Big Mags and AR-15s

The way the anti-gun crowd talks about so called high capacity magazines and AR-15s makes you wonder if they have ever even fired a gun before. During a home invasion of even one intruder 10 rounds can go extremely fast. I have extensive training on the M-4(military version of the AR-15) and I am very proficient, but even I would be uneasy with only a ten round magazine. First, the AR-15 is exteremely accurate and user friendly, but even an adrenaline induced jerk of the trigger, or a hurried improper sight picture can send your rounds off target and that is true of any rifle and more especially handguns. In the military we practice magazine changes under simulated fire over and over to the point of muscle memory for one reason. They are difficult to perform even in a simulated fire fight. With your adrenaline pumping and an angry assailant coming at you mag changes under fire can turn you into the girl from the horror movies trying get her key into the car door. You must drop your mag, grab a new mag, ensure the mag is facing forward, insert into the magazine well, and then chamber the round. Furthermore, in your home are you going to think or have time to grab your extra mag as you awake with a start to the sound of broken glass and the crack of a gun going off as the intruder eliminates your faithful family pet and longtime companion Fido. Think you’re better off with a Shotgun? Well contrary to popular belief any shell that would be useable as a home defense round does require you to aim. Those scenes from movies where one blast from a shotgun covers an entire wall with buckshot at a distance of 5 feet is hogwash. In a firefight putting rounds on target with a pistol is no easy task. Even if you hit your target, do you think that once is going to stop him? Many times it will take more than one shot to stop an intruder, especially when using smaller caliber handguns like a .380 or 22LR. Maybe you’ve never fired a gun before, that’s ok. Not everyone has, and not everyone should, but don’t tell me what I need to protect my family. That’s a personal decision.

Defense of marriage or assault on a religious institution?

       Right now many of the politicians on the right side of the aisle are sticking mainly to fiscal issues, and steering clear of issues like abortion and gay rights.  Politically that makes a lot of sense as the Tea Partiers who are making up the bulk of support for Republicans are not just made up of Conservative Christians.  They are Conservatives, libertarians, independents, and even some Democrats that are deeply concerned with out of control spending and a mounting debt that has contributed to a reduction of our S&P bond rating, but once the election season is over and the plethora of cost cutting and debt reducing bills will be passed, should the Republicans take control, have subsided the social issues are sure to take their turn in the DC spotlight as well as in the state legislatures.  One of the big issues that comes up every now and again is the defense of marriage amendment.  The DOMA as it’s called is an amendment to the U.S Constitution intended to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  As a Christian I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so you may think that I would support such an amendment.  You would be wrong.  If you’re like most of my friends from church you just made a face at me like I just jumped up behind the pulpit and started talking about the wonders of voodoo and satanic sacrifice.  Let me explain two general schools of thought and then the views I share with about 10 other people across the country.  The first is the Conservative view that marriage is a state issue and not a federal one.  Some politicians sincerely hold this view while others use it to calm fears among independents while still appeasing their base.  The second, and might I add good intentioned view, is that we need to protect the sanctity of  marriage to bring America back to its Judeo Christian roots.  Now my turn.  Why in the world would we want the Federal or State governments defining any of our religious institutions?  Now maybe some of your expressions have changed from a look of disdain and shock to one of confusion or possibly interest. 

                My feelings are quite simple.  When I stood at the front of the church before God and my family and friends and took my vows to take my lovely wife, it was a spiritual and deeply religious commitment. When I went to the court house and filled out my marriage license and certificate of marriage it was a legal arrangement.  When the government gets involved it turned what to me was deep and meaningful into another secular action like getting my driver’s license or applying for a building permit.  Why should the government have the power to define any aspect of my religion and my relationship with God?  If they have the power to define what marriage is they can define it however they want to.  God has ordained marriage. He defines it.  If two men get married in the eyes of the state does God see it as a marriage?  No. We don’t ask the government to define salvation, baptism, or worship, but too many of us are all too eager to view marriage through the eyes of government.  As Conservatives we want government to be limited and stay out of our lives as much as possible.  Besides that even with a DOMA homosexuality will not be deterred.   As Christians we should seek to turn people toward Christ and give good council to our brothers and sisters as to how to live a Christian life. What we should not do is strive to change the outward actions and appearance of non-believers while leaving them as empty shells, giving the appearance of righteousness and being filled with nothing but an empty set of laws and moral regulations.  Christ said follow me and I will make you fishers of men.  He did not say go over to that guy and tell him to act like he’s one of us.

Obama's Canadian Bus

By now you've probably heard that Obama is riding along throughout America talking about jobs.  He even said that instead of seeing Kias being driven by Americans, he'd like to see Koreans driving Chevys, Fords, and Chryslers. Hey that sounds good.  As a Conservative I can get behind that. However, apparently Canadian vehicles are the exception.  His Buses are made in Canada.  But that's not even really what I'm upset about.  My grandmother accidentally bought a Canadian made Chevy Impala a few years back.  How embarrassed was she to find a maple leaf stamped inside her door frame? (We ate peanut butter on our pancakes for a year to try and make it up to the U.S. worker.)  My problem is that the Tax payers not only shelled out $2.2 million for his two state of the art buses, but there also paying for what amounts to his 2012 campaign tour around the U.S. Americans, however, are not responding so well to his tour.  His job performance ratings are at an all time low, and now the Congressional black caucus has lambasted him for failing to visit a single African-American community.  Even hard hit Detroit Michigan, with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, was passed by.  If Obama's polls are really falling as a result of this tour, maybe it's not such a bad investment after all.

Romney the Rino

If there is anyone out there who still thinks Romney is a staunch Conservative you must be stuck in 2008.  Romney seems like a Democrat running against Obama in a primary.  In NH on the 5th of this month he praised the labor unions as helping to build our ecconomy.  I'd like to know how.  Is it the fact that they try to drain companies for every penny they have until they have to close up shop, or is it that they try to keep the most succesful companies like Boeing from being able to create jobs in States like South Carolina.  I'd like Romney to please explain what he means by the liberal garbage he's been spewing out of his mouth. 

Not only has he been brown nosing the unions, but he's come out and admitted that he thinks human induced climate change is real and that we need to do something about it. He suggests global cap and trade, but he says it cant just be the US.  Well, he says that to try to ease fears among Republicans because we know that global cap and trade will never happen. Mark my words if he becomes President, America will need to take the lead on cap and trade.  Conservatives need to wake up. Stop sending him money,  Liberals are doing enough of that as it is.  We need to rally behind one of the few true Conservatives in this race. 

The choice is yours, 4 more years of Obamney care and liberal pet projects, or fiscal responsibility and self reliance.

Chris Christie not my pic for President

Many Conservatives fawn over the mention of Gov. Chris Christie's name, but what does anyone really know about him.  He is definitely one of the most fiscally conservative people to hold the title of Governor of New Jersey.  We love his strong stance against the teachers unions, but there's more to being a conservative or a libertarian than fiscal policy.  Two issues that Christie is decidedly on the left of the isle are Illegal Immigration and Gun Control.  Believe me those are two stances that won't win him many votes in the south.  Like most southerners, I enjoy shooting at old washing machines and generally anything that moves within the confines of the law of course. However, even though many people say that the Second Amendment protects our right to hunt, that is false.  There is no right to hunt.  The Second Amendment is all about our right to defend ourselves from an intrusive federal government.  Of course whenever a conservative says this the leftists start painting him as a radical anarchist, or a conspiracy nut.  Think about it though.  Our founding fathers fought a war against the government and carefully crafted a limited federal government, but they reserved a right to the people to keep and bear arms.  Why, because they realized it was the only way to keep the government honest. (well maybe not honest, but at least not tyrannical). Christie supported the Clinton assault weapons ban of the 90's. Also when asked by Sean Hannity if he would support legislation allowing every citizen of his state to own a licenced firearm he  said:  "[I] want to make sure that we don't have an abundance of guns out there"  Personally I think if it's a right we shouldn't need a licence to exercise that right. Hunting not a right- license; Driving, not a right- license; Life right- no license.

Christie is also in favor of illegal immigration.  In April of 08 Christie told a group forum sponsored by the Latino Leadership council of New Jersey, "Being in this country without proper documentation  is not a crime." Excuse me! Breaking the law is not a crime? He went on to say, "The whole phrase of 'Illegal Immmigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime."  Yes, Governor that's exactly what it connotes.  When a person comes here illegally they are breaking the law simply by being here.   Christie may be a fiscal conservative, but he is dangerously liberal when it comes to the security of this nation.  Lets hope he stays in New Jersey.

Osama

Ok, first off sorry for taking so long to post again law school finals will do that.  However, I've been sitting and stewing about what happened to Bin Ladden.  Obama, I give you props for ordering the seals to take him out.  A bomb just would be too good for Osama. I like that we got the DNA.  I like the fact that we took pictures of his head with brains oozing out of it, but why did we give him such a respectful burial.  You'd think we were putting one of our dead sailors out to sea.  We cleaned his filthy body, rapped him in a burial shroud and had a special team hold a prolonged Islamic funeral.  I understand you don't have to be ruthless. (I would) However, I think America and her enemies need to see we have no respect for terrorist. We have respected our former enemies to some extent.  Marking the graves of dead Germans for later proper burial and that sort of thing, but these are not people deserving of our respect.  Here is what I would have done.  First, order the seals to dip there magazines in pig blood.  After he is dead throw him in a vat of pork byproducts. Then, cut certain parts off of his body and send it to other terrorist to let them know we mean buisiness. I mean Obama's from Chicago he knows how the mob deals with rival families. Take whats left of him and display it Abu Ghraib style at the Smithsonian with a tour around the US once every 5 years. These are not people who deserve our respect, and all the hippie liberals who think if we show them proper respect and talk it out with them that we will magically be able to find common ground and share a coke and a smile are hallucinating.  The only thing these types understand is who's the big dog.  If you're the bigger meaner dog they will leave you alone, but if they smell weakness they attack.  We will never be friends. The best we can hope for is to kill them all, but until then we need to be the biggest meanest dog on the block.  When it comes to islamoterrorist we need to walk loudly and beat them with big sticks whenever we get the chance.

Obama and the Dems have decided to play games with military pay.

My plans were to have this blog be only minimally political and mostly insanely fun political incorrectness, but recent events have forced me to make my first post be about a very serious topic. In the future feel free to check back and enjoy lighthearted mirth and merriment.

During a gov. shutdown the troops might not get paid! Why? Because even though the house Republicans passed a bill to fund the military up till September, the President has said he will veto it! Understand this bill does not outline an entire budget through the end of the fiscal year. They could pass it, fund the military and go right back into arguing about how to avoid a non military gov. shutdown. However they want to try to force the Republicans into funding planned parenthood and NPR. They are basically saying if you give us what we want then we will fund the military. The truth is that military pay should not be used as a bargaining chip. Furthermore, if the Dems thought it was so important they could have passed this years budget last year when they were supposed to. Why didn't they? Because they did not want to be on the record in an election year passing a back breaking budget. Right now we should be passing next years budget, but because the Democrats want to play politics we are on the verge of a government shutdown. I would urge everyone to call their senators and ask them to pass the military funding bill, but the truth is they think the Republicans are going to be blamed so they really don't care what you have to say.