Will Terie Norelli And The Democrats Try To Ban My Refrigerator?

I think it is appropriate to add this picture to my friend Susan Olsen’s post at GraniteGrok.  The one with the ‘Journalist’s Guide To Firearm’s Identification.’

It is a picture of my refrigerator door (left), modified by the manufacturer to accommodate an extra magazine capable of holding all manner of ‘lethal’ ordinance.  Soda.  Beer.  Water, in those earth destroying plastic bottles, paid for with a plastic card, slid through a device made of plastic, carried home in plastic shopping bags and yes…that fridge door modification is made of plastic.

And we all know how dangerous plastic is, and soda, and drunk driving, and yes that is beer.  And beer leads to all kinds of bad decisions including those of the relationship variety, which put a massive strain on the arc of our health care existence, and require the state to force everyone to fund contraception, and easy-outs for unwanted pregnancies, even if they need to violate religious freedoms to do it, because sluts vote before or after the beer (wine, hard lemonade, shots, or fruity drinks) and wake up hung over and bleary-eyed next to a Republican (Lord help us) with a little “RINO” in the oven.

If left to its own devices that little treasure will grow up and go to public a public school where no one but criminals will be allowed to carry firearms even if the Democrats manage to convince the other bobble-heads to ban assault weapons or any other sort, because the very nature of law breakers is to engage in the act or acts of breaking laws of which gun bans are but one.

And while some folks are nodding their own heads as the pols and talking heads banter on ad -nauseam for the immediate regulation of “firearms” they can neither identify, quantify, or describe, and whose use is less a threat than that claimed for obesity (evil soda) and alcohol (ruins families, friends, property, people, and lives), when the winds of crisis governance are blowing a different direction,  my refrigerator is as likely a candidate for further legislative oversight and regulation as anything else because it is not really about assault weapons or soda or even children.

If Democrats and liberals really cared about children they’d be against abortion which kills children.

This is about growing government and centralizing power and we have to excuse them their furrowed brows and chest pounding diatribes because this is a regulatory crime of passion and no one should be held responsible for what they do under such duress.

Not the best way to run a government.  But it is a great way to lose control of one.

So while my fridge magazine is fully loaded today, and my choice of ordinance is still up to me, the left has already made it known that they do not approve, and are simply waiting for a convenient Kodak moment of crisis to dramatize for the sole purpose of advancing the regulatory state, which they will then (by the way) insist that you pay for, no matter how far fetched their social math might be.

And even though the war against women would be better met by women less likely to have to ask what they would do if impregnated as a result or rape or incest, because an armed woman is much less likely to find herself a casualty of that front in the war, the left will insist that they make themselves victims because of real tragedies amplified to advance an anti gun agenda rather than to promote an agenda of self defense.

Have you noticed that these lunatics always end their assaults the minute someone arrives with the ability to apply equal or greater force in defense of life?  Imagine if they suspected for a moment that there were already people in that building able and willing to use equal or greater force in defense of life?

Democrats would be talking about something else, possibly obesity, or contraception, or abortion, maybe even about refrigerators.  But banning firearms would be waiting on the shelf for a suitable tragedy.  One that could only be lessened or prevented if perpetrators could not be guaranteed a force advantage, the same one that the same Democrats hope to give them and then some, if they are allowed to have their way.

So who needs a beer?

You are reading  “Will Terie Norelli And The Democrats Try To Ban My Refrigerator?”   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

Jeanne Shaheen Wants to Ban Guns

Tragedy always attracts a parade of progressive mountebanks, anxious to peddle their faulty wares as cures for what ails us, and US Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D- Utopia) is no different.  In response to the heinous criminal acts perpetrated in Newtown, Connecticut she observed that…

“We need a comprehensive approach that includes improving access to mental health services, better enforcement of our current laws, and we need to get deadly assault weapons off our streets.”

Whatever you do, do not ask Senator Shaheen to describe an ‘Assault weapon’ because I am reasonably certain her talking points palm card did not include that.

The term “Assault weapon” is a lot like the term ‘Social Justice.’   It gets tossed around all the time, flowing seamlessly and with conviction from the mouths of  progressives.  And utopia looks damn good through those talking points glasses as long as you don’t ask them to define “Social Justice” or “Assault Weapons” for you.

If Webster were to transcribe what follows, directly into the pages of the dictionary, there would be more than a few ‘uh’ ‘um’ ‘like’ ‘err’s’ cluttering up the column inches.  And that’s the way the agenda-driven flying narrative monkeys like it.  It’s all about feelings.  “I’ll know love when I find it” is a lot like “I’ll know an assault weapon when I hear it,” or more accurately–what they really mean is that they’ll ban as many as they can until they can ban more.  That’s just how they roll.

So when “No-Maching-Gun” Jeanne Shaheen says get deadly assault weapons off the streets, we know that what she is really after is all the guns because lets be honest…a criminal with any weapon who is engaging in assault is using an assault weapon, and when a deranged coward enters an elementary school intent on killing, almost any firearm will do the job if they are deranged enough and no one is permitted access to equal or greater force in defense of themselves or others.

Jeanne Shaheen can phrase it however she wants but what she wants is to ban guns.  We know she does, even coming from New Hampshire,  because she is all-in on every other left wing, ding-bat, tin-foil-hat idea the left has ever come up with (except corn-ethanol but that is only because she wants to redirect that subsidy-infused-political-power into Jeanne-Shaheen-Shazam-Isis-Power-Hour” BAM! look at all the federal money I got Y’all for wood-chip ethanol” subsidies instead) so we know she wants to get all the guns off the streets.

Who cares if these guns (used in Newtown) did not come from “the streets” (another clue about what Jeanne really wants).  And ‘assault weapons,’ like social justice, (or ‘streets) means whatever it needs to mean to accomplish whatever goal it is the speaker intends.

Here’s another not so secret truth.  A murderous lunatic, who wants to kill and is willing to steal firearms, can and will steal almost any firearm.  And they will then use that force advantage in a place where they are least likely to meet resistance.   You don’t need the word ‘assault’ to ruin the lives of families when the object of your rage is an elementary school.  Or a unarmed university campus.  One with a sign.

Yes, Liberals put up signs.  They advertise.  Hey–no guns allowed, which means people who abide by the law will not enter the area armed.  Murders, mass murders in particular, are not always as inclined to follow the law to begin with and hey, thanks for advertising the best places to exercise a lethal force advantage of legislated proportion.

So unless your goal is to disarm everyone, leaving the murderous lunatics with the overwhelming force advantage everywhere, and anywhere they choose to exercise it, with whatever weapons they can find–because law breakers don’t give a damn what you ban or why–nothing you say is either honest or beneficial to the society you claim to steward.  Such is the mystery that is Jeanne Shaheen, US Senator from New Hampshire.

New Hampshire.  Yes let’s talk about that for a moment.

New Hampshire is consistently one of the safest states in the nation.  We have a great quality of life, low crime, low poverty, very healthy citizens, and a large number of them are walking around armed with what Jeanne Shaheen might call assault weapons.  Concealed “assault weapons.” And that is why we are consistently one of the safest places to live in the nation.  At any given moment there may be one or dozens of law abiding citizens who are armed, trained, and prepared to defend life and property, even when it is not their own.

Despite that Jeanne Shaheen would like to use the power of the police state to limit self-defense everywhere her bony progressive hands can reach.  So it behooves us to inquire on such matters now that she has told us her intentions.   So ask the Senator, “what do you mean by assault weapons?”

“What firearms would not be covered by your restriction, and therefore be deemed–by you–as more suitable for the public to defend themselves?”    (As an aside: Should this class of weapons from this day forward be referred to sub-shaheen guns?) 

Or if you prefer… “Do you think law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves with firearms at all, and if yes, which ones?”

“If someone broke in and stole those ‘Senator Shaheen Approved’ weapons (the sub-shaheen Guns), then used them to commit a murder or mass murder, how would that reflect on your position, or your qualifications to make such judgements?  Would the next step be to ban sub-shaheen guns as well?”

And there are plenty more questions we could or should ask but I’ll end with this: ‘After you’ve disarmed us, if someone should happen to walk into a room and start illegally discharging an approved or unapproved fire-arm at the people there, what would you suggest we do before or until we are shot or killed?”

You are reading  "Jeanne Shaheen Wants to Ban Guns?"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)