People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Thursday, March 01, 2012

'One Gun a Month' One Gone Misadventure

Here's the deal: Nobody has ever explained how it was supposed to actually accomplish that which gun control proponents said it would accomplish.  Plus, nobody has ever put forth documentation that it ever actually did that which it was supposed to have done.

Repeal of gun limit signed by governor
By Michael Sluss, Roanoke Times

Richmond — Gov. Bob McDonnell signed legislation Tuesday repealing Virginia's one-per-month limit on handgun purchases, scrapping a law that he voted for nearly two decades ago as a member of the General Assembly.

McDonnell's decision to sign HB 940 was not a surprise. He said before the legislative session began that he supported repeal of the one-handgun-per-month law, a top priority of pro-gun organizations that have long derided it as unnecessary "gun rationing." The repeal will take effect July 1.

Despite McDonnell's public statements supporting the repeal, gun-control advocates made a last-ditch effort to change the governor's mind in recent days. On Saturday, four families of victims of the 2007 mass shootings at Virginia Tech urged McDonnell to veto the legislation, arguing that public safety would be jeopardized by making guns more accessible.

"I had a very emotional, a very informative discussion with the families who told me why I should veto the bill," McDonnell said Tuesday afternoon, before his office announced he had signed the bill.

McDonnell's staff spoke to the families again Tuesday to inform them of his decision to sign the bill.

Colin Goddard, who was shot four times in the 2007 rampage, said McDonnell "offered sympathy, not solutions."

"Sympathy alone will not save lives," said Goddard, who now works as an advocate with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "The governor had a chance to be a leader for our state and for the nation in preventing future gun tragedies, but he chose a different path. As a result, innocent people will die. We will not let Virginians forget his shameful decision." [link]
Being the heartless bastard that I am, had I been governor and this whiner had said that to me, I'd have responded with, "How does rationing Virginia citizens' 2nd Amendment rights "cause innocent people to die"?

And shut up.

"One handgun a month" was a silly notion. And if its purpose was to stop killings up in New York City, none other than New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg - Mr. Gun Control himself - will tell you it was a failure.

So worthless legislation that - if these fools were honest with themselves - was passed into law only to make themselves feel good about themselves, is now history.  The law made no difference.  Its demise will make no difference.

So shut up.

And leave us alone.

What Makes a 'Moderate'?

In the eyes of Politico reporters, a "moderate" in Congress is one who "crosses the aisle" and is willing to work with the opposition to solve problems.  And who's the poster girl - as far as Politico is concerned - for Washington moderation?

Olympia Snowe.

"Sen. Olympia Snowe has bucked convention throughout her political career — and it was no different on Tuesday with her surprise announcement that she would not seek re-election for a fourth-term in November. The moderate Maine Republican, 65, is considered one of the few Senators willing to reach across the aisle, often ..."

The title of the article is "9 Olympia Snowe votes that angered the GOP."

Those nine votes?

Snowe voted with the far left on the following issues:


Gay marriage.

ObamaCare (in committee).

Obama's "stimulus" plan.

Obama's grossly liberal Supreme Court nominees.

Obama's business-killing Dodd-Frank bill.

Embryonic stem cell research.

Even with that understood, Politico chooses to label Olympia Snowe a moderate.

The reporter could have also included her vote in favor of Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" program, her many votes in favor of the "environment" that ran against America's business community (along with her support for the elevation of the position of administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to a cabinet-level position), including her vote in favor of factoring global warming into federal project planning, including her vote to ban oil drilling in ANWR, including her support for a version of Al Gore's cap-and-trade scheme, her votes in favor of Bill Clinton's "assault weapons" ban, her vote to kill the "partial-birth abortion" bill, her sponsorship of legislation requiring insurance companies to cover contraceptives ...

Need I go on?

Earth to Politico: The reason we conservatives see her as being your everyday run-of-the-mill liberal  - and celebrate her leaving the United States Senate - is because, on the issues that matter to us most, she fought and voted against our interests.  The fact that she said nice things about George W. Bush and his father doesn't matter to us.  Nor does it make her a moderate.

Really smart people in the press are now saying her departure is a real blow to the Republican Party as it will bring a liberal to Congress in the next election?

We say:  Big picture, what difference will it make?

Three News Items In One

Featured on The Blaze this morning: a nationwide sticky note campaign at the gas pump.  This one reads:
Hey there, voter!

Do you remember that on Inauguration Day (Jan 20th, 2009), the national average for a gallon of gasoline was about $1.78?

How's that "hope and change" working out for you?

Anyone but Obama
Nov. 2012

Couple that with these headlines in today's news:

Morning Bell: White House Wants to Keep Gas Prices High

Bill Gates: Obama told me [a federal] energy consumption tax ‘makes sense’

Of course it makes sense.  To Kim Jong Un, Cesar Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and every other enemy of the USA who'd like to see America destroy itself.

Gas is heading toward five bucks a gallon nationally.  Obama is pleased.  As are the enemies of our once-great country.

Come November ...  Come November ...

A Message To Obama

Delivered via the Panama City News Herald on February 5 (click on the image to enlarge it):

Party on, Barry.  Party on, Michelle.

Abortion Takes On a Whole New Meaning

I wrote yesterday about the "ethicists" who have decided that it's now perfectly okay to abort children after they've been born so as to avoid putting the "well-being of the family at risk."  Whatever that might mean.  As it turns out, the ethicists, after having published their viewpoint in an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, have received death threats. About which they seem appalled.

James Taranto responds to their profoundly troubling argument and the reaction from one of the authors - Professor Julian Savulescu - to the threats made against them:

"He's half right. People who issue death threats in response to an academic article are indeed "fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society." But so are people who write or publish academic articles arguing in favor of the murder of children."

Which is pretty much what I said yesterday.  If these elitists consider it acceptable to kill people - fill in the blank as to reason - they shouldn't be surprised if other people follow their lead and recommend that they too be killed.

Murder is murder.  And no lofty academic treatise is going to alter that fact.

It would do them well to think this through to its ... final solution.