gun sane

Standing in a train station and someone asks, "Pardon me, boy,  is that the Chattanooga choo choo?" and I can't think of the next line.

  Maybe it's a bad analogy.   We hardly ever get kissed by these politicos after they screw us.

I'm glad I don't depend upon state legislators as a news source.  State Rep. Art Swann finally notified me today that HB 42 died in committee--four months ago.  If you remember, that was the one which would take the teeth out of the federal "military-style weapons" and hi-cap mag ban push earlier this year.  Here's his email:     That's really a passionate letter coming from someone with an "A" grade from the NRA.....just  like kissing your sister.

The BBB isn't the fort of reputable contractors either.

This continuing resolution ploy that Prez Zero and Congress uses as substitute for fiscal responsibility is just a way to skirt the painful process of getting a budget plan on paper for all to see and hold them to.  Why argue over minutiae when you can just haggle over how many billions of dollars more you want to shake out of the pockets of taxpayers? 

Schools with zero tolerance policies against students who make "hand guns," that is, using their thumb and index finger to imitate a gun, make a likeness of a firearm out of pastry or even wear a 2A t-shirt would have their federal funds withheld, says a GOP bill written by Texan U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman.   http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/10/gop-bill-proposes-defunding-schools-with-rules-against-imaginary-guns/ I wonder if the schools think Stockman's pointing a dangerous middle finger at them.

Texas has this cash cow program, too, along with an annual vehicle safety inspection.  At the time I lived there, it soaked everyone for about $35, unless you had a relatively new car.  You could practically depend upon getting hit for headlight alignments, gas cap seals or worn wiper blades and tires.  You had to get them fixed before the coveted sticker went onto your windshield.  I hate to see this coming here.

  Okay, now you're talking sense.  :pleased:

Aw, I would have told you not to trade........ :doh:

Given that we've been buying Rooskie arms and ammo to help support them for decades, the most cheerful word I can think of is "ironic."

Not for nuthin', but here's another source:    http://en.mchs.ru/news/item/434203/

A guy from Lubbock, TX called in to a talk show last week.  He said the area has thousands of illegals scraping for every job they can get.  Two things about this legislation concern the wetbacks the most:   (1)  There's an army of Mexicans just south of the Texas border just waiting for this bill to become law.  Instead of 300-400 crossing the border per day, they're worried that 3,000-4,000 will make the trip and flood the labor market, forcing their wages to plummet.   (2)  They don't want legal status.  If they get on the federal rolls, they'll have to pay taxes like other working schlubs.   It's not the illegals pushing this bill.  It's whoever will profit the most.

Heck, I was buying .40 ammo fixin's for a friend who was learning to reload with my equipment.  I had to borrow his Baby Eagle for a test gun.  I finally couldn't look myself in the mirror anymore and bought a Hi-Point 4095 carbine.   ;) 

I figure I'd make another try at getting Lamar primaried out.  Corker the Coward still has four years to make his nest with the libs before he puts a D after his name and that'll be too late.  I've got kinfolk in Texas.  If it isn't a part of Mexico by then I might pull a Davy Crockett and go help them defend the family farm. 

Señor Lamar voted sí.    I'm shocked.

  Well, sure!  Try getting him on the phone.  But I'm sure he doesn't hire rogue staff members to write their own opinions.

  No, I don't.  The problem is, many have trouble holding one marriage together.  How will they handle multiple families?  Can the spouse accept sharing their mate with other spouses, even if he/she cannot propagate?  Will children be able to withstand the inevitable badgering by others at school?  How will inheritances be divvied up?  How about pacifying multiple in-laws?     Here's my point:  For too many today, marriage is more like a living arrangement  than a sacred commitment.   One wag said, "Marriage is like a long, dull meal with the dessert at the beginning."  But whether the union is full of love and successful or a continual nightmare of hate and discontent, it influences far more than just two lives.  It's a wise person who checks the depth of the water before diving in head (or even genitals) first.

Corker skated through the last election and I'm sure the same people who paid his way would like Alexander to stay where he is.  It's time for some out-of-the-box thinking.

  Shucks, why should parents look after them well into the young adult stage?  Let us taxpayers just fund breeding camps and turn them over to governmental indoctrination specialists right out of the chute?  We could sterilize women who are unfit--the June Cleaver types who want to stay at home, be there for her family and trust that God means what He says--and have instead mothers who are baby factories, paying them by the pound, and have Kool-Aid drinking training counselors coddle them from cradle to work factory like progressive humanoid nursery ants.   Oh, you're asking if I'm serious.........No. 

  It's way too late for that.  In the beginning, government wasn't in the "who's married and who isn't" business.  That's not to say there wasn't homosexuality, bestiality, and other aberrant sexual practices.  Yet nature itself taught mankind that sexes were distinct and the only way to propagate the species was the old fashioned way--and it will remain that way if government stays out of the God business and refrains from experimental creation.   Mark Twain wrote, "Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to."  Thanks to our "evolving" society and Constitution, there's very little of that anymore.

  Okay....not another peep about, "Bush lied, people died."

Of course I believe in the power of choice.  I also acknowledge that some can't see beyond their own desire the eventual outcome of their decisions.  Why not let kids have as much candy as they want?  Why tell your teenager you want them home before midnight?  Liberty without restraint guided by wisdom is not victimless.  It affects many more people than you might realize.  So it is with a government which makes or decides laws based not upon the eventual consequences, but upon what will attract more votes.  Because the poor outnumber the rich, it is far more popular to spread the wealth around to achieve "fairness"  rather than reward individual achievement.  How much of your taxes are you willing to give to finance a drug rehab clinic for illegal aliens or an all-inclusive vacation resort for welfare recipients? A growing number of gays and lesbians are coming out of the closet, perhaps closely followed by polygamists, pedophiles and those strongly attracted to sheep.  You may think it's best to live and let live, but will you hold to that philosophy when the barbarians are storming your gates?

What the decision really does is stigmatize people who live their lives according to moral principle.  If you say you are opposed to gay marriage because of your faith or belief,  you now become a self-confessed homophobe.  It wasn't political ideology that was decided today, but the illegitimacy of perceived righteousness.

"When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, people's hearts are filled with schemes to do wrong," says the writer of Ecclesiastes.  Under this principle, if a government does what's right in it's own eyes instead of what the law demands, the course is set for a downward spiral into anarchy and chaos.  Politicians have perverted the truth for centuries, but in the last few decades we've witnessed the country radically transformed by ideological deception.  Now it's even affirmed in national polling that many  people have little to no trust in government.  This pending legislation is only throwing more wood on the fire of unruly cultural division.

Given Sen. Lamar Alexanders YES vote to keep shoving this 1,200 page immigration crap sandwich down our throats, I wrote to the senator asking him to make up his mind if he thinks he's representing open-eyed, intelligent Tennesseans or airheaded fools.  Here's his response:     Maybe you got the same form letter.  So does this mean he's for this monstrosity or against it?