New White House Petition Asks Sen. Diane Feinstein Be Tried For Treason

Dec. 28, 2012 - A new petition to the White House asks that U.S. Senatrix Diane Feinstein (D-Calif) be tried in federal court "for treason to the Constitution." 

Feinstein, says the petition, "has made it clear she does not believe in the Constitution or the inalienable rights of Americans to keep and bear arms." (See full text below.)

The petition is undoubtedly inspired by an anti-assault weapon bill that Feinstein will introduce at the start of the next Congress. Equally certain is that Feinstein is doing this to make political hay out of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14. And just how do we know an "assault weapon" ban would NOT have stopped Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza? Because it didn't, points out Reason.com.

Diane Feinstein hates
the U.S. Constitution

There is confusion over whether Lanza used a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle at the school, but a report by NBC News (watch this video) says that state and federal officials said that while four handguns were found in the school, no long gun seemed to have been used. Lanza's Bushmaster AR-15 was still in the trunk of his car, where police found it unused at the scene. By the way: The Bushmaster AR-15 is not an "assault weapon." The video even shows police removing Lanza's Bushmaster from the car trunk.

The anti-Feinstein petition was posted on Dec. 27.  As of 4:50 p.m. EST today, it had garnered 4,741 signatures, needing another 20,259 to reach the required 25,000 for the White House staff will review it, "ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response." The petition is non-binding and will probably just be laughed off by anti-gun White House staffers, sympathetic to Feinstein, when they "review" it.

Peter Ferrara, contributor at Forbes, has a few words to say today about Feinstein's pending bill and the nonsensical hysteria about "assault weapons" in general.

Ferrara wrote that "assault weapon" is a term that "is just a PR stunt that fools the gullible and easily deluded. It is defined in legislation by cosmetic features that frighten white bread suburbanites, but do not involve any functionality of any gun. We tried it, conservatives said it wouldn’t work, and it didn’t work. Yet, it is the liberal answer to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Conn." Ferrara adds, "A Connecticut state law already banned assault weapons. The difference that made in stopping the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary: zero, zilch, nada, as the saying goes."

Cunning Stunt: Feinstein and some scary props.

Jacob Sullum at RedState points out that "the term assault weapon was invented by the anti-gun lobby as a way of blurring the distinction between military-style semiautomatics, which fire once per trigger pull, and selective-fire assault rifles, which can be set to fire continuously (a distinction that President Obama, who wants to bring back the 'assault weapon' ban, either does not grasp or deliberately obscures).... Guns are not 'assault weapons' until legislators arbitrarily decide they are."

Of course, none of these inconvenient facts matter to the anti-gun folks because they want all guns to be banned. A.W.R. Hawkins, lately of Breitbart.com, would agree with me. The attack on so-called "assault weapons" is a clever emotional use of language that allows them, as Peter Ferrara wrote, to "fool the gullible and easily deluded."

Watch the video above, in which Feinstein discusses her treasonous, anti-Constitution, anti-Bill of Rights assault weapons legislation bill in a guest appearance on PBS Newshour, Dec. 17.

In a scholarly thesis titled "Rational Basis Analysis of 'Assault Weapon' Prohibition," David B. Kopel examined the constitutionality and justification for banning such guns. His conclusion, in part (with my emphasis added):

"The demand for 'assault weapon' prohibition is often accompanied by a self-righteous insistence that only a criminal or a maniac would oppose prohibiting extremely dangerous firearms which have no legitimate use and are the criminal weapon of choice. But the closer one looks at the reasons given for 'assault weapon' bans the less one sees. The prohibition is no more rational than a prohibition on beer based on legislative 'findings' that beer grows on trees, that a single sip always causes instant physical addiction, and that beer is more dangerous than other alcohol because it is stored in aluminum containers. If the rational basis test means anything, it means that an 'assault weapon' prohibition is unlawful."

The full text of the petition against Diane Feinstein:

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

Try Senator Dianne Feinstein in a Federal Court For Treason To The Constitution

The Constitution was written to restrain the government. No amendment is more important for this purpose than the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was written so the power could be kept with the citizenry in the face of a tyrannical government. It was well understood the Constitution acknowledged certain rights that could not be limited by government.

Senator Dianne Feinstein has made it clear she does not believe in the Constitution or the inalienable rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. She is actively working to destroy the 2nd amendment with her 2013 assault weapons ban. For this reason we the people of the united States petition for her to be tried in Federal Court for treason to the Constitution.

An outline of her bill may be found here:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public

Created: Dec 27, 2012
Issues: Firearms

Related:

• Adam Lanza Did use the Bushmaster AR-15 RedState.com
• Confusion abounds: Just what is an ‘assault weapon’? Philly.com
• What Is An "Assault Rifle"? - You've Probably Been Lied To YouTube
• Hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein Pack Heat Federal Observer
• Sen. Feinstein's 'Assault Weapon' Ban Really Handgun Ban Breitbart.com
• Rational Basis Analysis of "Assault Weapon" Prohibition, David B. Kopel Guncite.com
• CT. COP on Sandy Hook Inconsistencies: "THINGS DON'T ADD UP" YouTube
• Chuck Woolery on Assault Weapons YouTube
• Rapper Ice T on US gun control YouTube

Obama, Emanuel, Gregory Hypocrites About Armed School Guards

Dec. 26, 2012 - The hypocrisy of Liberals, Democrats and other subspecies of anti-gun creatures is mind-boggling.

After the Dec. 14 shooting that killed 28 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre called for placement of armed guards in all of the nation's schools.

As predicted, the anti-gun crowd immediately howled that guns are not a way to protect kids in schools, many arguing that it would only compound the problem. And yet...

The hypocrisy comes from politicians such as Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and His Royal Highness Barack Obama, and such as NBC's David Gregory. They say they are anti-gun, each has made statements against putting armed guards in schools, they all send their children to private schools where armed personnel protect the staff and students.

Emanuel and Obama, and thousands of other politicians, never appear in public without a cadre of well-armed guard flanking them for protection. And who can blame them? They want to be safe. They feel that armed guards protect themselves and their kids. So, why then, do they tell us that the same thing won't protect you and me?

"As it happens," notes Wizbangblog.com, "Gregory sends his kids to D.C.-based Sidwell Friends, the same expensive, high-end school the President sends his own children to. Every day that school features armed security details. In fact, the security department is quite large for such a small school as Daniel Halper points out."

Yet, hypocritical elitists such as Obama, Emanuel and Gregory insist that what works well for them is not appropriate for the average ordinary peasant. “It’s outrageous and unsettling that the NRA would choose to address gun violence not by taking assault weapons off our streets, but by adding more guns to our schools,” Emanuel said in a written statement. “That is not the right answer for our society, our schools and most importantly our children.”

"While the Obama administration is calling the idea of armed protection at our schools crazy, they are not mentioning the fact that Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire more," points out Gather.com. (See the classified ad here.) "This of course is on top of the secret service officers that are at the school daily since Obama's daughter attend there. Joe Biden's grandchildren as well as children and grandchildren of other high profile political figures attend Sidwell Friends. One more note here. As Hillary and Bill Clinton were calling for gun control, their daughter was attending Sidwell Friends for the superb protection afforded by the added by the schools armed security."

Perhaps Emanuel's hypocrisy was best summed by Jim Johnson of WLS 890 AM in Chicago:

"Oh, outraged huh? Gee, if he's soooo outraged, then why doesn't he pull his kids out of the LAB School at the U of C campus. Guess the 2 U of C armed police officers that work the Lab School everyday just make for such a scary and unsafe environment. Oh wait, if he did that then he just might have to enroll his kids in the local CPS school by his house!?!?! Wait, that can't happen. CPS is just good enough for the peasants kids but not for his little angels. Double standard hypocrite." (h/t: Second City Cop)

Johnson was referring to The University of Chicago Laboratory School, an exclusive and expensive private school. Before he ascended to the Throne, Obama sent his daughters to this bastion of education for the wealthy and privileged. Emanuel currently sends his own kids there. (This begs for a discussion of their hypocrisy about school choice and school vouchers, but we'll save that for another day.)

What the anti-gun idiots do not seem to understand is the painfully obvious fact that when there is a mad killer on the loose in a school, there will be a scramble to call 911. And why is 911 called? To get police to the scene, of course, so that they can - drum roll, please - introduce guns into the school, and thereby stop the lunatic. In other words - and this is what the anti-gun morons cannot seem to comprehend - the defensive guns will be in a school that's under attack sooner or later. Yet, with incredibly dysfunctional "logic," the anti-gun imbeciles opt have the defensive guns arrive later, after the murderous attacker has had more time to kill than he would have if an armed guard, armed teacher or other armed staff member been able to draw his or her own pistol and end the killing well before the police dispatcher even finished with the first 911 call.

"How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order?" asked LaPierre in his statement. "Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses - even sports stadiums - are all protected by armed security. We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers. Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family - our children - we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!"

So there they are: Obama and fellow anti-gun clowns telling us that we need stricter gun laws. They tell us what we cannot do to protect our own children, while they themselves do exactly what they say would be wrong for us. It should be remembered that the State of Connecticut and the City of Chicago have some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. And just how are those working out?

NRA's Wayne LaPierre: The Only Thing That Stops a Bad Guy With a Gun Is a Good Guy With a Gun

Dec. 21, 2012 - FULL VIDEO of NRA Press Conference - Many predicted that the world would end today. They were wrong. Another prediction that proved false was that the National Rifle Association would soften its stand on gun rights as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Au contraire, for the NRA is standing strong today by issuing a powerful statement that they are standing strong on guns and the need for them. The NRA made a gutsy and hard-truths statement this morning at their news conference in Washington, D.C.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA. He also said that "the monsters and the predators of the world" take advantage of the fact that schools and other places are "gun-free zones." As we've said here many times, gun-free zones are helpless-victim zones, deliberately made vulnerable to attack. (Read the full text of Wayne LaPierre's statement below.)

During the press conference, LaPierre said, "Why is the use of a gun when it's asked to be used to protect the president or used by the police, but bad when it's used to protect children." He challenged the media to "at least admit that it's possible" that armed guards might have been able to stop the Newtown shooting.

USA Today reports that a protester interrupted the event by holding up a red handmade sign that said "NRA Killing Our Kids, CodePink.org." (Watch the video, above.) The protester was escorted out by security he shouted, "NRA, stop killing our children." (The poor lunatic probably also thinks that the American Automobile Association is responsible for the approximately 30,000 traffic deaths every year.)

Video: Protesters Blame NRA for Sandy Hook Shooting

Dec. 18, 2012 - A few hundred anti-gun protesters milled about in front of the National Rifle Association's Federal Affairs Office in Washington DC yesterday. The group, CREDO Action, blames the NRA for the shooting rampage of mentally disturbed Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. These folks sound extraordinarily, well, stupid. But it's not their fault. They are, after all, stupid. Chanting "Shame on the NRA," many of these advocates of stricter gun laws would completely ban all U.S. citizens from owning any firearms. Language Advisory; Read more below the video...


Interviewer in the video is Dan Joseph (@DanJoseph78 on Twitter)

A statement on CREDO Action's website says, "After the shooter Adam Lanza, no one is more to blame for the massacre of 20 first graders and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School than the National Rifle Association. In order to stop the senseless killing we must first stop the NRA."

CREDO Action at NRA office in Washington DC

This is mysterious to us at Chicago News Bench. None of the police reports related to the investigation of last week's shooting in Newtown, CT make any mention of the NRA. It would seem that blaming the NRA for the actions of the mentally unstable shooter, Adam Lanza, is the same as blaming the American Automobile Association (AAA) for traffic deaths. The CREDO Action website invites people to "talk to us," and they list their phone number as 800-555-7774.

The NRA has been virtually silent since last week's school shooting in Connecticut. However, Fox News reports that an NRA statement released late today "announced that it would hold a 'major' news conference on Friday. Issued by an aide to NRA President Wayne LaPierre, the statement also conveyed condolences for the murders and expressed the group's willingness to offer 'meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again'." (Whatever the hell that means.)

According to the Washington Free Beacon, CREDO is "a liberal activism group and 'America’s only progressive mobile phone company'." CREDO is was formed in part to counter the Tea Party Movement. "As previously reported by the Free Beacon, CREDO Action is an organizing front for CredoMobile, a San Francisco-based cellphone company that has donated more than $75 million to liberal causes since 1985."

"More than anyone else, the NRA is responsible for the more than 12,000 people murdered by guns every year in this country," said Josh Nelson, campaign manager for Credo Action. I wonder if Mr. Nelson is a member of AAA, and if the 30,000 traffic deaths every year bother him.

Finally, what would Nelson and his fellow CREDO cretins say to the news that Canada's homicide rates in rose seven percent Canada rise 7% in 2011, despite having had the lowest level of firearm deaths in nearly 50 years? The weapon of choice for killers in Canada is now knives or other blades. The CBC reported that  Statistics Canada, a federal data agency, said that "An increase in stabbings accounted for virtually the entire increase in homicides in 2011." One wonders, then, if CREDO is prepared to protest the cutlery industry if it and other extremist groups ever succeed in getting the Second Amendment revoked.

UPDATED: Chicago, Defend Yourself

Update, July 2, 2012:  No arrest is known to have been made yet in any of the shootings during the weekend of June 24, 2012.

June 24, 2012 (Updated, Sunday, 3:30 pm) - So far, three people have died this weekend in Chicago's ongoing street violence. Despite having one of the strictest sets of anti-gun laws in the nation, gun violence in this city seems out of control. 

From last Friday night through this morning, three people have died and 26 were wounded by bullets in Chicago: 

The dead victims:

Antonio Davis, 14, of the 800 block of South Eberhart Avenue, who was fatally shot at approximately 8:40 p.m. near the intersection of South Union Avenue and West 69th Street, officials said. Tyquan Tyler, 13, of the 6500 block of South Rhodes Avenue, "died after being shot in the chest in a drive-by shooting about 1:30 a.m. Sunday in the 6200 block of South Rhodes Avenue. About 30 minutes later, 29-year-old Hansen Jackson was shot several times in the chest in the 3700 block of West Chicago Avenue, and later died at Mount Sinai Hospital." (More at CBS2)

The Chicago Tribune reported that Davis "was walking with at least one other person when a grey van pulled up and a passenger, a man wearing a dark-colored hoodie, exited with a gun." According to a police spokesman, the shooter fired at Davis, hitting him, then shot him several more times after he fell to the ground. "The shooter then got back into the van, which was driven by another man about the same age – between the ages of 20 and 25," said the Tribune.

NOTE:  Shortly after I posted this, I ran across a news story about a 14-year old boy in Arizona who saved his own life and the life of his siblings thanks to the fact that he had a gun. According to the Arizona Republic on June 22, "A man with a rifle had forced his way into the home. He aimed the gun at the boy, and the boy shot him, police said."

The Trib's list of the other shootings during the same period reveals what similar lists from the many violent weekends in Chicago always reveal: The shootings are most often gang-related or seemingly random in nature.

The shooters are almost exclusively criminals engaged in illegal activity. It is always interesting that the local media never seems to note whether the guns involved in these shootings were registered and legally possessed. I will go out on a limb, however, and guess that more than 99% of those guns are not registered and are, therefore, not legally owned. In other words, these gun crimes are not being committed by law-abiding, upstanding citizens who follow the rules.

You know, the kind of people for whom the state legislators of Illinois work so hard to make legal gun ownership so damned difficult. The folks for whom Chicago's Mayor and City Council work so hard to deny full Second Amendment rights.

This is in spite of the fact that outside of Illinois, 49 states have legalized concealed carry in some form, allowing citizens to possess a firearm outside of their homes for protection. For some reason, the Democrats who oppose their own constituents' right to bear arms cannot accept the fact that concealed carry actually lowers violent crime and makes the citizenry safer.

The Chicago's mayor and city council do not want its citizenry to be safer. If they did, they would allow us to carry guns (concealed carry).

Chicago aldermen are allowed to carry a concealed weapon if they choose to, and the mayor has armed bodyguards, but those hypocrites are either too stupid or too uncaring to allow you and me the same right to protect ourselves.

One of their lame "solutions" to the problem of criminals shooting the hell out of Chicago is to buy back guns. But that's a waste of time and of taxpayers' money.

"The city government has a great fondness for gun turn-in events," wrote Steve Chapman in The Chicago Tribune on June 17. "It's done six of them in the past six years, collecting more than 23,000 weapons. This one will be held at 23 churches, and anyone handing over a firearm will get a $100 gift card. The guns will then be destroyed. The motive behind these efforts is not hard to understand in a place that had 433 murders last year and has seen a spike this year. Dozens of shootings take place in Chicago every week."

Sure, the motive is easy to grasp. However, the logic is another matter. Chapman noted that in 2010, then-Mayor Richard M. Daley said, "We have just too many guns in our society. When someone has access to a gun, they use it." Mayor Rahm Emanuel, wrote Chapman, says that a gun buy-back is a way "we can reduce the number of guns on our streets." Idiots, both Daley and Emanuel. Do they really think that the dangerous lunatics are turning in their guns?

Chapman's brilliant commentary was right on the money. "Contrary to Daley," he wrote, "most people who own guns never use them for anything but legal purposes (hunting, target shooting, self-defense). Contrary to Emanuel, the weapons this sort of venture yields are probably not the ones carried in the streets or the ones used in crimes. The reduction also represents a minuscule share of the firearms in the city, which may number over a million. Think about it: Who is most likely to turn in a firearm for a $100 reward? Someone with 1) a cheap gun and 2) no criminal propensity — say, Aunt Millie disposing of a rusty revolver her late husband left in the nightstand."

Consider this bold statement: "Allowing citizens without criminal records or histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes and appears to produce an extremely small and statistically insignificant change in accidental deaths. If the rest country had adopted right-to-carry concealed handgun provisions in 1992, at least 1,570 murders and over 4,177 rapes would have been avoided." Source: "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," written by John R. Lott., Jr. and David B. Mustard, published by the Law School at the University of Chicago.

In spite of the years-long propaganda by liberals, which falsely warned that concealed carry would result in a "wild west" scenario of frenzied gun slinging, the murder rate in the United States has gone down. In fact, it's the lowest it's been in a long time. Reuters recently reported that the FBI said on June 11 that "the number of murders dropped to the lowest in more than four decades." 

Most likely, none of the shootings that happened last Friday night into Saturday morning would not have been prevented even if Illinoisans had the same full Second Amendment rights as our fellow Americans have. That's not what I am suggesting. However, there are countless numbers of robberies and assaults every week in Chicago that might have been prevented had the victims been able to pull a legally possessed pistol out of their pocket to ward off - and shoot if need be - their assailants.

The old saying that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is as true as always. It is also true of knives, baseball bats, hammers and a thousand other items that can be used to kill and injure. But not all people kill other people. Unless you're killing in self defense, you're a lunatic and/or a criminally minded person.

The gangsters and thrill seekers who commit violence without regard for human life are the products of a sick culture. That, however, is grist for a separate post. I will say now, though, that no gun buy-back stunts will change the fact that savages walk among us. The fact that they do only lends legitimacy to the arguments in favor of concealed carry.

Despite Chicago's restrictive gun laws - we can own one gun but only keep inside of our homes - the bad guys still have plenty of firepower. The laws have done nothing - nothing - to keep firearms out of the hands of the criminals. It is so difficult for law abiding people in Chicago to get a license for a gun that some who feel the need to own a gun just don't. And, even if they did, they would not be legally able to carry it with them as they walk, say, through their dangerous neighborhood at night on their way to or from work.

The Daily Gossip noted on June 18 that "Chicago has become more dangerous than Afghanistan," and they cited a report from WBEZ that said that since 2001 "more than 5,000 people have been killed by gun fire in Chicago," compared to 2,000 in Afghanistan. That Daily Gossip post had the headline "8 Killed And 37 Others Wounded In Chicago Shootings," about the violent weekend of Friday, June 15 -- a week before the violence that killed 14-year old Antonio Davis last Friday night.

There was a telling passage in the Daily Gossip post. "When Michael Shields, president of the Fraternal Order of Police,"  reported DG, "was asked where was the police when the killings happened, he answered the Chicago police department was short-staffed. 'Chicago police officers can’t be everywhere', said Shields. 'Because they’re racing from one 911 call to the next, and with manpower as it is right now, it’s very difficult to deter crime'."  The CPD has been short staffed for years, but  DG noted that "Some people said the violence spree wouldn’t have left so many wounded and dead if the Chicago police department wouldn’t have paid so much attention to the wedding Obama attended. 100 police officers were assigned for safety purposes at Laura Jarrett’s wedding."

I am not blaming Obama or Jarrett for the violence. However, it highlights the fact that there is only so much that any police force - even one with no manpower shortage - can do. If you are being attacked, whether at home or on the street, you basically have three choices of action. You can (A) try to run away from your attacker, (B) call 911 for help or (C) try to defend yourself.  Good luck with choice A, especially if you're elderly, out of shape, pregnant or disabled. Enjoy your wait if you choose B. If you go with C, you'd better be damned good with your fists because Mayor Emanuel and the idiots in the City Council (who are legally allowed to carry concealed guns) don't think you have the right to defend yourself with a firearm.

How many homicides caused by stabbing and assault would be prevented in Chicago if concealed carry was allowed? How many non-fatal incidents - so many of which we never hear about in the news - could be avoided? It is not possible to give a number, of course, but common sense says that plenty of would be attackers would think twice about preying on somebody that they fear might be packing heat. It might have helped the victims in these cases, in these cases, in these cases and many other cases.

Gun buy-back programs are a cynical, ineffective joke. Illinois does not have any concealed carry like the other 49 states do, and yet things are out of control here. The folks who should by rights be allowed to legally carry firearms for protection are left defenseless against uncivilized savages who have guns illegally. Does this really make sense to anybody other than the morons in Springfield? 49 states have seen the light on concealed carry, and look at the murder rates nationwide: Down, down, and down. But in Chicago it's up, up and up.

How can the liberals continue to hawk fearmongering about legal possession of firearms? Denying the good citizens of Illinois their full Second Amendment rights has done nothing to prevent thousands upon thousands of deaths in Chicago alone. In fact, because they are left defenseless, I would say that the restrictive gun laws of Chicago and Illinois have actually caused people to die unnecessarily. And that's criminal.

Dumbest Anti-Gun Web Site EVER

I was scanning the web for articles about the recent post-election surge in gun purchases across the United States. In doing so, I came across a pro-Obama, anti-guns web site that has got to be one of the dumbest web sites I've ever encountered. It's called, simply, "hasobamatakenawayourgunsyet.com" (Has Obama Taken Away Your Guns Yet). The full text on the site is shown in the screenshot here. The question and premise of the web site, "Has Obama Taken Away Our Guns Yet?" is idiotic. Why? Uhm, well, because BARACK OBAMA AIN'T DA PRESIDENT YET! Therefore, whether he wants to take away our guns or not, he can't yet because he currently hold no elected office. He resigned his Senate seat and won't become president until January 20. The idiot's answer, "NO," is actually correct. That's amazing, since the idiot who wastes bandwidth with the site was stupid enough to ask such a dumb question. The funniest part comes near the end. After assuring us that Obama has not yet taken away "our guns" (does the idiot have a gun? Dear Lord), he admonishes us to "get a brain morans," and there are at least three things wrong with that. First, is he telling us all to collectively get "a brain?" Just one brain for all of us? That probably would work well; the time sharing logistics of such and arrangement would be mind boggling (pardon the pun). Second, the moron spelled "morons" incorrectly as "morans." How stoopid is that? Third, it's wrong to insult those folks who, in a sincere quest for enlightenment, visit the idiot's web site. Finally, the idiot has an email link in "tell us what you think!" That link is: omg_my_gunz@hasobamatakenawayourgunsyet.com (What is there to think about? Is the idiot asking for our opinion of the fact that Obama has not yet confiscated any firearms? Perhaps he wants to know if Obama will take away guns, or not. Since the idiot is requesting that we tell him (I assume this is a male, perhaps not, I dunno), send him an email. Start your email with "Dear Brettly" just to confuse the hell out of him.