BiggAndyy the Magazine

As a gun owner, a Second Amendment advocate, a Limited Government proponent, and an American Citizen I have a question to all the policy wonks and pundits and government officials popping their heads up on talk shows, nightly news broadcasts, and writing columns in the wake of the VT Massacre:

“Why are you folks all so surprised at all of this?”

Honestly. I can not fathom why any of you, especially those in the halls of academia and power, can not see this shooting was inevitable. This stew of hatred and unbridled animosity has been brewing for several decades now and all of the ingredients are direct results of progressive thought and policy.

The elementary schools, grammar schools, high schools, and collegiate institutions for many years now have been fostering, promoting, and rewarding a student and building their self-esteem not based upon the time tested formula of “excellence of achievement” but on the esoteric and hedonistic notion of “best effort”. The mantra of the school teacher and administration is “As long as you try your best we will never fail you.”

Which is very noble in its intent but generates the exact opposite when actually put into action. The students found that any effort, no matter how small or uninspired on their part, was quickly and uncategorically praised and rewarded by instructor and administration. Soon, students had teachers trained not just to reward minimum effort, but to begin praising the unruly students who did not disrupt the classroom “too much”.

American education became a place to practice and perfect hedonism rather than actually engage children in learning.

And during this process of letting little Johnny feel good about his stupefied arrogance educators began expanding the role of instruction. Not satisfied with letting poor Johnny believe that 2 + 2 = “Range Rover”, Social Commentary and Activism replaced Civics and History in the classroom.

Now teachers were allowed to expound upon any silly pet peeve they believed was “important” for the child to digest. And one of the most egregious lies pounded into little Johnny’s head is that “guns are evil.” Our children grow up with such fear and misinformation about firearms and weapons that it is no wonder that no one even thought about rushing the VT killer in an attempt to disarm and subdue him.

Homeroom wardens of wackiness preach that guns are evil and the mere presence of a gun in a room turns an otherwise normal person into a frothing, rabid murderer with an insatiable bloodlust for carnage. Games and television programs further the twisted image of guns when a “bad guy” is shot with a handgun and the force of the blast propels the perp three feet into the air and 10 feet backwards, oftentimes through a closed door.

Nonsense.

“Pogressive” government officials are not without contribution to this witches brew of mayhem. Passing laws that forbid the mere presence of a firearm where large congregations of people are gathered in relatively small areas is NOT a “Gun Free Zone.” It is a killing field.

Passing illegal law after illegal law restricting, criminalizing, and banning weapons and weapon ownership, the government has lead the charge in creating an environment where it is impossible to properly educate young people (or anyone for that matter) about guns and their proper and safe handling. “Progressive” government officials desire only the confiscation of every weapon and the criminalization of every gun owner. They aren’t interested in education, only indoctrination and domination.

And now that the government has set itself up as the sole watchdog of who and who should not own a firearm can it be any wonder that many, many, many people fall through the cracks of their safety net against criminals owning guns. In their zeal to remove guns from criminals they haven’t the foggiest idea what exactly constitutes a criminal. Especially if that criminal hasn’t yet committed a crime. How can a standard form asking YES or NO questions about someones past possibly help determine if that person is a criminal or has “criminal intent”? In the 1940s, 50s, and 60s a person could walk into Sears and Roebuck and purchase a firearm yet there were no campus shootings or massacres.

All of these ingredients are eagerly and enthusiastically promoted and championed by liberals and progressives. Self-centered, spoiled rotten, ignorant young adults are looking out only for their own pleasure and gratification. And when they don’t get it they haven’t been trained to work harder or try again. Progressives and liberals have convinced everyone (that isn’t male and Caucasian) it isn’t their fault they are idiots or failures. It is America’s fault. It is the white man’s fault. It is the system’s fault that you aren’t comfortable.

Hand in hand with the crass hedonism taught in schools and promoted in the secular culture is moral relativism. Anything that makes you feel good IS good and anything that keeps you from feeling good MUST be bad. Kids aren’t prepared for the truth that life is sometimes uncomfortable. They aren’t warned they won’t always get what they want. Children aren’t prepared to have to work HARD for their rewards.

They are told if you don’t get what you want it is ok to lash out in anger. To do violence and harm to those people and institutions perceived to be holding them back. Don’t worry! The progressive will try to “understand” what all the rage is about. The progressive won’t lay blame at the feet of the perpetrator. In the liberal world view blame is pre-assigened to Conservative White Male Christians. THEY are the source of all the woes in the world, globally, regionally, socially, and even personally.

Now we mix all this together. The crass hedonism and moral relativism taught in the school system. A culture programmed to automatically fear handguns and hold in scorn those who legally and safely wield them. An inability (nor even desire) to distinguish Right from Wrong, and a society ready to cringe at the mere mention of the words “personal responsibility”. An entire campus filled with thousands of people completely defenseless, and you WANTED it this way (Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions [defeating House Bill 1572] because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”)

All those ingredient add up to Cho Seung-Hui.

So my question again, everything you progressives have done you have done with eagerness, dogged determination, and self satisfaction. Why are you so surprised that this has happened? Isn’t this what you wanted?

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
4. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
5. When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense — give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).
6. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
7. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
8. These phrases: “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumeration’s herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arm” refers to the state.
9. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
10. Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles”, because they are military weapons.
11. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
12. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
13. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
14. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
15. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
16. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
17. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
18. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
19. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution.
20. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
21. We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
22. Private citizens don’t need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
23. Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
24. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
25. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

You can find the original, uncut, at geoffmetcalf.com

Some meatball in Illinois opined:

If Godzilla were a sportsman, the .50-caliber sniper rifle would be his instrument.

This is a weapon that can shoot down airplanes or helicopters from more than a mile away.

Its bullets can penetrate armored vehicles and exterior walls.

One such rifle was found in the ashes of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.

Criminals and terrorists worldwide love this weapon.

You could love it too. It’s perfectly legal for anyone 18 or older in Illinois to own one.

So of what possible legitimate use could the .50-caliber weapon be, even to sportsmen lurking in the forests and glens of Illinois?

Coyote. Shooting coyote.

That’s what a gun lobbyist claimed during a recent state Senate committee hearing about a measure aimed at outlawing .50-caliber sniper rifles.

Did he possibly mean . . . obliterating the state’s entire coyote species with a single shot? Some sport.

There’s no reason this weapon should be in the hands of anyone other than law enforcement, military or forensic specialists.

State Sen. Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge) has proposed legislation that would prohibit the sale, manufacture, purchase, possession or carrying of .50-caliber rifles in Illinois. Exceptions would be made for anyone who already owns such a rifle, or the aforementioned authorized users. Other exemptions provide for those who use .50-caliber rifles in shooting competitions, including the Olympics (should it ever become an event).

“The fact that supporters say it’s used in hunting is a cynical attempt by the gun industry to legitimize this very dangerous weapon,” Kotowski said.

This isn’t the first time this legislation has been proposed in Illinois. But enough, already. Let this be the last.

The only mystery is why any legislator thinks such a monster of a weapon should be allowed, particularly in an age of terrorism.

Yet those who still need convincing on the issue include legislators who should know better: Sens. Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale), Dan Cronin (R-Elmhurst), Christine Radogno (R-Lemont), Michael Bond (D-Grayslake), Linda Holmes (D-Aurora), Pamela Althoff (R-McHenry), Debbie Halvorsen (D-Crete) and Matt Murphy (R-Palatine).

Please, senators. Explain how a 5-foot-long weapon that can be used to attack chemical or industrial plants is worth defending for civilian use? Explain that to your largely suburban constituents, who generally support reasonable gun control measures such as these.

There may be a handful of “sportsmen” who get their kicks by firing expensive, military-like weapons at small animals or targets. But to put their kicks before the public safety of millions makes no sense at all.

Let’s refute this nonsense piece by piece. It’s easy if you stop and think, which neo-liberals seem to have a very hard time doing these days.

If Godzilla were a sportsman, the .50-caliber sniper rifle would be his instrument.
Godzilla is a guy in a rubber suit that smashes models of Tokyo, a .50 caliber weapon would not even be a toothpick for it. This is simply sensationalist hyperbole for the sake of trying to sound clever.

This is a weapon that can shoot down airplanes or helicopters from more than a mile away.
That statement is actually a contraction of two correct statements, but combined together it is a lie. First, the .50 caliber rifle is accurate enough, in the hands of a highly trained marksman, to kill a man at distances greater than 2,000 yards. Second it is powerful enough to down a SMALL aircraft, at close range, with more than one shot. The author seems to believe that if two statements are true separately then combined together they become MORE true. Not so. This is an outright lie.

Its bullets can penetrate armored vehicles and exterior walls.
Which kind of armored vehicles? Do you mean tanks? No it can’t. Do you mean armored humvee’s? It could if it were actually being used by terrorists against our forces in the theater of war. And exterior walls? Aluminum siding? My .45 caliber pistol can shoot through that. Brick walls? My .30-06 can do that. Doesn’t take a whole lot to shoot through a brick or wood wall.

One such rifle was found in the ashes of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.
I always love the “guilt by association” argument. Always so shallow and betrays such small mindedness. Is the author inferring that he is glad the Branch Davidians were burned alive along with their women and children? Seems so to me.

Criminals and terrorists worldwide love this weapon.
Criminals do NOT want to carry around a 28 pound bolt action gun that costs over $5,000 and is a yard and a half long. Neither do terrorists. The AK 47 is imminently more affordable (I can build one in my basement for under $200 or purchase one at a sporting goods store for around the same price), is MUCH more portable, has a much higher firing rate, MUCH cheaper ammunition, is concealable, and gets the job done. It seems to me that polemicists who continually demonize firearms love the .50 caliber rifle, but criminals and terrorists have MUCH better choices out there.

You could love it too. It’s perfectly legal for anyone 18 or older in Illinois to own one.
Nothing wrong with that statement. I would love to own one myself, I just don’t have the scratch to afford one.

So of what possible legitimate use could the .50-caliber weapon be, even to sportsmen lurking in the forests and glens of Illinois?
That is a question that has no answer because it is a nonsense question. The Second Amendment guarantees that American Citizens do NOT have to justify their reasons for purchasing or owning a particular weapon. It also betrays the bias that the author believes the Second Amendment applies to “sportsmen” only and only applies to “sporting weapons”.

Coyote. Shooting coyote.
No reason why it can’t be used to shoot coyote.

That’s what a gun lobbyist claimed during a recent state Senate committee hearing about a measure aimed at outlawing .50-caliber sniper rifles.
The real atrocity of justice here is that a Senate committee is allowed to even hold hearings about restricting guns of any type. Also notice the use of the word “sniper”. Every rifle can be a “sniper” rifle because the word “sniper” modifies the noun “shooter” (which is oftentimes only implied in statements) and not the rifle itself. The misuse of the term “sniper” is merely an obfuscation and attempt to lower any debate into a histrionic panic by the gun fearing neo-liberals.

Did he possibly mean . . . obliterating the state’s entire coyote species with a single shot? Some sport.
There is that cleverness again trying, but not succeeding, to come through.

There’s no reason this weapon should be in the hands of anyone other than law enforcement, military or forensic specialists.
There is no reason that any American citizen should have to justify their ownership, or their desire to own, any firearm. The Constitution precludes this denial of freedom very explicitly. If you want to argue this Constitutional point go and dig up the bones of James Madison and yell at them, but stop trying to disarm Americans.

State Sen. Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge) has proposed legislation that would prohibit the sale, manufacture, purchase, possession or carrying of .50-caliber rifles in Illinois. Exceptions would be made for anyone who already owns such a rifle, or the aforementioned authorized users. Other exemptions provide for those who use .50-caliber rifles in shooting competitions, including the Olympics (should it ever become an event).
Senator blah blah blah… the D.C. gun ban was struck down. The tide is turning against such criminal intrusions and denials of American liberty as this proposed “legislation”. This .50 caliber controversy is a manufactured tempest in a teapot. None of the scenarios imagined by the freedom fearing gun haters has ever come to fruition. What these neo-liberals fear is an armed populace that can effectively rise up and resist the ever encroaching Marxist and Socialist ideology.

“The fact that supporters say it’s used in hunting is a cynical attempt by the gun industry to legitimize this very dangerous weapon,” Kotowski said.
The CONSTITUTION makes the ownership of this weapon legitimate, not what folks in the gun lobby say, or what your twisting of their words make them say.

This isn’t the first time this legislation has been proposed in Illinois. But enough, already. Let this be the last.
AMEN. Once it is defeated again PLEASE STOP BRINGING IT UP. You look silly, unAmerican, and it’s beginning to get a bit old.

The only mystery is why any legislator thinks such a monster of a weapon should be allowed, particularly in an age of terrorism.
Maybe because those legislators recognize that their first duty is to the Constitution and to uphold and defend it from traitors like yourself and Senator blah blah blah.

Yet those who still need convincing on the issue include legislators who should know better: Sens. Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale), Dan Cronin (R-Elmhurst), Christine Radogno (R-Lemont), Michael Bond (D-Grayslake), Linda Holmes (D-Aurora), Pamela Althoff (R-McHenry), Debbie Halvorsen (D-Crete) and Matt Murphy (R-Palatine).
Call and write and fax these Senators and let them know you support their defense of the Constitution (both State and Federal) and encourage them that you are on their side. If we know anything about politics it is that backbone is cheap, it can be had for a very small price. Help shore up their support and help them defend our RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

Please, senators. Explain how a 5-foot-long weapon that can be used to attack chemical or industrial plants is worth defending for civilian use? Explain that to your largely suburban constituents, who generally support reasonable gun control measures such as these.
Very easy to explain. For civilians to protect themselves from politicians that want to eventually turn America’s freedom into a private socialist fiefdom for themselves. The citizens RIGHT to weapons are guaranteed to help guarantee America from DOMESTIC foes, of which Senator blah blah blah and yourself appear to be.

There may be a handful of “sportsmen” who get their kicks by firing expensive, military-like weapons at small animals or targets. But to put their kicks before the public safety of millions makes no sense at all.
You are not interested in public safety at all. You are interested in a neo-liberal agenda that guarantees public harm and makes sure we can’t preserve our freedom in the way the Founding Fathers established. It’s all about the Marxist utopia, the Socialist dream. Utopia isn’t real and it can never be made real. Only true vigilance, tempered by sound reasoning, backed up by the judicious use force, can keep a man, and a Nation free.

Have you ever heard such ridiculous and nonsensical reasoning in your life? A Swiss study claims to have found that about 1.6 millions military firearms are in individual homes in Switzerland and that 300 deaths per year are attributed to military firearms. So 1 in 5,333 weapons is involved in a death? How many of those are accidental deaths from within the military itself? How many of that 300 are accidental deaths resulting from poor handling or accidents at a shooting range? The real question is how many were intentional homicides involving a military weapon stored at home. I bet not nearly 300.

But the liberal gun grabbers don’t want to provide facts, only spin, hysteria, and misinformation (read lies). Here is the article to read for yourself from NZZ Online.

Pacifists and centre:left parties want voters to have the final say on breaking with a long:standing Swiss tradition of storing personal army rifles and pistols at home.

They said they would launch a people’s initiative to ban such weapons in households. The announcement came a day after parliament refused to take action over the issue.

Supporters of the ban are expected to launch a bid to collect the necessary signatures for the vote within the next few months.

The House of Representatives on Thursday threw out a proposal by the Social Democrats and the Greens to tighten the gun law, including having a central arms register.

“Firearms are the biggest security risk in the country,” said Green parliamentarian Jo Lang, while the Social Democrat, Boris Banga, argued that current regulations on standard issue firearms were outdated.

Other speakers pointed out the latest case of murder committed with such weapons ? a man shot his girlfriend in southeastern Switzerland earlier this week.

Under Swiss law all:able bodied men are issued with a rifle and 50 rounds of ammunition which they can keep after completing their military service.

An estimated 1.6 million firearms are in circulation in Switzerland and a study found that 300 people are killed every year by standard issue weapons.

There are also more than 150,000 active members of rifle clubs, many of whom own more than one gun.
Mistrust

However, Justice Minister Christoph Blocher, a member of the rightwing Swiss People’s Party, downplayed the importance of guns in crimes, adding the issue of keeping weapons at home should be part of a wider discussion on the army.

Ulrich Schlüer, also from the Swiss People’s Party, dismissed allegations that members of Switzerland’s militia army and civilian shooting clubs acted irresponsibly.

“It’s a sign of honour for the citizen to take the weapon home. They feel treated with disrespect if they are denied this right,” he said.

Parliament will continue the debate on the gun law and on proposals to ban the storage of gun and rifle ammunition in households at a later date.

Recent polls show support for keeping army firearms at home is waning among the public. Last year a women’s magazine handed in a petition to parliament in a bid to rid Swiss households of weapons.

Criminologist Martin Killias of Lausanne University has said that guns play a central role in suicides and in the country’s grim history of family killings.

Many newspaper commentators echoed the changing attitude among the public.

Zurich’s Tages:Anzeiger newspaper says the ballot box challenge mounted by pacifists and the centre:left is a way out of an obvious impasse in a parliament.
Arms fetishists

“Arms fetishists dominate parliament. Their decision had to be expected in a country which celebrates its readiness to fight off an outside threat by letting citizens keep their automatic rifles and pistols at home,” the paper said.

Der Bund from Bern says understanding for Switzerland’s gun tradition is dwindling in society, particularly among women.

“Whether a ban would make Switzerland necessarily any safer is another question, but better protection from gunmen running amok is reason enough to collect individual army firearms.”

In a similar vein, the Basler Zeitung says parliament missed an opportunity to reduce the number of weapons in circulation.

Le Temps from Geneva sees no point in sticking to the gun tradition for the sake of those who put tradition above everything else.

“It seems absurd and outdated to refer to the need for security in the face of terrorist threats.”

It says rational arguments, such as the prevention of murder cases, should be more important than emotional aspects and the natural instinct to oppose any state interference in citizens’ rights and freedoms.

Look at that last line, “[R]ational arguments, such as the prevention of murder cases, should be more important than emotional aspects and the natural instinct to oppose any state interference in citizens’ rights and freedoms.” Are you kidding me? The most rational a free man can be is in defending the very tools that ensure his freedom. Giving up his weapons because criminals are using weapons is insane.

From www.pcgs.com

(Newport Beach, California) — Professional Coin Grading Service of Newport Beach, California (www.PCGS.com) is offering a $10,000 reward for the first person who submits for verification a genuine, Sacagawea golden dollar coin mistakenly struck with the edge lettering intended for the new Presidential dollar coins.

The coins depicting Native American, Sacagawea, who assisted Lewis and Clark on their exploration of the Louisiana Purchase, are supposed to have smooth, plain edges. The new Presidential dollars have incuse edge lettering that includes the year of minting and the mottos, In God We Trust and E Pluribus Unum.

“Even with the Mint taking steps to carefully produce coins, valuable errors like these could happen. We’ve already seen, certified and graded some Presidential dollars that have no lettering on the edge,” said Ron Guth, PCGS President.

“The United States Mint is still making the plain-edged Sacagawea dollars while also striking literally hundreds of millions of the Presidential coins. Sooner or later, we believe a Sacagawea coin will be erroneously made with lettering on the edge, or will be over-struck with the both the Sacagawea and Presidential designs on the same coin. We’ll pay $10,000 just to be the first to authenticate them.

PCGS also is offering a $2,500 finder’s reward for the first blank Presidential dollar it receives where there is only the edge lettering but no design on the front or back.

“It’s possible that a planchet intended for a Presidential dollar might only get struck for the lettering around the edge, and not go through the earlier ‘heads and tails’ part of the minting process,” explained Guth.

“We’re asking the public, collectors and dealers to carefully look at their money. You could find a fortune in your pocket change if it’s the ‘right’ dollar that’s been made wrong.”

That is a hefty reward for something that can only theoretically exist. But with the thousands of errors already reported with the new Washington Presidential Dollar being only months old the likelihood of such on error existing is very good.

Presidential Dollars by the stack are found without edge lettering.

Technically this error would be called a “mule”, a single planchet struck with dies intended for different coins. While the obverse and reverse would be for the Sacagawea, the incuse lettering would be made by the machinery for the Presidential Dollars.