Can someone explain to me the Governor Corbett issue?

Okay, I’m not saying I’m singing his praises. But I am rather confused. I keep hearing that Governor Corbett is not liked. And I mostly hear this via media articles that seem to give almost zero reason why.

This article touts the Penn State Jerry Sandusky case. Which to me seemed like one of the most mis-handled cases, not on the Sandusky side. But on the Joe Paterno side, who seemed to have reported to authorities the situation. Never understood why he had to take a fall. Mind you, I’m not a sports guy. But from a casual observer he seemed like he did his thing. But regardless, this does not seem to me that it should have been an issue for Governor Corbett. Criticizing his performance on a matter as Attorney General after he’s elected and citing it as a reason people don’t want to re-elect him just seems “odd” to me.

The other issue is the Medicaid expansion. Honestly, I’d have to say for 90% of Pennsylvanians this is a non-radar issue. I mean, really…this is what has people so irate at Governor Corbett.

Okay, so one might get into budgets and spending and taxes. But it seems to me that none of that has been much different than predecessors. If anything that might hurt his Republican base.

Frankly, I think Governor Corbett needs to push through the modernization of Pennsylvania liquor laws. And that should give him a boost. Likely will be enough to get my vote. SET MY BEER FREE!!!!

So I am open to anyone who can explain, that this perception is really anything more than liberal left media doing their best to sabatage a sitting Republican governor.

Which is a very effective strategy. Just repeatedly saying “People don’t like so and so…”, will in fact get people to not like so and so. And it’s a tactic that the liberal media uses very effectively.  Its just that I keep seeing articles like this, but they never ever have a single legitimate reason for why Governor Corbett is unpopular. They just seem to me, that they are printed for the sole purpose of decreasing his popularity.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/tea-party-governor-losing-to-all-likely-opponents/

If you ever felt MSNBC wasn’t reporting the facts…

You were right…

MSNBC only engages in 15% factual reporting, the rest is editorial/opinion comment.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/cnn-becoming-fox-news-msnbc-pew-study-finds-141551909.html

(And yes I know, all the gunnies are thinking “and of that 15% of reporting that is factual, how much is based on the truth. 😉

Zimmerman waives preliminary “Stand Your Ground” defense

Why this is important, and very much appreciated on my part.  Much of the media on the left were trying to turn this case into an attack on the recent “Stand Your Ground” legislation. By not pursuing that defense, Zimmerman is basically helping to protect our legislation by removing it from the argument and limelight.

http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-stuns-court-waives-stand-ground-hearing-trayvon-162305101–abc-news-topstories.html

NOTE: The article does note that they could still use it as a defense during the actual trial. So not being a lawyer, (there are many great lawyerly gun blogs that can truly explain this). I am presuming that they’re not going to attempt to have the charges dismissed via the “Stand Your Ground” defense, and rather go to trial to prove innocence.  I think for this particular case, it’s a wise move.  Zimmerman needs to face a trial, and be cleared before said trial if he is to ever have any of his life back.  If he used the “Stand Your Ground” law, the media would exclaim that “a child murderer goes free due to a loophole”. This is the game our enemy likes to play. And I am glad that Zimmerman’s legal counsel are wisely playing a defensive move that is good for our entire cause.

Why? Why? And why?

The Cowardly Frum of CNN.com

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/18/opinion/frum-obama-plan-b-on-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

FRUM, YOU DON’T WANT THE TRUTH. YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH. YOU JUST WANT TO WRITE YOUR FRUMPY ARTICLES

“They stamp serial numbers in places where they can be effaced.”

Frum, you’re being dishonest and you know it…there is NOWHERE that a serial number can be placed where it is immune from defacing. And let’s be honest, a defaced serial number on a firearm makes it a de facto illegal firearm. 
“They sell bullets that can pierce police armor.”

Armors vary, and most body armor will be pierced by any hunting round.  In fact, a hunting cartridge has fore more likelihood of piercing body armor than even a so-called armor piercing handgun round.

In fact the article you linked to on 5.7x28mm, explains what is constituted as armor piercing ammo.  It’s not that a bullet can piercin armor. Because to be honest, many average bullets will do so in the right circumstances.  It basically comes down to whether the bullet itself is soft (typically lead or frangible material) or a solid heavier metal or substance.
http://gunwalker.com/5.7x28mm/armorpiercing.html

Let’s talk about the infamous “Black Talon” with it’s teflon like coating.  Which was merely to keep the barrel cleaner and did not make it armor piercing as gun control advocates put forth the myth. So let’s deal with a bit more reality than myth.
“They will not include trigger locks and other child-proofing devices as standard equipment.”

Okay, first off…I believe trigger locks are not the safest security device. My trips through Gander Mountain, in which every rifle has a trigger lock, has led me to this conclusion. As I was often able to insert a tip of my finger into the lock, and fire the trigger mechanism.

That said, every new firearm I have purchased has come with a padlock and a sheet of paper demonstrating how to utilize said lock to make the firearm safe. Perhaps all manufacturers do not include such. But many do…and you can learn how to use said lock for other firearms. And they’ve very very cheap… a few dollars.

And many firearms now have internal locks (more on that soon).
“They ignore new technology that would render guns inoperable by anyone except their approved purchaser.”

The smart gun debate….any complexity added to a device increases it’s risk of failure. You are taking a device used in emergencies and making it less reliable.  Most folk have a basic view on this, because these laws nearly always have exceptions for law enforcement.  You want to mandate a dangeroues, unknown, and unreliable technology.  But exclude police.

The general answer is, when you perfect this technology enough that police officers are comfortable using it. Than you can obligate civilians to abide by it as well.

Be it smart guns with fingerprint readers and limitless never run out batteries, or internal gun locks. A technology which has left many with firearms that won’t shoot. Not a great situation if you’re facing a couple of home intruders. And a quick perusal of this issue and S&W will return numerous results.

 

“They reject police requests to groove barrels to uniquely mark each bullet fired by a particular gun.”

Many states already require an “expelled casing”, and the forces involved in firing a bullet pretty much make the recording of barrel markings useless.  They were touted as a way to solve crimes. But different types and brands of bullets pretty much result in myriads of variants making identification impossible. Especially not to the degree that would be required for a reasonable conviction.

Let’s talk micro-printing. The idea that a small unique identifiying mark would be placed on the hammer. Every shot fired, the hammer would mark the brass.  First off, most people quickly figure out in under 30 seconds that a mere file will eliminate the effectiveness of such implementation.  So will repeated high use, say target practice in competition.  Suddenly, when your firing pin is worn out so that it no longer leaves said markings, you become a felon. Not a good system.
“the tobacco industry”

Tobacco is not a Constitutional right. Nor does it protect thousands of Americans from criminals, invaders, and tyrants. 

“Congress has actually immunized makers of that product against harms inflicted by unsafe design.”

Wait, went to your link. This isn’t about a defective unsafe design.  This is merely about a device being dangerous when used improperly.  Bleach is dangerous. Should every child who has ever been poisoned by any household cleaner have the right to sue Proctor and Gamble out of business?

“When someone makes a dangerous product or acts negligently, they ought to be held liable otherwise it encourages irresponsibility,” Schiff says.”

No, quit being a lying two faced snot Frumpy. You’re being disingenuis to your readers. And you know it.  This was simply protecting the firearm manufacturers from lawsuits by anti-gunnners on the basis that a gun is dangerous, therefore it is defective.  Any vehicle traveling at 60mph is dangeorus. Let’s ban all cars.  Any car in an accident is a failure of design. Come on, stop with the lies.

 

“There’s a gun agenda that need not depend on politics and that will not snatch a single weapon from any owner, whether law-abiding or not.”

Really, cause I’d love to see it. We keep hearing numerous individuals such as yourself calling for gun confiscation. Even that is half a joke, because beyond that you advocate for gun banning through time. The eradication of access to younger folk to be able to buy given firearms.  You may not advocate taking of semi-automatics from the hands of the people. Likely because you’d get shot and start a civil war.  Rather, you want to ban them and grandfather them. Hoping the old folk will be content to have theirs, and screwing the younger generation out of a right.  Well, sorry, we don’t want to play that game.

There is also a Plan C, Mr. Frum.  Oh what is that?  That is Plan Constitution.  Where you and yours get all your wet dreams, and We the People, pretty much tell you that regardless of what laws you might have passed in Congress. We deem you to be inviolation of our personal rights, on a level so much that we just ignore your laws – think of it as sitting in the front of the bus. 
WHY WE HATE YOUR ARTICLES FRUM, because you’re a liar, you mislead people, and CNN is so cowardly they don’t even let us comment on anti-gun articles because they know we’d tear you to shred with all your lies.

 Seriously, CNN.com should be sued for damaging the environment. They print the same anti-gun article a few times a year, spouting the same arguments Frum does. Seriously, that electricity saved could go towards benefiting the authors of their global warming articles.

How the media spins

One of the number one complaints that conservatives have with regards to the mainstream media is math. For years, conservative events can number in thousands of attendees, and yet will be described as a few hundred.  Meanwhile, an activity supported by leftist media could have a few dozen folk and be touted as hundreds. A few hundred become thousands.

And this isn’t a one time event, or even an occasional occurence. It’s darn near policy.  Sure the media would deny it. But we know how it works. Reporter on seen says there were a hundred, the editor tells them to bump it up.  And most Americans blindly trust their journalistic institutions.

But every now and then we catch them with egg on their face. Here is the Connecticut Post caught halfway between it’s own lie.

8:1 Bias in Media

Whew…sure glad they didn’t include CNN.com, we’d probably see that bias ratio double to 16:1 

http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/abc-cbs-nbc-slant-8-1-obamas-gun-control-crusade

I also question what the ratio is of pure anti-gun pieces, vs pure pro-gun pieces. I’d wager it’d be closer to 25:1.

What to Expect when you’re Expecting

Also known as the media advocacy policy…

***

For the next few months, expect any incident of gang violene, murder, etc that utilizes a firearm and involves more than two people to be “front paged”. 

Just today there was an article on a police officer killing his family in Vegas, a second about what sounds like a gang related shooting in a Texas community college. The truth is if there are 8,000 non-self inflicted firearm deaths a year. I am concerned that the news media will begin covering every shooting they can, just to keep guns on the front page until they get what they want.

One does not see them taking similar action with automobile accidents, or even drunk driving. They are digging for headlines. And it affronts me that the media is our #1 enemy in this fight.  The agency that should be most vocal and fighting for liberty.  I’d be content if they even just took a balanced approach, allowing our supporters to provide our arguments.  But that’s not the case, they are wholly and actively working for a cause.  And that is frustrating – but nothing we didn’t already know.

Oops…they published again… (hummed to a bad pop tune)

CNN re-publishes same article for the 20th time this year
(yes, another hit piece, by an incompetent moron who claims to be a journalist but likely only has a job because he’ll right piecemeal regurgitated sound bite pieces)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/webster-giffords-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

Below are my thoughts and responses…

---

“Despite being rejected by the military because of a history of illicit drug use and being kicked out of a community college for repeated incidents of threatening and bizarre behavior, Loughner legally purchased a semi-automatic pistol….”

And when have you heard gun owners express that we want nut jobs to be able to buy guns? Never!!!!

The reason this occurred is not because of gun owners, but because of HIPAA and medical privacy advocates.

The one related issue that gun owners are vocal about is not seeing our soldiers come home from war, be labelled PSTD, and lose their rights for the rest of their lives. That’s just not fair – is it?

***

“NRA spent in unsuccessful attempts to win close Senate races in swing states”

Yes, and it was a Presidential election between a leftist liberal Democrat incumbant, and a former liberal moderate socialist Republican who was unpopular except for NOT being the unpopular President.

No organization or issue was sufficient to affect that sort of election single handedly.

***

“The NRA portrays itself as an organization that speaks for and advocates for gun owners. The reality is that they speak for gun owners with the most extreme views and for the gun industry.”

Citation Mr. Daniel Webster, cause that sentence pretty much labels you a moron who talks out his arse. In fact, it’s often been the masses of NRA membership pushing the NRA organization to take stronger stances.

***

“A case in point is their opposition to requiring background checks for all firearm sales.”

Well, let’s discuss the oft repeated by CNN talking point. ALL handguns, like the one Loughner used, require a background check. Essentially, the only firearms we are talking about that are sold without a background check are individual sales of rifles and shotguns from one person to another.

In other words, when a hunter buys a new rifle and sells his old one to his hunting buddy or perhaps his nephew. And I am curious, could you quote what percentage of the firearms sold in that manner are used in actual crimes?

I bet it’s an embarrasingly low percentage. So low you’d be too cowardly to print it.

But you want it closed? So why not come to the table and discuss real alternatives? How about letting private party sellers use the NICS background check system for free. Really, it’s a very small portion of sales that actually occur this way.

***

“A recent survey found that more than 80% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members want this loophole fixed”

What recent survey. Because there are lot of BS surveys, that for example, contact all the NRA members in Berkely California.

When asked “Do you want to outlaw the right of a private citizen to sell his rifle or shotgun to a friend or other private citizen.”

I bet you get about 2% of NRA members supporting that statement.

***

“Gun owners don’t want dangerous people to have guns.”

Which is true, and why we are so confused as to why morons like you write this same article on CNN every few months. And yet never talk about why so many criminals are arrested with weapons and not prosecuted. And why so many violent criminals are released on parole or time served (until trial)?

***

“When states require background checks for all handgun sales and have strong regulation and oversight of licensed gun dealers, far fewer guns are diverted to criminals.”

All handgun sales require background checks. There is no state that allows a legal sale of a handgun without one. So calling BS on your above statement.

***

“individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of violence (often pleaded down from felony charges) or those who have been convicted of multiple alcohol-related crimes are prohibited from possessing firearms.”

Well, most domestic and violence crimes, or drug related crimes. Makes one a prohibited person in the vast majority, if not all, states.

BTW, WTF is an “alcohol related” crime. You mean a DUI with a car? Are we going to prohibit anyone with a DUI from ever owning a car? Okay, so let’s say anyone who commits a DUI, we prohibit from owning a gun. Now, shouldn’t the inverse hold true? Anyone who commits a deed that prohibits gun ownership, should also not be allowed to own a car. Just saying…

***

“our homicide rate in the U.S. is seven times higher than that of other high-income countries, due in part to greater availability of handguns”

No, it’s 90% due to parole, early release, and other programs that apply soft touches to criminals and put them back onto our streets. In fact, I have not read about a major crime, nor experienced a dealing with a criminal, who did NOT have a number of prior run ins and convictions with authorities.

We released armed robbers mere weeks after their trial conviction and sentence of 10 years. We release kidnapping rapists so they can just do it again (Jayce). Ironically, while violent predator criminals will often serve short sentences and be released due to overcrowded prisons. We’ll sentence a guy to 15 years for selling pirated albums and movies. No, the reason for our violent crime is judicial, not rights, related.

Parole is far more dangerous than handguns.

OUTING THE JOURNALIST: Daniel W. Webster – is professor and director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.  And piss poor journalist.  Seriously, realizing he was referencing studies done at Johns Hopkins when he is likely involved with the organization that did the studies is rather disreputable.

No longer am I going to allow this to go on namelessly,  Mr. Daniel Webster, is an incredulous journalist and should be associated with the poor levels of research (or genuine dishonesty) portrayed in his article.

From now on, when we comment on hit pieces, we’re going to try to associate the journalist with their work “Mr. Daniel Webster, a piss poor journalist”.

NPR we’re not biased, no not at all…

TheTruthAboutGuns.com breaks a story on NPR pretty much stacking the deck for their panel to discuss gun control.

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/robert-farago/gun-owners-npr-wants-you-or-not/

Boils down to… “We want anyone we can claim is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, who will side with our point of view.”

Mind you, rather than selecting one of the numerous gun bloggers who have been around a while serving our community. They pick a relatively new blogger who’s creds include the AHSA (the pseudo organization that actively campaigned for President Obama, and immediately went *poof* after the election).

The really sad thing, is unlike the rest of the lamestream media. You actually are PAYING to have NPR actively campaign against your beliefs.

There is a lot of talk about the need for reinstatement of the fairness doctrine. The reason most conservatives oppose such, is not out of our moral objection to fairness. It’s the fact that we are fully aware that it is the anti-conservative doctrine. It’s okay for NPR, and the rest of mainstream media to actively assert a bias and deceitfully present honesty. But strangely, unfair for a conservative to share their views without a counterpoint.

Any wonder that so many of us want to see NPR defunded.