Colorado State Senator Evie Hudak Resigns Rather Than Face Recall

As some might remember earlier this year, two Colorado state senators, Senate Pres. John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron, were successfully recalled by their constituents in historic election, that was prompted by their support and subsequent passage of wildly unpopular gun control laws. Not long after the historic recall election, that same energy was put forth in an effort to recall another state senator, Evie Hudak, who supported the same gun control legislation.

What was at stake though was control of the Senate by the Democrats. If Hudak were to be successfully recalled she would be replaced by a Republican, which would give the Republicans control of the state Senate. However, rather than face a recall, Sen. Hudak has decided to resign.

Her reasons were that it would protect the newly passed, and unpopular, gun laws which were one of the major reasons why she was being recalled in the first place, by allowing another Democrat to replace her. Another reason why these Senators were facing recalls is that they chose not to listen to the interests of their constituents, and instead to national politics. Not only is this resignation a slap in the face to the good people of Colorado, but it also confirms the latter point of the recall.

The democrats in this instance have conceded that the legislation is unpopular and that Sen. Hudak would have likely lost the recall election she faced. Basically they do not wish to abide by the will of the people.

These politicians are putting politics and party as a priority instead of the people who they are supposed to be representing. Ms. Hudak and her ilk are the reason why faith int he democratic process is dwindling. They would rather game the system and advance their agendas rather than listen to their constituents. To these types of politicians I say good riddance.

Police Misconduct and Arrogance vs. Your Second Amendment Rights

Earlier this year, C.J. Grisham was out hiking with his son along a Temple, Texas road, when they were approached by a Temple Police Officer. Grisham is carrying an AR-15 latched to his chest which is completely legal in the state of Texas. The officer instructs Grisham not to touch the firearm, and Grisham complies, however the situation escalates as the officer grabs the rifle and can be seen attempting to unlatch it from Grisham without prior instruction or consent that he was going to disarm Grisham.

At this point, Grisham grabs the stock of his rifle saying that the officer shouldn't be disarming him, and what follows is a stunning display of police arrogance and misconduct.

The initial reason given as to why Grisham was stopped was that police received a call of someone walking around with a rifle, again, something that is completely legal under Texas law. The officer stated that Grisham was "rudely" displaying his rifle, whatever that means.

During the encounter, more police officers, including a superior officer, join in on the situation. Some of the most shocking displays of police arrogance come when the superior officers claim they are "above the law" meaning they can disarm you whenever they want. If you are not breaking the law or not a danger, I would ask, how is it that agents of the state can so willfully proclaim that they can "disarm" you whenever they so please?

This makes me wonder, do these officers really think they are above the law? Do they even know what the laws they are supposed to follow and enforce are? Have they even read the United States Constitution, including the Second Amendment?

Many police officers deserve the utmost respect because their jobs are difficult, but especially because they have the responsibility of enforcing the rule of law. However, the rule of law applies to everyone equally and the fact that one puts on a badge and uniform does not exempt them from the law, but it holds you to a higher level of scrutiny. These officers displayed the utmost contempt for the laws they were meant to uphold, and the unfortunate victims of this are the great citizens of this country.

How Gun Control Advocates Manipulate the Debate

We've all heard the terms in the gun control debate: assault weapon, weapons of war, military-style weapons, arsenal, and rapid fire killing machines capable of spraying bullets. It's about time we call "assault weapons" what they actually are: semiautomatic firearms that fire one bullet at a time with each pull of the trigger. They are not the same weapons that our military uses, nor are they the ones used in war. What we call these firearms does matter if we want to have a healthy discussion about them.

After watching the video below, I felt compelled to write this article. As the presenter in the video points out, labels are a very powerful way to control the debate before the debate even gets started. If you call something an "assault weapon" or a "rapid fire killing machine," you've already limited any meaningful discussion of the topic. Surely no one wants anyone to have a rapid fire killing machine!



Consider the difference in impact of these two statements, where the first is a quote from President Obama:

“But I am also betting that the majority, the vast majority, of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would agree we should be available to prevent an irresponsible few from buying a weapon of war.”

Versus …

“But I am also betting that the majority, the vast majority, of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would agree we should be available to prevent an irresponsible few from buying a semiautomatic firearm."

Notice the difference?

Even when our politicians reference these firearms as "military style guns," they are already making that decision for us, that these should not belong to the ordinary citizen because they only have military uses, when in fact that is not true. When Obama calls these firearms "weapons of war," he is already planting the seed in our minds that these firearms are meant only for "war," when in fact they are used for other purposes.

Furthermore, labels can also be used to elicit emotions like fear, insecurity, and disdain. When gun control advocates call these guns "weapons of war" or "military-style assault weapons," they are already assigning a negative connotation to these guns. Our politicians in turn can use these negative emotions to garner support for legislation that they say will make us safer.

Instead of calling the new gun control legislation an "assault weapons ban," maybe we should call it a "scary semiautomatic firearms ban." What we name this new legislation matters *cough* PATRIOT Act *cough*.

These labels are used to control what we think about certain things even before the discussion starts. They can also be used to control people's emotions and thoughts on a particular subject. In that sense, the language of labeling becomes more powerful than any gun can ever be, especially in the hands of a politician.

Another Public Shooting Fades From the Media

This week there was another public shooting, this time outside of a high school in Pittsburgh, PA. The shooting resulted in three teens being wounded, but no fatalities. This was briefly picked up by news media across the country, but media coverage has quickly faded. We can only guess as to why this might be the case, but let's try anyways:

No Fatalities

None of the victims died during the incident although one is recovering in the hospital at this time.

Possible Drug / Gang Related Activity

Although there is no conclusive evidence at the moment, there is speculation that this attack was in retaliation to a previous incident, and authorities suspect drug and/or gang related activity. One contributing reason as to why we don't know the facts is that no one is cooperating with police in this incident.

It's possible that the reason why this is not getting more attention, especially from gun control advocates, is that this situation actually backs up what gun rights activists have been saying all along during the debate over gun control. Not only did this take place in a "gun-free zone," but this incident of gun violence is just another example of the circumstances in which gun violence occurs in this country, something that gun rights advocates cite repeatedly. If the perpetrator(s) of this shooting were around the same age as the intended victims, then the gun used in this act was more than likely obtained illegally as well. But let's not let that get in the way of "common sense" right?

Montana Democratic Governor Candidate Compares Political Opponents to Terrorists

Recently, I pointed out how the founder of Moms Demand Action, Shannon Watts, reminded me of the tactics of the reprehensible Joseph McCarthy. It seems though, that such tactics are becoming all too common in politics these days. Former Montana Lt. Governor John Bohlinger (D-MT) is the only the most recent example of this.

Like Ms. Watts, Mr. Bohlinger, upon announcing his candidacy for Governor, compared the Tea Party to the Taliban. Bohlinger even went so far as to comparing the Tea Party's actions to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in World War 2 and the September 11th terrorist attacks.

While the inflammatory tactics are nothing new, they should not be tolerated as acceptable public discourse, especially for individuals who seek to advance public policy. There is a disturbing trend of politicians and pundits who seek to divide us for their own political gain through the use of galvanizing and hateful rhetoric.

The question is, will the American public accept this rhetoric or will they stand against it?

Moms Demand Action: Founder Shannon Watts Compares Gun Owners to Taliban

Recently I came across this little video snippet of Moms Demand Action founder, Shannon Watts, comparing a recent gathering of counter protesters from Open Carry Texas to the Taliban, a terrorist group.



Shannon Watts comparing her political opponents to terrorists is an attempt to demonize them in order to garner support for her cause. This is nothing new as we've seen similar comparisons made by Democrats in Washington describing Tea Party Republicans as "terrorists" and "hostage takers" during the recent Federal Government shutdown.

Being a bit keen on history though, I was reminded of similar tactics being used by Ms. Watts and DC Democrats by a certain Wisconsin Senator bent on levying false accusations on innocent people in order to demonize them for his own political gain.

It only took the courage of a journalist named Edward R. Murrow to shine a light on the Senator's reprehensible behavior for the public to take note and put an end to the fear mongering. Remember, at the end of the day, all of us still need to live together side by side. Demonizing our neighbors, who work hard, raise families, try to live our lives, and pursue our dreams, will do nothing to help move our society forward.

We can't allow those who seek to turn us against each other for political gain to triumph. They should be called out for their division and fear mongering politics like this gentleman from Wisconsin.

Sen. Joseph McCarthy (Wisc. 1947-1957)

Another Public Shooting and the Lessons Not Learned

There was another public shooting recently which took place in a shopping mall in New Jersey. There were no casualties in the incident except the shooter himself as he eventually took his own life. Already the story is disappearing from the media, probably because the story lacks the drama that comes with a high body count. This is one of the reasons why I have such disdain for mainstream media. There are many lessons that we could learn from this to help us tackle the real issues that lead to the tragedies that the mainstream media love to focus on. So what can we learn from this incident?

For starters, we can assume that the shooter could have killed some of the people around him if he had intended to do so, but apparently that was not his intention. He was not aiming at anyone in particular, but instead fired several rounds that struck an escalator, elevator, and the general environment around him. We shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that this couldn't have easily resulted in a mass shooting if that was the perpetrator's intent. The biggest take away out of this incident is that it is not the type of gun involved that really determines the outcome, but it is the person and his motivations that play the biggest factor.

Secondly, after some time, the shooter retreated to a storage area in the mall, where he committed suicide by shooting himself. This scenario plays out time and again in these public shootings, where after the initial events take place, and law enforcement arrives, the perpetrator takes his own life. It becomes obvious that this person had personal issues, and perhaps mental health issues to some degree. In addition, the fact that he retreated at all, assumes he was expecting some type of armed response to his actions. Just like most other incidents, the mental health of the perpetrator comes into question.

One of the last major lessons that I see from this incident is that gun laws would not have stopped any of this from happening. The perpetrator did not buy his gun or obtain it legally. He had stolen the firearm from his brother who did obtain the gun legally. A universal background check or gun registry would have done nothing to prevent this from happening, and yet these are the solutions that gun control advocates propose for these situations.

Just as the we learned from the tragedy in Newtown, it did not matter that the perpetrator did not get their gun legally. They were already willing to commit a crime with a firearm, yet we are to somehow rationalize that someone willing to commit murder would make a conscious decision to not break that specific law? The only explanation that I see for gun control is that they want to take away the availability of guns. That would mean that in this instance, they would deny the legal owner access to a gun so that his brother would not be able to steal it. Perhaps that is the gun control advocate's unstated goal all along.

At some point, we all have to realize that it's not the gun that matters in all of these displays of public violence, but its the perpetrator, their intent, and their mindset that matters. A recent poll showed that most Americans identify the main issue that affects all of these public shooting instances is mental health, and yet we do not yet have a national conversation about it. Instead, we are drowned with mainstream media, pundits, anti-gun groups, and politicians talking about gun control and banning certain firearms.

The failure though is not just in our mental health system. The responsibility for this also falls on the mainstream media, pundits, and politicians who refuse to take up the issue of mental health because it does not benefit them monetarily or politically. The American people are aware that mental health is the key factor in all of these instances, despite being deluged by conversation from gun control advocates.

Gun control advocates' first priority, however, isn't in helping people or solving the underlying problems that lead people to lash out violently. Instead, they are more interested in spreading their hatred of guns and the people who own them. They label their opponents as those who oppose their spin on 'common sense,' but is it really common sense to not focus on what most Americans already identify as the problem in society?  Perhaps if the body count were higher, the talking heads might be blasting it on the airwaves 24/7.