"Wal-Mart brings back gun sales"
The re-normalization of lawful firearm ownership and carry in America continues.
We are by no means fans of the company, but on this issue we applaud their decision to again provide their customers with the goods they wish to purchase.
Fortunately for people such as Sarah Brady and Paul Helmke, who still claim with a straight face that they are making progress towards their ultimate goal of disarming the American peasant, the retail emporium also stocks vast quantities of Tums and milk of magnesia.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
You give up your rights first, Senator
New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg, along with a few other members of Congress, wants to make it illegal for people placed on a top-secret document known as the "terror watch list" to buy or possess firearms.
That sounds pretty reasonable on the surface, at least until one realizes that
1. Such people haven't even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one.
2. The government won't list the criteria they use for putting someone on that watch list, what happens to the people so labeled or the process by which an innocent person placed on it by mistake might get off it.
3. There apparently hasn't been a single incident of such a listed person buying a firearm and then using it even in a garden-variety criminal act, much less a "terror" incident:
"There is no public information about anyone on the watch list who was allowed to buy a firearm using it in a crime."
4. Finally (and most importantly), does anyone else have a problem with a government official having the sole power to arbitrarily designate, using a secret process unknown to just about everyone, a person as a "terror suspect" in order to deny them their Constitutional rights without any due process whatsoever? What about denying them free speech? Indefinite detention without charges being filed? Cruel and unusual punishment to obtain information about terror plots? Under this argument, those steps would be perfectly OK as well.
"'This is a homeland security issue, not a gun issue, and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to stop a terrorist from buying a dangerous weapon in the United States,' Lautenberg told the AP."
No reason except the Constitution, thankfully, which prevents overweening bureaucrats and politicians from imposing their unlawful will on the peasants under the guise of "homeland security" and "it's really for your benefit so shut up and submit to whatever we want you to".
Lautenberg would have been a model apparatchik in the old Soviet Union.
That sounds pretty reasonable on the surface, at least until one realizes that
1. Such people haven't even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one.
2. The government won't list the criteria they use for putting someone on that watch list, what happens to the people so labeled or the process by which an innocent person placed on it by mistake might get off it.
3. There apparently hasn't been a single incident of such a listed person buying a firearm and then using it even in a garden-variety criminal act, much less a "terror" incident:
"There is no public information about anyone on the watch list who was allowed to buy a firearm using it in a crime."
4. Finally (and most importantly), does anyone else have a problem with a government official having the sole power to arbitrarily designate, using a secret process unknown to just about everyone, a person as a "terror suspect" in order to deny them their Constitutional rights without any due process whatsoever? What about denying them free speech? Indefinite detention without charges being filed? Cruel and unusual punishment to obtain information about terror plots? Under this argument, those steps would be perfectly OK as well.
"'This is a homeland security issue, not a gun issue, and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to stop a terrorist from buying a dangerous weapon in the United States,' Lautenberg told the AP."
No reason except the Constitution, thankfully, which prevents overweening bureaucrats and politicians from imposing their unlawful will on the peasants under the guise of "homeland security" and "it's really for your benefit so shut up and submit to whatever we want you to".
Lautenberg would have been a model apparatchik in the old Soviet Union.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week, Bonus Edition...
... are the Broward County, Florida sheriff's deputies who, while responding to a suspected burglary call on Easter Sunday, managed to raid the wrong house and in doing so ended up holding several middle-aged pajama-clad people at gunpoint until the cops realized their mistake.
This sort of careless police error happens all the time without notice. What makes this one newsworthy? Because one of the people who had guns so cavalierly pointed at them happened to be Broward County Circuit Court Judge Ilona Holmes, someone those officers presumably should have recognized at once.
Oops. Good luck getting a search warrant from her approved anytime soon, fellows.
Holmes's sister, who owns the home in question, reports that the deputies didn't even bother to apologize for the address mixup, much less their heavy-handed treatment of the family, which certainly qualifies them for this week's award:
"But Carmita [Scarlett] was downright angry. Remember the man outside her kitchen window who pointed a gun at her? Still wearing her pajamas and footies, she approached him afterward. 'I said ‘you had a gun pointed at me!’ He said ‘because I felt threatened.’ I said ‘threatened how?''
This sort of careless police error happens all the time without notice. What makes this one newsworthy? Because one of the people who had guns so cavalierly pointed at them happened to be Broward County Circuit Court Judge Ilona Holmes, someone those officers presumably should have recognized at once.
Oops. Good luck getting a search warrant from her approved anytime soon, fellows.
Holmes's sister, who owns the home in question, reports that the deputies didn't even bother to apologize for the address mixup, much less their heavy-handed treatment of the family, which certainly qualifies them for this week's award:
"But Carmita [Scarlett] was downright angry. Remember the man outside her kitchen window who pointed a gun at her? Still wearing her pajamas and footies, she approached him afterward. 'I said ‘you had a gun pointed at me!’ He said ‘because I felt threatened.’ I said ‘threatened how?''
She said other officers explained to her that they have families, too, and they want to make it home alive each night. But she says they did so in a condescending way, lecturing her as if she’d done something wrong.
'I know no one apologized, OK? And, to me, if you want to make amends for something, you want to make peace, you apologize, you shake, you leave, you say ‘I'm sorry,'' she said. 'And, you know, the cop that had his gun on me, he said ‘well, I was fearing for my life.’ I said ‘really! You were fearing for your life? Really?’ He said ‘forget it - I'm out of here.''"
It's amazing how far a simple apology will go in settling such situations, and it's even more amazing how few times one is offered when it is legitimately owed.
It's about time
After spending about four years and over two million dollars in legal fees fighting legitimate requests to do so, Dear Leader finally releases his long-form birth certificate, presumably in response to recent overwhelming bad press over the issue precipitated by Donald Trump.
Now was that so hard?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
They're blaming the wrong people
"CBS News has learned that the Mexican Government has retained an American law firm to explore filing civil charges against U.S. gun manufacturers and distributors over the flood of guns crossing the border into Mexico."
May we politely suggest that Mexico instead redirect its ire to those who have actually been proven directly responsible for allowing thousands of firearms to be hand-delivered to that country's criminal element?
May we politely suggest that Mexico instead redirect its ire to those who have actually been proven directly responsible for allowing thousands of firearms to be hand-delivered to that country's criminal element?
The bubble-wrapping of America's kids continues
Presenting the no-hit pinata.
Because, as one clueless helicopter parent who is dead-set against her precious little snowflakes having any kind of fun puts it, "Children should never hit anything with a stick."
Where did it all go wrong?
Because, as one clueless helicopter parent who is dead-set against her precious little snowflakes having any kind of fun puts it, "Children should never hit anything with a stick."
Where did it all go wrong?
The Jack-Booted Thug of the Week...
... is Las Vegas, Nevada police officer Derek Colling, who assaulted local resident Mitchell Crooks (breaking his nose in the process) for Crooks's terrible offense of filming Colling's public arrest of some juvenile burglary suspects, all while standing in his own driveway:
Crooks was arrested and charged with battery on a police officer and obstruction of justice, allegations that were quickly dropped by prosecutors once the video footage from the camera made it plainly obvious that "Officer" Colling had lied through his teeth about the circumstances of the incident, and that it was in fact Crooks who had been battered and obstructed, along with having his civil rights violated.
Crooks has filed a $500,000 notice of claim against the department. Colling, of course, remains on duty and is presumably free to keep violating with impunity the rights of law-abiding citizens, at least until the LVMPD internal investigation into his abusive behavior is completed.
Incidents such as these are exactly why photographers such as Crooks and Carlos Miller routinely risk personal injury and jail time defending the right of a law-abiding and non-interfering citizenry to photograph whatever they wish in public.
Public officials going about their duties on public property have no expectation of privacy (in the very same way we peasants are told we don't either as we go about our business), and it's about time some of the denser ones learned that fact.
Crooks was arrested and charged with battery on a police officer and obstruction of justice, allegations that were quickly dropped by prosecutors once the video footage from the camera made it plainly obvious that "Officer" Colling had lied through his teeth about the circumstances of the incident, and that it was in fact Crooks who had been battered and obstructed, along with having his civil rights violated.
Crooks has filed a $500,000 notice of claim against the department. Colling, of course, remains on duty and is presumably free to keep violating with impunity the rights of law-abiding citizens, at least until the LVMPD internal investigation into his abusive behavior is completed.
Incidents such as these are exactly why photographers such as Crooks and Carlos Miller routinely risk personal injury and jail time defending the right of a law-abiding and non-interfering citizenry to photograph whatever they wish in public.
Public officials going about their duties on public property have no expectation of privacy (in the very same way we peasants are told we don't either as we go about our business), and it's about time some of the denser ones learned that fact.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Only in Britain
Trash collectors in Stockport, England refused to empty 74-year-old grandmother Kay McIntyre's compost waste bin after she and her grandson filled it with weeds from her garden because "they claimed the plants had too much mud stuck to their roots."
Ms McIntyre filed an official complaint over the incident, and in response a low-level bureaucratic functionary actually showed up and dug through her bin to verify that the dirt-to-weed ratio was within acceptable parameters (which it indeed was).
It must be so heartening for those British subjects to learn the insane lengths to which their government is going to ensure their "health and safety".
By the way, here's the entire trash sorting process for that particular town:
"In addition to their green bin for garden and food waste, householders in Stockport are issued with a blue bin for paper and card, a brown bin for plastic bottles, glass and cans, and a black one for everything else."
4 large wheeled bins for every household. How efficient (and attractive).
Ms McIntyre filed an official complaint over the incident, and in response a low-level bureaucratic functionary actually showed up and dug through her bin to verify that the dirt-to-weed ratio was within acceptable parameters (which it indeed was).
It must be so heartening for those British subjects to learn the insane lengths to which their government is going to ensure their "health and safety".
By the way, here's the entire trash sorting process for that particular town:
"In addition to their green bin for garden and food waste, householders in Stockport are issued with a blue bin for paper and card, a brown bin for plastic bottles, glass and cans, and a black one for everything else."
4 large wheeled bins for every household. How efficient (and attractive).
Of particular interest to Minnesota residents
Minnesota Republican State Representative Tony Cornish (who is also police chief of the city of Lake Crystal, so he has a good working knowledge of public safety issues) has introduced a bill that will update and greatly improve the ability of Minnesota residents to carry and use firearms in defense of themselves and others.
Some of the provisions of Cornish's bill include:
1. Allowing law-abiding residents to "stand their ground" when attacked by violent criminals by removing the requirement that such victims must attempt to retreat before using deadly force in defense of themselves or others. Far from being controversial, this would bring Minnesota into line with the majority of states.
2. Strengthening the "Castle Doctrine" by creating a presumption that a law-abiding resident may legally use deadly force to counter an invasion of their home or vehicle by an unwanted intruder.
3. Preventing law enforcement from confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens, closing gun stores or revoking carry permits during a Hurricane Katrina-like civil emergency.
4. Adding universal reciprocity with other states, so that anyone possessing a valid carry permit from another state may lawfully carry a handgun in Minnesota (subject to Minnesota carry rules and regulations, of course). This will have the added effect of more easily fostering reciprocity with other states, greatly increasing the number that Minnesotans will be allowed to carry in under their home permit.
This is a solid bill authored by a good, service-oriented cop who understands and appreciates the right of citizens to defend themselves from threats to their safety. All freedom-minded Minnesota residents should immediately contact their senators and representatives (info at the above link) to urge that it be passed as is. They should also consider joining GOCRA, (the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance), the organization that worked with Cornish in crafting this legislation.
For those who desire more information, GOCRA VP Andrew Rothman will be talking about the bill tonight on The Late Debate with Jack & Ben from 10 to midnight on WLKX-FM (95.9 FM). The podcast, for those not in the local listening area, will be available here.
Some of the provisions of Cornish's bill include:
1. Allowing law-abiding residents to "stand their ground" when attacked by violent criminals by removing the requirement that such victims must attempt to retreat before using deadly force in defense of themselves or others. Far from being controversial, this would bring Minnesota into line with the majority of states.
2. Strengthening the "Castle Doctrine" by creating a presumption that a law-abiding resident may legally use deadly force to counter an invasion of their home or vehicle by an unwanted intruder.
3. Preventing law enforcement from confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens, closing gun stores or revoking carry permits during a Hurricane Katrina-like civil emergency.
4. Adding universal reciprocity with other states, so that anyone possessing a valid carry permit from another state may lawfully carry a handgun in Minnesota (subject to Minnesota carry rules and regulations, of course). This will have the added effect of more easily fostering reciprocity with other states, greatly increasing the number that Minnesotans will be allowed to carry in under their home permit.
This is a solid bill authored by a good, service-oriented cop who understands and appreciates the right of citizens to defend themselves from threats to their safety. All freedom-minded Minnesota residents should immediately contact their senators and representatives (info at the above link) to urge that it be passed as is. They should also consider joining GOCRA, (the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance), the organization that worked with Cornish in crafting this legislation.
For those who desire more information, GOCRA VP Andrew Rothman will be talking about the bill tonight on The Late Debate with Jack & Ben from 10 to midnight on WLKX-FM (95.9 FM). The podcast, for those not in the local listening area, will be available here.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Off topic but interesting, at least to me
Comedy gold. This one's a must-see.
UPDATE: Embed not working. Here's the direct link to the video. You won't be sorry.
UPDATE: Embed not working. Here's the direct link to the video. You won't be sorry.
Anatomy of a political failure
The Washington Post has published a detailed post-mortem examining the factors behind Dear Leader's failed campaign promise to close the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay within one year of his inauguration. The paper's findings don't look good for the Commander-in-Chief, to say the least:
"For more than two years, the White House’s plans had been undermined by political miscalculations, confusion and timidity in the face of mounting congressional opposition, according to some inside the administration as well as on Capitol Hill. Indeed, the failed effort to close Guantanamo was reflective of the aspects of Obama’s leadership style that continue to distress his liberal base — a willingness to allow room for compromise and a passivity that at times permits opponents to set the agenda."
The White House is also blaming anyone and everyone other than themselves for the outcome of this debacle, according to the story. Now that's leadership "you can believe in".
Everyone always remembers President George W. Bush's disastrous "Mission Accomplished" carrier photo-op after the Iraq invasion, but this utter farce of an ostentatiously presented executive order from President Obama (on his very first day in office, no less) curiously gets much shorter shrift, even though it was arguably just as bad of a PR blunder.
And people say there's no pervasive liberal bias amongst those in the mainstream media.
"For more than two years, the White House’s plans had been undermined by political miscalculations, confusion and timidity in the face of mounting congressional opposition, according to some inside the administration as well as on Capitol Hill. Indeed, the failed effort to close Guantanamo was reflective of the aspects of Obama’s leadership style that continue to distress his liberal base — a willingness to allow room for compromise and a passivity that at times permits opponents to set the agenda."
The White House is also blaming anyone and everyone other than themselves for the outcome of this debacle, according to the story. Now that's leadership "you can believe in".
Everyone always remembers President George W. Bush's disastrous "Mission Accomplished" carrier photo-op after the Iraq invasion, but this utter farce of an ostentatiously presented executive order from President Obama (on his very first day in office, no less) curiously gets much shorter shrift, even though it was arguably just as bad of a PR blunder.
And people say there's no pervasive liberal bias amongst those in the mainstream media.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Right on target
Tam comes up with a gem of a description of our dunce of an Attorney General:
"And what does Eric Holder have to do with this? I swear, the man is increasingly proving himself incompetent to operate anything more complex than a glass of water; I wouldn't trust him with a burnt-out match, let alone a whole Justice Department. He's gotta have juicy pictures of Obama doing something awful or he'd have been under the bus long ago."
We laughed out loud.
"And what does Eric Holder have to do with this? I swear, the man is increasingly proving himself incompetent to operate anything more complex than a glass of water; I wouldn't trust him with a burnt-out match, let alone a whole Justice Department. He's gotta have juicy pictures of Obama doing something awful or he'd have been under the bus long ago."
We laughed out loud.
A Mr. Ryan J. Stephens of Mason, Ohio is challenging his misdemeanor ticket for barking at a police dog through a cruiser window. His attorney's argument is that Stephens's action was protected speech, which therefore makes unconstitutional the city ordinance under which he was charged.
The lawyer's position is most likely correct. Getting into a drunken shouting match with a canine seems not much different than having a verbal exchange with another person, and it's certainly not (yet) against the law to behave like a jackass.
The lawyer's position is most likely correct. Getting into a drunken shouting match with a canine seems not much different than having a verbal exchange with another person, and it's certainly not (yet) against the law to behave like a jackass.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Out of the mouths of demagogues
"Over the last 2 and a half years, change turned out to be tougher than we expected,"
- President Barack Obama, at a campaign fundraiser in San Francisco this morning where he was heckled by his own supporters.
Boy, those rainbow-farting unicorns are a real pain to produce, aren't they?
Dear Leader is finding out that being President is quite a bit harder than he apparently thought it was when he was merrily throwing bomb after rhetorical bomb at George W. Bush's administration during the 2008 campaign, even though he wasn't running against the former president.
We wonder if, in light of this and other similar recent events, if Mr. Obama now will be forced to revisit a few of his more fanciful promises to his growing-ever-more-restless faithful.
If so, we're sure they'll take it with the grace and class they've shown to date.
- President Barack Obama, at a campaign fundraiser in San Francisco this morning where he was heckled by his own supporters.
Boy, those rainbow-farting unicorns are a real pain to produce, aren't they?
Dear Leader is finding out that being President is quite a bit harder than he apparently thought it was when he was merrily throwing bomb after rhetorical bomb at George W. Bush's administration during the 2008 campaign, even though he wasn't running against the former president.
We wonder if, in light of this and other similar recent events, if Mr. Obama now will be forced to revisit a few of his more fanciful promises to his growing-ever-more-restless faithful.
If so, we're sure they'll take it with the grace and class they've shown to date.
The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...
... are the Michigan State Police troopers who apparently have been routinely hoovering up all of the data from the cell phones of motorists stopped for routine traffic violations in that state:
"A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections."
And what search warrant authorized such a We fail to see how getting a ticket for speeding or an improper lane change justifies such a draconian fishing expedition into someone's private business.
Furthermore, when the local ACLU made a simple records request seeking to find out more about this 4th Amendment-violating practice, the MSP responded with an outrageous demand for $544,680 in fees before they would release any information.
"'Law enforcement officers are known, on occasion, to encourage citizens to cooperate if they have nothing to hide,' ACLU staff attorney Mark P. Fancher wrote. 'No less should be expected of law enforcement, and the Michigan State Police should be willing to assuage concerns that these powerful extraction devices are being used illegally by honoring our requests for cooperation and disclosure.'"
Silly Mr. Fancher. He should know by now that there are two sets of rules - one for the "special people" and another for the rest of the unwashed peasants.
Don't make it easy on these sorts of abusive "authorities" - encrypt the data on your phones and other mobile devices. A quick Internet search will turn up software and instructions on how to easily do accomplish that task on any brand of product.
"A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections."
And what search warrant authorized such a We fail to see how getting a ticket for speeding or an improper lane change justifies such a draconian fishing expedition into someone's private business.
Furthermore, when the local ACLU made a simple records request seeking to find out more about this 4th Amendment-violating practice, the MSP responded with an outrageous demand for $544,680 in fees before they would release any information.
"'Law enforcement officers are known, on occasion, to encourage citizens to cooperate if they have nothing to hide,' ACLU staff attorney Mark P. Fancher wrote. 'No less should be expected of law enforcement, and the Michigan State Police should be willing to assuage concerns that these powerful extraction devices are being used illegally by honoring our requests for cooperation and disclosure.'"
Silly Mr. Fancher. He should know by now that there are two sets of rules - one for the "special people" and another for the rest of the unwashed peasants.
Don't make it easy on these sorts of abusive "authorities" - encrypt the data on your phones and other mobile devices. A quick Internet search will turn up software and instructions on how to easily do accomplish that task on any brand of product.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Why I carry a handgun for protection, Vol. 49
Because large swarms of feral youth can appear out of nowhere and begin attacking innocent people for no reason whatsoever even in places considered "safe", which is exactly what happened to two Delta Airlines employees riding the Atlanta MARTA train on Sunday:
"The report said one victim had a soda can smashed in his face and his wallet stolen, while the other was punched repeatedly in his face."
The kicker to this story is that MARTA has a history of harassing law-abiding gun owners using the trains (even though it is perfectly legal to do so), and has even been forced to pay damages for engaging in such unlawful behavior.
It looks like maybe the MARTA "authorities" had better start worrying more about the apparently serious gang problem on their hands instead of wasting their limited resources and manpower menacing innocent individuals who merely wish to be able to successfully defend themselves against the types of thugs currently running rampant throughout their system.
"The report said one victim had a soda can smashed in his face and his wallet stolen, while the other was punched repeatedly in his face."
The kicker to this story is that MARTA has a history of harassing law-abiding gun owners using the trains (even though it is perfectly legal to do so), and has even been forced to pay damages for engaging in such unlawful behavior.
It looks like maybe the MARTA "authorities" had better start worrying more about the apparently serious gang problem on their hands instead of wasting their limited resources and manpower menacing innocent individuals who merely wish to be able to successfully defend themselves against the types of thugs currently running rampant throughout their system.
They don't want your help
The "Reverend" Al Sharpton has signed onto Dear Leader's amnesty scheme for illegal immigrants "comprehensive immigration reform plan", no doubt dashing the hopes of those who sincerely want such a circumstance to occur.
Because, you know, nothing says mainstream success like having the cretinous Rev. Al championing your cause.
Because, you know, nothing says mainstream success like having the cretinous Rev. Al championing your cause.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Not an auspicious beginning
The incoming head of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has announced that one of her top priorities in that position will be to push legislation requiring all firearm transfers between law-abiding individuals to go through a licensed gun dealer:
"'It is outrageous that gun buyers evade the background check system every day, even in broad daylight,' Wasserman Schultz said Monday at a gun reform rally in Miami sponsored by Mayors Against Illegal Guns."
Nobody's evading anything, ma'am. Law-abiding people exercising their Second Amendment right to purchase, own and carry a firearm without first having to beg the government for permission aren't criminals, as much as you would like to make them out to be.
And just why does Ms. Wasserman Schultz wish to impose this sort of burdensome process on the peasantry?
"The issue of gun reform rose in prominence in January after a shooting rampage in Tucson left six people dead and 13 others injured, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), a close friend to Wasserman Schultz.
The suspect arrested in the shootings, Jared Lee Loughner, had been expelled from community college for disturbing behavior and denied entrance to the military for a history of drug abuse. Yet he was able to buy a firearm and high-capacity ammunition magazines from local, licensed gun dealers." (Emphasis ours)
So an unlicensed transaction wasn't at all to blame for this incident, but to prevent a repeat of the tragedy we must get rid of unlicensed transactions.
We're sure that argument makes perfect sense to someone besides Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We wish her luck finding those few individuals.
"'It is outrageous that gun buyers evade the background check system every day, even in broad daylight,' Wasserman Schultz said Monday at a gun reform rally in Miami sponsored by Mayors Against Illegal Guns."
Nobody's evading anything, ma'am. Law-abiding people exercising their Second Amendment right to purchase, own and carry a firearm without first having to beg the government for permission aren't criminals, as much as you would like to make them out to be.
And just why does Ms. Wasserman Schultz wish to impose this sort of burdensome process on the peasantry?
"The issue of gun reform rose in prominence in January after a shooting rampage in Tucson left six people dead and 13 others injured, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), a close friend to Wasserman Schultz.
The suspect arrested in the shootings, Jared Lee Loughner, had been expelled from community college for disturbing behavior and denied entrance to the military for a history of drug abuse. Yet he was able to buy a firearm and high-capacity ammunition magazines from local, licensed gun dealers." (Emphasis ours)
So an unlicensed transaction wasn't at all to blame for this incident, but to prevent a repeat of the tragedy we must get rid of unlicensed transactions.
We're sure that argument makes perfect sense to someone besides Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We wish her luck finding those few individuals.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Off topic but interesting, at least to me
Sophie Tesch has written a great piece on a subject with which we're all too familiar. If you want to better understand an issue that plagues yet ironically motivates many of us writers then head on over and check it out.
The terrorist problem must be under control
(FullTiltPoker.com's current home page)
The FBI has seized the domains of three legitimate online poker sites, even though they are headquartered and operated overseas (Ireland, in the case of FullTiltPoker) and thus presumably not subject to the patently unenforceable 2006 law making it illegal for Americans to gamble online.
Well, we'll certainly sleep better knowing that Grandma or Uncle Ted can't wager a few bucks on a couple of hands of Texas Hold 'Em before bed this evening.
We do not choose to gamble ourselves (other than the occasional ten-spot in a slot machine when we find ourselves bored in Vegas), but we fail to see the harm in letting people decide what to do with their own money, particularly when it comes to a game that is much more about skill than chance.
When will our government finally learn from its wasted efforts on Prohibition, the War on Drugs and failed crackdowns on various forms of pornography that it simply will never be able to impose its own version of morality on a free people?
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Consider it a sacrifice fly for your benefit
Former baseball star Barry Bonds was convicted this week in federal court on a charge of obstruction of justice, not for using steroids or even for lying about using steroids but merely for giving an "evasive and rambling" answer (whatever that means) to a grand jury in response to a question from prosecutors.
(It's frightening to consider how many millions of dollars of peasant-supplied tax money were used to obtain this milestone verdict.)
Regardless of Mr. Bonds's guilt or innocence (we personally believe he was using more juice than the local smoothie place), please learn from his experience and those of others such as Martha Stewart and use your right to stay silent when being questioned in such surroundings.
Prosecutors are pretty much free to indict whomever they wish, and there usually aren't too many things anyone can do about that circumstance. One doesn't, however, have to be foolish enough to supply them with anything more to work with.
(It's frightening to consider how many millions of dollars of peasant-supplied tax money were used to obtain this milestone verdict.)
Regardless of Mr. Bonds's guilt or innocence (we personally believe he was using more juice than the local smoothie place), please learn from his experience and those of others such as Martha Stewart and use your right to stay silent when being questioned in such surroundings.
Prosecutors are pretty much free to indict whomever they wish, and there usually aren't too many things anyone can do about that circumstance. One doesn't, however, have to be foolish enough to supply them with anything more to work with.
How different Dear Leader's actions are from his solemn campaign promises
President Obama has issued some more signing statements signaling his intent to blatantly ignore certain pieces of legislation designed to rein in his dictatorial tendencies:
"In a statement issued Friday night, President Obama took issue with some provisions in the budget bill – and in one case simply says he will not abide by it."
...
"One rider – Section 2262 -- de-funds certain White House adviser positions – or “czars.” The president in his signing statement declares that he will not abide by it."
That position is certainly different from the one he vigorously espoused while a candidate for his current job, when he on several occasions roundly castigated President Bush for doing the exact same thing:
We'll say this about Dear Leader - he never lets something as minor as, oh, a centerpiece campaign promise get in the way of his overweening agenda.
The best part of that clip has got to be the prominently featured "Change we can believe in" podium sign he stands behind while delivering that bold promise to his star-struck supporters, a vow that he apparently had absolutely no intention of fulfilling.
Can someone please explain to us how engaging in the very same acts that one (rightly) condemned his predecessor for doing is considered "Change"?
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald agrees with us:
"It would be one thing if these full-scale reversals were on ancillary issues. But these are fundamental. They're about the powers of that office and the nature of our government. And Obama made these issues the centerpiece of his campaign. These campaign statements are nothing less than vows made to voters about how he would exercise the power he was seeking if they voted for him. To insist during the campaign that Presidents have no power to start wars without Congress or to ignore laws the President believes are unconstitutional -- and then do exactly that once he's been vested with that power -- is a form of fraud. "
"In a statement issued Friday night, President Obama took issue with some provisions in the budget bill – and in one case simply says he will not abide by it."
...
"One rider – Section 2262 -- de-funds certain White House adviser positions – or “czars.” The president in his signing statement declares that he will not abide by it."
That position is certainly different from the one he vigorously espoused while a candidate for his current job, when he on several occasions roundly castigated President Bush for doing the exact same thing:
We'll say this about Dear Leader - he never lets something as minor as, oh, a centerpiece campaign promise get in the way of his overweening agenda.
The best part of that clip has got to be the prominently featured "Change we can believe in" podium sign he stands behind while delivering that bold promise to his star-struck supporters, a vow that he apparently had absolutely no intention of fulfilling.
Can someone please explain to us how engaging in the very same acts that one (rightly) condemned his predecessor for doing is considered "Change"?
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald agrees with us:
"It would be one thing if these full-scale reversals were on ancillary issues. But these are fundamental. They're about the powers of that office and the nature of our government. And Obama made these issues the centerpiece of his campaign. These campaign statements are nothing less than vows made to voters about how he would exercise the power he was seeking if they voted for him. To insist during the campaign that Presidents have no power to start wars without Congress or to ignore laws the President believes are unconstitutional -- and then do exactly that once he's been vested with that power -- is a form of fraud. "
Friday, April 15, 2011
Porn for me, but not for thee
"An Indonesian lawmaker who helped pass a tough anti-pornography law resigned Monday after he got caught watching sexually explicit videos on his computer during a parliamentary debate."
Poetic.
It never fails - it's always the single-issue zealot politicians who get caught indulging in the very "sinful" vices they wish to deny the rest of the peasants.
On a similar note, that "God Hates Fags" preacher in Kansas who protests at military funerals is so far in the closet he's having adventures in Narnia.
Poetic.
It never fails - it's always the single-issue zealot politicians who get caught indulging in the very "sinful" vices they wish to deny the rest of the peasants.
On a similar note, that "God Hates Fags" preacher in Kansas who protests at military funerals is so far in the closet he's having adventures in Narnia.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...
... are the two NYPD plainclothes narcotics officers who cursed out and arrested apartment security guard Anyeris Reyes, causing her to fracture her ankle in the process, for the "crime" of not leaving her assigned post to assist them in arresting a drug suspect on the street outside her building:
"Reyes said a cop scolded her, 'You stupid b---h, why didn't you help me?'
Reyes, who says she's not allowed to leave her post, told the cop: 'I'm not a police officer, just a security guard. ... I'm not even allowed to step out of the building.'
Five minutes later, Reyes said a sergeant walked in and told her, 'Yo, b---h, get up. You're coming with us,' before cuffing her hands behind her back and placing her under arrest."
Reyes was charged with "'refusing to aid a peace or a police officer,' a class B misdemeanor", even though she is quite correct - the job of a security guard (confirmed by her boss) is to observe and report on her assigned area, not take actions that would subject her and her employer to danger and legal liability, as the arrest wasn't taking place in her building.
Since New York makes it basically impossible for private guards (or other peasants, for that matter) like Reyes to carry self-defense weapons the cops should rightly be the ones taking all the risk.
"Reyes said a cop scolded her, 'You stupid b---h, why didn't you help me?'
Reyes, who says she's not allowed to leave her post, told the cop: 'I'm not a police officer, just a security guard. ... I'm not even allowed to step out of the building.'
Five minutes later, Reyes said a sergeant walked in and told her, 'Yo, b---h, get up. You're coming with us,' before cuffing her hands behind her back and placing her under arrest."
Reyes was charged with "'refusing to aid a peace or a police officer,' a class B misdemeanor", even though she is quite correct - the job of a security guard (confirmed by her boss) is to observe and report on her assigned area, not take actions that would subject her and her employer to danger and legal liability, as the arrest wasn't taking place in her building.
Since New York makes it basically impossible for private guards (or other peasants, for that matter) like Reyes to carry self-defense weapons the cops should rightly be the ones taking all the risk.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
British "health and safety" strikes again
Some people laughably referred to as "risk assessors" in England have proposed banning fire extinguishers in common areas of apartment buildings in that country because, unbelievably (or not, this of course being Great Britain), "they are a safety hazard".
Apparently these insane Nanny-state officials want the subjects over there to merely race for the exits while wetting their pants instead of taking the responsibility of putting out minor blazes themselves before they rage out of control.
What are those peasants supposed to do if, say, such a fire happens to be blocking the only exit of a high-rise building? Put a kettle on and pray that firefighters aren't otherwise occupied?
"Dorset Fire and Rescue defended the move, saying: 'Obviously, in some cases, an extinguisher could come in useful but, with new building regulations, every escape route should be completely fireproof.'"
And the Titanic was unsinkable.
Apparently these insane Nanny-state officials want the subjects over there to merely race for the exits while wetting their pants instead of taking the responsibility of putting out minor blazes themselves before they rage out of control.
What are those peasants supposed to do if, say, such a fire happens to be blocking the only exit of a high-rise building? Put a kettle on and pray that firefighters aren't otherwise occupied?
"Dorset Fire and Rescue defended the move, saying: 'Obviously, in some cases, an extinguisher could come in useful but, with new building regulations, every escape route should be completely fireproof.'"
And the Titanic was unsinkable.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Detained by the TSA
Yesterday's adventure through the looking glass:
We arrived at Concourse E of the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport to catch our return flight to Phoenix. We placed our items in a bin on the belt as directed (phone video camera and voice recorder both turned on) and waited patiently to pass through the metal detector. At the last second before passing through we were stopped by a screener and told to proceed to the backscatter machine instead. We politely informed the screener that we chose to opt out and would prefer the pat-down instead. The screener called for assistance and directed us to a separate area.
Once at the secondary screening area, we informed the new screener that our phone camera was on and running, and would he be so kind as to reach into the bin and turn it slightly so it would record our interaction. He visibly recoiled and told us that filming in the security area was strictly prohibited. We politely told him that he was mistaken, and that the TSA explicitly does not prohibit photography in the screening areas:
"TSA does not prohibit photographs at screening locations; however, local laws, state statutes, or local ordinances may. We recommend contacting your local airport authority in advance to ensure you are familiar with their local procedures. While TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping, or filming at screening locations, TSA may ask a photographer to stop if they are interfering with the screening process or taking photos of X-ray monitor screens in a checkpoint."
We, despite being infrequent flyers, know this, so why don't the TSA employees?
Several screeners had arrived at this point and proceeded to berate us en masse for having the audacity to have a running camera in the security area. We kept calm and requested they dial the 1-800 number prominently posted on signs throughout the area so that TSA Customer Service could inform them that our activities were perfectly legal. They declined to do so.
By this time TSA Terminal Coordinator Tom Kinderknecht had arrived and again incorrectly told us that all filming by passengers is prohibited, telling us (all quotes paraphrased) that "There are already cameras all over the place recording this". We responded by saying "That's exactly our point. You have your cameras, and we have ours. Sounds fair enough to us". He apparently didn't see it our way because he then said "I'm going to ask you to please turn your camera off". We answered with "Sorry, we're not able to do that". He then said that Texas DPS was on their way, which of course was completely fine with us. At this point several suit-clad goons were hovering close by our chair, apparently as some sort of show of intimidation. This failed comically, of course.
The standoff ended after 10 or so minutes when we offered to shut the camera down so that we could be screened and not miss our flight, having felt that our point had been made. This was acceptable to Mr. Kinderknecht, and so we turned off the devices. The subsequent pat-down by Officer Burd was rapidly and competently accomplished with great professionalism on his part.
Mr. Kinderknecht then asked us if we were traveling alone, and we answered in the affirmative. He then stated that we were indeed correct about filming (so why were we detained in the first place?), but that someone else besides us (such as a companion) would have to do the recording since we wouldn't be allowed to touch our belongings during the process. We replied that of course we didn't expect to be able to hold the camera, we merely wished the screener to move it slightly to capture our pat-down. That certainly seemed a reasonable request - at least to us, a solo traveler unable to ask our companion for assistance.
We finished being screened and gathered our items together. Mr. Kinderknecht and us wished each other good day and we concluded our interaction. He even had the good nature to ask "What time is this going to be on YouTube?"
We're in the process of reviewing the footage now. Nothing is visible on the tape except the airport ceiling, and we're trying to ascertain whether or not the audio is clear enough to post. We'll have more on this when our analysis is complete.
We arrived at Concourse E of the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport to catch our return flight to Phoenix. We placed our items in a bin on the belt as directed (phone video camera and voice recorder both turned on) and waited patiently to pass through the metal detector. At the last second before passing through we were stopped by a screener and told to proceed to the backscatter machine instead. We politely informed the screener that we chose to opt out and would prefer the pat-down instead. The screener called for assistance and directed us to a separate area.
Once at the secondary screening area, we informed the new screener that our phone camera was on and running, and would he be so kind as to reach into the bin and turn it slightly so it would record our interaction. He visibly recoiled and told us that filming in the security area was strictly prohibited. We politely told him that he was mistaken, and that the TSA explicitly does not prohibit photography in the screening areas:
"TSA does not prohibit photographs at screening locations; however, local laws, state statutes, or local ordinances may. We recommend contacting your local airport authority in advance to ensure you are familiar with their local procedures. While TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping, or filming at screening locations, TSA may ask a photographer to stop if they are interfering with the screening process or taking photos of X-ray monitor screens in a checkpoint."
We, despite being infrequent flyers, know this, so why don't the TSA employees?
Several screeners had arrived at this point and proceeded to berate us en masse for having the audacity to have a running camera in the security area. We kept calm and requested they dial the 1-800 number prominently posted on signs throughout the area so that TSA Customer Service could inform them that our activities were perfectly legal. They declined to do so.
By this time TSA Terminal Coordinator Tom Kinderknecht had arrived and again incorrectly told us that all filming by passengers is prohibited, telling us (all quotes paraphrased) that "There are already cameras all over the place recording this". We responded by saying "That's exactly our point. You have your cameras, and we have ours. Sounds fair enough to us". He apparently didn't see it our way because he then said "I'm going to ask you to please turn your camera off". We answered with "Sorry, we're not able to do that". He then said that Texas DPS was on their way, which of course was completely fine with us. At this point several suit-clad goons were hovering close by our chair, apparently as some sort of show of intimidation. This failed comically, of course.
The standoff ended after 10 or so minutes when we offered to shut the camera down so that we could be screened and not miss our flight, having felt that our point had been made. This was acceptable to Mr. Kinderknecht, and so we turned off the devices. The subsequent pat-down by Officer Burd was rapidly and competently accomplished with great professionalism on his part.
Mr. Kinderknecht then asked us if we were traveling alone, and we answered in the affirmative. He then stated that we were indeed correct about filming (so why were we detained in the first place?), but that someone else besides us (such as a companion) would have to do the recording since we wouldn't be allowed to touch our belongings during the process. We replied that of course we didn't expect to be able to hold the camera, we merely wished the screener to move it slightly to capture our pat-down. That certainly seemed a reasonable request - at least to us, a solo traveler unable to ask our companion for assistance.
We finished being screened and gathered our items together. Mr. Kinderknecht and us wished each other good day and we concluded our interaction. He even had the good nature to ask "What time is this going to be on YouTube?"
We're in the process of reviewing the footage now. Nothing is visible on the tape except the airport ceiling, and we're trying to ascertain whether or not the audio is clear enough to post. We'll have more on this when our analysis is complete.
Friday, April 08, 2011
R & R
Taking off for a few days to recharge the batteries and visit an old friend in Dallas. Back at it the afternoon of Tuesday, April 12, barring any unforeseen circumstances.
Feel free to talk amongst yourselves until then.
Feel free to talk amongst yourselves until then.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Desperation time for Dear Leader
"Obama will be speaking Wednesday for the first time as commander in chief at the annual convention of the National Action Network and standing with its founder, the Rev. Al Sharpton - whom the President largely ignored before his 2008 election."
And for good reason - Sharpton is a toxic race pimp of the worst order, being directly responsible for the deaths of 11 people in 1995 after personally and repeatedly inflaming racial tensions against the Jewish owners of a clothing store in East Harlem. Here are the actual quotes Sharpton and his cronies made at the time. Read them carefully and dare to disagree with our assessment of him.
It's sickening that the President of the United States would grant a rancid individual like Sharpton a second of his time, much less host an entire event with such a person a mere two days after announcing his reelection campaign. Dear Leader must be truly running scared about his chances for a second term if he's reduced to associating with that kind of charlatan.
If the old saw is true and one can judge a man by the company he keeps, then most peoples' estimation of the president (Ayers, Dorhn, Davis, Wright, Rezko, and now Sharpton) has to be somewhere in the second subbasement right about now.
And for good reason - Sharpton is a toxic race pimp of the worst order, being directly responsible for the deaths of 11 people in 1995 after personally and repeatedly inflaming racial tensions against the Jewish owners of a clothing store in East Harlem. Here are the actual quotes Sharpton and his cronies made at the time. Read them carefully and dare to disagree with our assessment of him.
It's sickening that the President of the United States would grant a rancid individual like Sharpton a second of his time, much less host an entire event with such a person a mere two days after announcing his reelection campaign. Dear Leader must be truly running scared about his chances for a second term if he's reduced to associating with that kind of charlatan.
If the old saw is true and one can judge a man by the company he keeps, then most peoples' estimation of the president (Ayers, Dorhn, Davis, Wright, Rezko, and now Sharpton) has to be somewhere in the second subbasement right about now.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
A false "parole"
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-IL, is apparently planning to go on a rock star-like 20-city tour to force Dear Leader's feet to the fire over the president's campaign promise to deliver a blanket amnesty to millions of immigrants (of all races) living here illegally.
As part of this farcical publicity event Gutierrez has now introduced the term "parole-in-place" to replace the (rightly) skeptically-viewed word "amnesty", as the former somehow infers that a penalty will be assessed on the people who thumbed their noses at immigration law and jumped the line ahead of the millions of people worldwide patiently waiting to come here the legal way. A closer look at the plan Gutierrez is proposing reveals that nothing could be further from the truth:
"Under such a plan, Gutierrez explained, parents who are illegally in the U.S. but whose children were born in this country could come forward, go through a background check “and if it’s found that you haven’t violated any other law but immigration status,” you’d be 'frozen' and not deported."
In other words, arrive here illegally and immediately have a child and you would be able to stay indefinitely without so much as a fine, and even eventually apply for permanent resident status once those children turn 21. That sure is some sweet "parole" indeed.
"Many of the immigrants attending the event were there with young children and babies."
But whenever reasonable people point out the very real concept of "anchor babies" those individuals are immediately labeled as being somehow racist towards Latinos. This knee-jerk characterization is a complete fallacy, of course, as such kids are not only of Hispanic descent but also Chinese, Turkish and Irish, to name just a few.
Need some specific examples? How about this story out of California, in which several houses in the city of San Gabriel were busted for hosting Chinese women who came here solely to have their children on American soil, after which the moms happily flew back to their home country with a newly minted U.S. citizen, with all the rights and privileges that status entails of course:
"Immigration experts say they can only guess why well-to-do Chinese women are so eager to get United States passports for their babies, but they suspect it is largely as a kind of insurance policy should they need to move."
How nice that the American peasant can provide such a valuable service for those matrons.
Another one? Here's an upscale hotel in New York City which advertises month-long stays for Turkish women planning to do the very same thing as the Chinese women. The place even throws in a free stroller and airport transfer:
"The Marmara Manhattan, a New York hotel which is part of the Turkish warmth chain, exploits the 14th amendment to the US constitution, which points out that all children born on American soil 'are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside'."
...
"Though the price is an inexpensive and easy one to pay for US citizenship. Many will ultimately use the newborn, known as an “anchor baby”, a stepping stone for the immigration of extended family. The hotel has up to now sold 15 of the packages."
Move along, citizen. No anchor baby abuse going on here.
Look, we are extremely sympathetic to the plight of poor and oppressed people the world over, and even well-off individuals who reside in dictatorships or politically unstable nations that place restrictions on their freedoms. The United States, however, simply can't accept everyone who manages to arrive here, and we must enforce our borders and immigration laws to prevent our nation from experiencing utter chaos.
Sorry, Mr. Gutierrez, that's the way it's going to have to be. Good luck convincing the American people otherwise.
As part of this farcical publicity event Gutierrez has now introduced the term "parole-in-place" to replace the (rightly) skeptically-viewed word "amnesty", as the former somehow infers that a penalty will be assessed on the people who thumbed their noses at immigration law and jumped the line ahead of the millions of people worldwide patiently waiting to come here the legal way. A closer look at the plan Gutierrez is proposing reveals that nothing could be further from the truth:
"Under such a plan, Gutierrez explained, parents who are illegally in the U.S. but whose children were born in this country could come forward, go through a background check “and if it’s found that you haven’t violated any other law but immigration status,” you’d be 'frozen' and not deported."
In other words, arrive here illegally and immediately have a child and you would be able to stay indefinitely without so much as a fine, and even eventually apply for permanent resident status once those children turn 21. That sure is some sweet "parole" indeed.
"Many of the immigrants attending the event were there with young children and babies."
But whenever reasonable people point out the very real concept of "anchor babies" those individuals are immediately labeled as being somehow racist towards Latinos. This knee-jerk characterization is a complete fallacy, of course, as such kids are not only of Hispanic descent but also Chinese, Turkish and Irish, to name just a few.
Need some specific examples? How about this story out of California, in which several houses in the city of San Gabriel were busted for hosting Chinese women who came here solely to have their children on American soil, after which the moms happily flew back to their home country with a newly minted U.S. citizen, with all the rights and privileges that status entails of course:
"Immigration experts say they can only guess why well-to-do Chinese women are so eager to get United States passports for their babies, but they suspect it is largely as a kind of insurance policy should they need to move."
How nice that the American peasant can provide such a valuable service for those matrons.
Another one? Here's an upscale hotel in New York City which advertises month-long stays for Turkish women planning to do the very same thing as the Chinese women. The place even throws in a free stroller and airport transfer:
"The Marmara Manhattan, a New York hotel which is part of the Turkish warmth chain, exploits the 14th amendment to the US constitution, which points out that all children born on American soil 'are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside'."
...
"Though the price is an inexpensive and easy one to pay for US citizenship. Many will ultimately use the newborn, known as an “anchor baby”, a stepping stone for the immigration of extended family. The hotel has up to now sold 15 of the packages."
Move along, citizen. No anchor baby abuse going on here.
Look, we are extremely sympathetic to the plight of poor and oppressed people the world over, and even well-off individuals who reside in dictatorships or politically unstable nations that place restrictions on their freedoms. The United States, however, simply can't accept everyone who manages to arrive here, and we must enforce our borders and immigration laws to prevent our nation from experiencing utter chaos.
Sorry, Mr. Gutierrez, that's the way it's going to have to be. Good luck convincing the American people otherwise.
The future of your health care if Obama gets his way
"Former NHS [National Health Service] director dies after operation is cancelled four times at her own hospital"
Four times since last June, nine months ago.
Sad, patently ridiculous and completely unnecessary. This poor woman was as good as murdered by the incompetent bureaucrats at this health "care" facility.
Stories such as this one out of England are unfortunately all too common in countries which have socialized (and thus rationed, generally bankrupt and usually criminally mismanaged) single-payer health care systems in which career government workers with no medical background alone decide what and how much health care a person will get.
This is exactly the kind of Ponzi scheme that Dear Leader (as well as many other liberal Democrat politicians) wishes us peasants here in America to suffer under, as the president is on record stating that a single-payer system is his ultimate goal, with the current (and bad enough in and of themselves) Obamacare provisions being merely an incremental stopping-point on the journey to Marxism Lite:
Their wonderful "plan" for us suddenly doesn't look so good anymore, does it?
Four times since last June, nine months ago.
Sad, patently ridiculous and completely unnecessary. This poor woman was as good as murdered by the incompetent bureaucrats at this health "care" facility.
Stories such as this one out of England are unfortunately all too common in countries which have socialized (and thus rationed, generally bankrupt and usually criminally mismanaged) single-payer health care systems in which career government workers with no medical background alone decide what and how much health care a person will get.
This is exactly the kind of Ponzi scheme that Dear Leader (as well as many other liberal Democrat politicians) wishes us peasants here in America to suffer under, as the president is on record stating that a single-payer system is his ultimate goal, with the current (and bad enough in and of themselves) Obamacare provisions being merely an incremental stopping-point on the journey to Marxism Lite:
Their wonderful "plan" for us suddenly doesn't look so good anymore, does it?
Monday, April 04, 2011
More of that old time British Nanny-state insanity
British subject Andrew Richardson was working on a remote Texas ranch in 1981 when he was bitten by a rattlesnake. Once he recovered and went back to work, his boss lawfully gave him a .22 caliber revolver with which to dispatch other snakes, in order to prevent a repeat of his unpleasant experience.
After leaving to work in the Middle East a year later, Richardson completely forgot about the pistol and it ended up in a shoebox in storage back in England along with many of his other household items until 2008, when he turned the contents of the storage unit over to an auctioneer for sale. A worker found the pistol when inventorying the items and contacted the local police.
Richardson, a person with no criminal history who was by then working in Massachusetts, got five years in an English prison for his 27-year-old innocent error.
Here's the part of the story that illustrates perfectly how the draconian penalties being meted out over there are actually more about the British "authorities" controlling the subjects through fear and intimidation than about any so-called gun "safety":
"During the prosecutor's questioning as to why I hadn't handed it in during the 2004 amnesty (I was working abroad at the time and didn't know about it), the judge inquired whether I'd considered throwing it into a stream. The air thinned in the courtroom as 40 people sucked in their breath in shock. My reply was along the lines of: 'I thought that would've been the most careless thing anyone could do, your honour.'"
How can a jurist be so hopelessly stupid?
Richardson fortunately was released after serving only eight months once his appeal was granted, but he isn't by any means the only law-abiding British person to be caught up in this kind of legal nightmare. There's this fellow:
"Then there's the tale of the senior bank director. An avid countryside sportsman, he attended a shoot in Essex one Friday, but instead of going home to Surrey, stayed in his Belgravia house over the weekend as he had city social engagements. His 12-bore [shotgun] was locked in the gun cabinet on Friday evening, but a nosy neighbour who saw him carrying it indoors, secured in the right place, called the constabulary. He was arrested and imprisoned: his licence address was Surrey, so locking it up in Belgravia constituted both unlicensed possession and concealment."
And this poor lady:
"A 73-year-old charity shop proprietor found a package of old clothes outside her shop, with a handgun wrapped in them. She closed the shop and took it straight to the police, whereupon she was arrested for possession of a lethal pistol, and imprisoned on remand pending trial."
Jailed for doing the responsible and moral thing. That will surely encourage the peasants to engage in more of the same behavior, no?
We're sure the violent crime rate in England dropped noticeably once these dangerous businesspeople were safely locked away, even though at the very same time "22% of youths caught carrying concealed handguns in London were let off with a caution."
These are exactly the sort of repressive, unfair, freedom-sapping and ultimately doomed-to-fail policies that rabidly anti gun politicians such as Chuck Schumer and Carolyn McCarthy as well as organizations like the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center envision for this country, which is why Second Amendment advocates fight so hard to prevent that nightmare scenario from ever becoming reality.
After leaving to work in the Middle East a year later, Richardson completely forgot about the pistol and it ended up in a shoebox in storage back in England along with many of his other household items until 2008, when he turned the contents of the storage unit over to an auctioneer for sale. A worker found the pistol when inventorying the items and contacted the local police.
Richardson, a person with no criminal history who was by then working in Massachusetts, got five years in an English prison for his 27-year-old innocent error.
Here's the part of the story that illustrates perfectly how the draconian penalties being meted out over there are actually more about the British "authorities" controlling the subjects through fear and intimidation than about any so-called gun "safety":
"During the prosecutor's questioning as to why I hadn't handed it in during the 2004 amnesty (I was working abroad at the time and didn't know about it), the judge inquired whether I'd considered throwing it into a stream. The air thinned in the courtroom as 40 people sucked in their breath in shock. My reply was along the lines of: 'I thought that would've been the most careless thing anyone could do, your honour.'"
How can a jurist be so hopelessly stupid?
Richardson fortunately was released after serving only eight months once his appeal was granted, but he isn't by any means the only law-abiding British person to be caught up in this kind of legal nightmare. There's this fellow:
"Then there's the tale of the senior bank director. An avid countryside sportsman, he attended a shoot in Essex one Friday, but instead of going home to Surrey, stayed in his Belgravia house over the weekend as he had city social engagements. His 12-bore [shotgun] was locked in the gun cabinet on Friday evening, but a nosy neighbour who saw him carrying it indoors, secured in the right place, called the constabulary. He was arrested and imprisoned: his licence address was Surrey, so locking it up in Belgravia constituted both unlicensed possession and concealment."
And this poor lady:
"A 73-year-old charity shop proprietor found a package of old clothes outside her shop, with a handgun wrapped in them. She closed the shop and took it straight to the police, whereupon she was arrested for possession of a lethal pistol, and imprisoned on remand pending trial."
Jailed for doing the responsible and moral thing. That will surely encourage the peasants to engage in more of the same behavior, no?
We're sure the violent crime rate in England dropped noticeably once these dangerous businesspeople were safely locked away, even though at the very same time "22% of youths caught carrying concealed handguns in London were let off with a caution."
These are exactly the sort of repressive, unfair, freedom-sapping and ultimately doomed-to-fail policies that rabidly anti gun politicians such as Chuck Schumer and Carolyn McCarthy as well as organizations like the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center envision for this country, which is why Second Amendment advocates fight so hard to prevent that nightmare scenario from ever becoming reality.
Sunday, April 03, 2011
From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines
"No charges for Laurel [MD] gas station clerk in shooting"
The State's Attorney's Office there has made the (correct, in our view) decision that the store clerk, who successfully used a firearm provided by his employer to thwart an attempted armed robbery and which resulted in the death of the suspect, was justified in his actions and therefore will not face any criminal charges:
"Deputy State’s Attorney William Roessler said at the time that it is legal for a store owner to be armed for protection at his or her place of business.
'It was self defense. He did not create this situation. The robber did.'"
Absolutely.
Now all the local cops have to do is return the firearm to its rightful owner, which has yet to happen even though more than three months have elapsed since the incident, presumably leaving the business defenseless during that period.
We eagerly look forward to the time, hopefully in the near future, when a legal outcome such as this will no longer qualify as "news", even in a virulently anti-gun rights state such as Maryland.
The State's Attorney's Office there has made the (correct, in our view) decision that the store clerk, who successfully used a firearm provided by his employer to thwart an attempted armed robbery and which resulted in the death of the suspect, was justified in his actions and therefore will not face any criminal charges:
"Deputy State’s Attorney William Roessler said at the time that it is legal for a store owner to be armed for protection at his or her place of business.
'It was self defense. He did not create this situation. The robber did.'"
Absolutely.
Now all the local cops have to do is return the firearm to its rightful owner, which has yet to happen even though more than three months have elapsed since the incident, presumably leaving the business defenseless during that period.
We eagerly look forward to the time, hopefully in the near future, when a legal outcome such as this will no longer qualify as "news", even in a virulently anti-gun rights state such as Maryland.
Friday, April 01, 2011
More odious details emerge from the "fog" of Obamacare
"Investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee have discovered that a little-known provision in the national health care law has allowed the federal government to pay nearly $2 billion to unions, state public employee systems, and big corporations to subsidize health coverage costs for early retirees. At the current rate of payment, the $5 billion appropriated for the program could be exhausted well before it is set to expire."
Byron York has the details.
In a nutshell, American workers will now be forced to pay for the health care expenses of others who have chosen to retire early (mostly union members and public employees - in other words, core Democratic supporters), and it's not going to help save the taxpayers any money. As a matter of fact, the program almost certainly will end up blowing past its multi-billion dollar budget well before its scheduled expiration in January 2014.
No wonder liberal Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi wanted to hurriedly ram this 2000+ page Ponzi scheme through Congress before anyone got a chance to read it at all, much less thoroughly.
According to Pelosi, we just had "to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy". Well, the peasants are certainly finding out to their utter disgust exactly what's in it, but the controversy sure isn't going away anytime soon.
We wonder what else will be rearing its collectivist head out of that utter morass of a law before it can be repealed by the new Congress.
Byron York has the details.
In a nutshell, American workers will now be forced to pay for the health care expenses of others who have chosen to retire early (mostly union members and public employees - in other words, core Democratic supporters), and it's not going to help save the taxpayers any money. As a matter of fact, the program almost certainly will end up blowing past its multi-billion dollar budget well before its scheduled expiration in January 2014.
No wonder liberal Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi wanted to hurriedly ram this 2000+ page Ponzi scheme through Congress before anyone got a chance to read it at all, much less thoroughly.
According to Pelosi, we just had "to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy". Well, the peasants are certainly finding out to their utter disgust exactly what's in it, but the controversy sure isn't going away anytime soon.
We wonder what else will be rearing its collectivist head out of that utter morass of a law before it can be repealed by the new Congress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
