Mumbai: a post-tragedy rant

I begin by having to admit that I wasn’t in a big hurry to get the details regarding this terrorist attack over the Thanksgiving weekend. After weeks of a failing economy and the improbable election of a president with little experience and lots of question marks, I wasn’t about to let a terrorist attack abroad ruin the refuge from the world that I was hoping to get from Turkey Day. I’m sure some French dude in a beret is scoffing while reading this revelation thinking, “uncultured American swine!”

To enforce the fact that I am not alone in my ignorance, allow me to give everyone a quick geography lesson (the same one I got a few hours ago). Mumbai used to be called Bombay. If you’re like me and countless others, you’re probably saying to yourself, “Oh! I know where THAT is!” (Unless you went or are going to public school and can’t find the United States on a map). I don’t know why the media don’t include that little tidbit…don’t they know their audience? I don’t know about you, but I don’t exactly keep up with changes of this nature. Bombay was changed to Mumbai back in 1996…I don’t even remember what I was doing back then NOT to notice this life-changing event.

To my credit it is now Monday and I’m reading the aftermath (better late than never). Besides, with a media like ours, how can I 1) trust what I’m being told and 2) sort out the truth anytime a media outlet attempts to report anything while it is still going on? So it goes…

165 innocent deaths and nine terrorists dead…for some reason my Wall Street Journal insists on lumping these together into 174, as if the despicable have any right to be counted among the innocent. Why do they do this? Is it a subliminal attempt at sounding like the loss of the 9 is as tragic as the 165? As far as I’m concerned, 165 is the death toll…the 9 got what they got.

It was tragic to read about how this small band of terrorists was able to infiltrate this busy city and unleash such terror…however the media is scant on explaining HOW this was able to happen. It’s quite simple actually…the reason why Mumbai was terrorized by so few for so long is because gun ownership is illegal in India (are you listening President Obama?). Even the police are not armed…they are only allowed to carry around lathis (bamboo sticks) which is well and good if your offender is unarmed, but is no match for a semi-automatic rifle and grenades. When the bullets started to fly during this latest tragedy, the police could do nothing more than run away among the throngs of fleeing civilians. Only the Indian commandos had armed weapons, but had to wait hours before being able to get a flight to Mumbai, then a ride to the hotels under siege. (Would this be an acceptable means of protection in Obamerica?) I’m curious to see if any of the left-wing media will ever tackle that “how was it able to happen?” question.

As of right now, it is feared that there are still five terrorists at large, who could still unleash further attacks. But equally interesting is the fact that they have one terrorist in custody, who is reported to be “providing details of the plot.” That wouldn’t happen in Obamerica. Remember that Obama considers shutting down Guantanamo Bay as a top priority, and has remarked that America will no longer torture to get information. I suppose this lone terrorist would have preferred to pull off a Mumbai-scale operation in America anytime after February 2009 since his interrogation may entail tea, crumpets, and conversation with the Obamessiah himself (depending on whether or not he was a large donor towards his campaign via one of George Soros’ 527 groups).

Annie, go get a gun?

There have been several news reports about a sharp increase in guns sales out of fear that Obama and the Democratic-led Congress will make it difficult to either get guns or buy ammunition. Heavy speculation is that the likely method would be to assess a hefty tax on the price of ammunition.

Here is a sampling of some recent articles:

NY TIMES

ABC's Nightline

Oregon's Statesman Journal

Business Day

The National Rifle Association web site references a gun ban agenda that was listed on Obama's Transition web site, but has since been removed. Now the most you will see is a very vanilla statement about his general plan for the country under "The Agenda" section. Clearly, there is reason for concern as it is clear that Obama's staff is finding it harder and harder to be transparent about future plans and intentions. One needs to ask why are campaign statements floating around in cyberspace not being left alone? Why is there a constant effort to revise previous statements?

Keep this handy from Hot Air back in September in case he reneges on his promise.

See today's poll on this topic along the right column.

So of course the topic to procure our first home defense weapon is being discussed in our home. My better half wants a good old handgun...but I want something that makes more of a statement --


Meet the Mossberg 500 aka "Zombie Stopper"...as I've said to my wife, I want to send a gentle but firm warning as to what is about to come next for a would-be intruder with the deep, distinct sound of my first round being chambered with the pump action.

However, if I want such a weapon, I need to hurry as it is clear that Obama's definition of an "assault weapon" includes any weapon procured for the use of the military or law enforcement...and Mossberg is one of the preferred shotguns by law enforcement. Granted that the ones for law enforcement use have an "A1" designation, do you think Obama and the democrats will split hairs on that? I think that if he adopts Joe Biden's expanded definition of an assault weapon, Obama will outlaw ALL types of Mossberg 500 shotguns. Of course, we can't trust FactCheck.org's claim that Obama would not expand the list of weapons on the assault weapons ban, since FactCheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation, a key funder of ACORN.