[T]he president has the power to order the open-ended detention of anyone he designates an "enemy combatant." [More]What, you mean like "Homegrown Terrorists"?
[Via Ron W]
Monday, March 09, 2009
Anyone
[Via Ron W]
Random Political Thoughts
I'm not going to link to specific individuals here. That said, there are certain conclusions being promulgated that could use a counterbalance. Just because assertions are made doesn't mean they're true.
We're told what a great victory NRA holding up the DC vote bill based on the gun amendment is--what clout it shows they still have. First, it ain't a done deal. Second the DC representation bill is unconstitutional. It's defenders, though, are OK with that because that's how politics must be played.
I've never been big on you must destroy something to save it. And if we somehow do "win," the trade-off will be another socialist gain at the nationwide level (the Utah concession will not be a complete counterbalance, because they embrace plenty of leftist nonsense, too) while something already in the judicial pipeline will be implemented over a relatively small population--and most of them don't want it anyway.
We're also told that political capital is justified here, but not in the case of Eric Holder because he never had a chance. We'll never know, though, what would have happened had Senators been told they would not get a pass, and had a membership of millions been mobilized. Perhaps if the statement were revised to say the Holder confirmation never had a chance because of lack of leadership and excuse-making for it...
We're also told that Kirsten Gillibrand's turning is the fault of her critics--that instead, we should have sent her money or something. Good grief.
And finally, I would like to address NRA Board of Director nominations. We're told direct questions designed to evoke unequivocal answers about where they stand on RKBA/SNBI will not be asked because they are not politically effective.
I'll say this much--of the nominees I am seeing endorsed, one publicly dismissed hard liners to the LA Times as "those people" (as in "I would not consider those people mainstream America"), and the gun he was lobbying to defend ended up banned. Perhaps publicly referring to it as "toy" and talking about "our fine hobby" was perceived as more politically effective than speaking of unalienable rights? You sure can't tell by the results.
Another of the nominees has publicly stated he would arrest an otherwise peaceable person who he discovered was carrying concealed without a permit. One can only wonder if he would do this on an individual level what his professional response to a general confiscation order would be.
You'll get no NRA Director endorsement from me until my questions are answered--properly. Electing people who are not afraid to publicly and specifically declare their principles along these lines is the only thing that will bring real change to the board. Which means the apologists have "won" and the status quo will continue.
And we'll continue to enjoy the same political effectiveness that brought us Barack Obama and a democrat sweep of both houses.
You go ahead and listen to those fellows who disagree with me if you want--you'll hardly be alone. I don't expect more than a small percentage of gun owners to agree with me on any given day anyway. As an aside, of those who do, some of you are my best teachers. Thank you.
We're told what a great victory NRA holding up the DC vote bill based on the gun amendment is--what clout it shows they still have. First, it ain't a done deal. Second the DC representation bill is unconstitutional. It's defenders, though, are OK with that because that's how politics must be played.
I've never been big on you must destroy something to save it. And if we somehow do "win," the trade-off will be another socialist gain at the nationwide level (the Utah concession will not be a complete counterbalance, because they embrace plenty of leftist nonsense, too) while something already in the judicial pipeline will be implemented over a relatively small population--and most of them don't want it anyway.
We're also told that political capital is justified here, but not in the case of Eric Holder because he never had a chance. We'll never know, though, what would have happened had Senators been told they would not get a pass, and had a membership of millions been mobilized. Perhaps if the statement were revised to say the Holder confirmation never had a chance because of lack of leadership and excuse-making for it...
We're also told that Kirsten Gillibrand's turning is the fault of her critics--that instead, we should have sent her money or something. Good grief.
And finally, I would like to address NRA Board of Director nominations. We're told direct questions designed to evoke unequivocal answers about where they stand on RKBA/SNBI will not be asked because they are not politically effective.
I'll say this much--of the nominees I am seeing endorsed, one publicly dismissed hard liners to the LA Times as "those people" (as in "I would not consider those people mainstream America"), and the gun he was lobbying to defend ended up banned. Perhaps publicly referring to it as "toy" and talking about "our fine hobby" was perceived as more politically effective than speaking of unalienable rights? You sure can't tell by the results.
Another of the nominees has publicly stated he would arrest an otherwise peaceable person who he discovered was carrying concealed without a permit. One can only wonder if he would do this on an individual level what his professional response to a general confiscation order would be.
You'll get no NRA Director endorsement from me until my questions are answered--properly. Electing people who are not afraid to publicly and specifically declare their principles along these lines is the only thing that will bring real change to the board. Which means the apologists have "won" and the status quo will continue.
And we'll continue to enjoy the same political effectiveness that brought us Barack Obama and a democrat sweep of both houses.
You go ahead and listen to those fellows who disagree with me if you want--you'll hardly be alone. I don't expect more than a small percentage of gun owners to agree with me on any given day anyway. As an aside, of those who do, some of you are my best teachers. Thank you.
Wee Republic
If you cannot discuss racism on a conservative message board where can you discuss it? [More]Apparently, this is too much for them.
We're the Only Ones Pre-Qualified Enough
A man suspected of robbing a California store has landed in custody after turning up to take a police entrance examination in the same town. [More]Sounds like he's got a practical life experience leg up on some "Only One" applicants.
[Via Mama Liberty]
Self Defense
Without guns, of course.
the pistolero is right to be thoroughly disgusted.
Hey, if it's good enough for Rihanna...
the pistolero is right to be thoroughly disgusted.
Hey, if it's good enough for Rihanna...
"Obama or Die"
Check out Obama supporter Chris Brown.
Chris, dude: That's a serious message. If you got rid of the "or" it would probably be a crime.
And here's Chris Brown's sweetie, Rihanna. Hey, he's not going to tell her again.
What could the poor girl have done to protect herself? Ah--one problem: Chris Brown's main man--the one with an armed-to-the-teeth taxpayer-funded Praetorian Guard-- doesn't think people should be carrying guns around. He says "that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."
That more guilty people might get shot did not factor into the discussion.
But that's OK. Rihanna loves Obama too.
And she might even take Chris back, because he showered her with gifts for her 21st birthday...
Gee, I hope nobody thinks I'm insensitive if I bring up the subject of poor individual choices, or observe that some people apparently have a sick need to be dominated...
It's because of them that you and I must disarm. Or something.
Hey: Obama and d... uh, sorry...or die!
Chris, dude: That's a serious message. If you got rid of the "or" it would probably be a crime.
And here's Chris Brown's sweetie, Rihanna. Hey, he's not going to tell her again.
What could the poor girl have done to protect herself? Ah--one problem: Chris Brown's main man--the one with an armed-to-the-teeth taxpayer-funded Praetorian Guard-- doesn't think people should be carrying guns around. He says "that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."
That more guilty people might get shot did not factor into the discussion.
But that's OK. Rihanna loves Obama too.
And she might even take Chris back, because he showered her with gifts for her 21st birthday...
Gee, I hope nobody thinks I'm insensitive if I bring up the subject of poor individual choices, or observe that some people apparently have a sick need to be dominated...
It's because of them that you and I must disarm. Or something.
Hey: Obama and d... uh, sorry...or die!
A Massachusetts Sovereign
Ron Bokleman, President of of Norfolk County League of Sportsmen has submitted for consideration a State sovereignty resolution for Massachusetts which has been filed by Rep. Elizabeth Poirier. You can read the resolution and about it from this starting point.
Bokleman provides clarification on why he's doing this and what he hopes to accomplish in a follow-up article. I bring it to your attention for a reason: I want you to read it.
Bokleman provides clarification on why he's doing this and what he hopes to accomplish in a follow-up article. I bring it to your attention for a reason: I want you to read it.
"We Will Not Obey"
We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people...That's probably for the best, since we will not comply with those orders...
From Oath Keepers. [More]
Tyranny is Counting on Ignorance
This is the American electorate. These are the people who cancel and overwhelm your vote. [More]Today's Gun Rights Examiner column spotlights the Heirs of Liberty, aka "The New Eloi."
Also see important developments in Massachusetts and South Dakota, and read the latest from my fellow GREs.
This Day in History: March 9
Though I Never Wish to Complain I cant help The Disagreeable feelings So Common to mankind when they find themselves Slighted & Neglected. When I had Compleated the Disagreeable retreat from Canada I was Superseaded with Circumstances of Indignity Since which & before Every Major General Except myself have had the Honor of Commanding posts Separated from the Main Army. [More]
Sunday, March 08, 2009
March 1959 Guns Magazine is Now Online
It is once again my pleasure to bring to Gun Rights Examiner readers a special treat. I've told you before how Guns Magazine, where I write the monthly "Rights Watch" column, posts their issue from 50 years ago on their website.
Here's the March 1959 issue, available as a free download. [More]
You owe it to yourself to check this out. You owe it to your friends to tell them about it.
Also get the latest from my fellow GREs...
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Patches, I'm Dependin' on You, Son...*
"Fortune favors the bold," and you'll look both bold and fortunate if you're bold enough to wear this and fortunate enough to get one.Not quite the advertising spiel that'll sell millions of these?
S'OK--if , say, 3% of you reading this post order one, they'll be doing fine.
Show your proud affiliation and get what's sure to be a post-SHTF collectible. And I think I'll use this opportunity to coin a new term:
Threeperwear.
Go to WRSA to find out how you can show your membership in the Merry Band--sure to make you stand out in any surveillance. I intend to wear mine.
Oh, and what's this all for? Well, Random House isn't exactly beating down doors to publish "Absolved," and a book tour is something that needs to happen. Those of you who want to see this effort succeed--and who want to look smart in the field while it does--should need no further motivation.
Here's how to order.
* And I do apologize, but c'mon--it takes place in Alabama.
"Principles" Essential but Insufficient
The following is an email from "WD," a contributor to a small group I correspond with. He has given me permission to post it here. It is a constructive critique of the "Oath Keepers principles" we linked to the other day.
One of the aspects of our national and cultural institutions that troubles me is the shallowness of our shared social compact. The DOI principles elicited are not adequate to define the unique nature of our political and governing institutions which combine a multi-tiered republican social compact, the principles of British constitutionalism and the underpinnings of Natural Law (“Ordained by their Creator…”).Mike Vanderboegh has more thought-provoking commentary springing from these correspondences.
The fundamental problem in our country today is that no-one has a common [shared] sense of what undergirds the DOI principles, therefore, everyone is free to ‘interpret’ them as they see fit – including justification for the tyranny of simple majority rule (direct or representative). County counsel shut down your business - it is legal. State seize your property for failure to pay ever-increasing property taxes – it is legal. Federal BLM administrative rules change such that you cannot ranch on land you’ve held for three generations – times have changed. Your property needed for a World Biosphere or new city greenway or that big supporter property developer’s new project – oh well, should have thought of that when you voted for the losers last election.
There are limits; limits prescribed by natural law.
This idea is missing…
Else, our adherence to the tired shibboleths of the 2nd Amendment, in the face of massive public opposition and “reasonable restrictions and compromises” becomes nothing but outworn obstinacy in the face of manifest, majority “consent of the governed”…
"No Guns for Negroes"
Aaron Zelman, Executive Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, has been at the leading edge of creative gun rights advocacy since he first became prominent in the movement in the mid-Eighties. He's working on a new project that takes the gloves off. [More]Today's Gun Rights Examiner column shows us a guy who knows how to play hardball. Please share this with your friends, because he could use some teammates, and this tells them how to sign up.
This Day in History: March 7
How may possibly attempt this Town, and a Pack of sordid Scoundrels male and female, seem to have prepared their Minds and Bodies, Houses and Cellars for his Reception: but these are few, and more despicable in Character than Number. America will loose nothing, by Hows gaining this Town. No such Panick will be spread by it, now as was spread by the Expectation of it in December. [More]
Friday, March 06, 2009
We're the Only Ones Sic 'em Enough
A man who was taking the garbage out at his job and was suddenly attacked by a Cookeville Police dog last year has filed a $2 million lawsuit against the police department. [More]But isn't that the kind of training and response we've come to expect from the "Only Ones"?
Me, I say the guy's lucky he wasn't charged with felony assaulting an officer and resisting arrest.
[Via Carl S]
We're the Only Ones Strictly Enforcing Enough
MARTA police will strictly enforce all provisions of the law, the transit agency said. [More]Even if it means enforcing non-existing laws for which they have no legal authority. And violating existing laws to do it.
Say, can I ignore real laws and make up my own and strictly enforce them too? Or is that the sole province of the "Only Ones"?
[Via GeorgiaCarry.org]
Why We Need to Disarm You and Me
Crawford served almost five years in prison for voluntary manslaughter, according to prison records. He was released in 2000, returned to prison on a felonious assault conviction and released again in 2007. [More]And she marries him.
Nope, no consequences for poor choices here at all.
If only we had gun control.
[Via Kurt Hofmann]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)