WOOF! Watchdogs of Our Freedom

Posts Tagged ‘As pro-gun Americans unite’


In "Gunning for success" forum on January 17, 2013 at 6:14 am


New York State’s annual State of the State address this month turned into an especially distasteful venture into unmanly hysterics during which a clearly irrational Andrew Cuomo seemed to squeal, gasp, and shriek a weird assortment of a-tonal imprecations at gun owning “extremists” whom, however he envisioned them, he clearly and emphatically hated. Even more crazily, the Governor seemed driven by the ironic idée fixe that destroying the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution would be the most patriotically uplifting project to which New Yorkers could possibly commit themselves in the coming year, surpassing even Gay marriage and legalization of pot in this respect.  After spending the better part of the week sputtering about confiscation, the Governor proceeded to insist that this was not about “taking away people’s guns,” but was merely about “sweeping” gun control reforms in New York. In his speech, which was yelped at a frantic decibel level that might have been somewhat less unnecessary had microphones not been available, the Governor cried, “I own a gun! I own a Remington shotgun! I’ve hunted, I’ve shot! That’s not what this is about! It’s about ending the unnecessary risk of high-capacity assault rifles– That’s what this is about!” The Governor did not say what a “high capacity assault rifle” is, or where he believed such weapons to be stashed in his state, but he did manage to add that “No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer! …End this madness now!” Insouciant of his own plea, he raved for several more minutes, finally making time to mention the need for a women’s equality act, more Gay marriage, and the legalization of marijuana. But that’s not important now.

cuomo two

An unseemly display of histrionics by a man terrified of–Bambi?! Whitaker Chambers, please call your office!

Predictably, the monolithically left-wing media found the Governor’s histrionics impressive. Commentators assured one another that Cuomo had put himself center stage for his party’s 2016 nomination for the presidency, and proven himself a statesman of exemplary courage and clarity fit for higher station. WOOF doesn’t understand how grownups manage to tell each other this kind of pish and tosh without choking in mid-hyperbole, but WOOF does understand that Governor Cuomo is a babbling dizzard of the first order, and somebody needs to tell him so—so, hey Governor Cuomo—regardless of what all those televised blown-dry panty wastes are saying about you, you’re a…well, just read back to the previous sentence and that’s what you are. No offense; it’s just that being Governor of New York you might go quite a while, blathering pointlessly

Andrew Cuomo comes undone--the crowd goes wild!

Andrew Cuomo comes undone–the crowd goes wild!

out there before anybody else warned you about yourself!  See, Governor, deer don’t shoot kids in schools. Deer don’t break into families’ homes, deer don’t jack cars, deer don’t rob us at the point of a weapon, deer don’t rape women; deer, Governor, are just a lot more innocent than you seem to think. Few of us are armed to protect ourselves from deer, Governor Cuomo—in fact you may be the only person we know who is armed to protect himself from deer. The vast majority of us out here, whether we hunt or do not hunt, own guns that were specifically designed to kill people, because killing people who are attempting to kill us is still legal in most states—possibly even in yours!  And because progressive policies like yours and those of your political ilk have made society a very unsafe place for those of us who don’t travel with body guards, we prefer to take necessary precautions. So can we drop all this “rights of hunters and sportsmen” humbug and focus on why the founders gave us a second amendment?  They gave us the second amendment mainly because they also knew that deer don’t attempt to subvert and abridge the rights of a free people. Tyrants do. Tyrants, Governor, and oleaginous two-bit politicos with nothing between their ears but tax-and-spend liberalism and that set of dark, totalitarian visions that it amuses you to call “progressive.”

2010--Harry holds onto a gun, his NRA endorsement, and his seat.

2010–Harry holds onto a gun, his NRA endorsement, and his seat.

Remember a few weeks ago when WOOF told you bluntly that Harry Reid would lead the charge to grab your guns? Many of you told us not to worry. You told us that while Harry might be as shifty as a shite-house rat, and crazily far left on virtually every other position under the sun, we didn’t have to worry about his position on the second amendment. Old Harry was solid as Gibraltar on that point, you assured us.  But only this week Reid’s staff told reporters that his long-held pro-gun position was “evolving.” And do you know what it means when a liberal says he’s “evolving,” Woofketeers? It means he’s getting ready to publicly take a position that reflects what his true views have been all along. Remember when President Obama had to go evolve in order to support men marrying men?  (And just to be fair, women marrying women, which doesn’t seem quite as yucky, but still–!)  And if you don’t think Harry Reid is going to drop his pro-gun pretense in time for the final putsch toward an unarmed, subservient America, you’re delusional. We still like you and everything, especially those of you who are serially deceived Nevadans– but you’re still delusional! And if you think Harry has been pro-gun thus far in the course of his illustrious career, try popping over to Gun Owners of America’s website (we have the link below) and checking out their detailed history of Harry’s voting record on the issue! Or just go to http://gunowners.org/is-harry-reid-pro-gun-or-anti-gun.htm  Yes, we know you keep reading stuff about Harry pooh-poohing an assault weapons ban, but when he says these things, have you noticed his lips are moving? The surest sign that Harry Reid is being untruthful is his lips moving! Today found Harry making favorable noises about an “assault weapons ban” being on the Senate agenda. To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton regarding a different Utopian socialist, one can lie in bed at night and hear Harry Reid evolve.

Harry Reid evolving--an actual photo.

Harry Reid evolving–actual photo.

Meanwhile, we have the painfully familiar sight of Dianne Feinstein, who wouldn’t know a derringer from a panzerfaust, storming to center stage in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy. As anyone who has observed Senator Feinstein in full bombast is aware, she is never so much in her glory as when she can maladroitly hoist some formidable-looking firearm while wearing her most sternly sanctimonious countenance, and proceed to declaim on the hazards of “assault rifles,” which terminology she has of late changed to “assault weapons” she having apparently at last absorbed the fact that almost nobody in America can legally own the former, or realistically define the latter.  The beauty of a war on “assault weapons,” clearly, is that nobody knows what they are, and this means that liberal pontificators can claim them to be whatever they prefer.  This worked well enough to bring about the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Yes, that’s right—we already banned assault weapons, but apparently psychotic killers don’t read the papers, or else they appear not to have cared. A study conducted by the Department of Justice and the National Institute for Justice in 2004 declared that the assault weapons ban had “no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury.” So, Feinstein has decided with impeccable liberal logic, it is high time to ban assault weapons some more!

Feinstein armed

See? It’s an assault weapon! Feinstein strikes her favorite show and tell pose.

The bill she has proposed this time to really, really, ban assault weapons, whatever they are, is intended to halt the 1) sale, 2) transfer, 3) importation and 4) manufacturing of military-style assault weapons, handguns, and shotguns as well as high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. It further demands a ban on weapons capable of holding more than 10 rounds (which means bullets, for you liberal readers), presumably because you don’t need ten “bullets” to kill a deer. But while Feinstein’s hysterics are music to the ears of her San Francisco peanut gallery, and while Cuomo’s ululations may win him the hearts of the New York Times and the Penthouse Mensheviks of Manhattan, they are not likely to match the mood of Congress precisely, not even a Congress laden with cowardly, inside-the-beltway con-swerve-atives (and don’t think they all shambled off with Dick Lugar—there is no reason to think that Marco Rubio, Chuck Grassley or Rep. Jack Kingston –just to name a few—won’t side with the gun banners given

Maybe it'll work this time!

Maybe it’ll work this time!

half a chance). So ramming “sweeping gun control reforms” through the legislative bodies might prove difficult. Normally, of course, this would mean the Second Amendment is safe—but not with Our Beloved Helmsman in the Oval Office….the first President in history to routinely ignore and openly disparage the constitution and even the courts is not likely to be slowed down by a recalcitrant legislative branch.

After the tortuous kabuki theater of Joe Biden spending days upon days meeting with the aggrieved, the anti-gun, the civic minded, and just for giggles with some pro-gun advocates, all the while taking pains to simulate comprehending what any of them were saying to him, the Vice President grandly approached President Obama with his “gleanings”—which gleanings had been placed in his hand by the leftists at the subversive think tank, Center for American Progress, before he’d ever met with anybody—trust us!  Thus Joe was saved the agony of having to contemplate anything, or even of paying strict attention to anyone—he was simply tasked with handing the preconceived program to the President, who accepted the hand-off and declared that a day would pass and then, surrounded by an army of children, (just to make the scene as cloyingly fulsome as possible) Our Beloved Helmsman will unfold his plan, and make it plain that many of the conditions, in order to be implemented (for the children, of course) must be implemented by Presidential directive. And what is a Presidential Directive?

Again with the big words! How many more days of this? Joe's show committee grinds along.

Again with the big words! How many more days of this? Joe’s show committee grinds along.

Correctly understood a Presidential Directive is an executive order issued by the President with the advice and consent of the National Security Council. Such directives are intended to define or orchestrate the executive’s national security policy and as such they carry the “full force and effect of law.” Bill Clinton abused this power frequently and nobody particularly objected, so Obama has evidently concluded that he can usurp congressional authority by issuing directives  to suit his every whim. But the constitutional separation of powers does not allow for such broad use. While the President may constitutionally issue a decree to carry out a particular action committed to his discretion by the Constitution or by a lawful statute passed by Congress, this does not mean he can slice through the separation of powers and usurp congressional authority. If the President attempts this, he is breaking the law and assaulting the very Constitution he is sworn to protect—an impeachable offense, in a time when grown ups were in charge. But today?

October 1789, Washington uses a Presidential Directive to proclaim the first national day of thanksgiving.

October 1789, Washington uses a Presidential Directive to proclaim the first national day of thanksgiving.

So this morning we have the spectacle of our Dear Leader, surrounded by der kinder and their beaming parents, speechifying from the White House, enjoining the nation to help him end the scourge of gun violence. Next we were treated to the high comedy of Janet Napolitano over at Homeland Security releasing a statement that she’ll be “proud to support” the Obama administration’s efforts to “combat gun violence in our country.”  Should someone tell this nanoid intellect that she is the Obama Administration? And how do she and Our Beloved Helmsman propose to ensure our safety? By disarming the honest citizenry and neutralizing that pesky Constitution, of course—but they daren’t directly say so. Instead, as predicted, Obama let loose a flurry of Presidential Directives, 23 in all, most of which are surprising for their mushy inexactitude, such as number thirteen, which directs that efforts be maximized (whatever that means) “to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.” This could obviously be construed to mean anything, from retroactive confiscation of firearms to mandating that every citizen go at all times armed. Additionally it seems to suggest that gun wielding crooks be

Many do not realize that using children to make a political point has a lengthy pidigree

Many do not realize that using children to make a political point has a lengthy pedigree.

punished severely, which the NRA, WOOF, almost all conservatives, Mickey Spillane and Batman have all been demanding for decades while liberals turned a deaf ear. Other directives are laughable for their disingenuousness, such as number fifteen, which posits that “it be clarified that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes,” which will be difficult to clarify indeed, even once that tricky syntax is resolved, inasmuch as the Affordable Care Act prohibits exactly that—but oh well. It seems odd that Obama placed so much emphasis on today’s speech and then held forth, in the event, with such phlegmatic decretals. But in all the mush and vagueness lies the opportunity for much mischief once the lawyerly classes of the Senate and House have an opportunity to do some interpretive parsing, not to mention every fruit loop that Clinton or Obama appointed to a Federal judgeship. So is it time for the citizenry to consider taking up arms against the leviathan of tyranny?

No!  That’s exactly what they expect us to do! Don’t be deceived by the fact that we dwell in a post-modern era in which truth is deemed unimportant compared to perception, and the perception created by the media is that all of this constitution trashing  is quite wonderful. Do not be deceived by the eight or ten “polls” that just fell out of the blue showing that a majority of Americans support the Obama gun control agenda—that’s just liberal pollsters at play. All of this anti-gun business may yet be rebuked by a Congress that fears its constituents far more than it fears Rosie O’Donnell or the Washington Post (which in any case, only they read). Let us confront this issue in Congress and in the courts and see if we can’t stymie the Vast Left Wing Socialist Totalitarian Conspiracy that governs us! Perhaps we can settle this on the floor of Congress and in the judiciary when necessary. Let’s give it the old WOOF try! We can still win this one without “going Sam Adams” on the feds! The NRA has gained a quarter of a million new members in just two weeks, and more will surely follow! The media and the liberal establishment sought to shame gun owners into capitulation, or make pariahs of them; but instead they sent hordes of people flocking to gun stores to arm themselves in accordance with their second-amendment rights! There are plenty of us ready to stand against this tyranny by haranguing our elected representatives to wakefulness, and the new NRA ads assailing the moral hypocrisy of the Left are so “right on” that offended network news pundits are bellowing like branded cows. In fact, the funniest episode of the day was the White House’s reaction to the NRA ad pointing out that Obama’s kids go everywhere with armed protection while their father calls armed protection for most kids wrong.  A studiedly offended White House released a statement that “The President’s kids should not be used as pawns in a political fight.” Apparently, only the kids Obama has flown in as window dressing while he makes his emotion-driven anti-gun speeches should be used as pawns in a political fight. Who knew?

The President is really just high-fiving these momentarily useful children-- it's not how it looks!

The President is really just high-fiving these momentarily useful children– it’s not some kind of weird salute, or anything!

Meanwhile, want to totally mess with BATF, the White House, the congress, and Janet Napolitano? Want to simultaneously be able to stockpile types of ammo less in demand than many of the more popular calibers? WOOF’s own Bang Gunley has suggested getting yourself a “Mare’s Leg” like Steve McQueen (lifelong Republican, by the way) used to carry on the old TV show “Wanted Dead or Alive.” They are, admittedly, expensive, impractical, hard to aim, and totally weird looking, but trying to classify them will drive the Left nuts…and hey, one or two of these exotic works of art kept Steve alive through four entire TV seasons. And the intimidation factor? Now as then: Maximum!

Steve McQueen's "Mare's Leg" circa 1960--confusion to our enemies!

Steve McQueen’s “Mare’s Leg” circa 1960–confusion to our enemies!



Eagle Squadron Productions offers an “authentic 1892 Winchester Mare’s Leg carbine.” Of course the gun on the show was mythic, so “authentic” means it’s made like Steve’s! http://www.eaglesquadronproductions.com/bounty.htm

J.B. Custom markets a “1892 Mares Leg Lever Action Pistol”. ..a fully functional copy of McQueen’s weapon, available in a number of calibers.  http://wildwestmerchandise.com/

Rossi Firearms offers a Mare’s leg under the name Ranch Hand.  The Rossi Ranch Hand is manufactured by Taurus in Brazil. http://www.rossiusa.com/product-details.cfm?id=224&category=17.

Henry Repeating Arms manufactures two versions of the Mare’s Leg.  http://henryrepeating.com/rifle-mares-leg.cfm

This model by ROSSI is called the "Puma"

This model by Rossi is called the “Ranch Hand”