiscation.  However, perhaps Obama’s famous utterances about his healthcare mess over the past dozen months will bring clarity to those who want a disarmed America.

Obama was recorded no less than 29 times telling the American people that “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan”, a claim that has been repeatedly proven false in insurance cancellation letters sent to average Americans.  Apparently, Obama is “sorry” that so many Americans fell into the trap that he set for them, losing health benefits that they liked and forced into purchasing a more expensive alternative.

Although the White House’s spin machine claims that the president meant “only if your healthcare plan hasn’t changed”, most Americans know the truth.  The president lied.  The White House has been caught directly lying to the American people about one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation ever signed into law.  The fact is the majority of Americans cannot keep their healthcare plans because Obamacare’s new regulations force insurance companies to change them.  The president knew this.  The president LIED.

Naturally, it is no real surprise that gun-owners of America are inherently fearful that the government’s claim “nobody wants to take your guns” is, just like the president’s healthcare claim, a LIE.

It should come as no real twist of logic that people naturally become distrustful of entities that have proven themselves untrustworthy.  Would you put your trust in someone who repeatedly lies to you?  Then why do so many anti-gunners feel that freedom-loving Americans are simply wrapped around the conspiracy axle with their distrust of the official government line?

If our government lies to the American people about something as important as our healthcare, what makes people believe that the government would suddenly tell the truth about gun ownership?  I recognize that chalking this up to a conspiracy is a simple answer and the easiest way to marginalize legitimate fear, but history of our government tells a very different tale.

Here is a good example of the hilarious anti-gun mind at work, from the DailyKos, of course.  “If you are using a gun with an extended clip…we want to take your gun.”  Unbeknownst to author “themoderateman”, that statement refers to absolutely any gun that is not a revolver, because virtually any gun can accept an extended “clip”.  Also, please ignore the usage of the word “clip” rather than “magazine” – most anti-gunners have never shot a gun in their lives and, as a result, rarely possess the ability to discuss them intelligently.

Or, let’s take this one: “If you are currently intoxicated with alchohol (typo uncorrected) or some other drug…give us your gun, right now.”  Any time you get intoxicated, the government should have the ability to take your gun away from you, even if you’re not using it.  Wonderful!

Or better yet, the second to last paragraph:

Bottom line, as a person of principle, not an etch a sketch faux varmint hunter, let me be clear, you can keep a gun to hunt, you can keep a reasonable handgun to protect your property and person, and you can keep your goofy gun collections but you MAY NOT HAVE SICKO GUNS DESINGED TO DO NOTHING OTHER THAN KILL PEOPLE!!!!  We liberals want to take THOSE GUNS away.  We really do!

We have yet another emotionally-driven argument from an emotional liberal who unknowingly supports the confiscation of virtually EVERY weapon in the United States, but then allows some gun use out of the kindness of his heart for those tasks that HE believes to be worthy of gun ownership.

Impressive, isn’t it?

Just remember, if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan.

McAuliffe’s narrow victory is no gun control referendum

McAuliffe-thumbs-upAnti-gunners across the nation are reveling in the victory of Terry McAuliffe in the hotly-contested Virginia Governor’s race with claims that McAuliffe’s “F” rating by the National Rifle Association indicates the American people are rejecting the so-called gun agenda.

But in reality, the McAuliffe victory proves once again the powerful roll that money plays in political elections in our fair nation.  McAuliffe was expected to easily win the election, but ended up barely squeaking out a victory on election night despite dramatically outspending his opponent.

In the days leading up to the Virginia election, McAuliffe outspent Republican challenger Ken Cuccinelli $705 to $285k.  The Governor-elect also enjoyed support from Michael Bloomberg’s well-funded anti-gun group to the tune of $346,000.  Further, a rich Texas Democrat funded a professional signature-collection effort to get Libertarian Robert Sarvis on the ballot in the hopes of taking away votes that would otherwise have been placed for the Republican.

McAuliffe outspent his Republican challenger by nearly $15 million and raked in funding by some deep-pocketed political interests, including a nearly $2m donation by the Virginia League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club ($464,000) and Tom Steyer, a California billionaire, who contributed at least $2m for television and other media ads for the Democrat.  McAuliffe’s negative advertising campaign surpassed that of Cuccinelli’s nearly 10 to 1.

“Democrats have abandoned their initial revulsion about outside money in favor of a recognition that they have to play and win by the same political rules as their opponents,” wrote the Politico.  Republicans are often accused of representing the rich elite, but when it comes to fundraising, it is tough to match the financial resources of wealthy American liberals.

It is disingenuous – at best – to try and link the McAuliffe victory to voter-rejection of gun freedom and the National Rife Association.  The fact of the matter is McAuliffe ran a well-funded campaign and out-fundraised and out-spent his Republican challenger by a large margin.

On the contrary, the fact that Cuccinelli did so well against the well-funded McAuliffe in an election where the Democrat was widely expected to run away with the election suggests a very different trend.  It was not McAuliffe’s anti-gun agenda that got him elected.  Instead, it was his position on Obamacare that nearly secured his defeat.

There is no shortage of rhetoric from both sides after McAuliffe’s narrow victory, but it does not change the fact that the Democrat nearly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory due to his support of Obamacare, clearly one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation to ever escape the walls of Congress.

Instead of grasping at straws under the lazy pretext of some gun-control referendum, McAuliffe would be wise to recognize the Virginia governor election results for what it truly is: a well-funded victory in a race that should have been a walk in the park, grasping tight to a failed piece of legislation that almost sent him packing, in one of the most gun-friendly states in the union.

Money well spent, right Mr. McAuliffe?

FDA-approved drugs kill 100,000 every year

DoctorsMedications approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration result in 100,000 deaths every year from what the federal agency describes as “Adverse Drug Reactions”, or ADRs.  Worse, over 2 million Americans suffer non-deadly adverse reactions to drugs every year that the FDA has approved “safe”.

ADRs refer to negative reactions that Americans suffer from taking drugs as directed by their doctor or the drug’s manufacturer.  These cases DO NOT include overdoses or drug abuse.

In fact, the FDA claims that adverse drug reactions account for the 4th leading cause of death “ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents and automobile deaths”.  Who is the FDA truly protecting, and what responsibility does the FDA accept in the number of deaths that result from its approved drugs?  These deaths give the phrase “FDA Warning” a whole new meaning.

The bureaucratic mess of the FDA makes the formulation of effective new antibiotics cost-prohibitive, according to Steve Forbes, by changing the rules in the middle of clinical trials and adding significant and arbitrary new requirements into the testing process.  This results in an increase in drug costs for everyone and demonstrably fails to make Americans more safe.

Thanks to the Food and Drug Administration, you are much more likely to be killed by FDA-approved drugs than you are from terrorism.  How many terrorist attacks on U.S. soil would it take to keep pace with the number of Americans that FDA-approved drugs kill every year?

2,996 people died in the September 11th attack.  Doing the math, that amounts to more than 33 9/11-style terrorist attacks every year.

The United States spends around $75 billion every year in its combined anti-terrorism efforts.  The FDA’s budget of just over $2 billion pales in comparison, but what are Americans truly getting for their money?  The real threat to American lives comes from expensive drugs and bureaucratic legalese that makes effective testing expensive and cumbersome, leaving Americans to literally fight for their lives amid a slurry of expensive medications that our government has deemed “safe”.

In a healthcare system considered the best in the world, Americans should expect better than 100,000 deaths a year.  The first step is recognizing that government almost never knows best.

It’s official: Anti-gun groups oppose law-abiding gun ownership

gty_tsa_screeners_lax_jrs_120425_wgIt has been long argued by freedom-loving Americans that anti-gun groups from around the nation actively strive for civilian disarmament that disproportionately effects the law-abiding, and a recent statement from the Moms Demand Action group provides evidence that this argument is pretty accurate.

On November 1st, Moms Demand Action (the gift that keeps on giving the whole year) posted an official statement about the shooting at Los Angeles International Airport.  Of course, the statement calls on Congress to enact more laws to supposedly “fix” the problem of gun crime and implement a full ban on so-called “assault weapons” for civilians, a phrase that many out-spoken critics of gun ownership in American cannot intelligently define.

Within the statement, the group inadvertently reveals the true nature of their involvement in the gun debate.  In their attempt to prove that the “gun lobby” wants more guns everywhere, the statement includes the following text:

Despite these tragedies and increased gun danger at American airports, the gun lobby continues to fight to make it easier to carry loaded guns inside airports. For example, the gun lobby advocated for the new policy that makes it legal for permit-holding gun owners to bring loaded weapons into the Hartsfield-Jackson airport in Atlanta, one of the busiest airports in the world.

This statement is a point-blank attack on law-abiding gun freedom in the United States of America, something that most anti-gun groups claim to support.  Here, Moms Demand Action takes issue with permit-holding gun owners bringing loaded weapons into the Atlanta Airport.

Read that again: permit-holding gun owners.  Permit-holding gun owners are not criminals – that’s why they hold a valid state gun permit.

Many states already provide permit-holding gun owners more carrying freedom, without cause for alarm.  Arizona, for example, allows permit-holding gun owners to carry guns into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol provided the gun owner does not drink.  The AZ permit also allows gun owners to carry guns in some state parks, all national parks and within 1,000 feet of schools (when was the last time you heard about a school shooting in Arizona?).

The LAX shooting proves that criminals will ignore the law.  But Moms Demand Action actively supports restricting law-abiding gun freedom in the United States of America, and this official statement proves it.  Why would anyone want law-abiding gun owners to bring loaded weapons everywhere they go?  To protect themselves, and others, from the Paul Ciancia’s of the world (LAX shooting), from the Major Hasan’s (Ft. Hood shooting), from the Aaron Alexis’ (Washington Navy Yard shooting) and from the Adam Lanza’s (Newtown, CT shooting).

I call on Moms Demand Action to start putting their money where their [loud] mouth is.  If they truly feel like gun crime is a problem in the country, then start fighting criminals and stop fighting the law-abiding.  Their rhetoric is fooling no one, and the damning truth of their real agenda is not difficult to figure out.  It is even easier to see when groups like this publicize their disgust for law-abiding gun freedom.

The assumption is as clear as it is frightening: this group treats law-abiding people as if they were criminals.

Congratulations, Moms Demand Action – you ARE the problem.

Hospitals refusing to accept Obamacare patients

GTY_hospital_lpl_130822_16x9_992Americans who expect to take advantage of high-cost healthcare services may be in for a surprise as many hospitals are refusing to accept Obamacare insurance, according to a new report from WatchDog.org.  Most hospitals, the report cites, will only accept Obamacare from one or two insurance providers.

Worse, insurance bought privately outside of Obamacare would have been honored.  “For example, fourth-ranked Cleveland Clinic accepts dozens of insurance plans if you buy one on your own. But go through Obamacare and you have just one choice: Medical Mutual of Ohio.”

The problem is Obamacare’s cap on premiums has prompted many insurance companies to significantly limit reimbursement to doctors.  More and more hospitals are beginning to refuse heavily used and risky Obamacare plans that were purchased within the healthcare “marketplace” due to fears that policyholders simply cannot afford expensive medical services.

Read the entire report: http://watchdog.org/114137/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare/

Innocent people held at gunpoint during CA search

Innocent person held at gunpointPolice officers blocked access to homes and held innocent people driving down the street at gunpoint last week during a search for a suspect who allegedly shot a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in Roseville, California.

The suspect ran on foot and entered a nearby house shortly before the homeowners escaped out of a side door.  With helicopters circling overhead and frequent exchanges of gunfire between officers and the suspect in the usually quiet neighborhood, the community quickly turned into chaotic martial law as state police quickly took over the area.

At least 15 homes were immediately evacuated during the incident, Boston-style, and some residents waited more than 24-hours before they were able to return to their homes.  Drivers were stopped at gunpoint during the search for the suspect and forced to answer questions posed by police while staring down the barrel of a high-powered rifle.

All injured officers involved in the shooting were treated at a local hospital.  Four officers were released and two remain in stable condition with jaw and leg wounds.

ATI to relocate to South Carolina to avoid N.Y. gun laws

American Tactical Imports (ATI) is the latest gun manufacturing company to flee New York’s draconian gun laws for safer grounds, citing the state’s passage of the SAFE Act and Summerville, South Carolina’s proximity to the port-of-entry for several of their imported products.

The move will bring more than 115 jobs to South Carolina where locals are supportive of the company’s move.  “The people of South Carolina have welcomed ATI with open arms and we are excited about making our new corporate home there,” said company president Tony DiChario.  ATI will invest nearly $3 million in Summerville, a Charleston suburb.

ATI is only one of many gun companies to announce relocation plans away from anti-gun states.  Magpul released plans to move from Colorado after the state’s passage of new gun control laws that ultimately lead to two state politicians getting recalled.

PTR Industries makes semiautomatic rifles in Connecticut and will be moving their company to Aynor, South Carolina.  Stag Arms may follow suit.

New York-based Kahr Firearms recently purchased a 620-acre plot of land in rural Pike County, Pennsylvania and will soon move its headquarters out of the gun-restricted state.

Other gun manufacturers like Connecticut-based Sturm and Ruger are not abandoning the Northeast state quite yet, but are investing in facilities elsewhere in the United States.