Dear Virginia’s 11th District,

You have elected a moron.

Rep. Gerald Connolly, a Democratic congressman from Virginia, has argued to his constituents that Americans shouldn’t be allowed to wield Stinger missiles “capable of downing commercial aircraft” even though such weapons are already illegal.

“I have been accused of trying to dismantle the Second Amendment for simply asking whether high-powered, military-style semi-automatic firearms with large-capacity magazines — which were used in the D.C. sniper murders, the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, and the mass shootings in Aurora and Newtown — should be readily available to the general public,” Connolly wrote in a letter recently disseminated to constituents concerned about gun rights.

“Or for wondering whether the Second Amendment applies to weapons such as the FIM-92 Stinger missile launcher, a personal portable infrared homing surface-to-air missile platform capable of downing commercial aircraft.”

A Stinger missile launcher is already considered a banned “destructive device” under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

You could have had Ken Vaughn, who understands the intent of the Second Amendment. But instead you chose a moderate RINO in the primary, and ultimately, a pathetic loser who has no understanding of the Constitution.

It’s instructive how Connolly invokes weapons favored by terrorists in his argument that Americans should be deprived of their rights.

It’s also instructive how he attempts to invoke fear by drawing a disingenuous comparison between a fairly common semi-automatic rifle used by such “dangerous” people as the kid who used an AR15 to protect his sister, the shop owners in LA who used these weapons do defend life and property during the Rodney King riots and property owners who used them to fend off looters after Hurricane Andrew.

Countless lives and millions of dollars in property have been protected by Americans with so-called “assault” weapons, but Gerry Connolly would rather compare these courageous Americans to terrorists in his zeal to justify his complete disregard for Americans’ fundamental rights and the Constitution he took and oath to support and defend.

I would laugh and say, “you deserve this, because you voted for it” – but unfortunately your poor decisionmaking affects the rest of us. Your stupid choices affect my rights.

May you be damned for it.

So It Starts… Injured Army Vet is First Victim of New York’s Abominable Gun Law

An Army veteran was arrested in Watertown for possession of AR-15 magazines.

Nathan H. Haddad, 32, of 25240 Waddingham Road, town of LeRay, faces five felony counts of third-degree criminal possession of a weapon. He was released without bail before town of Watertown Justice Andrew N. Capone, and is ordered to appear Wednesday in town of LeRay Court.

Deputies made the arrest shortly before 7:30 p.m. Sunday on Steinhilber Road in the town of LeRay, where Mr. Haddad is accused of possessing five 30-round AR-15 magazines of ammunition. He is cited under a state penal law statute that prohibits possession of “a large capacity ammunition feeding device.”

An injured Army vet, who until now has never been arrested. Involved with his church. Volunteers with the Boy Scouts. All this according to someone who knows him.

And yet, unlike media maggot David Gregory, this military veteran will be treated like nothing but a common criminal for mere possession of some magazines.

Is this the type of person you want to make in to a criminal, Gov. Cuomo?

Is this whom you were hoping to snag in your little unconstitutional dragnet?

Is this the man from whom you want to make an example? Is he whom you want to vilify? Does he pose a danger to the public?

The obvious answer here is “NO!” But that doesn’t seem to matter to the tyrannical politicians in New York, who only care about pretending to do “something” about the problem in order to get themselves re-elected.

You Are the Enemy

It appears the leftards have drawn a line in the sand. At least a radical, twisted cabal among them has…

For instance, Georgetown law (the school that spawned the drooling slut that is Sandra Fluke) professor Louis Michael Seidman has made a proposition – published by CBS News – Take Our Country Back from the Constitution. He posits that the Law of our Land is anachronistic and irrelevant, and should be ignored.

Not all of it, of course… just the parts with which he and his prog-nazi mafia disagree.

This, of course, means the Second Amendment is simply an antiquated, outmoded, extraneous mess that prevents the dictatorial, despotic vermin he supports from imposing their will on the rest of us. And that is absolutely unacceptable!

But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago.

Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one’s commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.

Yes. God and Goddess forbid that a lawyer who teaches the law at one of the nation’s top law schools actually respect the law that he is supposed to be teaching!

Instead of attempting to understand why the old, white guys who founded this nation, and who created a government that is intentionally limited, with the ultimate power residing with the people, felt that the right to keep and bear arms was critical to our freedoms…

Instead of examining the reasons for the Founders’ distrust of powerful, centralized governments…

Instead of exploring the history, the philosophy, the debate and the ultimate product of what this makes this nation and its laws so unique, and having respect for it…

This pathetic coward simply wants to dismantle the parts he does not like – in order to make it easier for tyrants to do what they do best – subjugate the people from whom their power stems in the first place.

Well, Dr. Seidman – you’ve asked for it. You have drawn a line in the sand, and millions of Americans, who respect the law and respect their freedoms will answer the call.

You want the Congress and the President to ignore their oaths – solemn vows they took when they were entrusted with the power to uphold the laws of this country?

Instead of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States, as they solemnly swore to do, you want them to simply ignore their pledge?

You will not like the consequences of these actions, you treasonous swine.

Because there are millions of others – members of the United States military, law enforcement and others – who took another oath:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

The first part of this oath – to protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic – that is our call to duty. And those who call on the highest powers in this land to violate their oaths of office and discard the Law of the Land are enemies of the Constitution.

We will protect the Constitution. We will defend the Law of the Land against the perfidious swine that aim to destroy it. And that would be you, Professor. That would be you and any other authoritarian pig who aims to destroy the foundations of this country and the laws upon which it was built.

I didn’t leave the USSR – a nation that did not understand or respect the individual rights and freedoms that the Constitution specifically protects in this country – only to see it destroyed by wannabe tyrants such as you. I took an oath in the military, and I took one as a civilian:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

This oath may not mean anything to you, but it means something to me.

So you’re welcome to try and scrap the Constitution. You’re free to advocate its destruction.

Just know you are now the enemy. You are now the foe of the Constitution, of the Law of the Land and of the very principles on which this nation was built. And you are the one against whom the Constitution is to be protected. Go ahead. Try and advocate treason.

I guarantee you will not like the consequences.

In Other Words…

…Dianne Feinstein wants to ban all modern weapons.

Molon Labe.

That is all.

Chris Christie – reprehensible hypocrite

I have no idea why the Republican establishment kisses this fat bag of fug’s massive rump. He was pretty good when he took on the union thugs, but other than that, the donut-felching swine is is about as big a RINO as you will find.

Cap and trade? He’s all about that!

He’s crappy on guns and supports the assault weapons ban, refuses to support the right of law-abiding New Jersey citizens to carry their tools of self defense concealed, and took forever to pardon a guy whose only crime was transporting his property – his guns – unloaded and locked in the trunk of his car, and who was sentenced to seven years in prison for that “heinous crime.”

He’s horrible on illegal immigration, and his petulant whining and petty threats to Congress to give him his goddamn money for Sandy relief, regardless of the fact that the bill was laden with Congressional pork at a time when we are battling record debt levels really made me want to cock punch him.

Now, this opprobrious libtard is criticizing the NRA for this ad:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie slammed the National Rifle Association’s latest adin which they accuse President Barack Obama of hypocrisy for sending his children to a school where they are protected by armed guards. Christie called the ad “reprehensible” and said that the NRA should not be “dragging people’s children” into the gun control debate.

“Don’t be dragging people’s children into this,” he added. “It’s wrong and I think it demeans them and it makes them less of a valid trusted source of information on the real issues that confront this debate.”

So apparently it’s OK for the President to drag out other people’s kids as props for his gun control agenda – as backdrops for his efforts to relieve you of your rights – but when the NRA mentions the hypocrisy of trying to disarm law-abiding citizens, preventing them from adequately protecting their children, while sending your own children to schools with armed guards, and being protected by armed men paid for by the same taxpayers whom he’s trying to disarmed, that’s “reprehensible.”

Apparently, it’s also OK to exploit the murder of children for political gains. I see Christie says nothing about that, because he supports those gains.

But mention political hypocrisy in an ad, and all bets are off!

That double standard is as big as Chris Christie’s ass!

You want reprehensible?