First in the Country: All Obamacare Insurers in AZ County Ready to Pull Out of Obamacare

1 Comment

H/T Freedom OutPost.

Obama said,

There is a video but I am unable embed it.

So far this year, many Obamacare insurers have pulled out of the unconstitutional and lawless Affordable Care Act that bears the nickname of the usurper-in-chief. Now, all the Obamacare insurers in one Arizona County are poised to pull out of Obamacare. This would make Pinal County the first county in the nation to lose health coverage tied to Obamacare.

12 News reports:

Pinal County could become the first county in the United States to lose Affordable Care Act coverage after Aetna’s announcement that it’s pulling out of Arizona.

Aetna’s withdrawal follows the exit of United Healthcare and Humana from Arizona. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona and Health Net announced in June they would end coverage in Maricopa and Pinal counties.

The mass exit by the health insurers, all citing financial losses, will force tens of thousands of Arizonans to look for new coverage next year from a dwindling pool of providers. Several rural counties have just one health insurance option on the Obamacare marketplace next year.

 Statewide, 200,000 people are insured under Obamacare, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. About 126,000 Maricopa County residents are insured; 9,700 people in Pinal County are covered.

Business Insider adds:

Pinal County, Arizona, right next to Phoenix, was founded in 1875 and is home to roughly 400,000 people.

It’s also the county that Obamacare forgot.

After Aetna’s announcement that it will roll back 70% of its offerings in public exchanges, Pinal County appears to be the only county in the US with a public exchange but zero insurers offering Affordable Care Act plans in 2017.


Many other insurers have already pulled out of Obamacare because it is unprofitable for them.

For instance, The Washington Free Beacon reported on August 17, “Participation by insurers in the Obamacare exchanges has already declined by 27 percent since the law took effect. In 2013, just before Obamacare took effect, 395 insurers offered individual market coverage. In 2016, that number dropped to 287, according to an analysis by Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.”

“Haislmaier projects that next year there will be roughly 45 fewer insurers participating in the Obamacare exchanges, a 15 percent decline from the previous year,” the reported added. “Haislmaier, who tracks the numbers daily, says the picture will become more clear when insurance arrangements are solidified around the end of October.”

In the meantime, the fraudulent “Affordable Care Act” is becoming less and less affordable for Americans. From taxes imposed illegally by the pretended legislation for those who don’t have health insurance to the skyrocketing of health insurance premiums, there is no doubt that Obamacare does not need to be repealed and replaced, just simply repealed.


Letter from a Black American: Barack Obama’s Lousiana Photo-Op Hides the Real Devastation

Leave a comment


Everything Obama does is a photo-op.

The only reason Obama went to Louisiana a red state is Donald Trump embarrassed him into going.

Obama does not give a damn about any city or state hat isn’t on The DemocRat Plantation.



Breitbart News is in contact with a self-described “lifelong resident of Zachary, a Baton Rouge suburb, and a black man” who’s laid out the truth about economic conditions that Louisiana residents are facing.

President Barack Obama visited Zachary, after delaying a trip to Louisiana. This brave and insightful citizen journalist reached out again with perspective that the drive-by media won’t be bringing you about Obama’s visit. It’s a perfect bookend to a piece by Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory, the black attorney and politician who fled the Democrat party and “hasn’t looked back.”

Our anonymous citizen journalist writes:

Three phases of this storm. First, Livingston parish was hit and that is mostly conservative Republicans. Add a few subtle culture aspects of those who are Cajun or live and adhere to country rural living, and the people in Livingston Parish have the personalities that under these circumstances would challenge President Obama. The Governor knows this and kept him away.
The second wave of the storm is what flooded various parts of Baton Rouge. They have the first wave of backflow water that is now part of the third phase, Ascension parish. These areas are black areas of the city and black people here hate Democrat Mayor Kip Holden because they feel he didn’t do enough during Alton Sterling killing. They wanted Kip to fire cops, stand up for “the community” or at least show his face. His lack of leadership really created a lot of animosity. During this storm kis has mainly done phone in appearance and hasn’t shown his face. During the demonstratios in July, you could see how angry the blacl people in Baton Rouge were and they weren’t afraid to shout it back then to every TV camera they could find. Again, everyone knew this and so it made sense to keep Obama away from there, too, even though that area was hit very hard.

Up until President Obama landed, no one knew exactly where he was going. The parish president of Livingston, one of the hardest hit areas, gave an interview confirming the President would not be coming there. Trump and his mini motorcade went to Livingston last week.

Pres. Obama chose Zachary; a black middle class subdivision. He visited the Castle Place subdivision. It took a big hit, but it is one part of the city of Zachary. Overall, Zachary as a city was at the bottom of the list in terms of damage but as I wrote in my first letter, this is a peaceful middle-class town. It’s the place least likely to produce anything to disrupta photo-op.

Now it’s getting strange….

Obama went and visited a shelter here in Zachary that wasn’t operational until somewhere between yesterday and today. That shelter in Zachary that he visited wasn’t in the same neighborhood as he walked and visited. The shelter was in Zachary, but across town.

Most of the people who have come here have been parking trailers in family or friends yard and staying there.

Why would the city of Zachary open a shelter the day before opening schools were back up, marshaling a ton of resources away from a supposed shelter? Why would Obama visit a shelter that has hastily been put together in a neighborhood, though flooded, was the only neighborhood flooded in a city that was fully functional, aside from the school, through this entire process?

Yes, the hardest hit neighborhoods and cities—places where upwards of 90% of all homes and buildings were completely wiped out—have not supported Obama politically or otherwise.

The city of Baton Rouge still had major shelters full, as does Livingston and Ascension parish.

Let’s be frank: no way Gov. John Bel Edwards would have allowed Obama to go to Livingston or Ascension parish because the people there would have tested him, politely, and posed tough questions.

He’d also face a tough audience in Baton Rouge. Mayor Kip Holden is by far the least popular person in the black community here, and it’s a direct result of the Alton Sterling affair. Black people flat out hate him and the professional public servants despise him.

The same highway where Black Lives Matter’s Deray McKesson and others were arrested is now a valley of debris.

I hope I’m not stretching too far by saying this: I believe the aftermath of the racial politics that rose from the Alton Sterling case prevented Obama supporting those most severely affected by this disaster. Mayor Kip Holden probably couldn’t guarantee a safe photo op for the president.

I am thankful the President is in the neighborhood of my sister here in Zachary, but are officials scared of the response of the people who most needed his visit?

If you know the character and personalities of those in the hardest hit areas, someone would have without a doubt at minimum hit Obama with some very uncomfortable questions.


A Clarion Call For Action

1 Comment


We must answer Freedoms Call if we fail we are lost.

This feature appears in the August ’16 issue of the NRA official journals.

The NRA held its 2016 Annual Meetings & Exhibits in Louisville, Ky., May 20-22. More than 80,000 NRA members attended, and it was an outstanding event on all levels.

One of the highlights was our 10th annual ILA Leadership Forum, where some of the leading voices in the nation spoke to thousands of NRA members about the importance of our fundamental Second Amendment-protected rights. I’d like to share part of the message I delivered that day here in my column for members who were unable to attend or view online.

Friends, this past year has been crazy.

I’ve traveled all over America, and gun owners know that there’s far more at stake in this election than just left vs. right. There’s a growing belief that this is a do-or-die fight for the soul of our country.

Because after eight years of dishonesty, corruption and failure, the America we know is becoming unrecognizable. Everything we believe in—everything we’ve always known to be good, right and true—has been twisted, perverted and repackaged to our kids as wrong, backward and abnormal.

NRA is now one of the toughest, best-organized and most-respected defenders of American values. And tens of millions of our fellow Americans look to us for leadership.

They’re realizing what we’ve known for years—that dishonesty, corruption and contempt for ordinary Americans hits a breaking point. And that breaking point is now. If we don’t show up at the polls in force this November, we will witness the end—the end of individual freedom in this country.

That’s not hyperbole. It’s the truth.

But first, we’ve got to get together. It’s time to unite.

If your preferred candidate dropped out of the race, it’s time to get over it.

Now, were there differences between the candidates for the nomination? Of course.

Were there valid arguments in favor of some over others? Sure.

Will any of it matter if Hillary Clinton wins in November? Not one bit.

Let me ask you a simple question: If you’re at home and someone kicks in your door and tries to murder you and your family, should you have the right to defend yourself with a firearm?

Friends, that question will be answered for all of us this November. Because the next president’s first decision will be who to nominate as Justice [Antonin] Scalia’s replacement on the U.S. Supreme Court. His [Scalia’s] majority opinion in the Heller case set legal precedent for what we have always known—of course we have an individual right to own and use a firearm to protect ourselves in our own homes.

And in case you don’t know where Hillary Clinton stands, here is what she said:

“And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get, so I will need your help on that.”

Think about that for a second.

The Supreme Court said you have the right to protect your life against a murderer, in your own home, and Hillary Clinton says that’s wrong. That’s how little she values our freedom and how little she values our lives. Here’s what will happen if she’s elected. She’ll put a radical, anti-gun activist in Scalia’s seat as soon as she can.

Friends, let me say this clearly. Hillary Clinton has a legitimate chance to be the next president as long as people like us stay home. And she is dedicated to eliminating our rights, [saying]:

“I am here to tell you, I will use every single minute of every day, if I am so fortunate enough to be your president, looking for ways that we can save lives, that we can change gun culture.”

We love our country and the freedoms that make us great. And we’re going to fight for the America we believe in.

Friends, that fight is already on. If we wait until November, we will lose everything. So challenge every gun owner you know. If they haven’t joined the nra, they need to join now. If they don’t know what’s at stake, they need to know now.

This is a fight for our freedom! And if we stand united, we can be the key to denying Hillary Clinton the opportunity to destroy those freedoms.

Expect Ammunition Prices to Rise

Leave a comment


By hook or crook the DemocRats want to disarm you and me.

They would love to be able to go house to house to grab our guns but they know what that would mean all out civil war.




My dad used to say growing up in Missouri that every time somebody strikes a match, the electricity goes out and the prices go up. Then it seemed like every turmoil in the world resulted in rising fuel prices at the pump. Ironically, the well pumps in the Middle East never ceased pumping except when Saddam torched his own oil fields during the Gulf War.

Then trends began. This incident or that caused gasoline to fluctuate wildly, almost always going up in price. What was one dollar a gallon went to over four in some locations. Summer blends cause price increases, demand for winter heating oil caused prices to go up, no Keystone pipeline, so prices go up. Seemingly any manufactured crisis causes gas prices to rise.

The same principle exists for rapidly changing ammunition prices, though the manufacturers claim their production facilities are running at full capacity. So, what really happens? A crisis happens. It could be blamed on wars using huge quantities of ammo, thus creating brass and powder shortages. Terrorist attacks are on the increase, etc., etc. All of these “excuses” cause ammo price increases.

I scanned a number of on line ammunition sources over the past week and found ammo prices up from 10-20 percent across the board. Naturally, the most popular rounds are the ones going up like .223/5.56, .308, 9mm, and .45 ACP. Rimfire ammo is up again. There are no dealer quotas yet, but this is coming again through this election cycle. Just the threat of new gun laws, ammo tracking, and such causes so-called shortages, thus producing ammo price increases.

Generally though ammo prices have been going up for years. One used to be able to buy a basic 20-round box of 30-30 hunting ammunition for under $10. Today it is approaching $30. High quality huntingammunition especially in magnum calibers is approaching $50 a box and more. Bought any Weatherbyammo lately?

Dealers tell me that much of the ammo price choking and gouging lies with the big supply wholesalers. When the water hose is running full blast, prices and supplies are good. Then the distributors start choking off deliveries. They put buying quotas on their dealers. Supply and demand they say.

Three months ago a 1000 round case of 5.56 was $325. This week it is generally $375. A friend bought some last week for $400 and thought it was a good deal. Pricing us out of the market is one sure way to keep us from shooting.


What Hillary Has In Mind Is Far More Devious Than Abolishing The Second Amendment

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

Hillary Clinton has—for better or worst—decided to run as the first major party candidate in the history of the United States to make hollowing out core constitutional rights a key plank in her presidential platform.

The basic human right to keep and bear arms for one’s defense reflected in the Second Amendment has inexplicably become a core target of Clinton’s 2016 presidential run. It’s a position even more extreme than Clinton’s gun control positions in the 1990s and early 2000s, and far more extreme than her near-Republican turn as a candidate she ran against Barack Obama in the 2008 Democrat primaries.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, Clinton favored a punitive 25% tax on handguns designed to make it cost prohibitive for poor people—you can chose to read that as “minorities” and you wouldn’t be wrong—to obtain pistols and revolvers for personal defense. She also wanted to drive most small gun dealers out of business by imposing a an exorbitant $2,500 licensing fee. Clinton was also a fan of “universal” background checks at this time, and supported a bill to require federal registration of every new gun sold.

Clinton backed off her zealous support of gun control as she ran for President in 2008, attempting to position herself as a moderate against an upstart U.S. Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. Clinton went so far as to mock Obama for his infamous “bitter clingers” comment, to no avail.

She still lost.

Eight years after that painful defeat and after a dangerous turn as Secretary of State under her formal rival, Clinton emerged in 2015 as a candidate convinced that she could win running far to the left of both her 2008 candidacy and even her extreme views of the 1990s.

Clinton’s public views on the human right to bear arms have not just shifted radically to a statist bent; she has also made that desire to attack this core right one of the driving focuses of her 2016 campaign. On Clinton’s behalf, Democrats went so far as to write the Second Amendment out of existence in their 2016 party platform, just two weeks ago.

It’s a bizarre decision to make at a time when gun sales are at an all time high, where more Americans than ever before have concealed carry permits, gun rights are expanding across most of the United States, and gun ownership has rapidly shifted away from being largely a rural white male tradition (“Gun Culture 1.0”) to one where the fastest growing demographics areyounger, urban, and female ( the much-discussed “Gun Culture 2.0”).

This celebration of the human right to bear arms has been a joyous one. Shooting sports are the fastest growing high school sports in the United States, and different shooting sports such as IDPA, three-gun and the Precision Rifle Series are growing incredibly fast.

More than 100 million new firearms have entered the market just during President Obama’s administration, leading him to being amusingly celebrated as “the greatest gun salesman of all time,” even among his allies in the media.

And while 1/3 of the firearms in this nation joined the market within less than a decade, much to the alarm and disgust of gun control supporters, guess what happened to violent crime?

It’s plummeted. So have accidents with firearms.

The media hype about a spike in mass shootings is likewise a lie, or more precisely, “a redefined truth.” The traditional definition of a mass shooting has always been “four or more people killed in a single event that is not a familicide, terrorist attack, or a gang-related event.” Within the past two years, however, the mainstream media arbitrarily switched to completely different definition created by a self-described anti-gun propagandist, where any shooting in which four people are injured is mass shooting.

Now, when Pookie does a drive by of a rival gang and wounds Miguel, Jose, and Clarence, but Clarence gets a round off in return and wings Pookie, that’s now a “mass shooting,” whereas before, it was just one incident on an average Friday in Barack Obama’s adopted hometown of Chicago.

According to this new hysteria-inducing definition of “mass shootings” there were more than 400 mass shootings in the United States in 2015.

In reality there were just four mass shootings in the United States in all of 2015.

The last time we actually had a significant spike in violent crime, do you want to know who was President?

Another Clinton.

It’s clear that Hillary’s much-publicized assault on the human right of individuals to bear arms has worried both her handlers and her allies in the mainstream media.

Just today, there are three different articles by three different news organizations attempting to downplay the radical nature of her attacks on this core constitutional and human right.

Bloomberg News has concocted a Q & A in an effort to position Clinton’s stance as a moderate one. CNN posted an article today attempting to reassure the fast-growing number of gun owning Democrats that candidate Clinton isn’t looking to take their guns in a piece that intentionally glosses over what hillary herself has made a core argument in her attack on gun rights. Likewise, Kevin Drum has taken to the digital pages of Mother Jones in an attempt to moderate Hillary Clinton’s true goals towards gun rights so that the increasing number of liberal gun owners won’t stay home in November.

All of these media outlets—and many others, curiously enough—are making the same strawman defense of Clinton, by noting the technical inaccuracy of Republican candidate Donald Trump’s claim that “Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

Donald Trump is categorically wrong here.

Hillary Clinton knows that there is ever-lessening support for abolishing the Second Amendment as tens of thousands of Americans decide to becoming gun owners every single day (an average of 72,243 guns have been sold every day in 2016 , more than 16 million through July).  She also knows that there is not nearly enough support in Congress or among the states to abolish a core constitutional right.

She has instead decided upon an equally effective, but far more devious approach that doesn’t require the overwhelming support of the states or the American people.

At the heart of Hillary Clinton’s attack on the human right of armed self-defense is her full-frontal assault on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a mouthful more easily remembered as the PLCAA.

Hillary Clinton and several allies have been consistently focusing on the PLCAA for months, claiming that it provides the firearms industry “immunity” from being held responsible for its actions.

This is a bold, direct, and intentional lie to the American people from Hillary Clinton.

Gun makers and sellers can be sued, and are being sued right now for both negligence and criminal actions.

Remington is presently negotiating a class-action settlement that will cost them millions over a defective trigger design. They’re also being sued as the parent company of Bushmaster in a case resulting from the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

Century Arms is now battling a lawsuit over safeties that allegedly don’t work.

Badger Guns just lost a famous case for selling guns to an obvious straw purchaser, who used the gun to shoot two police officers.

The owner of Stag Arms has been banned from the industry for life and his former company hit with $500,000 in fines for paperwork violations.

The PLCAA has never offered blanket immunity to the industry as Hillary Clinton has repeatedly claimed. As the cases above clearly show, manufacturers and sellers who make defective products or who act criminally can of course be sued, just like any other business.

All that PLCAA does is prevent gun control zealots from filing waves of frivolous lawsuits meant to bankrupt retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers, destroying the gun industry via frivolous lawsuits since they can’t get the public to agree to ban guns.

Let’s be perfectly clear: the only reason to repeal the PLCAA is so that deep-pocketed gun control groups financed by anti-gun billionaires can file wave after wave of frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt manufacturers, distributors, and gun dealers. Whether manufacturers are guilty of any crimes is beside the point; they will be bankrupted by having to pay teams of lawyers millions of dollars to defend them.

Clinton’s goal of removing the PLCAA exist for no other reason that to hollow out the right to bear arms by bankrupting the industry through a wave of frivolous lawsuits.

Tell me, my fellow Americans, which is more devious?

Is it more repulsive to honestly claim to the world that you want to abolish the Second Amendment so that voters can judge you an on the merits of your position, or is it more vile to claim to “respect the traditions” of gun owners, while plotting to destroy the entire industry and render the right impossible to exercise?

Famous Rapper Says Guns are the ‘Last Form of Defense Against Tyranny’

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms. 

Truer words have never been spoken.

I have disagreement with Ice T’s gangster rap that being said he is correct about firearms and tyranny.


In an interview to promote his 2012 documentary film on the origins of hip hop, outspoken liberal and avid gun rights supporter Ice-T was asked about his opinion on gun rights.

Without missing a beat, the rapper said, “Well I’ll give up my guns when everybody else does.”

Ice-T when on to say that our right to bear arms is “the last form of defense against tyranny”, and the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting, it’s about about protecting ourselves from an oppressive government.

Responding to the ‘inevitable backlash’ from the anti-gun lobby in response to gun violence, the rapper replied, “Well, that’s not going to change anything in the United States. The United States is based on guns, you know.”

“Like [the rapper] KRS says, ‘you’ll never have justice on stolen land,’” he noted. “So, it’s not going to change.”

Watch him freeze out this smug reporter with mad game:

Flashback 2008: Hillary Clinton Hoped for Barack Obama’s Assassination

1 Comment

H/T Rush

I remember Hillary making these comments.

I was under the impression that Hillary was calling on someone to assassinate Barack Obama. 

She was openly calling for Obama’s assassination and silence from the media.

But Donald Trump was saying what the Founding Fathers said about dealing with a tyrannical federal government and the media went nuts.


RUSH:  Okay.  Here’s why you didn’t know about Hillary Clinton back in 2008, ’cause it comes from an interview that she did with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board. She did an interview with the editors of that newspaper, and they had tape running, and this is what she said.  This is May 23rd of 2008.

HILLARY:  Between my opponent and some in the media, uhhh, there has been this urgency to end this.  You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of the June.  We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.  I don’t understand it.

RUSH:  What do you think that’s a reference to?  They’re urging her to get out of the race, and Obama’s got an insurmountable lead, and she says, “No, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, and it’s not even June yet! It’s May here.  So somebody may be assassinated in June.  So I’m staying in!”  I mean, folks, what Trump said yesterday doesn’t even compare, and I doubt that hardly anybody’s aware that Hillary even said this back in 2008.  We played the audio; that’s why we got the clip.  And, by the way, here’s one more from Vice President Bite Me.  September 20th of 2008 — this is before the election — he’s out there in Castlewood, Virginia, at a campaign event and, as part of his remarks, Vice President Bite Me blurted out this…

BIDEN: I guarantee ya, Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns! So don’t buy that malarkey! Don’t buy that malarkey!

AUDIENCE: (smattering of applause)

BIDEN: They’re gonna start peddlin’ that to ya! I got two! If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem.

RUSH:  Okay, now, what is that?  Well, all that is is a Second Amendment guy.  He might have been impersonating one but that’s a Second Amendment guy saying, “You’re not taking my guns, dude!”  That’s what Donald Trump said when he starts talking about, “The Second Amendment people might have…” “You’re not taking my guns.  No matter who you appoint to the court, you’re not taking my guns,” is all it means, pure and simple. If everybody could just take a breath here and let’s get back to who’s really doing damage to our country.


RUSH: I want to listen to these two bites again without the pressure of time.  Hillary Clinton, this bite that you heard and you’re going to hear again, Drudge posted it back in 2008.  It went viral on some conservative sites.  The Drive-By Media totally ignored it.  Hillary Clinton’s comment about (paraphrasing), “No, I can’t get out of the race yet.  Don’t forget Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, the year he ran.”

The New York Times, the Washington Post, none of them, none of them carried it, ran it, none of them were interested in this at all.  It remained an alternative media phenomenon.  And again it’s Hillary Clinton in May of 2008 in an editorial board meeting with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

HILLARY:  Between my opponent and some in the media, uhhh, there has been this urgency to end this.  Y’know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of the June.  We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.  I don’t understand it.HillaryObama_large

RUSH: (imitating Hillary) “I don’t understand why people are telling me to quit. It isn’t over yet.  My husband didn’t win ’til June, it’s only May now. And Bobby Kennedy got assassinated in June, and it’s only May now. So why are you telling me to quit?”

Now, here’s a Bite Me.  Now, this was September of 2008, a little under two months to go before the election. And when you listen to this, the context is that Biden is attempting to say that all of these gun nuts who think Obama wants to take their guns away from ’em are just crazy.  These gun nuts, these NRA types, these Second Amendment goombahs, they’re just a bunch of paranoiacs.  ‘Cause that’s not what Obama wants to do.

This is Biden’s unique way.  I mean, here’s a guy that never makes a gaffe, right?  (imitating Biden) “Hey, Chuck, stand up, Chuck. Let ’em see ya.” Chuck’s in a wheelchair when Biden asked him to stand up.  This is Mr. Walking gaffe, and whenever he commits one, “Ah, that’s just old Joe, ho-ho.”  When Joe commits plagiarism, “Hey, that’s just Joe. He’s just trying to help people.”  So here’s Biden, and he’s actually trying to get through to gun aficionados that Obama has no designs to take away their guns.

BIDEN: I guarantee ya, Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns! So don’t buy that malarkey! Don’t buy that malarkey!   BidenSunglasses_large

AUDIENCE: (smattering of applause)

BIDEN: They’re gonna start peddlin’ that to ya! I got two! If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem.

RUSH: So he’s even alluding to the fact that if Barack Obama comes for his guns, his Beretta is coming out.  So who’s Biden talking about shooting here?  So you got Biden and you’ve got Hillary both talking about actually shooting somebody, or somebody being shot with guns, something that Trump did not do.

And yet you don’t know that those two things happened.  Many of you are probably hearing them for the first time.


RUSH:  We forced them into it.  CNN is now playing the video of Clinton before the Sioux Falls newspaper editorial board where she said (summarized), “No, no! I can’t drop out of the race now.  Don’t forget, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June.  It’s only May.  This race isn’t over.”  We have forced that one into the public domain.  I guarantee you that wasn’t out there.  That wasn’t why.  The Drive-By Media didn’t give that one any attention all back in 2008.

And there’s one more thing about this, folks.  And remember, when it comes… I don’t want anybody to be under a misunderstanding.  Donald Trump never even said the word “assassination.”  That was the word used by Hillary Clinton in 2008, which CNN is calling a gaffe. (impression) “But Trump meant it! Yeah, Trump, he meant it.”  With Hillary, “It was a gaffe!  We all know Hillary Clinton, and we all know Hillary Clinton didn’t really mean what she said.”  Yeah, right.  Double standards.

But my point in all this has been that everybody knows the Democrats from Barack Obama on down want to take guns away from people, and they want to do away with the Second Amendment.  That’s not even arguable.  They’ve said it over and over.  Now, they’ll deny it when a debate like this pops up.  “Oh, we have no intention of that! Oh, no, no. We love hunting,” they’ll say, or some such cockamamie excuse.  But I just want to remind you of this.

Hillary Clinton has said numerous times in this campaign, “If Congress doesn’t act to end the plague of gun violence in America,” that she will do so by executive action.  Now, what is she going to do?  What is Congress gonna do?  We already have laws on the books defining various crimes and spelling out the punishment for them.  What else are they gonna do?  What is she talking about?  “If Congress doesn’t act to end,” this is a quote, “the plague of gun violence in America…” Well, what are they gonna do?

What’s Congress gonna do to end it? Are they gonna issue a proclamation, “We, the 98th Congress of whatever and whatever and say whoever and why ever, hereby proclaim the plague of gun violence in America shall end!” (clapping) “Yaaaaay, gun violence is over!” Just the same way you dealt with the deficit, right? (clapping)  “Yay, gun violence is over!”  So what’s that gonna do?  Zip, zero, nada.

Then Hillary says if they won’t do it, she will, by executive action.  If that is not a target of the Second Amendment, I don’t know what it is.  So don’t anybody be fooled here as to who has really got some explaining to do, and it isn’t Donald Trump.




Smith & Wesson Donates $500,000 to Fight Semiautomatic Rifle Ban

Leave a comment

H/T OutDoorHub.

Considering the way Smith and Wesson has screwed up in the past this will help make up for their stupidity. 

Image Courtesy of Smith & Wesson

Image Courtesy of Smith & Wesson


Gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson recently donated $500,000 to the United State’s largest gun industry trade body to help its fight against the Massachusetts attorney general’s ban on the sale of semiautomatic rifles to civilians.

Smith & Wesson said it had donated the money to the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s (NSSF) battle against “arbitrary government action that threatens to turn lawful gun owners and dealers into criminals.”

Maura Healey, the Massachusetts attorney general, said “the gun industry has found a way to exploit our laws, a loophole of potentially horrific proportions and it’s time we act.” Healey also accused gun companies of getting around the law by selling state-compliant “copycat versions of their assault weapons” with “small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon.” Fortunately, the gun lobby doesn’t lay down easily, and fought back launching plans for legal action against Healey, who it claims has “undermined the legislative and public process by unilaterally declaring products that were legal to be illegal.”

Don’t let anti-gun politicians take aim at your rights.


Lawrence Keane, NSSF’s senior vice-president and general counsel, said “her actions totally disregard 18 years of Massachusetts firearm law, supported by all state regulatory agencies and understood by all concerned, in which firearm retailers have operated.” Keane went on to say, “in doing so, she has endangered the livelihoods of family-owned businesses and made potential felons out of tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens.”

The NSSF has also called on gun owners and manufacturers to donate to its #GUNVOTE campaign, that helps gun owners to register to vote ‘and encourages them on election day, armed with the facts, to #GUNVOTE so they do not risk their rights.” You can follow Gun Vote on Twitter for more information.

Election 2016: Where Do Mike Pence and Tim Kaine Stand on Guns?

Leave a comment

H/T OutDoorHub. 

As a Hoosier I can vouch for the fact that Governor Mike Pence is very pro-gun.


One of the major points of contention in the upcoming election that hits close to home for most of us is Second Amendment rights. Many outdoor enthusiasts, hunters, and gun owners in general feel their right to keep and bear arms could be threatened as a direct result of the next White House resident – and future nominations to the Supreme Court. In order to protect our gun rights, I believe it is imperative that we not only select a candidate whose beliefs align with our own, but also keep in mind what agenda that person’s team is pushing.

While mainstream media has been focused for some time on the views and voting records of the presidential contenders, it is time to explore those new to the ticket, specifically Tim Kaine and Mike Pence.


Kaine’s Gun Record

Democrat Tim Kaine, previously Virginia’s governor and currently a U.S. Senator, was recently announced as Hillary Clinton’s running mate. One of the many things on the potential VP’s resume is gun control. Kaine has pushed hard for tighter gun regulations and has promised that he and Clinton will maintain a unified front on this issue.


Last week, we showed the optimistic, can-do spirit that is the heart of our party. That’s what America needs to see.


Some examples of Kaine’s anti-gun agenda include issuing an executive order expanding mental health reporting associated with firearm purchase background checks in 2007 after the Virginia Tech shooting occurred. Since then, he has continued in this vein, still pushing for background check expansion in private party gun sales, magazine size limits, no fly/no buy legislation, and bringing an end to the so-called Charleston Loophole.

Other Kaine endeavors include participation in a 14-hour Democrat filibuster, supporting the Brady Campaign in a background check expansion bill, and working with current Virginia Governor Terry McAulifee to further regulate guns. Kaine himself has earned the support of groups such as Moms Demand Action, who are eager to see Clinton/Kaine triumph in this election because of the anticipated change that could come as a result. The NRA Political Victory Fund, on the other hand, is not so smitten; they have given Kaine an “F” rating.

Let us not forget, however, that sometimes politicians play to their constituents and act to further their careers as well. For example, Kaine has wavered between what one might interpret as pro-gun, anti-gun, and just plain mum depending on what worked best for him at any given time. He’s also no stranger to firearms himself, having taken time out to shoot clays in the past.


Pence’s Gun Record

Riding alongside Donald Trump on the Republican ticket is former lawmaker and current Indiana Governor Mike Pence. Self-described as a “card-carrying member of the NRA,” Pence has been an ally to gun owners. He is frequently photographed taking part in gun-related activities – like the image at the top of this article – suggesting he is an old hand when it comes to firearms.


When an incident at a National Guard Recruiting Center occurred, Pence not only supported allowing recruiters to carry their own properly permitted concealed weapons, but also coordinated with the NRA to get them the instruction necessary to do so. Additionally, Pence signed Senate Bill 229 into law, allowing legal gun owners to have firearms on school property provided they are properly secured in vehicles.

A shooting sports enthusiast himself, Pence has taken action as far as hunting is concerned, signing legislation allowing Indiana deer hunters to take part in a rifle season. Furthermore, he signed Senate Bill 433, which changed the status of NFA-registered short-barreled shotguns, enabling, ownership, manufacture, and sales in Indiana. Pence voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act as well, giving protection to gun retailers and manufacturers against liability claims due to product misuse which Hillary Clinton is hoping to repeal.

Though Trump himself has been officially endorsed by the NRA, Pence is also an NRA top pick, earning an “A” ratinghimself. Considering his open-mindedness to gun related issues and willingness to institute new legislation bolstering the gun-owning community, Pence could prove to be a notable addition to the Republican ticket, as well as quite the adversary to Kaine.

The 2016 presidential race is heating up more and more as each day passes, with gun control taking the spotlight throughout. The recently announced VP candidates are making it even more interesting with their gun views seemingly as different as night and day. With both strong pro and anti-gun contenders and so much support on either side, the outcome of this election could forever change the face of firearms in the United States for not only gun retailers and manufacturers, but also for you and me.

Cast your vote wisely this November.

Images from Facebook


Leave a comment

H/T Wide Open Spaces.

I hope this usurping of power gets struck down.  

FB/Practical Defense Tactics

FB/Practical Defense Tactics

NSSF is planning to challenge Attorney General’s actions against semi-automatic rifle sales.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has announced they are taking legal actions in Massachusetts as a result of an attempted crackdown on the state’s semi-automatic weapons ban.

“With this ‘Enforcement Action,’ the Attorney General’s office has demonstrated how little it understands about firearms and has generated considerable uncertainty and confusion,” NSSF vice president and general counselor Lawrence Keane said in a press release.
A ban on semi-automatic rifles was actually already in place for Massachusetts. The public can’t buy household name firearms like the AR-15 in the Bay State. But there were legal loopholes that meant the public could still buy very similar rifles.

The loophole was based on small design changes by gun makers that changed the definitions of banned firearms. You can read more about the complicated legal definitions law makers and manufacturers are struggling with in Dustin Prievo’s original report of the crackdown.

When Attorney General Marua Healey announced there would be stricter enforcement of the assault weapons ban, they sent out an enforcement notice to firearms dealers that the sale of such loophole firearms would be illegal.

But the NSSF in a press release says Healey has overstepped her power in issuing the notices on short notice to firearms sellers.

“Her (Healey) actions totally disregard 18 years of Massachusetts firearm law, supported by all state regulatory agencies and understood by all concerned, in which firearms retailers have operated,” Keane said in the press release. “The Attorney General has undermined the legislative and public process by unilaterally declaring products that were legal to be illegal.”

The NSSF is also arguing the crackdown put a lot of pressure on gun sellers and citizens.

“In doing so, she has endangered the livelihoods of family-owned businesses and made potential felons out of tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens,” Keane said.

The NSSF is not discussing their legal strategy or co-plaintiffs at this time, but considering many of the NSSF’s members are firearms makers and sellers that there would be some of both involved.

A check of Attorney General Healey’s website and social media reveals no public comment as of yet on the NSSF’s pending legal action.  For now it seems the legality of semi-automatic rifles will remain in limbo for a while longer in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Older Entries Newer Entries

%d bloggers like this: