FieryDog twitter
FieryDog Rss


Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner, second amendment | Posted on 12-06-2009


First they came for the the banks,
          But I didn’t care because I wasn’t a banker;

Then they came for the car companies.
          Since I wasn’t the CEO of GM, I didn’t care;

Then they attacked healthcare.
          Not being a doctor, I had nothing to fear.

Then they abused the smokers.
          I thought it was nice they cared about clean air.

Tomorrow they will go after overweight people.
          Always thin, I won’t care when they forbid some people from eating cake.

Then they’ll come after my thoughts.
          Everyone else will cheer that I’m finally a helpless target too.

History has a horrible way of repeating itself and we are seeing that repetition today. While at this point, our place in history bears no moral resemblance to the murder of six million Jews by the Nazis, we are going through the same steps of every past dictatorship. None began with pogroms. They gradually built their way up to genocide.

First, the dictators consolidated power and disarmed the populace both mentally and physically. Using the media as its constant propaganda arm and controlling most methods of production, these past governments chose their targets wisely. They went after the small groups–the homosexuals, the criminals, the disabled. Since the majority of people are none of these things, the majority kept their silence. More than that, the citizens bought the government’s rhetoric when it said it did these things for the greater good.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, all targeted the capitalists. They pointed out and played upon the disparity between CEOs and the unskilled workers. They all used class warfare, manipulating man by his jealous nature, as a way of organizing the masses beneath a common banner.

Then they found subsequent targets. For some reason, the Jews have always tended to be one of those easy targets. Perhaps this is because of their small populations or their tight knit community. Whatever the reason, these despotic governments have blamed the Jews for a host of national and worldly ills.

Today, we have a president who won election through manipulation of the masses, playing upon their jealousies. He has consolidated his power, attacking capitalism at its core; removing a CEO who disagreed with him; nationalizing industries; violating contract laws. The majority of Americans seem to support this abuse of power because they do not see how it affects them.

Our current leader further manipulates Americans by their jealousies and fears, convincing them that everyone has better healthcare than they do and by promising them they will surely die if they do not allow the government to socialize medicine.

The government has picked its targets wisely. Now it is going after the smokers and the pig and cow farmers.

At the same time, Obama has begun his anti-semitic rhetoric. His speech to the Muslims of the world, his refusal to treat terrorists as the enemy, his bow to the Saudi king, and his nod to Iran in their pursuit of nukes all signify that Israel stands alone. If that wasn’t enough, we have his pastor claiming “Them Jews” won’t allow Obama to talk to him.

There are only two more steps left to complete. First, the complete prohibition or a drastic reduction in private gun-owner rights so we cannot defend ourselves from the government. Then will come the Holocaust 2.0. My guess is, this one will also begin with the Jews and every one of us that dares try to defend them. After that, anyone who disagrees with the government will be fair game.

The problem with gun laws & state sovereignty

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner, second amendment | Posted on 06-06-2009


I think it’s great that Tennessee and Montana are reasserting their rights via new gun laws, but I can already see the problems.

For those not aware, the resolutions say some guns will be manufactured within the state and stamped “Made in [insert state].” Guns made within the state, purchased by residents, and remaining within the state will not be subjected to any federal laws.

By our Constitution, that’s how it should be. That is not how it will play out, however.

There is absolutely no doubt this will go to the Supreme Court. The Federal leviathan is unwilling to part with any of the rights it has stolen from the states and citizens.

When it gets there, the court will look at other previous bad law such as Wickard v. Filburn. In so doing, they will determine that weapons manufactured in Montana, sold in Montana, and remaining in Montana are a part of “interstate commerce.” The federal government will argue that even though the weapons do not cross lines, they might. And if they do, they might be sold to someone in Kansas. Therefore, there is a potential for interstate commerce. More than that, the government will argue that some parts likely came from another state, thereby making them a part of interstate commerce. Then, as its final argument, the government will state that even if the parts come from within the state, when a person in Montana purchases one of these weapons, it means he is not purchasing one made in Utah. Not purchasing a gun made in Utah affects interstate trade because the amount of weapons crossing the state line is diminished. Therefore, by reducing interstate trade by means of self-sufficiency, the state is engaging in interstate commerce.

The SCOTUS will decide in favor of the federal beast. My guess is it will be at least 7-2, possibly even 9-0.

Obama Going for the Guns

Posted by Brutus | Posted in second amendment | Posted on 03-05-2009


Thank you for the tea parties

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Democrats, Obama, second amendment | Posted on 15-04-2009


I’m a tax baby. Yes, today is my birthday. So, let me start this by thanking all of y’all for celebrating my birthday. This is the largest party I’ve ever had–over 750 cities at once! Michelle Malkin writes about how the plans for my party started in <em><a href=”” target=”_blank”>A Tax Day Tea Party cheat sheet: How it all started</a></em>. This is great. Usually, people rue my birthday.

As today is my birthday, I’ve reflected some on my life this morning. During that process, a question hit me: <em>When did I lose my country?</em>

It’s difficult to answer. I grew up watching SNL when it was funny–when John Belushi and Dan Akroyd were on it. We said the Pledge of Allegiance every morning in school. We loved our military…of course, the hippies wearing bell bottoms across the street didn’t care too much for them as they sat on the front porch picking that acoustic guitar and singing. But for the most of us still loved America and believed she was worth fighting and dying for. I was too young to vote for Reagan either time, but I supported him, loved him. Now that I am older, I have even more respect for the man I believe was the greatest president of the Twentieth Century.

How did we get from there to here? How did we go from having an actor who loved this country being our leader, to having a European-style socialist who acts like he loves this country (when politically expedient) as president? Contrary to what anyone says, you cannot love this country and despise the Constitution. Obama and his administration have demonstrated many times already they have no regard for our founding charters. Plans to erase the Second Amendment (or limit it so tightly that it is virtually non-existent), socialized medicine, the government control of the financial industry as well as the firing of an auto-manufacturer CEO are just a few of the examples of his blantant hatred for the Constitution.

Today, for my birthday, I’ll be celebrating at a local tea party. Instead of taking from this country, I’ll give a little more. But I won’t give more money. I’ll lend my voice to a growing number of compatriots who stand shoulder-to-shoulder against the rising tide of that old evil–socialism. It is the least any of us can do for the country that has done so much for us.

This was cross-posted on another blog:

DHS declares conservatives “terrorists!”

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner, Democrats, Obama, second amendment | Posted on 15-04-2009


If you love this country and it’s Constitution, you’re probably considered a terrorist by the Obama Adminsitration. Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security produced a report entitled: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. It is a nine page manifesto giving the government power to spy on and eradicate conservatives.

DHS head Janet Napolitano declared things like the WTC coming down after Islamofascists flew planes into them “Man-made disatsters.” These are not acts of terrorists. However, she reserved the label “terrorist” for people who have one or more of the following beliefs. You are probably a rightwing terrorist if:

  • You believe the government should secure our borders
  • You think the government is not doing enough to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States
  • You believe the 2nd Amendment–the Right to Bear Arms–is protected by the Constitution
  • You oppose same-sex marriage
  • You are pro-life
  • You are a Christian that believes in “End-Times Prophecy” and stock food, ammunition, & weapons
  • You hold the opinion the economy could collapse and that such a collapse might lead to civil unrest and the government declaring martial law to stop the unrest
  • You favor the government enforcing current immigration laws
  • You are/were a soldier that has returned from Iraq or Afghanistan (note: thank you for your service) 
  • You believe communists are a threat to America
  • You believe China, Russia, or India may be a threat to America in the future
  • You believe a loss of manufacturing to China and India allows these countries to apply political or economic pressure on the United States
  • You think Russia’s control of energy reserves allows them to pressure other nations–including the US
  • You believe a one-world government is coming

So, basically, if you oppose President Obama’s socialist agenda in any way, if you defend the Constitution, if you believe in the Bill of Rights, or you fear this administration, chances are you are on the Department of Homeland Security’s hitlist.

The full document can be found here.
Also, Michelle Malkin had a blog on this here: Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real

Obama causes a spike in gun sales

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Democrats, Obama, second amendment | Posted on 11-11-2008


Over the past couple of months, it has been estimated there is at least a 10% spike in the sale of handguns and “assault” weapons. Why? Obamaphobia. Many people are afraid Mr. Obama will destroy Second Amendment rights shortly after his inauguration. The sad part is, these fears are not unfounded.

Obama’s website used to say:  

As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.  

 Of course, that was before he decided to take his agenda down from his website.

Like so much else of Obama’s rhetoric, this is in some respects simply “feel-good” talk. It does, however, set the stage for the destruction of our Second Amendment rights, which are inalienable.

The Tiahrt Amendment forbids the BATFE from divulging private information about gunsales to local law enforcement (as far as the democrats and Obama are concerned, this is all the amendment says), except in cases of bona fide crime and prosecution. That last clause is the part they neglect to tell Americans. The Amendment will pass information when the owning jurisdiction requests information on a genuine gun-related crime. They will not, however, disclose information on gun ownership to a mayor who might want to know if his ex-wife bought a gun.

As the NRA-ILA website points out:

Traced guns aren’t always “crime guns”; firearms may be traced for reasons unrelated to any armed crime. The BATFE trace request form lists “crime codes” for traffic offenses and election law violations, among many others.

The site further states the Fraternal Order of Police and the BATFE oppose repealing the amendment, because it will actually jeopardize the lives of undercover cops and agents.

As for the 1994 “Assault Weapon Ban” (AWB), it was one of the biggest legislative frauds perpetrated on the American people. The sole purpose of the AWB was to hide scary looking guns. It did not, however, ban things like fully automatic weapons (machine guns). That piece of legislation was passed sixty years earlier in 1934. Even after the expiration of the AWB in 2004, fully automatic weapons continue to be illegal for the majority of Americans.

Instead, the AWB took into consideration the cosmetics of a weapon and decided to ban based upon that.

In the 1994 legislation, an “Assault Weapon” was defined as:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

·         Folding stock

·         Conspicuous pistol grip

·         Bayonet mount

·         Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one

·         Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

·         Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip

·         Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer

·         Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold

·         Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more

·         A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

·         Folding or telescoping stock

·         Pistol grip

·         Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds

·         Detachable magazine


Think about this for a minute. Just because a rifle has a bayonet lug and a folding stock, it is an “Assault Weapon.” However, remove the bayonet lug and it is no longer an assault weapon. The rifle still fires the same bullets. Still has the same accuracy. Still fires just as rapidly. The only difference is, it no longer looks scary. When passing the legislation, even proponents admitted weapons like these were very rarely used in crimes.

As we can see, the idea behind both of these pieces of legislation Obama wants passed is ridiculous…or is it?

Barack Obama concedes gun ownership is a right and at the same time, says the states and local governments should be able to strip that right from you. On April 16, 2008, Obama stated:

As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

Hmm. I wonder if he feels the same way about something like voting. Imagine he said, “Just because people have a right to vote doesn’t mean the state and local governments can’t take that right from them.” It is preposterous!


In 1996, Barack Obama filled out a card regarding his positions on certain issues. One of those was gun control. Here is the question and the answers:


35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

 Campaign staffers later said Obama had someone else fill out the card and they misrepresented his positions. I must say it is reassuring to know we will soon have a Commander-in-Chief who delegates his responsibilities to people who do not know where he stands on the issues. Just wait until Mr. Obama delegates the nuke codes to Ahmadinejad.


So, Mr. Obama has already stated he favors gun bans. By repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, he and his goons will have access to personal information on law abiding citizens who purchased guns. That should make it very easy for them to confiscate most weapons. By skipping houses where no guns are present, Mr. Obama can save a lot of time disarming Americans and stripping them of their inalienable rights.

Twitter links powered by Tweet This v1.8.1, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.