Archive for the ‘Human Rights and the Constitution’ Category

Tex Shelters Salutes The Reagan Library

In History, Human Rights and the Constitution, Humor on October 6, 2011 at 19:31

Reagan with the Mujahideen from globalresearch.ca

Recently, the Republican party held a presidential debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Ca. While the library is a wonderful living tribute to the Patriarch of our party, and many of the exhibits are worthy of this great man, it lacks what us modern conservatives loved most about him.

The Ronald Reagan library is a great place, with a panel from the Berlin Wall that Reagan pulled down, Air Force One and Reagan’s papers and oval office furniture. But it is missing some exhibits that would complete the collection. Here is what real modern Conservatives want to see to complete the Reagan library.

The Tomb of the Unknown Dead Central American Peasant. Reagan doesn’t get nearly enough credit for the deaths of Central American peasants at the hands of right-wing governments and death squads funded by the United States. We need to rectify this.

A special adjunct to the Tomb of the Unknown Dead Central American Peasant would be the Morning in America, nightmare for Nicaragua exhibit including photos of dead nuns and priest who got in the way of U.S. freedom seeking bullets and death squads.

The just say no exhibit of the war on drugs. The war on drugs was one of the greatest wars Reagan fought. The exhibit would feature syringes, cokes spoons, crack pipes, bongs and other drug paraphernalia that we assume millions of people didn’t use because of Reagan’s policies and Nancy Reagan saying “no”. The federal sentencing laws, the death penalty for drug king pins that put marijuana drug growers on death row, the return of minimum sentencing guidelines, and increase in the prison population are all highlights of Reagan’s war on drugs that you would have to be high to miss.

Freedom Fighter Display and Exhibit. Exhibits featuring photos, videos and the written testimony of freedom fighters who fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Mujahideen. A video time line called “Mujahideen over the years” with be played every 30 minutes showing how they transformed themselves in the Taliban and started using the weapons the Reagan White House sold them against the Afghan people, our allies and our soldiers.

Reagan doesn’t get nearly enough credit for arming terrorists organizations in Afghanistan and creating the enormous profits our companies make fighting this U.S. armed fighters. President Reagan’s patriotic actions and active obsession with destroying the already collapsing Soviet Union at whatever costs helped Bin Laden gain power and eventually led to the attacks on 9/11.

We would add quotes that we find important that the Ronald Reagan Library exhibit left out. Of course they feature the famous, “Gorbachev, tear down this wall” and  “It’s morning in America.” And there’s also the advice he gives of a personal nature: “There’s nothing so good for the inside of a man as the outside of a horse.” and “Man’s yearning for freedom can be satisfied in only one way, freedom.”  We need to include more quotes to set the record straight on Reagan’s conservative credentials.

Like global warming deniers of today, Reagan went after the tree hugging hippies logic when he famously stated the hidden facts that, “trees cause more pollution than automobiles.”

President Reagan had a great influence on President George W. Bush and today’s Republican Congress when he said, “They say hard work never hurt anybody, but, I figure, why take the chance?”

And he gave sage advice to all politicians in American when he said, Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book.”

So won’t you please spread the knowledge of this great man that the library left out. The world needs to see a complete picture of our greatest president who was a former actor with a chimp and once married to Jane Wyman.

Link for more quotes:

Tex Shelters

The misuses of 9/11

In History, Human Rights and the Constitution on September 9, 2011 at 02:40

For many, the ten year anniversary of 9/11 is an emotionally charged time. People lost friends and loved ones on Sept. 11, 2001, and those who didn’t, know people who did.  President George W. Bush had a great opportunity, as did the American people, to use the events of 9/11 to unite us and work together to make the world a better, safer place for all people. Instead, Bush and his White House team used the 9/11 attacks to make money, create disunity among the people, to break international law, to attack our fundamental freedoms and to increase their political power. Here are some of the ways 9/11 was misused by those in power and the people in general and how the events of 9/11 are being misused to this day.

1. We have used the attacks to censor dissenting voices.  The terrorist attacks pushed us to censor our media and toward a war footing. Those that disagreed with the wars were not heard from and war friendly voices at the New York Times helped sell the Iraq war for the administration. Meanwhile, the millions of people who protested Bush’s saber rattling were not heard from. Anti-war protests get far less media coverage today than the much smaller Tea Party rallies.

2. The attacks were an excuse to create an unprecedented surveillance regime. The United States government has a history of spying on the American people under the guise of security and during a time of perceived national threat. The events of 9/11 are no exception. The U.S.A. Patriotic Act, United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, was signed by President Bush on October 26, 2001, barely a month after the 9/11 attacks. This law allows the government to act unconstitutionally in the name of freedom. Constitutional Amendments can be circumvented through the Patriot Act. The protection against unlawful searches and seizures (Amendment IV) is violated by Title III in the Patriot Act. The right to a speedy trial (Amendment VI) is circumvented by the act’s provision for indefinite detentions if a person is deemed a “national security threat”. In fact, all provisions of the Amendment VI can be deemed null and void for security purposes according to the Patriot Act. And the law also eliminates the need for the signing of warrants by judges and almost entirely eliminates the judiciary from decisions in criminal cases regarding terrorism.

3. The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war and unilateralism was justified due to the 9/11 attacks. It has been since WWII that a president got congressional authorization for war. But President Bush took his war power one step further. He decided it was okay to attack nations because of the perceived threat they pose, the possibility that Iraq might have WMDs, and that was enough for most members in Congress. It was also enough for many Americans who supported the war in high numbers when it began. Although many people no longer supports the wars, the wars continue with some signs of a draw down in the near future.

4. Our post 9/11 national security regimen has legitimized torture. Because we were and are angry and wanted revenge, we (Bush and Obama along with Congress) have approved the torture of terrorist suspects even when there is little or no evidence that torture garners reliable intelligence.  The American people supported this torture, even when they learned that it does not work.

5. We used 9/11 to justify the rendition terrorist suspects. Rendition means taking a terrorist suspect from the United States, where we will be judicially banned from torturing them, to a nation such as Syria. Syria is the home of President Assad, known war criminal. And in Syria, they have no qualms about using torture for us on those who may, or may not, be terrorists.

6. People used 9/11 to justify their Xenophobia and Islamophobia. Attacks on Muslims rose in the United States after 9/11 as did the hateful rhetoric. People will argue that this type of behavior is “unAmerican”. I would say that it is very American, and European, and African, and Asian. It’s human. The more we fight the tendency to stereotype a whole community based on the actions of a handful of people, people unrelated but easily tied culturally to the Islamic terrorists, the better.

7. The terrorist attacks were used to increase military budgets and expand our mercenary army. We have spent $208 billion on private contractors for the war effort. There has also been at least $30 billion in waste to contractors. People say we can’t afford food stamps, but they look away when it comes to war spending. The misuse of our capital due to the 9/11 attacks is staggering. This spending has lead to larger deficits and is one of the major causes of our economic collapse.

8. We used these attacks and the wars to reelect of George W Bush. George W. Bush was both reviled, and reelected, because of his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his reaction to 9/11. Ironically, the president who failed to heed national security warnings about a 9/11 type plane attack was praised for “protecting us since 9/11” and reelected. That not only lead to further war spending and huge tax cuts to the top 1%, but it lead to further deregulation of the banking industry and the current recession.

The 9/11 attacks have been used to justify the heinous behavior by a handful of our troops overseas and continuous attacks on civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The 9/11 attacks have brought out our racism and xenophobia and shown our worst character. Instead of a nationalistic ceremony of puffery followed by hatred and fear, the anniversary of 9/11 can be somber occasion to remember those lost. It can also be a time to rebuff those that have taken advantage of the attacks for personal gain.

Tex Shelters

I Survived Mexicans at the May Day Rally

In Current Events, Human Rights and the Constitution, Humor on May 1, 2011 at 21:22

Mexican Americans scaring us by fighting for their rights on May Day from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8253293

Dear Real Americans:

I survived a horrifying experience this weekend. I was trying to hire some labor down on the Southside to clean out the septic tanks at my various properties in the county, and I landed smack dab into the May Day rally. I’m not talking about young girls in Easter dresses dancing around a May pole, no sirree. I’m talking about a group of marching illegals coming up the avenue with signs supporting rights and what not. They were interfering with my free enterprise creating jobs and such for their people. Can’t they see how their actions of unity hurts America?

How do I know they were illegals? The signs promoted “Derechos Humanos” and other foreign ideas in their foreign language. They also chanted scary things in Mezkin like “El Puerquo, You Need Those, Ham and a Vegetable” (1), and “Obama, excuse us, it is in la Lunch. (2)” I don’t understand what kind of lunch they were demanding, but I was ready to take them all to Taco Bell for real Mexican cuisine if they came after me.

I can’t tell you whether there were any dyed in the wool, true blue Americans there, cause all I could focus on was the dark skinned folks. I knew they were up to no good cause they were chanting, and singing and drumming and dancing and showing a signs of unity that the Koch brothers pay for at the Tea Party rallies (link). I wonder what left wing communist organization was paying these Mezkins to threaten us. I bet the Taliban are behind it.

I made the mistake of getting out of my Chevy and got swept up in the crowd and ended up at their rallying point, a kind of illegal immigrant Nuremberg. I had to plug my ears as I heard things in perfect English (obviously due to their Taliban training) as they shouted things like “education for everyone”, “defend ethnic studies”, and “working together.”  They even stole from the Tea Party phrase book and talked about “defending our culture.” I felt the apocalypse flow over me like nuclear radiation in a tsunami.

As I stumbled out of the “kill the gringo rally” in a daze, only a few radical liberals brain washed by their God Obama, noticed me. They pushed their petitions at me to support ethnic studies, impeach Jan Brewer, or to take their “Save the Teachers” buttons. I knew that God was testing me, and only God’s hatred of illegals propelled me to find my car.

Luckily, I knew of a camp of homeless people where I could get people to work for me cleaning out my sewage. I am a businessman, and I had to create jobs for America.

The chants actually say:
1. “El Pueblo Unido, Jamas’ Sera’ Vencido” (The people united with never be defeated) and
2. “Escucha Obama, Estamos en la Lucha” (Listen Obama, we are in the fight)
but Tex doesn’t know any better.

Tex Shelters

We Must Investigate the Questionable People (Muslims) in Society

In Current Events, Election Politics, Human Rights and the Constitution on March 8, 2011 at 14:49

Peter King, Grand (Republican) Inquisitor of Long Island and the Homeland Security committee, has decided to up the ante on the newest American scapegoat by convening terror hearings on Islam. Peter King is demonstrating the best of American bigotry and religious stereotyping by invoking what Americans fear the most, Muslims. King will hold hearings to investigate Islamic terrorism at a time when millions are unemployed without the jobs needed to turn this economy around. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/08/stoking_irrational_fears_109143.html

Representative King is well aware that we are in a dangerous time when Americans might unite under class issues and not racial lines. The uprising in Wisconsin and other states and municipalities highlight a dangerous trend that must be nipped in the bud before it flowers. What better way to get our minds off our wallets than calling on our American tendencies to react irrational to things we don’t understand? Communism no longer invokes the needed fear response, so in this case, King calls on our Islamophobia to bring us back to what our founding fathers wanted, support of the elites who will protect us from the boogie man.

Liberal supporters of Jihad want to distract us with facts such as most Muslims reject jihadist forms of Islam, or that most terrorist organizations in the U.S., the KKK, the militias, the armageddon cultists in their armed enclaves, don’t follow Islam. But those arguments from the left show that King has won. He has distracted us from the economic crisis and the battle in Wisconsin and all over America for the rights of workers and the economic inequality of the budgets that they are being forced on the workers of America.

Contact King and tell him to STFU:
Washington, D.C. Address
339 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-7896

Here to you, Mr. Robinson, for the inspiration.

Tex Shelters

What you have to believe to be anti-choice

In Current Events, Human Rights and the Constitution on March 5, 2011 at 19:31

There are several posts, articles, and blogs circulating around the Internet about “what you have to believe to be a Republican” or conservative. There are also posts about “what you have to believe to be a liberal”. Both rely on stereotyping, especially the blogs about liberals. The fact that someone would conflate being a Democrat with necessarily being liberal is one common fallacy. The other is calling Obama a liberal.

When I say “anti-choice”, I am referring to people that want to take the decision of whether to carry a pregnancy to term from the woman. I am not referring to people that are “anti-abortion’, for no one is “pro-abortion”. I am anti-abortion in that I would like them to be rare, but I am pro-abortion because at times, abortion is the best option. That is why I say I am pro-choice.

What you have to believe to be anti-choice

1. Women have little or no capacity to decide what to do with their own bodies and they need help.

2. Choosing to have an abortion is a decision that women callously make without delving into the ramifications of their choices. Thus, they need counseling.

3. Women get abortions “on demand”. First off, no one demands an abortion; they have procedure out of necessity. Secondly, no one just gives abortions on a walk in basis like order at a fast food restaurant.

4. Women would be better off if they kept their pregnancy. In 2004, 73% of the women in the study by Finer, et al said they choose an abortion because they couldn’t afford a child at the time. Having a child you cannot take care off financially doesn’t make your life better.

5. Women use abortion as birth control. Fact is, women have an abortion when birth control fails (58%).  http://www.msmagazine.com/aug01/pas.html It is misleading to say that women use abortion as anything but and emergency measure.

6. Adoption is an option. Yea, if you can afford to carry a baby to term and disrupt your life. Sure, if you don’t have health issues carrying the baby to term. Sure, if you are having a white baby, because those are in high demand. Don’t get me wrong, I fully support a woman bringing a pregnancy to term if that is her choice and then putting the baby up for adoption. However, it is about her choice, not my or your feelings.

7. Abortion is America’s Holocaust. Comparing anything to the holocaust is ridiculous. Beside, you are equating the murder of millions of human lives with fertilized eggs.

8. Women who consent to sex are giving up their right to control what happens to them if they get pregnant. This ignores the accidental pregnancies when birth control is used.

9. You must believe in the fabricated diagnosis of “post abortion stress syndrome” given women who have terminated pregnancies by anti-choice activists. http://www.msmagazine.com/aug01/pas.html There is no such diagnostic in the DHM-IV. Presenting a couple of women who regret their decision to terminate their pregnancy does not prove such a syndrome exists. Having an abortion is stressful, but most women interviewed are relieved by their decision.

10. You must believe that a potential life, a fetus, is more important that a woman’s life. Anyone, like Christine O’Donnell among others, that believes it’s okay if a woman dies during pregnancy to save a fetus is not “pro-life”.

11. You must believe that rape and incest are no big thing and it cannot be used as an excuse to terminate a pregnancy.

12. You must believe that life begins at conception. This is very misleading. In fact, life begins before conception. With this logic, every egg not fertilized in a woman is a murder and all masturbation is murder. In addition, even if a man doesn’t masturbate, he loses sperm through his urine. Are we going to charge him with impraved indifference murder?

12. A fertilized egg is a human. If you believe the spirit enters at conception, then you believe a zygote is a human. There is very little human about it. Your dog or cat is more human.

13. You must believe that you know what is best for a pregnant woman.

14. You must believe in your own moral righteousness and infallibility.

There are laws against late term (after 22-25 weeks) abortions, and in most cases, I agree with these laws. There are, however, exceptions for healthy life that one must consider in all cases of pregnancy.

Most people in America want abortion available for health reasons. Some people want to ban abortion for unwanted pregnancies. The ABC polls shows that 57% of people think abortion should be legal in all cases. (link) If more people knew the facts and effects of an abortion ban, fewer people would want to control women’s bodies. It’s up to you to educate people on the margins. The fundamentalist and myopic religious right is a hopeless cause. They are too self-righteous to let facts change their opinions.

Study on why women choose abortion

A summary of the study here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_why.htm

Go to the “Words of Choice” pages on how to counter the anti-choice rhetoric.

More on the rhetoric

Abortion facts—reasons, demographics

Tex Shelters

Okay then, Let’s regulate Guns like many want to regulate Abortion

In Economics, Human Rights and the Constitution on February 4, 2011 at 00:17

Before you go off half-cocked or get your pistols in a bunch, I know the difference between having an abortion and owning a gun. This is not a shot in the dark, it is aimed satire. If you don’t want to read the complete posting and want to shoot your mouth off without all the facts, prepare to be Texified.

Let’s regulate Guns like many want to regulate Abortion

1. Some in state leadership around the nation want an outright ban on abortion, thus they should also call for an outright ban on guns. That would be the pro-life stance, after all.

2. Some Senators want a 24-hour waiting period on all abortions. So, why don’t they also support a 24-hour waiting period on gun purchases?

3. Anti-choice groups want TRAPs (target regulation for abortion providers) for clinics that provide reproductive services, a small part of which are abortions. We should thus have TRAPs, (targeted regulation for arms providers). Like for abortion providers, we can add countless and difficult hurdles to buying a gun thus turn people away from gun ownership and saving lives.

4. Anyone who wants a gun should have to have extensive counseling sessions on the risks of gun ownership with graphic pictures of mass shootings and botched suicides with survivors with half blown off faces. That would be only fair since many conservatives want submit women seeking their reproductive rights to the same treatment.

5. Make it a felony to transport a gun over a state border like it is a felony to transport a minor over state line to practice her reproductive rights.

6. Counsel prospective gun owners on “gun victim pain”, with videos of deaths in mass U.S. shootings, interviews of the surviving family members and pictures and interviews with those mutilated in shootings just like anti-choice groups want to have “fetal pain counseling”.

7. Take away people’s health care coverage for any gun related incident, regardless of who was responsible for the shooting, like some providers do for abortion coverage. Charge gun owners double (or more) for health insurance if they own a gun like is proposed for women who have had abortions.

8. Mandatory psyche exam for potential gun ownership like anti-choice groups want for women.

9. Parental consent for gun ownership like they want for women seeking to terminate their pregnancy.

Most gun owners wouldn’t accept those restrictions on their ownership. Then why do we allow those restrictions to be put on a woman’s right to choose?

Besides, if you ban abortions, only the rich will get safe ones.

Special Note to those who are pro-choice:

No one is pro-abortion and reducing the need for abortions is a main goal of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, in fact, of everyone. Use “pro-choice” and “anti-choice”, please.

Links and Sources



Tex Shelters

Guns: 10 Rounds

In Current Events, Human Rights and the Constitution on January 19, 2011 at 22:14

A TextraNormal Presentation based on actual discussions of gun regulation.

Please visit the YouTube page. I could use more “hits”.  

Tex Shelters

Why We Remember Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

In History, Human Rights and the Constitution on January 17, 2011 at 16:52

When America celebrates our holidays such as Martin Luther King Day, it is important to remember why we celebrate.

Are we celebrating a man who helped focus the nation on racial inequality? Are we celebrating a movement that helped make America a more tolerant place despite our continued failings? Are we celebrating a man who embodied the sacrifice that called all Americans to give in the name of equality and peace? Let us not forget all the people in the movement, men, women, blacks, Jews, Whites, Asian, Native Americans, everyone. We celebrate a movement for which King was a leader, not just the man himself. Let us not forget the lessons King and so many others have taught us.

Howard Zinn on Dr. King and President Obama:

Tex Shelters



There is no Analogy for a Gun

In Current Events, Human Rights and the Constitution on January 12, 2011 at 19:27

Why do people defend the use of semi-automatic gun with magazines that hold more than ten rounds? That is a question I wonder when the guns before life crowd comes out of the wood work after yet another tragedy like we had in Tucson on Saturday, at Va. Tech, Columbine and other places.

One of the arguments is that knives kill people, so why not ban them. First, this is a technique used when one can’t defend their position. It’s called “distraction”. If you can’t defend the use of semi-automatic guns with high capacity magazines (more than 10 or 15 rounds), then make a false analogy to show how ridiculous banning weapons is. Do I really have to explain how a knife is different from a gun? Really?  I have yet to see a semi-automatic hunting knife that could shoot 30+ rounds form a distance in about two minutes. A knife is a poor substitute for a gun. If it wasn’t, the U.S. army and the Taliban would bring a knife to a gun fight. Alas for some, this distinction is not obvious.

Then there is the other false analogy: automobiles kill people, so why not ban them? First, I have never called for the banning of guns. That is the first error in the logic. Second, a car was not created to kill. A car was invented as a mode of transportation for people and goods. Outside of personal protection and hunting, both involving killing or wounding, guns have no other legal uses other than target practice, skeet shooting and so forth. I suppose you could use a gun as a hammer, but that would not be what the gun was designed for. I think using a hammer to kill would be more effective (as one gun defender suggested) than using a gun as a hammer. However, there is that trouble with the reloading the hammer to shoot at a crowd. Moreover, why don’t the people comparing automobiles to guns ever suggest gun insurance (like for cars) be mandated and what we have to take a gun use test and register our guns like we do our cars? It’s because people only use the analogies when it suits their defense of guns. If they actually thought it through, they would see the analogy is not apt.

Why can’t gun advocates admit that guns were created to kill? Isn’t that the point of a gun, to kill or wound an intruder or take down your dinner, deer, rabbit, quail or other game animal? That is the primary function of a gun. I don’t see a problem with that fact or admitting that fact.  However, those that feel compelled to come to the defense of guns at all costs can’t admit it. Even those that would support Democratic issues such as health care for all and are against the war come out to defend gun with false analogies.  Guns don’t need the help; they can defend themselves.  It’s okay, no one want to take your gun away. We want to reduce gun violence.

Why this disconnect with the reality of what a gun does? Is it that gun advocates on the left or middle of American politics are ashamed of their stance and have to deny the real purpose of a gun? Will it create cognitive dissonance to say that guns were created to kill? Most on the right have no such shame.

Yes, seatbelts can kill too, as one gun defender suggested. Really? Is that where our discourse has devolved, comparing seat belts to guns because sometimes a person dies wearing a seatbelt? Why discuss what a gun is at all then if it is like everything else? In reality, there is no analogy for a gun.

Now that we have learned that guns were created to kill, we must ask ourselves what is the best and most effective way to regulate the use of guns and how to reduce gun violence without interfering with the legal use of the tool that can kill. We can start by questioning who can get a gun and how many bullets we really need to hunt or protect our home and what type of guns we need for those purposes. The NRA, gun and bullet manufacturers, and other guns first people don’t want you to ask those question because it means that the paranoia will subside, a rational discussing will ensue, gun manufacturers will sell fewer weapons, and the influence of the gun lobby in D.C. will be reduced.

Tex Shelters

Regulate this! Even Insane Serial Killer Rapists Deserve a Gun!

In Current Events, Human Rights and the Constitution on January 10, 2011 at 19:17

This is a repost to highlight all the recent nonsense written against sane gun regulation in wake of the shooting in Tucson.

Post for all the people that think guns are more important than life, and for the lovely patriots who know guns are for hunting (for food) and defense at home.

God created guns so we could protect ourselves. He also created guns to piss off liberals. Only people who want to give up their rights would pass any kind of law regulating firearms! Remember, guns = liberty.   People in the United States are the best in the world at using guns, especially handguns. That means we’re the most freedom loving country in the world.

For example, we have the highest rate of firearm deaths of any industrialized country (http://www.wagv.org/gun-violence.php). Our firearm murder rate is nineteen times higher than that of thirty-five other high-income countries combined (ibid). That means we’re highly efficient at shooting guns and people in loser countries like Italy can’t fire a gun for crap.  That’s why the Italians change their government every six months. Our democracy functions so well, because of guns, that most of us don’t see any reason to vote. Now that’s democracy!

Here’s proof that firearms protect you. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), there were 500 “legal interventions” due to guns in the year 2000. That means 500 people protected themselves with guns. So you see gun haters, guns protect. It’s the best way to protect, unless you consider guards dogs. But dogs won’t get to kill intruders because people won’t enter if they hear them bark. With a gun, you get the good feeling of doing your civic duty and killing. That always makes me feel good.

Please don’t read any more of the CDC study and get the funny idea that the 776 unintentional gun deaths (accidents) prove anything about gun safety or gun misuse! So what if there were 276 more gun deaths due to accidents than protection. Moreover, don’t read the part that says there were 79 gun related homicides a day in the United States for a total of 28,663. Liberals will use that information to conclude that criminals shouldn’t own guns. But what about the Second Amendment, you leftist assholes! The Second Amendment doesn’t say criminals can’t own guns! Once they keep guns out of the hands of insane serial killer rapists, you know whose guns they’ll go after next. That’s right, yours, mine, and granny’s gun! We have a Second Amendment that guarantees the right to a gun, and don’t you forget it! (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm).

Liberals, who don’t know a thing about using guns, think that it’s a bad thing that so many young people, and especially young black males, get killed with firearms. It’s the number one cause of death for black males aged 15-24, and the number two killer of young Hispanics and whites (http://www.wagv.org/gun-violence.php). Just because people die, doesn’t mean we should do anything about gun violence.

Leftists in our midst want to say gun deaths are due to guns. However, I know all this gun violence is a result of not having enough firepower in these neighborhoods. If everybody had a gun in poor neighborhoods, there would be fewer deaths, just like carrying guns into universities would stop gun rampages on campuses everywhere. I just proved it, so shut up you liberals! You lost the argument! I am trying to protect the Second Amendment here and you are concerned with a few deaths (28,663) of people I never even met? What the hell is wrong with you?

If they take away guns from a few people, the next thing you know, they’ll be arresting you for making copies of protest flyers or talking on the radio and criticizing the president. You see, once they get the guns out of the hands of serial killing rapists, then we will have a fascist dictatorship where everyone will be arrested for any questionable speech! It’s a slippery slope we’re on, dear patriots.

So what if gun laws were passed because of gun violence. That doesn’t prove gun violence caused gun laws. No, gun laws caused the gun violence. Strict gun laws were passed in Washington, D.C. and gun violence just went up! That proves that anti-gun legislation doesn’t work and actually causes gun violence. You hate freedom and America if you suggest that guns from Virginia (a state with few gun-owning restrictions just a few miles across the Potomac) cause the gun violence in Washington, D.C. We have the Second Amendment people, and that supersedes any logical argument against gun violence.

The Nazis took away guns from their citizens just before they took over Europe. Gun regulation is the exact same thing as taking away guns (as the Nazis did), you liberal fascists! That proves that if you take guns away from insane serial killer rapists then we will have a fascist state! If only the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, intellectuals, and other Nazi targets had had the Second Amendment, they’d still be alive.

If Tibetans protesting their treatment in China had owned guns, they could have protected themselves with groups of armed militias. The Chinese Army wouldn’t have had a chance against armed and determined Tibetans. Tibetans need a Second Amendment to ensure their freedom! Then they could have stopped the Chinese like the well-armed Branch Davidians stopped the FTA at Waco with their firearms.

Guns are also used in cases of domestic violence. Whatever happens in the family, including shooting, is private, so butt out! So what if “the risk of intimate partner homicide (is) more than five times compared to instances where there are no weapons (http://www.wagv.org/gun-violence.phpgd).” Besides, an abusive husband has just as much right to a gun as a loving husband under the Second Amendment! There is no clause that prevents a wife beater from owning a gun in the Constitution, so don’t think about it you fascists!

If wimpy kids had guns in schools, bullies could be shot! That’s why Tex Shelters Industries designed the 22 caliber Nerd-Slinger 3000. At only 4 inches long, it holds 4 deadly 22 caliber bullets and can be hidden in any PDA holder and put out of site. The plastic polymer design will easily get by all gun detectors at schools across America. Beware bullies; death is at your door!

The story of the eight teenage girls who beat up another girl was tragic. Why? Because they didn’t have guns! If the attackers had only had guns, they wouldn’t have had to beat up their victims. They could have just shot them! And the girls who did the beating and were so concerned with their looks? If they had used guns, they would have had only a few powder burns on them instead of nicks and cuts from the girl as she defended herself against the attack. What kind of country do we live in that gangs attack individuals without carrying the proper firearms? If they had been gangs in the hood, Italian, Black or otherwise, there would have been properly loaded guns on hand. Didn’t the girls know they had the Second Amendment right to have a gun?

Dads, are you prepared when you go to your sons hockey, baseball, or basketball games? We have the Ref. Alert-max mini 9 mm sniper rifle for silencing bad officiating at your daughters’ soccer games. That father who beat the other dad to death at a hockey game could have saved so much trouble if he only had at the Fan-Foe Silencer 22 mm. The dad who got killed could have protected himself if only he had bought the Fan-Foe before the game. It’s a tragedy when parents go unarmed to their children’s sporting events because some leftist Democrats hate life, America, the Constitution, and love fascism.

We need to bring guns to anti-war rallies and shoot the opposition. There’s no better way to show you are against violence and war than shooting someone. Anti-war protestors should form armed militias today.

Why do lawmakers insist on a minimum age (18 in most states) for gun ownership?! What’s next, a minimum age for drinking, voting, or driving! Damn those liberals! They want to keep guns out of the hands of two year olds! Isn’t that unconstitutional and against the Second Amendment? The Second Amendment TO THE CONSTITUTION doesn’t say we can keep guns out of the hands of 2 year-olds, so it shouldn’t be banned! In fact, we should be arming fetuses against their mothers who might want to abort them.

Shut up you liberals! There are too many guns out there to do anything, so why don’t you just give up trying to regulate them. Gun deaths are only a black problem anyway, so who really cares. Certainly not Republicans or most Democrats.

We shouldn’t let the courts decide if an insane serial killer rapist should have guns, just like we shouldn’t let the courts keep people from having sex with underage children if their religion says it’s okay. Why should the court prohibit us from forcing religion on heathen children? Any decision the courts make, like upholding freedom of speech, is fascist.

Owning is a gun is a right and we have the Second Amendment. Any attempt to regulate its use or access, as I have proven here, is bad! You’re either with us or against us! Some mealy-mouthed liberals talk about regulations like those that we have for cars, safety devices on guns, background checks for owners, and a waiting period to prevent rash decision making and killing. That is just the Nazi inside all liberals talking. Either you will allow anyone, anywhere, any time, have a gun, or you can go to hell!

Now go out and take your best shots, patriots!

Tex Shelters