Topmost (in use)

Tag Archives | Gun Rights

“Guns are people too!”

“Gun are people too!” sounds like a turn on the idiotic PETA memes where they raise the status of a lowly farm animal like a chicken to that of a real person.

Except we’re not talking about PETA or chickens, we’re talking about LIBERALS and guns. I do understand the confusion. Chickens are not people, and guns are not people. Liberal are only marginally people. I joke.

When problems arise, most people blame that which actually caused the PETA idiocyproblem. This is a habit of pure logic that liberals like President Barack Obama could learn, inasmuch as they and he are the cause of most of the problems, yet they and he choose instead to blame “Bush.” Or Fox News. Or “the 1%,” or the banks, a tsunami, Europe, or the weather.

The last time you read about a drunk driver careening into a crowd of people and killing them all… well I just gave away the ending, didn’t I? The point is that the skillful reporter who is not drunk blames the DRIVER. Not the CAR.

That’s manifestly because the driver killed the folks. Cars don’t suffer mental maladies, and cannot make poor choices. Which is why I’d rather see cars in office than Obama and his administration. But I digress.

When it comes to gun-related violence, the liberals like Obama (he’s the AR-15 of liberals — snarf!) and his absolutely like-minded fan-boy media reflexively blame the gun instead of the usually mentally-deranged shooter. Well actually they blame Sarah Palin, the NRA, conservatives, gun “clingers” (hi Barack!), Republicans, and even gun manufacturers (kind of like blaming GM for the drunk-driver slaughter — and then Barack Obama for bailing them out!). And others too numerous to mention. But mostly the gun. It’s like they’re idiots.

Nate Beeler, cartoonist for the Columbus Dispatch (Ohio), was bang on with this editorial cartoon, today. At the risk of putting words in Nate Beller’s mouth, it seems to me he’s mocking the asinine group-think liberal mainstream media for what is really their obvious liberal-left, agenda-ridden reporting. This style of reporting, which I like to call total, unadulterated BS reporting, is a result of their mindless group-think adherence to the idiotic talking points of the Democratic Party and sundry liberal fascists’, and their gun-control fetish. As you can tell, my own cartoons would be a lot more wordy than Nate Beeler’s.


Damn that’s a funny cartoon! Now, I don’t want to turn this into a downer, but it’s dark humor. It’s funny because it’s an absolutely true depiction of the liberals and their media, and the logic portrayed here is so totally absurd. Logic dictates that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Guns are not people, and yet liberals make out like guns are people too. They’re a little like PETA!

The funny bit (is it still funny, really?) includes the subversive notion that that liberals are now so heavily invested in this gun-control lunacy — politically and within the media — that simply in order to appear consistent and decisive, they now have to accept regularly appearing as idiots — just like in the life-like cartoon by Nate Beeler. Every time there’s a shooting, we’re off to the races — or the funny pages — again. Like the annoying TV ad that’s repeated way too often, liberals hope eventually people will buy their crap.

The problem may be history itself. Liberals and progressives can be credibly held to account for being partially responsible for the societal root cause of these tragedies, which we all know, whether liberals admit it or not (not), is mental health issues.

In the 1970s, liberals tackled this problem as they often do — with pure emotion rather than reason and hard empirical or scientific facts. It was entirely ill-conceived. It was an experiment. They closed mental health institutions, forcing the erstwhile institutionalized mentally ill to somehow magically blend into society, which would somehow deal with it. Somehow. Well it failed. That’s your hope ‘n change philosophy at work again.

It has resulted, I think, in homelessness, poverty, crime, drug abuse, family break-down, and more.

Their experimental feel-good policy on the mentally ill was another failed liberal experiment, using human lives as if they were lab rats or PETA’s sacred chickens. And yet liberals are still experimenting in other similar and potentially disastrous ways.

So this gun-control canard is to deflect from their massive, historic, and what is very much their liberal philosophy-rooted gaffe.

Instead, liberals including Barack Obama should be admitting that liberalism has proved to be an abject failure. That’s right, admit it, and move on. But no. They blame the shooter’s problem on the idiotic, unscientific idea that guns are going around wielding mentally-deranged individuals, and killing people. This, to maintain face, and gain power. That’s their ultimate objective. Power over the people. A notably unarmed people.

Sadly, that’s the joke.

Oh my sides ache with all the funny. No not really. Wow. I bummed myself out! Or should I pass the buck and say liberals bummed me out?

For more on this, see my article from yesterday, The Problem: Gun Violence? Yeah, But Liberal Media Lies, Too. Here’s my PTBC Facebook page meme for that one:

Sandie_Rinaldo_misinforms_re_shooting_AR-15(sq-403px fb-meme)The Problem: Gun Violence? Yeah, But Liberal Media Lies, Too.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): America, Canada, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

The Problem: Gun Violence? Yeah, But Liberal Media Lies Too.

The incessant, hysterical cries from the left about more gun control (sorry  — let’s say it the way they do: “GUN CONTROL!!! OMG!!!”), using the ever-so scary term “AR-15!!!” as a backdrop, tends to lose a little of its steam when in fact an “AR-15!!!” has utterly nothing to do with the story at hand  —  in this case the shooting yesterday at the Washington DC navy yard.

The media all know by now that an “AR-15!!!”, um, “assault weapon,” was not used.  Yet there’s this BS this afternoon:

Some liberal media like CTV in Canada find it impossible to acknowledge the facts. First of all, “RACISM!!!” is curiously absent from their narrative  —  I mean seeing as it was so important in other stories; but on the other hand the term “AR-15!!!” is curiously present, even though no “AR-15!!!” was used.

Why do they do this? It wrecks their liberal left, gun control-pushing and phoney racism narratives. That’s why.

Even an hour later, when interviewing another expert, the CTV News anchor Sandie Rinaldo repeated the misinformation. This time, the guest corrected her, but even he got it wrong, saying that the shooter entered the building with a shotgun… and two pistols.

An astute anchor who is interested in reporting accurate facts instead of misinformation would have stopped the guest and corrected him for the benefit of the viewers. Alas, not this one.

That’s why citizens like me have to do it for you. You can’t trust them to do it.

Reporting like this is a little like the cries of “RACISM!!!” and of the need to quash the “STAND YOUR GROUND!!!” laws in Florida, even after the “WHITE!!!” Hispanic George Zimmerman was found not guilty. (Do note that Zimmerman was also not found to be a racist  —  far from it  —  nor was “stand your ground” ever used in the case as a defense. And I’ve never heard of a “WHITE!!!” Hispanic before). The fact is, Zimmerman was found to have legally defended himself when attacked by Trayvon Martin. Liberal media find it impossible to truthfully and transparently acknowledge any these facts, choosing instead to push their typically left-wing narrative.

In fact, in the DC navy yard case, the shooter’s weapon of choice was the one Vice President Joe Obama_shoots_rifleBiden suggested that Americans be armed with — a plain old shotgun  —  during one of the recent “GUN CONTROL!!!” freakouts. And it was not unlike the one used by President Barack Hussein Obama as he pushed out this photo (left) to the media, to make out like he was a common American who loves his right to have guns (sadly, or happily, he was laughed at after this media BS stunt).

But yesterday and today the left are most animated by the (phoney) idea that the shooter carried an “AR-15!!!” into the building and shot-up the innocent people with it, on account of… it’s scary looking!

That’s scientific!

It always amazes me that either leftists are totally clueless about guns, or they continue to get away with lying about them the way they do. For example, an AR-15 is little more than a scary -looking semi-automatic rifle, which kills just like any other semi-automatic rifle kills. I always think of it as one of those old Pontiac Firebirds, but the one with the massive plastic “firebird” wings decals on the hood and those fake flames and exhaust pipes along the sides. (Except for the fact that an AR-15 is actually a mechanical engineering marvel, in contradistinction from the Pontiac Firebird with the decals and useless plastic exhaust pipes.)

Here’s a tweet from RBPundit (note the hashtag just for giggles):

But what happens when you take that away? Well RBPundit summed it up beautifully again, by catching a leftists ass in the act:

Daily_News_BS-Cover(300)One of the best examples of misinformation was found in the Daily News, which failed massively on reporting the truth, as exemplified at left.

Noah Rothman wrote-up this massive media fail nicely with this article:

The Media on Activist Autopilot with Embarrassing, Preemptive AR-15 Bashing

It is ridiculous that the media continues this misinformation, and yet we continue to buy it and not yell even louder than they yell about “RACISM!!!” and “GUN CONTROL OMG!!!”, etc., to be truthful, and objective, and fair, and decent, and not agenda-pushing and corrupt.

The infamous left-wing MSNBC did much the same as the others. As reported by John Nolte at in his article:

MSNBC Still Airing Debunked Graphic Showing Navy Yard Shooter With AR-15:

… Regardless of these facts, MSNBC continues to use a computer graphic that clearly shows the shooter with an AR-15.

MSNBC is openly left-wing, and as desperate as the rest of the media to propagandize against our Second Amendment civil rights. But to continue to use a debunked computer graphic, hours after the media’s false AR-15 narrative was proven wrong, is an act of outright dishonestly. MSNBC is misleading its viewers.

A quick look at the NBC and MSNBC websites shows nothing about the latest news about the actual firearms used by the shooter. This fact, which is inconvenient to the NBC family’s anti-gun agenda, is apparently something they just don’t consider news.

Some of the best stories have come from others who, like me, know more than the mainstream agenda-pushing and false information and propaganda-pushing media. For example Charles C. W. Cooke‘s article at National Review online:

Gun Control’s Dead End

… We now know that the perpetrator owned only a Remington 870 shotgun, and that he murdered and maimed his way into possession of the two other weapons that he used in his attack. Those weapons were two standard 9mm handguns — not, as the media tripped over itself prematurely to report, a much-maligned AR-15 “assault rifle.” On his show last night, unrelenting bore Piers Morgan spent a great deal of time spreading misinformation about the role of the AR-15 in the shooting, a theme that the New York Daily News has rather embarrassingly continued on its front cover this morning. Although retractions will presumably be forthcoming in the usual tiny print, it is probably too late to remove completely the impression that the headlines will have left in the imaginations of many Americans. …

Some liberals have been forced to face facts, and are finally actually addressing the root of the problem, which isn’t a lack of the massive gun control that the left and its media fantasize over. It’s the fact that in virtually every one of these cases, the root issue is a mental health issue.  And so, it’s about how society deals with that.

AP reports:

… He had been treated since August by Veterans Affairs for his mental problems, the officials said.

The Navy had not declared him mentally unfit, which would have rescinded a security clearance Alexis had from his earlier time in the Navy Reserves.

“Our” Ann Coulter has been on this beat for ages. See her columns LIBERALS GO CRAZY FOR THE MENTALLY ILL, and GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE, THE MENTALLY ILL DO.

Of course there again, on the mental health issues, largely I blame liberals, the left, progressives writ large: I recall the liberal-left push, back in the 1970s, to close mental institutions and hope ‘n change our entire way of dealing with the mentally ill, such that we must treat mentally ill people exactly as if they were “just like us,” and let them live among us as if nothing were wrong, etc., so as not to make them (the mentally ill or moreover, the emotional, unscientific, bleeding heart liberal ideologues) feel bad, or some such ridiculous left-wing or progressive dogma.

This liberal mindset has cost society plenty  — in lives, money; in myriad ways.

The mainstream media ought to start shrieking about the real facts of life. “LIBERALISM HAS FAILED!!!”  That would be some honest reporting.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , ,

Posted under the categories(s): America, Canada, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Guns: bizarre anti-gun illogic from low or no-knowledge Canadians

A story in Toronto’s Globe & Mail about a gunman firing a couple of random shots into the street in Vancouver, last night, inspired some of the usual, reflexive crazy-talk from anti-gun zealots  —  the likes of which I’ve become accustomed from the progressive left.

“…Is this another case of an NRA hand gun being smuggled into Canada to be used by one more criminal or mentally ill person? It is time to start suing the NRA, the gun dealers and the manufacturers each time one of their guns is used in a crime…”

As another, more sane commenter was quick to ask, what’s an “NRA hand gun?” As I might have added, since it’s a pro-pot-smoking and pro-prostitution and pro-government-run illegal drug injection site (and pro-those annoying bike lanes) Vancouver story, “What are you smoking or injecting?”

Anti-gun zealots are always quick to find a straw man where facts and common sense and reasonable arguments fail them. It’s a wonder the commenter didn’t refer to the gun as an “NRA George W. Bush Republican Party Sarah Palin Dick Cheney Halliburton millionaire and billionaire Fox News Channel hand gun, with a carbon Smith_and_Wesson_640_hand_gunfootprint scope and a 1% trigger.”

Moving to snappy new legal remedies, as they are always wont to do when the people or facts or science or the concept of freedom aren’t on their side, the anti-gun dumb-dumb also suggested suing the NRA for this incident of gun shots fired.

Suing the NRA. Seriously.

How about suing Hollywood  —  yeah that’s right  —  just Hollywood in general. Or the manufacturer of the car he was driving. How about the oil company which refined the gasoline used in the car he was driving.

Note that the story contains absolutely nothing about the gun coming from the US, nor the gunman coming from the US, nor his having ever been in the US, nor his membership in the NRA, or even any knowledge of the NRA.

That didn’t stop another anti-gun commenter from suggesting this:

“…How about checking all vehicles from the US for smuggled weapons and refusing entry to all NRA members for a start?

Note that this denial of entry to Canada of NRA members is just a “start.” And oh, by the way, what if I’m a long-time member of the NRA (I actually am), and I live in Canada as a Canadian? What would he do with me? Systematically cleanse the country of the likes of me, I guess! (And whose fascist plans does that remind us of?)

The notion of blaming Republicans, or gun manufacturers, or any other straw man for gun violence, is systemic in the cult-like and very left-wing-dominated Canadian anti-gun clan. After the shoot-up involving US Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a reporter named Susan Bonner from the state-owned CBC (biased to the left in every which way) said this in her reflexive, breathless, super ginned-up report:

“There’s a lot of focus on Sarah Palin now! …  She, on her web site, put TWENTY DISTRICTS IN CROSSHAIRS! In the GUN SIGHTS!  Saying that these were districts that the Republicans had to win back…!”

Having already hit bottom, she dug deeper:

”…Many people say that Sarah Palin really EMBODIES the sort of TOXIC CULTURE of the talk… and that that talk is now PROVING to be DANGEROUS that it at least must share part of THE BLAME for what happened…”

Of course, to the extent that violent gun-shooters get their insane ideas from some outside influence, they certainly don’t get them from Sarah Palin, or the NRA  — they get them from Hollywood liberals. See my article written after I heard a kid on my street, playing with his friends, yell “5…4…3…2…1…BANG, you’re dead!”. I wrote in part:

…Here’s what stuck: that kid didn’t learn what today’s liberals would deride as horrible, red-neck, right-wing, conservative whackjob-style, pro-gun rhetoric from the NRA, as liberal leftists the continent over would love you to falsely believe. No, rather, he almost certainly learned it from today’s liberals in Hollywood. Yes, liberals from the blathering liberal-left anti-gun, anti-conservative, anti-NRA set in notoriously liberal-left, Obama-supporting Hollywood (or “Hollywood North”  –  Vancouver, or Toronto  –  which is the exact same class of weapon). He got it from a TV show, movie, rap or hip-hop “song”, or video game from liberals in what we all know to be that hypocritical-on-nearly-every-issue, holier-than-thou, liberal Hollywood and their liberal-left media industrial complex.

The NRA doesn’t teach “5… 4… 3… 2… 1… BANG, you’re DEAD!” or anything like that kind of theatrics. They don’t advocate for alarming, penultimate warnings to the end of innocent life at the hand of kids role-playing an awesome man with cool, fearsome weaponry. Hollywood does. Liberals do.

So own it, Hollywood. And moreover liberals. Own what you created. …

As to the legalities, here’s a more sensible commenter’s points to the Globe & Mail‘s anti-gun nonsense:

“…Canadians who are “known to Police” normally have a criminal record but would not qualify for a valid RCMP firearms licence. It seems laws that affect the law abiding do not affect criminals? Not what gun control advocates want us to believe!
IMO, this criminal broke 100+ laws.

It is already illegal to:
1) possess a firearm without a valid firearms licence,
2) to have a loaded gun on City Streets or car,
3) transport a restricted firearm like this handgun without the proper CFO – ATT (authorization to transport) only to and from a CFO approved range, gunsmith etc…,
4) this is a restricted / could be a prohibited firearm requires an extra safety course, licence,
5) shooting in Public,
6) pointing a firearm at a Person,
7) discharging a firearm in an unauthorized location
8) ++++++++

I wonder what new law the progressives could think up that would have prevented this????

And another sensible Canadian adds this:

“But….but…I thought we had gun control laws in place to prevent this type of attack.”

Still another sensible one reminded us (as our Ann Coulter has done numerous times, including her “GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE, THE MENTALLY ILL DO” and “LIBERALS GO CRAZY FOR THE MENTALLY ILL”) that it’s really more a mental health issue  —  one which has been exacerbated by liberals starting in the 1970’s when they all but shuttered mental health institutions, and abolished the laws helping us get people like insane gun-shooters into them.

I have a gun license and so does my wife. We have one that allows us to purchase and possess semi-automatic handguns. I also have a Nexus pass, enabling me to go across the US/Canada border with hardly a question being asked of me. Which means I must be in one of those Sarah Palin-esque “gun sights” of that Globe and Mail anti-gun zealot and his anti-gun group-think non-thinking brother. These licenses are like more bullets in my magazine. They help prove I am sane and law-abiding and skilled in and have knowledge about guns and gun use, and that I am of no risk to the public. We cannot be that sure about people who aren’t gun license and Nexus pass holders. They haven’t been screened by the state and their various border and law-enforcement bodies on each side of the border like I have and had their finger prints taken and their eyes laser-scanned for security purposes. Perhaps we should turn them away at the border, or sue their mothers and fathers, or cleanse them from our country. Yeah. That makes sense.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , ,

Posted under the categories(s): BC, Canada, CBC Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Survey of police: Obama/left-wing gun control fetish wrong on nearly every point.

I’m a pro-gun rights advocate because I’m sane, and because I’m a conservative and believe in my individual rights and freedoms such as the fundamental right to defend myself.

President Obama’s anti-gun, pro-gun-control, multimillion dollar bully-pulpit campaign (and oh by the way, convenient political fund-raising stunt), currently taking place across the country aboard Air Force One at a taxpayer cost of untold millions, is ridiculous and as usual, misses the real targets, such as the mental health issues, gangs, the breakdown of the family, and more, behind the recent outbreaks.

Like so much of the liberal-left or progressive politics, Obama’s latest well-timed fetish is loaded with a gun-Beretta 92FS S maxiclip full of specious feel-good appeals to the emotions (once again using kids — including dead kids — as his stage props), and in symbolism, rather than reason and empirical evidence. And of course his proposals promise more big government, nanny-state solutions. More government and government regulations and controls and social-engineering and increased spending are the answer to every problem (even spending problems), according to progressives.

The measures the Obama Left propose would do practically nothing to reduce gun violence, and might in fact increase gun violence. They would clearly reduce citizens’ rights and freedoms. And contrary to the blather about being “smart” and”pro-science”, as Obama always falsely claims to be, his proposed measures are not at all smart and are completely unscientific. In reality, Obama’s big-government answers are really based in nothing but pure left-wing, partisan politics, with an eye to increasing the size and scope of government, and winning left-wing power in upcoming congressional elections in 2014.

If Barack Obama were an ex-cop or some sort of expert in crime prevention, or was at least a law and order advocate with any history or expertise in that area, it might give his ideas more fire power. But his record of success is that of being a left-wing politician, formerly representing Chicago — the city with more murders (500+ last year alone) than the troops in war-torn Afghanistan — and Chicago is the city with some of the toughest gun control measures in America. So his gun control ideas are based on what expertise or success? None, inasmuch as Barack Obama has expertise and success in just about nothing except rallying the left to his sophistic causes.

But the authoritative police community website wanted to explore the thinking of their own police community, and conducted an extensive survey among its members to that end. I think I’ll take their opinion more seriously than Barack Obama’s. Here are some of the key points (not complete — see the complete survey here) I found most interesting in their survey:

PoliceOne’s Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers’ perspectives

In March, PoliceOne conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation’s attention in recent weeks: gun control.

More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility.

Totaling just shy of 30 questions, the survey allowed officers across the United States to share their perspectives on issues spanning from gun control and gun violence to gun rights.

Top Line Takeaways
Breaking down the results, it’s important to note that 70 percent of respondents are field-level law enforcers — those who are face-to-face in the fight against violent crime on a daily basis — not office-bound, non-sworn administrators or perpetually-campaigning elected officials.

1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.

3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.

5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent). See enlarged image

6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.

7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.

9.) More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.

Bottom Line Conclusions
Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime.

In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals.

Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.

Interestingly, even as I write this, a group of bi-partisan senators have struck-up a deal which includes some extra background checks for commercial gun purchases (which I should note would not have prevented many of any of the recent gun tragedies), increased punishment of gun trafficking, and would bolster federal funding for school security plans — something which you’ll remember the NRA advocated but which was shot down by the left when they immediately fired their automatic weapons (their word holes) at it, using their usual knee-jerk shoot first, ask questions later, mentality.

Here is a statement from the NRA today:

Fairfax, Va. – 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.

• Also see my recent article “5…4…3…2…1…BANG, you’re dead!”
• and (UPDATE!) Ann Coulter’s latest: “Liberals Go Crazy For The Mentally Ill”


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , ,

Posted under the categories(s): America, Canada Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

“5…4…3…2…1…BANG, you’re dead!”

Something about gardening and getting right down there in the dirt with your bare hands makes clear things that might otherwise be convoluted. For example, this happened:

“Five… four… three… two… one… BANG, you’re DEAD!”

toy_gunThat’s what the kid yelled.

And that’s what me and my wife heard last weekend while we were innocently working away out in the garden amongst our tulips and daffodils in our quiet little white picket fence suburban neighborhood. (Our house literally has a white picket fence, so there.)

The pseudo-auspicious warning  —  or play-by play commentary  —  wasn’t directed at us, luckily, and I’m happy to report we’re still alive  —  but rather at a group of other kids and/or adults a couple of doors down.  And it was just a bunch of kids playing on the street, like kids do. Playing “guns.”

I wouldn’t have given it another thought, but I love to jump down liberals’ throats and expose their sundry sophistry and logical fallacies whenever I can.

In the context of today’s bombastic and always idiotic gun control rhetoric coming out of liberal/left America as led by the sophists-in-chief Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, foot-in-mouth numbskull VP Joe Biden, et al, post-Newtown shooting; and out of the even more idiotic (at least on this subject) Smith_and_Wesson_640_hand_gunCanada’s liberal left, my mental meandering has the added value of being at least a little apropos of something, unlike 90% of liberal-leftist blather on any pet subject.

Here’s what stuck: that kid didn’t learn what today’s liberals would deride as horrible, red-neck, right-wing, conservative whackjob-style, pro-gun rhetoric from the NRA, as liberal leftists the continent over would love you to falsely believe. No, rather, he almost certainly learned it from today’s liberals in Hollywood. Yes, liberals from the blathering liberal-left anti-gun, anti-conservative, anti-NRA set in notoriously liberal-left, Obama-supporting Hollywood (or “Hollywood North”  —  Vancouver, or Toronto  —  which is the exact same class of weapon). He got it from a TV show, movie, rap or hip-hop “song”, or video game from liberals in what we all know to be that hypocritical-on-nearly-every-issue, holier-than-thou, liberal Hollywood and their liberal-left media industrial complex.

The NRA doesn’t teach “5… 4… 3… 2… 1… BANG, you’re DEAD!” or anything like that kind of theatrics. They don’t advocate for alarming, penultimate warnings to the end of innocent life at the hand of kids role-playing an awesome man with cool, fearsome weaponry. Hollywood does. Liberals do.

So own it, Hollywood. And moreover liberals. Own what you created. Hey maybe liberals should be registered, or banned, since they cause gun violence! And by the way, actually, I’m kidding. I say that because some liberals are so dumb they may take me seriously and actually volunteer, much as they do with regard to paying higher taxes.

A couple more notes on this subject: It brought back a “discussion” around the Christmas turkey dinner table (I’m itching to claim the turkey was picked-off by a well-placed shotgun blast, but it probably wasn’t) with family (where I’m surrounded by liberals and outright socialists  —  yeah, real fun). An in-law, truly aghast at the audacity of the NRA to defend gun ownership after that Newtown elementary school shooting, said (in that liberal way  —  wherein they speak as though it is assumed everyone in the room agrees with them, which in this case nearly everyone did) that the NRA keeps making these totally “idiotic” claims about guns being a “constitutional right” (said using excessive eye-rolls and air quotes), “and junk like that”  —  or at least words to that dismissive, pejorative effect.

I quietly reminded her that it was, in fact, a constitutional right, in America, for citizens to have guns. “Well they should change their constitution then!” she shot back.

Of course my brain comes fully loaded with a magazine full of real science and information and actual facts and objective truths rather than knee-jerk emotional responses based on sophomoric rhetoric, so I quietly reminded her that they had, in fact, changed their constitution. “It’s called The Second Amendment,” I said. If I’d had a mic I’d have dropped it.

This is where liberals usually take to calling me an idiot, or something I find even funnier (Hitler, a Nazi, racist, homophobe, a swear-word, or whatever), then do an adroit about-face and storm off, but alas, it was at the very start of Christmas dinner and we were too crammed in there for her to get up and storm off. Suffice it to say she won’t be sending me any Christmas cards (or even “festivus” or “happy tree” or “highly regarded seasonal values and greetings!” cards) in the future.

gun-Beretta_92FS_S_maxi250-202x140Another point: It’s actually the right of Canadians, too, to defend themselves, regardless of what liberals tell you to the contrary. I’ve been a member of the NRA for years. (And by the way, I’m not a hunter. Or a “Hitler.”)  This past month or so, I also joined the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, and donated to the National Firearms Association.

I’m loath to remind my readers (oh who am I kidding, I love it) that when I took the Canadian Firearms courses and got my license to acquire and possess guns in Canada (including semi-automatic rifles and handguns), I nearly failed one of the tests when I was told to unload the magazine from the Beretta semi-auto I was being tested on (exactly as pictured, above right), and I accidentally turned the muzzle downward, toward my left toe, instead of keeping it pointed down range. While I got nearly perfect and perfect scores on the written tests and the other practicals, I had to go back and take the handgun practical test over again. My wife passed all the tests with flying colors. Shut up.

So I’m not perfect, but at least I know all about guns, and what, for example, a “military-style” “assault” weapon is, unlike another in-law who blasted off several rounds of liberal-left talking points total BS last Christmas about the supposed need to ban those guns… but don’t get me started again.

Which is why everyone should work in the garden.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , ,

Posted under the categories(s): America, Canada, Columnists, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

When I Want a Progressive’s Opinion on What Guns I “Need” or “Don’t Need”…

My buddy, Green Beret badass Bryan Sikes, shot a massive whitetail buck last week during our South Texas Purple Heart Adventure. He whacked said muy grande with a LaRue Tactical OBR chambered for the glorious .308 Win. round. Oh and BTW, Sikes used a high capacity magazine during this hunt.

For those of you who aren’t hip to the LaRue, it is a weapon that progressive darlings say we should not have because we don’t “need” such a weapon for hunting.

Hunting, according to these wizards of odd, is what they think our founding fathers had in mind when they penned that pesky Second Amendment, and according to these control freaks we don’t need a tactical weapon with a high capacity magazine to hunt with.

First off, dipsticks, the Second Amendment has nada to do with hunting. The founding fathers weren’t worried about their right to put the bam to Bambi (although we should be because progressives hate hunting and would love nothing more than to bring that activity to a grinding halt). If you don’t believe me, just corner one of these little darlings and ask them what they think about hunting.

Secondly, who are they to tell us what we “need” or don’t need when it comes to anything? Typical of the Left, they think they know what’s best for we the people. If you want to talk about “needs,” Ms. Leftist, we don’t need iPhones, Porsches, crazy straws, American Idol, beer, leaf blowers, and I don’t need a gorgeous Italian wife. But that’s America, folks. Stay out of our business.

Regarding the need for high capacity magazines for hunting, please tell the ranchers in the west when they’re doing depredation work on predators and nuisance animals that they don’t need such weapons. You might be surprised.

Now, for the record, I do not have a black weapon. I’m a bolt action, lever action, double rifle, and traditional side-by-side shotgun freak. I like the classic lines of beautiful sporting guns.

However, the more I contemplate our current milieu I’m beginning to think that a semi-auto, like the LaRue Tactical chambered for the .308, has got to be the ultimate gun. Why? Well, it’s quite effective on game up to moose, and it has been proven in battle against tyrants—which is exactly what the Second Amendment is all about, namely, whacking overreaching, freedom-strangling little King George wannabes should they oppress.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: ,

Posted under the categories(s): America, Canada, Columnists, Doug Giles Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Massacre Solution: The Brady Bunch Bill to Prohibit the Procreation of Irresponsible People

As most of you know, Vice President Joe Biden has been appointed by Obama to make certain that another Sandy Hook never goes down on American soil. Being an American who digs freedom, I’m not getting the warm and fuzzies about this legislative venture. A myopic cyclops staring into the sun can see where this duo is heading.

And as most of you can guess, Biden and Obama are talking about levying an executive order on our populace that would ban certain semi-automatic rifles and high capacity pistol and rifle magazines. It’s a similar policy to the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban that did nada to stem school and workplace violence from 1994 to 2004. Matter of fact, school shootings spiked during that epoch. What is it they say about the definition of insanity?

Anyway, as the Left gears up to bear down on law-abiding people because some demoniac’s murder spree has left us all reeling, I would like to put forth a proposal that doesn’t mitigate our constitutional right to keep and bear arms but rather makes it more difficult for people to hook up and breed. It’s an expanded version of what Dennis Miller alluded to back in the mid ‘90s—namely the Brady Bunch Bill: a waiting period before people get married and start a family.

Yes, I’m more worried about high capacity idiots than I am about high capacity magazines. Look, you and I can ban such tools all day long, but demented tools will still find a way to get at them or switch deadly devices. For some reason evil people won’t obey our laws. Indeed, the crazy will search for other ways to McVeigh us into McSmithereens. BTW, all Timothy needed was fertilizer and a Ryder truck; an extended magazine didn’t come close to accomplishing what that satanic soul had in mind. Should we ban ammonium nitrate, nitromethane, racing fuel and rental trucks?

No, I think we should point our policy and derision not upon firearms but rather upon crappy parents who don’t raise their kids right or who don’t rein them in when they’re going off the rails on a crazy train. Pardon me for sounding simplistic, but until people who wish to bump uglies and have kids prove to us that they’re going to superintend their brood into becoming an amicable part of the American collective, I say we prohibit their reproductive rights.

Check it out. Here’s what I propose: Those desirous to mate or adopt would have to pass a thorough psychological and criminal background check and a five-year (at least) proving period where they would have to affirm the following:

1). Will you stay married and work your crap out so that it doesn’t decimate your children to the degree that they one day take their rage out on kindergarteners?

2). Will you raise your kids to obey the Golden Rule? No? Well then, forced sterilization for you.

3). Will you love and nurture your offspring versus pawning their upbringing off on satanic pop culture, violent videos, paranormal peers and Hollywood death flicks? Huh, D-bag?

4). Will you refuse to allow your kid to have a petty entitlement mentality and a woe-is-me vengeful spirit of hatred?

5). Will you quit going about business as usual if your kid starts worshipping Satan and giggles when he hears or sees people murdered or raped?

6). Will you turn your kid in if he begins talking to imaginary people while stockpiling a weapons cache that rivals a small nation’s battery?

7). Will you, in the event that the aforementioned has not helped to move your kid away from the morose, refuse to teach your child how to shoot and either get rid of your weapons or lock them in a vault that he cannot crack nor move with a Hyster 36-48T forklift?

8). And finally, will you take full responsibility (to the point of prosecution and imprisonment) if your teen or twentysomething kid kills anyone because you have fundamentally failed doing your duties as a parent?

If a couple cannot answer in the affirmative and do not show responsible and respectful behavior during the preliminary five-year waiting period then we disallow said couple to breed. How’s that?

Look, folks, we can ban all manner of weapons until the cows come home, but until parents start raising their kids right and steer them clear of this rancid culture this junk is going to plague us ‘til the end of time.

Finally, my advice to the policy wonks is this: Until the Brady Bunch Bill is put into effect, stay the hell away from our guns because we’re going to need the wherewithal to put down your bad seed should he attempt to kill our innocent sons and daughters.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **


Posted under the categories(s): America, Canada, Columnists, Doug Giles Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Girls With Guns

In my last column, “Good Guys With Guns,” I wrote about the Mayan 14 incident, in which a shooter was halted by an off-duty cop. I referred to the cop as a “good guy,” and my readers were quick to issue a correction: the good guy was actually a girl. Lisa Castellano shot the wannabe James Holmes after he ran into the Mayan 14 theater and began firing—and managed to snatch away his gun.

I don’t know about you, but Lisa Castellano is my new hero.

I’ve written about women and guns before, when I was the lone conservative columnist on the staunchly liberal Ohio University campus. As you can probably guess, readers sneered at the notion that guns serve a legitimate self-defense purpose. A self-described feminist activist claimed that women should be more afraid of “facing charges” for shooting an attacker than being raped or murdered. A male reader condescendingly suggested women should “carry mace.” I want better than that.

So did 18-year-old mom Sarah McKinley. On New Year’s Eve 2011, she was at home alone with her infant son, having lost her husband to lung cancer just a week earlier. When she heard two men trying to break in, she called 911—and grabbed her guns.

“My husband just passed away. I’m here by myself with my infant baby. Can I please get a dispatch out here immediately?” McKinley pleaded.

Twenty minutes went by with no police response. McKinley fired, killing one of the two men, both of whom were armed with 12-inch knives.

“It was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn’t going to be my son,” McKinley told reporters. “There’s nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child.”

As the mother of a 15-month old daughter, I second that.

In October 2012, 12-year-old Kendra St. Clair was also at home alone when a home invader kicked in her back door. Her mother advised her over the phone to hide in the bathroom. Luckily, the preteen grabbed her parents’ handgun first—and shot the intruder in the shoulder.

“When I had the gun, I didn’t think I was actually going to have to shoot somebody,” she told ABC News. “I think it’s going to change me a whole lot, knowing that I can hold my head up high and nothing can hurt me anymore.”

Now that’s girl power.

Two weeks ago, Abilene resident Lawanda Taylor was awakened at 2 am by a break-in. The intruder turned out to be her violent ex-boyfriend, who began assaulting her. Taylor managed to grab her gun and shoot her attacker in the side—likely saving her own life and the lives of her two children.

Last Friday, a Georgia mother spotted a strange man breaking into her home with a crowbar. She hid her 9-year-old twins in a crawlspace and called 911. When the intruder discovered the family, she shot him five times with her revolver.

Guns can’t and shouldn’t be used for self-defense? Tell that to these women and countless others who never make the news. Every two minutes, a woman in this country is sexually assaulted. Three are murdered every day—a third of them by boyfriends, husbands, or exes. Millions become victims of crimes like robbery.

“My wife is a hero. She protected her kids,” Donnie Herman, the Georgia woman’s husband, told reporters last week. “Her life is saved, and her kids’ life is saved… She did what she was supposed to do as responsible, prepared gun owner.”

I couldn’t agree more. America might be a dangerous place for women, but it’s less dangerous when they can defend themselves with a gun.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , ,

Posted under the categories(s): America, Ashley Herzog, Canada, Columnists Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Good Guys With Guns

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

That statement, from NRA president Wayne LaPierre, was immediately turned into a laugh line by the press, deemed everything from “deadly spin” to “delusional” to “paranoid.” The New York Daily News proclaimed that anti-gun cranks—oops, I mean “mental health experts”—who had never met LaPierre had diagnosed him as crazy.

As someone who went to journalism school and has worked in media for years, I’m used to this. Left-leaning editors and reporters declare what “everyone” knows and “everyone” thinks, while pretending to be objective. Their preferred method of slanting the news is covering stories that bolster their worldview while completely ignoring others. Because whether the “good guy” is a police officer or a private citizen, LaPierre’s statement is absolutely true—and several incidents ignored by the media prove it.

Two days after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a San Antonio man burst into the Mayan 14 movie theater and began shooting, “sending panicked moviegoers rushing to exits and ducking for cover,” according to But instead of becoming the next James Holmes, the suspect was shot by an off-duty cop. Unlike the Aurora theater shooting, the incident ended with only two wounded—thanks to a good guy with a gun.

How many of you have heard the name “Mayan 14” before today? Is it any surprise that a network like CNN, which employs Piers Morgan, let this story slip under the radar?

When most Americans hear “school shooting,” they think Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook. They’re all incidents where the gunmen took a dozen lives or more. We rarely think of Edinboro, Pennsylvania; Pearl, Mississippi; or the Appalachian School of Law. Why? School shootings there were all halted by good guys with guns. They also had dramatically lower death tolls—one, two, and three, respectively.

At the Appalachian School of Law, the gunman was tackled by three men, two of whom had rushed to their cars to retrieve their guns. The media covered the story—but selectively edited the details.

“What is so remarkable is that out of 280 separate news stories in the week after the event, just four stories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns,” wrote economist John Lott in his book More Guns, Less Crime. “In the other public school shootings where citizens with guns have stopped attacks, rarely do more than one percent of the news stories mention that citizens with guns stopped the attacks.”

The media deemed LaPierre’s “good guys with guns” line as a delusion of wannabe cowboys everywhere, who fantasize about Wild West-style shootouts with cartoon villains. Maybe they should go back and read one of my favorite Townhall columns of all time: Chicks Carrying Guns and Kicking Tail by Mary Katharine Ham.

Ham’s examples aren’t fantasies or hypotheticals. They’re true stories of women who chased away thugs, rapists and thieves with guns. The potential victims included elderly women and a pregnant mother of two, who shot an armed gunman who kicked in her door. A woman named Charmaine Dunbar was accosted by a rifle-toting gunman and shot him twice with her handgun. It turned out he was a suspect in six sexual assaults in her area.

As Ham put it, “This is the kind of women’s empowerment that gets me going.”

The mainstream media might have a bigger audience and more influence, but the conservative media should refuse to ignore these stories and countless others. Instead of letting the anti-gun camp control the debate, let’s turn “Mayan 14” into a household name.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , ,

Posted under the categories(s): America, Ashley Herzog, Canada, Columnists Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Foreign “and Canadian”

Beretta 92FS S maxi

I just renewed my membership in the NRA, and I noticed they advised me that my magazine subscription will cost extra for “foreign and Canadian” members.

We’re not “foreign,” see.  We’re brothers in arms. Literally.



Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Targeted shooting despite liberals’ gun registry being checked 18,984 times per day? IMPOSSIBLE!

I demand to know from liberals how this could possibly happen.  We have a gun registry! 

Targeted drive-by shooting in Chilliwack
Apartment building shot up around 6 a.m.; No one was hurt

Jesse Johnston Jan 02, 2011 10:37:13 AM

CHILLIWACK (NEWS1130) – There was a drive-by shooting in Chilliwack this morning. No one was hurt.

Corporal Lea-Anne Dunlop tells us an apartment building on McIntosh Drive near Yale Road West was shot up around 6 a.m. “We do believe that this particular unit was the target of the shooting. However, at this time, the motive behind the incident is not known.”

Dunlop says the people inside the suite that was shot up aren’t known to police, and they are cooperating with investigators.

Mounties say there don’t appear to be any links to drugs or gangs.

I do like the part in the (radio station CKWX) story where they report that the Mounties say the “motive behind the incident is not known” and that “there don’t appear to be any links to drugs or gangs.” 

They also didn’t rule out the possibility that the shoot up, which took place on Sunday, might have been over who tithed more to their church that day.  So that might be it.  In any case, no doubt the gun(s) were registered, because the liberals made it the law, so this won’t happen again.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **


Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Massive gun shooting in Vancouver despite liberals’ gun registry: demand answers. From liberals.

What with the traffic officers checking the liberals’ crackerjack gun registry 597,333 times per day, seven days a week, as they keep telling us, how could this happen?

I demand answers.

10 wounded in gang shooting in Vancouver

The Canadian Press
Date: Sunday Dec. 12, 2010 11:25 AM ET


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **


Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Shooting in Vancouver; how could this happen with the progressives’ gun registry in place?

Despite the traffic cops checking the progressives’ crackerjack gun registry approximately 843,299 times per day, as we’re told by them constantly in ever so intellectually honest a manner — including checking it at each and every traffic stop when launching investigations into broken tail lights and speeding and possibly a driver consuming trans fats while smoking a cigarette with unmarked packaging — a gun shooting occurred early this morning in the Metro Vancouver area.  In traffic.  I mean it was a drive-by shooting for goodness’ sake. 

How could this happen with the gun registry in place, and all those checks to the registry?  I demand answers. 

Coquitlam shooting
Jordan Armstrong

Two men have been shot near Clarke Road and Ingersoll Avenue in Coquitlam in a drive-by shooting.

It happened at 4:15 this morning.

They drove themselves to the RCMP detachment in a bullet-ridden car.

Police say their wounds are not life-threatening.

I think possibly more taxpayer cash needs to be diverted from our wallets to the progressives’ gun registry in order to improve its value to the nation. 

Vote liberal.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **


Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Gun murder in Ottawa —despite liberals’ gun registry? I demand to know how this could happen.

As the liberals keep telling us, the police check the gun registry 696,734 times every day while ticketing drivers for speeding and broken tail lamps.  And yet this happens.  I demand answers.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **


Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Liberals’ gun registry saves boy; deranged man holds 3-yr-old kid hostage with knife

Kid slashed across face.  Could have been a pellets from a shot gun.  Thank God for liberals and their scientific principles and university studies. 

Vancouver hostage-taking ended by police

A Vancouver toddler is being treated for injuries after he was held hostage in the basement of a community centre overnight.

The three-year-old boy and his mother were in the Ray-Cam centre on Tuesday evening when a man walked in just after the supper hour.

Police said a 24-year-old man was yelling and he was armed with a large knife.  …

Police say the deranged man is known to police for mental health issues and previous violent incidents.  Therefore, as we all know, he would never be allowed to get even close to passing a gun safety course, he’d be even further from ever obtaining a gun license which is already nearly impossible for sane people, and owning a gun that he could possibly have registered, even if he knew what all of the forging meant, would be met with haughty laughter from the registry bureaucrats.  Which is why he didn’t get a gun from one of the sellers in the east side.

So I credit the liberals’ gun registry for saving the boy, because as they keep telling us, traffic cops check the registry at least 698,534 every afternoon.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **


Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

It's a question.