Saturday, August 11, 2007
My Kind of Gals
They sure make our Million Mommy types look pathetic, don't they? Even the women members.
Book Learnin'
"If the kid has a backpack next to them, or under the desk, they can pick it up, the straps act as a handle and it becomes a shield," Curran said.
It's much lighter than a 15-pound police vest. After three years of experimenting, the backpacks that were tested by an outside lab ranked threat level two. It stops an assortment of bullets, including 9-millimeter hollow point bullets.
It'll also give the assailant a nice target to aim at center mass. Besides, guess what else will stop "an assortment of bullets, including 9-millimeter hollow point bullets"?
How about just an ordinary backpack that doesn't cost $175 full of...uh... books?
But I wouldn't recommend betting my child's life on that. What would I recommend?
Oh, gee, I don't know.
Besides, Wayne doesn't like the idea.
Just So We're Clear on How This Works
...Carranza, who has a fake Social Security number, had been arrested on charges of raping a 5-year-old girl and then threatening the child and her parents. In that case he faced a 31-count indictment.
In another, he was arrested on assault charges stemming from a bar fight.
Immigration officials apparently were aware of Carranza's illegal status since his prior arrests, according to Essex County Sheriff Armando Fontoura.
The solution, of course, to prevent such execution-style killings by known illegal immigrants is to disarm American Citizens.
Take San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (please!), who is trying to shut down the gun show at the Cow Palace (it's not even in his jurisdiction), while declaring San Francisco a "Sanctuary City" for the likes of Mr. Carranza.
As we've seen before, this despicable, out-of-control reprobate just ignores laws he objects to, but will not tolerate even the hint of defiance for one of his edicts.
That is the very definition of rule of man, the very definition of tyranny.
We're the Only Ones Permissive Enough
[I used BugMeNot to bypass site registration]
The FBI is looking into concealed-gun permits issued by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, according to documents filed in a lawsuit that alleges former Sheriff Lou Blanas issued permits as political favors....The lawsuit, filed in December 2003 when Blanas was sheriff, alleges that Blanas denied David Mehl, a chemical engineer, and Lok T. Lau, a retired FBI agent, equal protection under the law when his office turned down their applications for gun-carry permits.
Gee, you don't suppose having one of their own get denied was what prompted this. do you? I mean, it's not like this hasn't been SOP for California Sheriff and Police departments...
All animals deserve equal protection, but some animals deserve more equal protection than others.
[Via 1894C]
[More from "The Only Ones" files]
Nuge to Red's: You're on Your Own
"At this time, it does not appear that Ted's schedule will permit."
Yeah, 10 minutes of the Great Man's time is a lot to ask for.
The guy's in Boise, making untold profits off a fan base that includes untold thousands of gun owners and he can't be bothered?
Ryan has been trying to work with "his people," so he knows about the situation at Red's Trading Post. Evidently he doesn't want to involve his name in the controversy. Because if he wanted to, he could point Ryan out in the audience.
Ryan says "the positive side is I still get to see Ted in concert."
If it was me, I wouldn't go.
"What Better Person..."
...to explain to you how to make one of these videos than someone who knows absolutely nothing about technology?
Yeah, like firearms technology, seeing as how you Brady Luddites want to ban those employing designs that were developed in the same period as the light bulb.
Lewis Black adds his peculiar brand of acting like a smug urban smart ass while remaining typically unfunny in this latest Brady Campaign propaganda foray. He invites us to submit our own videos and "Tell us what you feel" (significantly, not "what you know"), and the thought strikes that we could do a repeat of the Million Moon March--except I fear the effort would be wasted and they'd never show critical viewpoints.
Pity, because the one I had in mind involves a look-alike of Black sitting at an identical set, going into his whiny rant when suddenly...well, let's just say it involves ski masks, rubber gloves and a meat fork, and he's powerless to stop it.
Hey--it's funnier than what he's doing, and he's a professional comic.
Years ago, I did a video called "Minute Men." We were at a gun rights rally in Sacramento, CA, and I set up a camera on a tripod and gave attendees (who signed a release) one minute to speak their mind on the right to keep and bear arms. I still have the tape and really ought to get it converted to digital format, edit it and post it online. All I need is the time to teach myself to do all that.
Guest Editorial: Liberty is Risky
By Charles H. Sawders
In a free society potential behavior cannot be punished. To the extent that it is, is the measure of the absence of liberty.
Unacceptable behavior proscribed by law, may be punished. But in a free society what one might, maybe, could, possibly, perhaps, be able to do is not grounds for punishment or truncation of rights. Only after the unacceptable behavior has occurred can a free society protect itself by punishing the actor, both as retribution and deterrence. Any punishment or restriction prior is a veto of liberty.
Liberty is risky. We must rely on the good natures of our fellow citizens to a large extent. Though risky, it has proven throughout history to be much safer than entrusting ourselves to the good natures of governments.
Those unwilling to risk liberty can always find a master. If that be their desire, I will not strive to prevent such, so long as they seek subservience and servitude on a personal level. They are not empowered to seek either, nor a master, for me. When they venture to do so they have become my enemy. An enemy who will not be tolerated. An enemy who will be counted among the forces of evil by free men everywhere.
Also by Charles H. Sawders:
The Downsides of Liberty
In a free society potential behavior cannot be punished. To the extent that it is, is the measure of the absence of liberty.
Unacceptable behavior proscribed by law, may be punished. But in a free society what one might, maybe, could, possibly, perhaps, be able to do is not grounds for punishment or truncation of rights. Only after the unacceptable behavior has occurred can a free society protect itself by punishing the actor, both as retribution and deterrence. Any punishment or restriction prior is a veto of liberty.
Liberty is risky. We must rely on the good natures of our fellow citizens to a large extent. Though risky, it has proven throughout history to be much safer than entrusting ourselves to the good natures of governments.
Those unwilling to risk liberty can always find a master. If that be their desire, I will not strive to prevent such, so long as they seek subservience and servitude on a personal level. They are not empowered to seek either, nor a master, for me. When they venture to do so they have become my enemy. An enemy who will not be tolerated. An enemy who will be counted among the forces of evil by free men everywhere.
Also by Charles H. Sawders:
The Downsides of Liberty
This Day in History: August 11
Under the present Situation of Affairs, I can give you no better direction than to remain at your post and collect all the force that you possibly can, the Season of the Year is to be sure inconvenient for the Militia to be out, but the necessity of the Case requires that as many as possibly can, must be retained in service, for if Genl. Burgoyne persists in his advance upon our Northern Army, we must offer them support or suffer him to make himself Master of all the Country above.
Friday, August 10, 2007
No, Mike. Just No.
A career statist loon wants to ban handguns and dictate barrel lengths of long arms. [More]
Here's my reply. I encourage you to follow the link and leave comments of your own.
[Via Alphecca]
Here's my reply. I encourage you to follow the link and leave comments of your own.
No, Mike.
That's it, just "no."
Now what are you going to do about it?
How many men like me, who refuse to bend to your will, are you willing to have killed or ruined in the futile attempt to enact your agenda? Because we won't just give up. We won't just surrender our guns.
And in order to get them out of the 80-plus million households in this country, you're going to need to conduct a full-blown national occupation. The "authorities" won't have time for 80-plus million search warrants and habeas corpus and all that other Constitutional nonsense, so it will just be block sweeps and dynamic entries. Nice police state your little fantasy will create.
What, you thought "benefits" didn't come with offsetting costs?
You're talking tripwire scenario here, Mike--real resistance and everything that implies.
And I assume you won't be doing the disarmament yourself--you expect hirelings to risk their necks doing your dirty work for you. Except most of those hirelings
have family. I wouldn't count on all of them staying "loyal."
It doesn't surprise me that you've worked for the state your entire career, that is, been a career statist, Mike. That much is evident from your attitudes. So I guess you haven't dealt all that much with free men who earn their own keep without relying on plundering the productive sector--perhaps you even had power to deny permits--that kind of stuff--make the rabble jump through your hoops, rather than be a public servant.
Free people don't need your permission to keep and bear arms, Mike. If you try to act like they do, you'll be in for a rude awakening.
[Via Alphecca]
Ryan Horsley Video Interview
WarOnGuns has talked about the deficiencies in reporting on Red's Trading Post by High Country Times, first in the "Guns R Us" piece, and then in the "Ready, Aim, Compromise" editorial.
By contrast, their video interview comes off as balanced--it's easy to see why Ryan Horsley would feel a reporter asking such questions in such a manner would be sympathetic, and Ryan comes across more than anything else as a decent man.
One thing struck me as particularly ironic, and it didn't happen until the last few seconds of the last video segment, "Ryan Horsley on the 2nd Amendment." I recalled that the interviewer and reporter, Ray Ring, made a specific point in his story of telling readers that JPFO's "The Gang" video "includes no substantial interviews with ATF staffers."
Well, gee, Mr. Ring. Based on your admission that "The feds have been characteristically tight-lipped about their enforcement actions," I wonder why, particularly considering the last frame of your video interview:
By contrast, their video interview comes off as balanced--it's easy to see why Ryan Horsley would feel a reporter asking such questions in such a manner would be sympathetic, and Ryan comes across more than anything else as a decent man.
One thing struck me as particularly ironic, and it didn't happen until the last few seconds of the last video segment, "Ryan Horsley on the 2nd Amendment." I recalled that the interviewer and reporter, Ray Ring, made a specific point in his story of telling readers that JPFO's "The Gang" video "includes no substantial interviews with ATF staffers."
Well, gee, Mr. Ring. Based on your admission that "The feds have been characteristically tight-lipped about their enforcement actions," I wonder why, particularly considering the last frame of your video interview:
Kennesaw Agrees to Consider Repealing Gun Ban
From Matt Knighten:
Yes, that Kennesaw, Gun Town USA has an ordinance that bans the carry of firearms in city parks (even those legally carried by license individuals). Though the state has a law preempting it, they have agreed to "consider" repealing the ban. Actually, that is what the AJC says. The letter from the city attorney to GCO says they have agreed period.
The AJC has most of the story. http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/08/09/guns_0810.htmlLetter from the City attorneys is found on this page: http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/2007/08/07/kennesaw-agrees-to-repeal-parks-ban/
Also, to put it in perspective, here is a link to GA's preemption law 16-11-173 http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=11§ion=173
In light of all that, notice that in the AJC article that the county of Coweta (which has a similar ordinance) is fighting GeorgiaCarry over it. They have even one the first court case. GCO is who is appealing to the GA Appeals Court. If you want to read more about that, you can read our updates about it http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/category/action-items/coweta-county-preemption/
and/or if you feel like reading the court/lawsuit related documents http://www.georgiacarry.com/county/coweta_parks
Matt Knighten
Owner GeorgiaPacking.org
Secretary and Member of the Board GeorgiaCarry.org
"Y" and "N"
Here are some questions I'd like to see put to BATFU DIO Richard Van Loan under oath:
Q: Form 4473 states that "The information you provide will be used to determine whether you are prohibited under law from receiving a firearm." Is any other purpose for completing it stated on the form?
Q: You cite as a violation that firearm purchase forms were found that had "Y" and "N" entered instead of "Yes" and "No". What difference does that make?
Q: If the only stated intent of the form is to determine if a person is "prohibited...from receiving a firearm," can you cite one instance where a gun has been sold to such a person by a licensed dealer for no other reason than BECAUSE "Y" and "N" were accepted in lieu of "Yes" and "No"?
Q: Question 13 of Form 4473 has check boxes for "Yes", "No" and "Not Applicable". As it's not specified on the form, would an "X" instead of a check mark be a violation, and if so, has a dealer ever been found in noncompliance for accepting it? If not, we're back to the question: What difference does it make?
Q: Form 4473 states that a false statement on the form is "a crime punishable as a felony." Would a prohibited person who wrote "Y" or "N" when they should have given opposite answers be exempted from such charges? If not, what difference does it make?
Q: Is it fair to say that entering "Y" or "N" instead of "Yes" of "No" makes NO DIFFERENCE in terms of determining whether a person is "prohibited under law from receiving a firearm" or the government's ability to prosecute a person for making false statements on Form 4473? If so, hasn't the stated intent of the form been accomplished regardless of whether a letter or a word has been entered on the form?
Q: Form 4473 states that "The information you provide will be used to determine whether you are prohibited under law from receiving a firearm." Is any other purpose for completing it stated on the form?
Q: You cite as a violation that firearm purchase forms were found that had "Y" and "N" entered instead of "Yes" and "No". What difference does that make?
Q: If the only stated intent of the form is to determine if a person is "prohibited...from receiving a firearm," can you cite one instance where a gun has been sold to such a person by a licensed dealer for no other reason than BECAUSE "Y" and "N" were accepted in lieu of "Yes" and "No"?
Q: Question 13 of Form 4473 has check boxes for "Yes", "No" and "Not Applicable". As it's not specified on the form, would an "X" instead of a check mark be a violation, and if so, has a dealer ever been found in noncompliance for accepting it? If not, we're back to the question: What difference does it make?
Q: Form 4473 states that a false statement on the form is "a crime punishable as a felony." Would a prohibited person who wrote "Y" or "N" when they should have given opposite answers be exempted from such charges? If not, what difference does it make?
Q: Is it fair to say that entering "Y" or "N" instead of "Yes" of "No" makes NO DIFFERENCE in terms of determining whether a person is "prohibited under law from receiving a firearm" or the government's ability to prosecute a person for making false statements on Form 4473? If so, hasn't the stated intent of the form been accomplished regardless of whether a letter or a word has been entered on the form?
Overlooking the Obvious
This feeble comparison overlooks the obvious: There is no constitutional right to dress as you please, or to sell cookies at work.
My point here is not to engage in the property rights vs gun rights debate--it's to return to a point I've tried to make again and again, yet some of our "conservative" leaders just won't get it.
The Constitution was never intended to define all of our rights. Workplace dress codes and charitable solicitations on company premises have everything to do with voluntary agreements and nothing to do with government infringements of rights.
This Day in History: August 10
On August 10, 1776, seven months after being elected Governor, Archibald Bulloch read a copy of the Declaration of Independence to the council members of Savannah , Georgia . Afterward, he read the Declaration to an audience at the public square. After reading it for a third time at the Liberty Pole, the Declaration of Independence was praised for its importance by thirteen thunderous rounds from a canon. Every since that historic event, residents of Bulloch County have celebrated "Archibald Bulloch Day" on August 10 th .
Thursday, August 09, 2007
One Nation, Under Gun
From Wolfesblog:
AMAZING. Newsweek has published a photo essay of gun owners and they are all normal people. No demonizing, no snide remarks, just photos of average people who take personal responsibility for protecting themselves and their families.
If You Can't Beat 'em, Smear 'em
"All of these facts undermine Respondent's claim that Petitioner was out to 'intimidate and harass' the inspectors," the filing said. "It is equally as likely that Respondents decided to exaggerate innocuous circumstances to justify terminating an inspection that was not finding any regulatory violations or breaches of the Court's order."
Yeah, that and lie.
[More about Red's Trading Post from WarOnGuns]
Reasonable Compromise
The following comment appears after the article. Not sure why they ID'd me as "Anonymous," since I submitted my name and got back an email from their News Editor thanking me for my comments. I noticed the links didn't translate into their form either.
John, it's real easy to call for "compromise" in a generalized way and expect to come off sounding like you're "reasonable".
Maybe if you'd define some of the specific compromises you'd like to see, we could let you know if we agree.
How does John Mecklin define "reasoned common ground"? And how can we "collaborate" with people who--despite your and Ray Ring's apparent beliefs that they can be sated, do indeed want to disarm us?
Conspiracy hysteria? Hardly. Don't take it from me, take it straight from the sources, compiled and verified by Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law, UCLA Law School, including:
"1. Quotes from gun control proponents praising the slippery slope, and urging mild restrictions as steps toward a total ban.
"2. Citations to laws that in fact ban all guns or all handguns.
"3. Quotes from politicians urging gun bans.
"4. Quotes from leading media figures and institutions urging gun bans.
"5. Quotes from advocacy groups urging gun bans."
(See: http://www.gunscholar.org/gunban.htm)
Why not write another opinion piece? Let us know how you intend to find a solution to such a seemingly "intractable" agenda through "compromise".
Those of us who believe in reasoned discourse can't wait to hear your proposals.
The Baltimore Social Registry
A Baltimore City Council committee has approved Mayor Sheila Dixon's proposal for a public gun crime registry -- similar to sex offender registries....
Gun offenders who fail to register could face jail time.
The term "gun offenders," of course, includes those who are caught with the means of defense on hand because they fear for their lives. As for those who commit violent crimes, one can only wonder why most of them are living among us in the first place, and how many of the remainder are already registered with parole officers...
And, of course, no murders will be prevented. And of those that are solved, how many does anyone honestly think will be because of this stupid list?
But it gets herhonor's name in the paper, and she can brag to her willing dupes in "the community" how she's protecting them. This is just another small step in the agenda of portraying all gun owners as seedy, as perverse, as less than righteous human beings, as...vermin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)