Senator Chris Murphy, Bully

Senator Chris Murphy hates the NRA. This is my determination.  He has released no less than seven press releases concerning the NRA since his swearing in in January. Some of his words to describe them include bizarre, unhinged, depraved, extreme and out of touch[1]. He further believes that they show a "disregard for public safety" and endanger law enforcement by supporting a bill in Indiana that was passed by an overwhelming majority and had support from numerous law enforcement agencies. His reasons for non-support was in direct opposition of Governor Mitch Daniels, who said:

"[C]ontrary to some impressions, the bill strengthens the protection of Indiana law enforcement officers by narrowing the situations in which someone would be justified in using force against them." Governor Daniels went on to explain, "So as a matter of law, law enforcement officers will be better protected than before, not less so."[2]

He, being a senator from Connecticut, was no doubt affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary killings. He has also released nine press releases regarding this incident or things directly related to this incident, such as Obama's statements on gun violence in general. I am not condemning the man for his desire to prevent things like that from happening again.

One of his most recent press releases concerns a letter[3] he wrote to Brian France, Chairman and CEO of NASCAR. He wrote a letter in regards to NASCAR's decision to partner with the NRA in having them be the primary sponsor for the upcoming race at Texas Motor Speedway. The event will be known as the NRA 500. In the letter, he repeatedly accuses NASCAR of inserting itself into political debate. Also showing itself to be an ally of the NRA in the current gun debate. He also accuses them of taking sides against the families in Newtown tragedy. He rattles of a series of statements intended to make the NRA look exactly as he sees them, evil. He asserts that NASCAR has historically been careful not to insert itself, and its hard-earned good reputation, into political and legislative fights.

Remember when NASCAR's top tier changed its name to the Nextel/Sprint Cup? Remember what it was called before that? The Winston cup. Winston as in RJ Reynolds flagship brand of cigarettes. RJR was the primary sponsor for NASCAR from 1970 until 2003. Thirty three years of sponsorship that resulted directly from the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1971. If you'll recall, tobacco companies and the government were in a virtual war for much of that 33 year period. RJR, not NASCAR finally succumbed to the laws and regulations of the FDA and were forced to cease advertising in sports. NASCAR has also been involved in controversies relating to safety mandates and fuel consumption. It has only flinched in so much as it was forced to do so as a matter of federal regulations. So, the senator is dead wrong in his opinion of NASCAR not concerning itself with its reputation as seen by federal regulatory acts.

His intent in this letter is to intimidate NASCAR into backing out of the relationship it has with the National Rifle Association. There can be no other way to describe it. In response to this, I wrote the Senator a letter. The following is the full text of that letter.

Dear Senator,
 I am a U.S. Citizen, a staunch supporter of our Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment and a longtime NASCAR fan. I went to my first NASCAR race the year you were born. You are right about NASCAR's fans(at least this one) inferring its support of the NRA. I applaud them.

It is no secret how you view the NRA, calling them bizarre, unhinged, depraved, out of touch and extreme. You even say the have no regard for public safety. None of this could be further from the truth. I don't expect to change your views, but I do respect your rights to express them. We are guaranteed that right in the Constitution that you swore to uphold in your oath of office.

NASCAR is a private enterprise. They have the freedoms to make such associations and business partnerships as they see fit as long as they are not breaking laws in doing so. No law is being broken in their partnership with the NRA. The only thing that is being hurt are people's feelings. There is no right to not have your feelings hurt(currently anyway). Government and elected officials should not meddle in the affairs of those whom they disagree with solely because they disagree with them. If you don't like the way a business operates, you don't have to give them your support. Consumers do this all the time. It is called free enterprise. Trying to coerce a business into complying with one's ideals is pure and simple thuggery. If government is left to act this way it leads to tyranny. Our constitution, the one you swore to uphold, does not support this way of thinking.

You were elected by the people to do a job. Part of that job is certainly not strong-arming business to intimidate them into supporting your agenda.

I hope you hear from many NASCAR fans on this subject, as I'm sure you will.

Respectfully,

 Senator Murphy and his "esteemed colleagues" in Washington seemingly have no regard for our Constitution. They will subvert it in any way they see fit in order to achieve the goals that they have set for themselves. Recently we've heard Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Colorado representative Joe Salazar and numerous others make some of the most bizarre statements in support of gun control. Murphy is not only jumping on that bandwagon, but also getting very specific in targeting a well-respected, law-abiding American institution. The intent is clear, change your mind or your reputation will be at risk. That would not occur without throngs of loud-voiced bullies shouting them down.

Senator Murphy can be reached here.
NASCAR can be reached here.

We have a responsibility to let our voices be heard.

Joe Fudd Addendum

I wish I had seen this before I posted that last piece. During a facebook townhall meeting last month, Joe "Fudd" Biden told us to expect new legislation that would ensure "that a loaded weapon is not in the reach of a stranger or a family member who is not competent to use it.” Let that sink in for a moment. Joe Biden is going to lecture us on being "competent" enough to use a gun. If you are unsure what competent means, I encourage you to look it up. I'm going to assume that you know for the purposes of this blog.

Competent enough to use a firearm would entail things like not randomly firing one into the air, having no idea where the projectile might end up. Also, not firing one blindly through the door of your home without knowing who or what stands on the other side of it. Basically, competent enough not to let Joe Biden anywhere near your gun.

There are statistics out there(which I'm not going to quote here) that lead us to the logical conclusion that legal gun owners are some of, if not the most, responsible single group of people in America today. To have someone as irresponsible as Joe Biden(see previous post) lecturing us on competency and responsibility in the area of gun safety is beyond ridiculous. He is part of an administration and collective of people who between the top 10 of them would not likely be able to tell you the basic rules of gun safety.

That leads me to my next point. In the same meeting, Joe "Fudd" told us that he also supported the idea of parents checking on how friends store weapons before they allow their children to go to other peoples’ houses. “That’s a judgement for every parent to make,” Biden said. "I don’t think it’s irrational for you to ask whether or not there are guns in the home and how they are stored.”

While I think it is a very good idea to know as much about where our children are going and who they are associating with, I think if someone that I didn't already have some kind of relationship with asked me those questions, I'd just tell them they should probably have little Johnny play somewhere else if they were concerned about the safety of my home. As for my children, they will know the rules of gun safety. They won't put themselves in dangerous situations where someone might just have guns laying around. They would know to leave, immediately, if someone started playing with a gun or asking them if they wanted to see or play with a gun. They would know right away upon entering a home whether or not the occupants seem like responsible people. This kind of training starts at home. I am much more able to trust that my properly educated child can assess the situation than I would be by asking someone those questions. If they were responsible owners, they would probably tell me exactly what I would tell them. If they weren't responsible gun owners, they probably wouldn't tell the truth anyway. What Joe "Fudd" is suggesting, on the surface seems well intentioned enough. But deeper down, what I believe he is suggesting is very intrusive. I think it is in line with the thinking of doctors asking whether or not there are guns in the home.

Gun safety begins with the gun owner. It is his or her responsibility to make sure they are doing everything possible to ensure the safety of themselves and anyone else who may happen upon their gun. Accidents happen, but in most cases of unintentional shootings, it is negligence and irresponsibility that lies at the heart of the cause. I don't believe that anyone ever accidentally shot themselves while cleaning a gun. If you follow the basic safety rules(and common sense), it will not happen. I abhor reading a story about these incidents. Irresponsible gun owners do more harm to those of us who understand what gun ownership means than people like Piers Morgan does in spewing his nightly diatribe.

So, Joe "Fudd" Biden, do us a favor and stick to what you know. That may take a while to figure out, but at least you'll be kept busy.

Joe Fudd Biden

Joe Biden, our vice-president, recently encouraged us, if faced with imminent danger of some nefarious individual breaking into our homes to walk outside and "fire two blasts"[1] from our trusty double barrel shotgun. I'm writing here for a moment to those who are ignorant enough to actually follow this advice. This is bad advice, on a number of levels. First, if you have a double barrel shotgun as your means of protection and you empty it by firing into the air, you no longer have a double barrel shotgun as your means of protection. Now you have a very heavy, odd-shaped bat as your means of protection. Reloading a shotgun is typically not a very speedy process, especially with Mr. Nefarious bearing down own you. Secondly, You have broken three of the four basic rules of gun safety. The only one you haven't broken is to always assume every gun is loaded. By breaking the other three rules, you could potentially kill some innocent bystander as far as a mile away in some instances. Thirdly, you have more than likely committed a crime in most states by firing the gun in that manner. Potentially a crime that, if convicted, could remove your rights to ever legally own a gun again. In addition to these three things, you have probably wasted two shells as well. Priced ammunition lately?

Joe went on to say in a separate interview, in regards to self defense, "just fire the shotgun through the door.”[2] Logistically and legally speaking, this is no better advice than the first nugget he shared on the subject. In fact, in almost every case, it is a felony.

So here we have Joe Fudd consistently giving people horrible and likely criminal advice when it comes to self-defense. I have two questions, why does he do this, and is he liable when someone takes his advice?

Why would anyone give such poor advice from a national pulpit? Does he want people to commit such stupid acts? Is it his intention to create a network of idiots out there breaking gun laws? It would not surprise me in the least if that were the intent. Then we would have incident after incident of otherwise law-abiding gun owners acting recklessly with their evil firearms. The more evil and dangerous they can be depicted, the easier it will be pass laws further restricting the rights of non-idiot law-abiding gun owners. This current fight for our second amendment rights is being played out on multiple stages, and the court of public opinion is a huge stage. People are just dumb enough to believe what they are told in way too many cases.

Could he be liable for such crimes? I'm no law expert by any means. I would love to see this question addressed by someone who is. From my limited research, there could be levels of guilt attached to such a crime and they would depend on the state of the person that was actually enticed into committing the gun crime. I do believe even if he is legally at fault, there are very few prosecutors in the country that would touch that. There are probably even fewer judges that wouldn't throw it out as well. Still, I would love to see someone of stature ask the question.

Joe Fudd, criminally so or not, is one of the most irresponsible people in a position of authority that I can remember. The other that comes to mind is Bill Clinton, who wasn't advocating criminal activity, but was telling everyone that they could get away with adultery and all manner of reprobate behavior if they would just lie about it. Unfortunately, his impeachment hearings did nothing to discourage such behavior either. Bill will get you into dutch with the wife, while Joe will get you prison time if you aren't careful.

Responsibility is obviously not a strong point with either of these guys. Liberty doesn't appear to rank very high on their list of important things either. We have to be prudent in guarding both. We still have the freedom to own guns in this country and it is our duty to be responsible with them. For the most part, legal gun owners are very responsible. We can be counted on to do the right thing. We are not some pack of vigilantes and we aren't much of a danger to turn the movie theater into the wild west as some would have you to believe. Educate those who may not be as responsible and let them know that Joe Fudd and his ilk are not to be trusted with advice on any aspect of gun ownership. It is our responsibility to make sure this kind of stuff has a light shined upon it.

Molon Labe, Joe Fudd!