Category Archives: Crap For Brains

People and especially governments do some incredibly stupid stuff. This is about those stupid actions.

Quote of the day–Gerard Valentino

Posted on by

Only those with a vested emotional interest in seeing through on the promise of total gun confiscation continue to hang onto the false hope of gun control. After years of being convinced of the righteousness of their cause they are blinded to reality and have begun to believe their own lies. That is the only way to explain how they can still be pushing their failed agenda.

If it wasn’t such a serious issue the determination of anti-gun proponents would border on the laughable. Since their misguided ways have led to untold numbers of people being left at the mercy of armed thugs, it takes all the humor out of their laughable ways.

Still, their determination has brainwashed them to believe in their cause at all costs. I also proves that they are incapable of creating a conspiracy with the anti-gun establishment media. The sad sorry truth is they actually believe this crap.

Gerard Valentino
Buckeye Firearms Association Central Ohio Chair
January 3, 2008
There is No Leftist Anti-Gun Conspiracy – They Really Believe This Crap
[The conspiracy theory model explains a lot but ends up with more questions than answers. I’m with Valentino, as implausible and counter factual as their belief system is I think they actually believe it.–Joe]

New ammonium nitrate regulations

Posted on by

Last Wednesday Bush signed into law a new restriction on our freedom which does nothing but create another bureaucracy. The Los Angles Times has a pretty good write up on it but the tone is “the Feds should have done more”:

Ammonium nitrate regulated — sort of

The fertilizer can be used in explosives. Some in law enforcement and counter-terrorism wanted much tighter controls than Congress passed.

More than 12 years after Timothy J. McVeigh used ammonium nitrate fertilizer to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building, Congress quietly passed legislation this month to regulate sales of the explosive.

But the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007, part of an appropriations measure signed Wednesday by President Bush, falls far short of the strict law that some in the counter-terrorism community and federal law enforcement were hoping for.

[…]

Outside groups are asking for tougher action. “Congress simply didn’t understand what it was doing,” said Peter Stockton, senior investigator for one of the groups, the Project on Government Oversight, which is a watchdog on national security issues.

“Maybe they thought doing something was better than nothing.”

The text of the actual law is here. Assuming I’m reading the version of the bill that was actually signed there is an exemption for people with an explosives license (me). The biggest impact I see to most readers of this blog is that if you want to buy Target Master Exploding Targets or Tannerite maybe you should do it now. Both of those products use ammonium nitrate as their primary ingredient.

This law also affects farmers in a big way.

Under the new law you will be required to register with “Homeland Security” before you can manufacture, sell, or buy, AN. The seller will be required to maintain records. If anyone violates these new regulations they can be fined up to $50,000 per violation.

There will be regulations implemented which will provide “guidance” on storage and sales which of course will do nothing but harass the innocent. Just like the regulations on firearms do nothing the terrorists that want to do evil will steal their materials or use a strawman. Or if they are suicide bombers they will just go through the registration process and buy it just like legitimate users. It’s not that difficult to manufacture either. The chemical formula is NH4NO3. The elements to manufacture it can all be obtained from the air. Try regulating those precursor chemicals.

Like Stockton, above, I think they just wanted to “do something”. And as I pointed out in my QOTD today even “experts” (I hesitate to call anyone who works for the government an expert on anything other than government) don’t think it does anything for security. It’s nothing but more security theater for the masses.

Just let me store it

Posted on by

Poor guy. Assuming it wasn’t stolen, if he had just let me store it everything would have turned out so much better:

Authorities raid barn filled with military-grade explosives

SUFFOLK, Va. – Authorities are questioning an ex-Navy SEAL this evening after a raid that officials say turned up enough military-grade explosives to damage an entire Suffolk neighborhood.

Suffolk fire and rescue spokesman Jim Judkins says police secured a warrant yesterday and raided a barn on Ferry Point Road after receiving a tip.

Police have been joined investigating the barn by FBI and ATF agents, and the Virginia State Police this evening.

The unidentified former SEAL is in custody and is cooperating with authorities.

Judkins didn’t specify just how much explosive material was in the barn.

But he says it was enough to do damage to houses about one-third of a mile in any direction.

You can be sure the barn wasn’t “filled”. Based on the information I have he probably had about 1000 pounds of high explosives. Most explosives are within a factor of two of the density of water so you could put that much explosives in a car that is capable of holding five large men. It wouldn’t have filled the barn. I wish I knew where it was on Ferry Point Road. If it was actually greater than 320 feet of the road or 800 feet of inhabited building (halve that if it was in the woods out of sight of the buildings or road) then the distances were acceptable according to ATF regulations. But it doesn’t sound like he had an appropriate storage magazine for the materials. [heavy sigh]

Quote of the day–Milton Friedman

Posted on by

Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.

Milton Friedman
[Liberals/”progressives” take note. I want to scream this in their faces, I want to pound it into their heads with a clue by four, but I know it wouldn’t matter. They just don’t seem to get it.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Rev. Jesse Jackson

Posted on by

The fact that it is legal does not make it moral. Jim Crow was legal, but it was not moral. Denying women the right to vote was legal, but it was not moral. Denying workers the right to organize was legal, but not moral.

Rev. Jesse Jackson
President of Rainbow/PUSH Coalition
July 12, 2007
Anti-gun activists building momentum
[This is from the same article as the QOTD from yesterday where Father Michael Pfleger used this same theme to push for more restrictions on gun owners. Another thing that strikes me about this line of thinking is that they are comparing the lack of restrictions on firearms to excessive restrictions on people in years past. They are whining about excessive freedom yet invoking memories of repression. Do they even have a glimpse of the irony? I sometimes think they are incredibly stupid to use such crude attempts at emotional trickery. But I keep hearing the voice of Sean Flynn telling me otherwise.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Father Michael Pfleger

Posted on by

Slavery was legal, it wasn’t moral. Apartheid was legal, it wasn’t moral. We have to have the understanding that laws have to be changed if they are wrong.

Father Michael Pfleger
Pastor of the Faith Community of Saint Sabina Church
July 12, 2007
Anti-gun activists building momentum
[This is so ironic. He invokes memories of repressive racist laws while demanding repressive laws which had racist origins in the U.S. But what do you expect? Many anti-gun bigots have mental problems.–Joe]

Thank You and Grow Up

Posted on by

I sent the following letter to our local (Moscow, Idaho and Pullman, Washington) newspaper, The Daily News and to the University of Idaho newspaper, The Idaho Argonaut.  Some background:  Our Moscow, ID mayor, Nancy Chaney, decided that people should not be allowed to carry pistols in public spaces, worried, as she put it, that people might “swoop in and create confusion” in the event of serious trouble.  She later found our about Idaho‘s preemption law, making it illegal for local governments to limit people’s rights any further than state law.  She couldn’t accept that, and tried to get state legislators to rewrite state law.  Running into a brick wall, Mayor Chaney and her conspirators have decided to table the issue “indefinitely”.  So far so good.  They were held back, but they now need to pay a price for their indiscretions, even if it’s only in the form of a letter from a concerned citizen:

Dear Editors,

“Thank You” to all the brave individuals in Moscow and around the state who fought to protect a human right (the right to self defense in public spaces).  As for Mayor Chaney and the others; you have some growing to do.  You could not be more wrong about self defense, concealed carry, or about the good and responsible citizens of the State of Idaho.

I submit that any holder of public office should be glad for our rights, comfortable with them, unafraid, and should always strive to protect those rights, confident in the knowledge that it is the proper thing to do.  Further, that anyone who is at all suspicious or fearful of the rights of the individual should stay out of public office.

As for the argument that since the feds place restrictions on carrying in certain places, it should be OK for local governments:  It’s not OK for the feds either.  Creating a patchwork of varying 2nd Amendment infringements can do nothing other than ensnare innocent Americans and make the criminals laugh at us.  Who’s going to consult their “rights infringements map” before moving from point A to point B (step in this square and you’re perfectly OK, but step in this other square and presto, you’re a felon)?  You call that law enforcement or public safety?  I call it insane.  It would be laughable if it weren’t so pathological.

Try as you might to conceal it, Mayor Chaney, your distrust for the people of Idaho is obvious and on display.  If you can work past that distrust and begin advocating more, rather than less individual freedom, you may find that you have more friends and more goodwill from Idaho citizens than you can imagine.

I just read another Daily News article, commending 44 people for their brave deeds during a shooting in Moscow last May, for things like “exceptional bravery at immediate risk of serious bodily injury.”  That’s a good thing– people who try to save others at their own personal risk are an inspiration to all of us.  One tiny little gripe here:  The one regular citizen (non cop, non firefighter, non EMT, etc.) who also exhibited “exceptional bravery at immediate risk of serious bodily injury” received no mention whatsoever, in spite of his having been shot and seriously injured in the process.  Blundering oversight or personal disdain on the part of the reporter or editor?  Could be either.  It certainly shows no respect.

 

Study of the TSA confirms their brain cells are lonely

Posted on by

I’ve been saying this for years, pointed out the TSA is engaged in illegal acts, they know they are illegal, they are stupid, even idiotic, security is a joke, and then I suggested some tests of better security concepts. Now the Harvard School of Public Health says:

Study: Airport Screening Process Pointless

Airport security lines can annoy passengers, but there is no evidence that they make flying any safer, U.S. researchers reported Thursday.

[…]

“Even without clear evidence of the accuracy of testing, the Transportation Security Administration defended its measures by reporting that more than 13 million prohibited items were intercepted in one year,” the researchers added. “Most of these illegal items were lighters.”

This is like the Brady Bunch crowing at how effective NICS is because millions of people have been denied the sale of a firearm. Never mind that some of those people were guilty of “crimes” like being in possession of a deck of cards having naked white women on them (the “criminal” was black) and that the Brady act has never been shown to have made the public safer (Just One Question).

“We’d like airport security screening to be of value. As passengers and members of the public we’d like to know the evidence and the reasoning behind these measures,” Linos said in a telephone interview.

With $5.6 billion spent globally on airport protection each year, the public should be encouraged to query some screening requirements — such as forcing passengers to remove their shoes, the researchers said.

“Can you hide anything in your shoes that you cannot hide in your underwear?” they asked.

A TSA spokesman was not immediately available to comment.

The British Medical Journal contributed:

There is no solid evidence that the huge amounts of money spent on airport security screening measures since September 11th are effective, argue researchers in the Christmas issue of the BMJ.

[…]

Despite worldwide airport protection costing an estimated $5.6 billion every year, they found no comprehensive studies evaluating the effectiveness of passenger or hand luggage x-ray screening, metal detectors or explosive detection devices. There was also no clear evidence of testing accuracy.

The US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) defends its measures by reporting that more than 13 million prohibited items were intercepted in one year. But, argue the authors, there is no way of knowing what proportion of these items would have led to serious harm.

This raises several questions, they say, such as what is the sensitivity of the screening question: ‘Did you pack all your bags yourself?’ and has anyone ever said ‘no’? What are the ethical implications of pre-selecting high risk groups? Are new technologies that ‘see’ through clothes acceptable and what hazards should we screen for?

While there may be other benefits to rigorous airport screening, the absence of publicly available evidence to satisfy even the most basic criteria of a good screening programme concerns us, they write.

Put this another way. If you were selling a product advertised as curing some disease and it, in fact, did no better in scientific tests than a placebo you would be at least fined and probably go to jail. If you sold a product advertised to allow your car to use water as fuel you could be sued when it didn’t work. But the U.S. Government can get away with providing nothing more than comfort to those that want to feel more secure while actually decreasing the security of travelers at great expense.

Can you imagine a snake-oil salesman using the defense, “My customers wanted to feel they were doing something even if their disease was incurable. Therefore I did nothing wrong.” Prosecutors would break out the victory champagne before the defense drew their next breath. And so it should be with the TSA. Either they are incredibly stupid or they are snake-oil salesmen who should go to jail.

Another person who should study more Friedman

Posted on by

What a jerk.

This comes straight out of my stock earnings and bonus:

The three companies have cut a deal with Catherine Hanaway, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, under which they’ll pay up but neither admit nor contest charges that they received advertising money from online-gambling operations.

Microsoft has the biggest bill to pay, with a total of $21 million. Of that, $4.5 million will go the government and $7.5 million to the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The software giant also will provide a $9 million online public-service advertising campaign aimed at college-level or younger people, pushing the idea that online-gambling enterprises are illegal.

Is Hanaway one of those that believe stores should be closed on Sunday too? Or does she just need to get a lesson in Constitutional law? Where in the powers enumerated by the U.S. Constitution does it say the Feds have power to enact and enforce restrictions on free trade like this? She must have run out of terrorists, child pornographers, recreational drug users, and gun owners (one of her stated priorities although not so bluntly put) to prosecute in the 20 months she has been in office.

Joe’s translation service

Posted on by

From the Guy Guys we have this slightly disguised spewing of bigotry. I’ll translate it into terms that will make the bigotry more obvious. You’ll recognize my contribution when you see it:

Due to an intimidating campaign by primarily white Ohio males who love their handguns – and they are a minority of white “Buyckeye” men – the state has passed not only a CCW law (the right to carry hidden handguns) in the past few years, but also a state pre-emption law when it comes to firearms.

Due to an intimidating campaign by primarily gun-nig**rs – and they are a minority – the state has passed not only a law that “recognizes” their “rights” in the past few years, but also a state pre-emption law when it comes to gun-nig**rs.

That means duly-elected government bodies such as the Cleveland City Council cannot enact gun policies that best protect its citizens. In short, they are disenfranchised by gun fanatics.

That means duly-elected government bodies such as the Cleveland City Council cannot enact policies to keep the gun-nig**rs in their place and protect our women folk. In short the gun-nig**rs are getting so uppity they thing they have just as much right to be on the streets as us white-folk and have managed push us out of positions of city power.

[…]

Why should citizens who feel the psychological need for firearms in Lima, Ohio – for example — keep the government of Cleveland from trying to stop young people from being shot on its city’s streets?

Why should citizens who feel the psychological need to pollute their racial heritage in Lima, Ohio – for example — keep the government of Cleveland from trying to stop young people from defiling themselves its city’s streets?

The answer is that local communities and police chiefs should be responsible for their public safety, not some gun toters who can’t break their firearms addiction.

The answer is that local communities and police chiefs should be responsible for their public safety, not some gun-nig**r lovers who can’t break their perversions.

It’s long past time that the majority of citizens of America are held hostage against their will by a well-financed, profitable, over-heated lobby that cares more about its own pastimes than the lives of our youth and citizens in so many areas of our great nation.

Cleveland is just one city that is handcuffed from doing what is right by its community members.

And as a further service I translate this post for you:

Well, this is not about Second Amendment “rights”; it’s about families being able to camp in National Parks without the fear that some NRA nervous Nellie will mistake them for a bear and start shooting away during the night.

Well, this is not about gun-nig**r “rights”; it’s about families being able to camp in National Parks without the fear that some gun-nig**r will lose control and rape one of your children during the night.

If the “brave” men of the NRA are so fearful of crime and wildlife in National Parks, then they don’t need to go into them.

If the “brave” men of the NAACP are so fearful of being lynched in National Parks, then they don’t need to go into them.

 

That will leave the rest of us safe and sound.

This is about our rights, not their selfishness in bringing the potential for violence into the last vestiges of our tranquil natural heritage as a nation.

This is about our rights, not their selfishness in bringing their inherent potential for violence into the last vestiges of our tranquil natural heritage as a nation.

Considering Teddy Roosevelt set aside more land for national parks and nature preserves than all of his predecessors combined, one would think that if the National Parks were to be gun free that Roosevelt would share those inclinations. But this quote refutes that hypothesis.

Legislating the laws of physics and economics

Posted on by

Okay, so they aren’t really trying to legislate the laws of physics but the stupid/sloppy/careless/whatever reporter(s) and editor(s) make it sound like they are:

Congress by a wide margin approved the first increase in automobile fuel economy in 32 years Tuesday, and President Bush plans to quickly sign the legislation, accepting the mandates on the auto industry.

The energy bill, boosting mileage by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon, passed the House 314-100 and now goes to the White House, following the Senate’s approval last week.

Do you see that? All it takes to increase the fuel economy is to pass a law. It’s as if they can’t distinguish between a law of physics and a law of man. They would get my “crap for brains” tag just for that alone. But they continue on, apparently thinking they can somehow change the laws of economics in the same bill:

In a dramatic shift to spur increased demand for nonfossil fuels, the bill also requires a six-fold increase in ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a boon to farmers. And it requires new energy efficiency standards for an array of appliances, lighting and commercial and government buildings.

“This is a choice between yesterday and tomorrow” on energy policy, declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who was closely involved in crafting the legislation. “It’s groundbreaking in what it will do.”

If it changes the laws of physics and economics then Pelosi is correct. If not then she is another fascist. My bet is on a fascism outcome. And, people know it will fail and aren’t being entirely quiet about it:

“What we have here is a mandatory conservation bill,” said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. He argued that the auto fuel efficiency requirements and the huge increase in ethanol use may not prove to be technologically or economically possible.

Although I’m opposed to our lawmakers doing this personally it’s great economic news for our family. The big push and subsidies for ethanol over the last few years has pushed the price of wheat to over $10/bushel in the last few weeks (via Idaho Wheat Commission).

Even this graph doesn’t give the “big picture”. The price of wheat has been in the $3 to $5 range for over 30 years. That’s unadjusted for inflation. A lot of the equipment my family uses on the farm is over 30 years old. The bulldozer I use for making modifications to the Boomershoot site is over 60 years old. I visited the farm last weekend and they were putting new tires on tractor which still had the original rubber on it until a week or so ago–rubber that was over 30 years old. They have been hurting for decades and now they are finally making a profit and are attempting to upgrade their equipment.

You might ask, “Why is the price of wheat, delivered to Portland Oregon doubling and tripling in price (the price for delivery in March of 2008 is over $13/bushel) when all the ethanol is made from corn in the Midwest?” It’s because wheat is a substitute grain for corn in some situations. And because a lot of the Northwest farmers are planting more wheat to take advantage of the higher profits to be made the supply of lentils and peas (also grown on our farm) is going down and the prices are going up on those as well.

So when the bozos in congress attempt to challenge the laws of economics the best they can do is obscure the costs of their meddling. The costs of their actions are spread out in strange places via obscure mechanisms but eventually the consumers will pay the price, one way or another.

A few teeth short of a full gear

Posted on by

I find it difficult to model the mind of someone that says, all in the same article, the following things. The best I can come up with is some sort of machine with most of the gears missing teeth. It starts and stops and sort of seems to be working but the end results is totally different from what is expected for the given input.

In the circumstances in which we find ourselves, we have to ask the question whether anyone outside of the security forces must be allowed to carry a gun at all. Gun control is a controversial issue all over the world. Opponents of gun control argue that it takes away the rights of good people to protect themselves while criminals will always find a way to own or use guns.

[…]

I am aware that there is a body of evidence, especially in the US that shows that gun bans or even gun control does not substantially affect the crime rate.

[…]

Therefore the unpalatable conclusion must be that gun control has failed and has to be replaced by a complete gun ban at least for a period of time preceded by a campaign against gun use and ownership and an amnesty for the handing in of illegal guns.

Gun control has failed therefore we need more gun control? It’s typical, even though I don’t understand it except as a sort of psychological pathology.

Quote of the day–Mika Brzezinski

Posted on by

You know, that is the most inane statement I have ever heard.

Mika Brzezinski
December 11, 2007
Video here: 2007-12-11MSNBCMJMika.wmv (2.17 MB)
In response to Joe Scarborough telling her, “One person with a gun in the right place can make a big difference.” in regards to Jeanne Assam stopping the murderer at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs.
Via Mark Finkelstein at NewsBusters and an email from Ashley Varner @ the NRA-ILA.
[No attempt at refuting the claim, just dismiss it. But of course what else could she do other than change her mind? The facts speak for themselves.–Joe]

A Letter From Israel

Posted on by

This is from a friend who lives there.  He’s been a long-time marksmanship and sniper instructor for the IDF, and he does seminars in Israel and the U.S. on counterterrorism.

You just can’t make up this stuff:

Friends:

 

Over 20 Kassam rockets rained down on the northern Negev.  We get only partial information.  If we received all the facts and figures, like Kassams landing around Askelon almost every single day, the government would be forced to defend the country or resign.

 

Have a good weekend.

The response from the U.S. has been to supply arms, ammunition, and training to the Palestinian government in Gaza, which ostensibly are for keeping the terrorists in check, but in fact are being promptly used against Israelis.

 

In summary; the situation in Israel is normal.

Whining about legal sales of guns

Posted on by

Just outside the city limits of Chicago there are gun shops selling guns to people that live in the city. That is an entirely legal transaction. They owners of the new guns are prohibited by Chicago law from bringing the guns into the city. Since some of them violate that law the politicians and media are whining and making plans to shut down the gun shops–who did not violate the law. Nothing to see here, just punishing the innocent, move along now.

The free market is a wonderful thing

Posted on by

The little guys try harder:

In what’s likely to be seen as a privacy-friendly move, IAC Search & Media’s Ask.com search engine Tuesday announced a new feature called AskEraser that deletes a user’s search activity data from the company’s servers.

When enabled by the user, the feature will completely delete search queries and associated cookie information from Ask.com servers — including IP addresses, user IDs, session IDs and the text of queries made, according to the company. In most cases, the deletion will take place within a few hours of the time a search is completed, the company said.

What’s bizarre is that some people want government involvement in something where the big concern is government involvement to begin with:

Ask.com has also said that it will also retain user search data in cases where it is required by law to do so, according to Chester. Formal legal requests for search data will continue to be honored, even if AskEraser is enabled.

As a result, Chester argued that Ask.com still hasn’t fully addressed consumer privacy concerns.

“Some privacy advocates will suggest that this announcement shows the ‘market’ is working,” he said. “No doubt, that’s what Google and the other online advertisers opposed to a serious privacy policy will echo, whispering it to regulators, lawmakers and journalists. That’s why a national privacy policy is required.”

Run in circles, scream and shout

Posted on by

I was browsing some of the bigot sites this evening and ran across this set of pictures (rel=nofollow set on the link so they don’t get a bump in ranking from the search engines). I just can’t see what they think they are accomplishing. I kept thinking of that old adage, “When in danger, when doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. They must actually subscribe to that sort of philosophy. Pictures of people laying on the ground helps in what way?

Their actions remind me that the dead students at Virginia Tech were disarmed by the people that claimed to be protecting them. The people laying on the ground symbolize the people that believe submitting to evil frequently end up dead. It makes me think of “proof by vigorous assertion”. They can’t prove their case with numbers and logic so they have to just insist that lawmakers do things their way. They don’t even bother trying to prove what they want would benefit anyone but the criminals. Just do things their way or they will lay on the ground and have people take pictures.

It doesn’t seem like they are getting their way yet. Maybe if they start screaming and kicking they would get better results. It works for some two-year olds.

Quote of the day–Dan Cunningham

Posted on by

Those who believe that individual rights are more important than public safety often side with reduced gun control laws. On the other hand, those that think other individuals are unable to control their own behaviors, and therefore the law needs to influence the gun supply, would certainly side with increased government control of firearms.

Dan Cunningham
Strive For Balance In Gun Control
[This is just the beginning of his half-truths, incorrect assumptions, and outright falsehoods. He apparently does not realize it’s possible, or even more likely, to have both freedom and safety then goes on to create the case for his bigoted beliefs.–Joe]

Woopie Goldberg – A Voice Made For Television

Posted on by

We hear it said of an ugly guy, “He has a face made for radio”.

Woopie Goldberg has performed brilliantly as an actor in television and in movies.  Her personal commentary however, has been nothing you couldn’t hear at the espresso and chi tea bar in any local natural foods store any day of the week.  Hence it is no surprise that her radio show is being axed.  I believe she still has a future in acting.  Therein she has talent.

There remains a significant part of society that can’t seem to understand how radio is a business (the business of selling advertising) and that in business you must have something to offer that people, you know, want.

Malkin covers it too.

Hint:  If you have no respect for those who made it big in the business, you just might be on the wrong path.  “I’m gonna be just the opposite of that really, ultra successful guy” might not be the best business plan.  Success, one would think, is the best teacher.

And here’s a hint just especially for those on the Left:  We’ve all heard your message every day for our whole lives, as long as we can remember.  You’ve gotten your message out, and that is your problem.  A lot of people are sick of hearing it because most of it has something to do with how wrong, greedy, stupid, evil, and endangered we are– the air we breathe is killing us, the food we eat is killing us, oil is killing us, a shortage of oil is killing us, farming is killing us, starvation is killing us, fat is killing us, dieting is killing us, carbs are killing us, disease is killing us, antibiotics, vaccines, and the drug companies are killing us, freedom and prosperity are especially killing us, poverty is killing us, the good economy is killing us but really the economy sucks, terrorists are killing us (but it’s our fault) and the war against terrorists is killing us, and everything, absolutely everything, is killing women and children, the elderly and the minorities the hardest– and how some form of socialism (government-enforced coercion) is the answer to absolutely every problem, real or imagined.

Does that about sum it up?  Who needs to tune into a radio show to hear that when we hear it everywhere else every day?

More-of-the-same day in and day out nagging and finger pointing and blaming America and our Liberty for the world’s problems isn’t something a lot of people are going to pay money to have broadcast in their name.  But you don’t, and won’t, get it anyway.

Quote of the day–Bryan Miller

Posted on by

But, first, a little background – for those of you who have more to do with your time than memorize old, obsolete and unused Constitutional dicta – the 2nd Amendment reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As I said, Ho Hum. How seriously must I (or anyone, for that matter) take a sentence so overwhelmingly categorical, yet which has never been used to overturn any gun regulation, ordinance or law in the 200-plus years since it was adopted?

Bryan Miller
November 29, 2007
Supremes take on 2nd Amendment – Yawn
[It’s overwhelmingly categorical and never been used to overturn a law since it was adopted, therefore we shouldn’t take it seriously and can enact laws that violate it without concern to the constitutionality of the law. Interesting logic. So, Mr. Miller, do you advocate treating the 13th amendment in the same way?

Section. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

If so then I claim you, Bryan Miller, as my slave. Maybe then you will suddenly recognize the utility of the 2nd Amendment. Or maybe since the 13th amendment is only 142 years old it’s too recent to discard. If it needs to be 200-plus years old before we can start ignoring it then I’ll let my great-grandchildren know that your descendants gave up their 13th Amendment rights on your say so. As my descendants, with guns, take possession I’m sure your descendants will “thank” you for giving up your 2nd Amendment rights earlier. The point is that just because a law hasn’t been overturned recently the constitutional provision against such laws is obsolete.

And, Mr. Miller, it’s obvious you haven’t read this book which demonstrates the Supreme Court has upheld the legal tradition and historical record of private gun ownership, self defense, and armed self defense, since the country began.

My take on Miller’s “yawn” response is that is the best spin he can put on what he thinks is impending doom.–Joe]