Oleg Volk is trying;

I am trying to help Dick Heller with raising funds for more legal mischief in DC.

I may be a good idea to assist Heller in piling on, as you are able.  The more the anti rights bigots, cowards, liars and charlatans in Washington have to contend with, the better.  They are getting desperate now, seeing their Big Chance slipping away after so many generations of careful plotting and planning to spoil this great experiment that is America.  The more these kinds of straight-up contests (the Heller kind) are made public, the more the forces of evil lose their control, and they know it.  They are afraid, and they will do some very stupid things as a result.

See; right here– This is why the beast hates the internet and lusts for control of it.

It makes as much sense as banning imported guns.

We really need to get rid of the “sporting purpose” language in our laws in regards to firearms. I would think the Heller decision would make that relatively easy.

I keep falling into the same mindset as many other people and perhaps even more so than most. When someone asks a question I take it at face value and try to answer the question. Then, if necessary, I attempt to explain the answer to them. In many cases this is completely the wrong approach. In the case of a confrontation with an anti-gun person if you are answering their questions you are losing.

Today Say Uncle hinted pretty strongly at the proper approach to suggestions magazine capacity should be restricted but I think that thought should be amplified.

When someone suggests the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms should be restricted the response should be a look of extreme incredulity and informing them that they should not act on that impulse. Such acts are illegal. People acting on them can and should be arrested and sent to prison. The same goes for politicians.

This is no different than someone proposing the right to freedom of association should be limited to those groups that pass a sporting purpose test and be restricted to ten people or less. After all you only need five people for a basketball team and ten people can make a baseball team. If you want to associate in groups larger than if can only mean you want to form an angry mob and riot. You don’t need to associate in larger groups than ten, right?

Now that the cards are on the table tell me we can find common ground and compromise on something “reasonable” for both sides.

Some of those same people are also advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment. I find this just as abhorrent as I would a suggestion of repealing the 13^th Amendment. We fought a civil war over that issue and I would expect no less over the attempted repeal of the Second Amendment.

My position is that people advocating such actions apparently can’t handle freedom and should therefore seek the security of some place that allows them only that which they really need. Can’t we set up a charity to subsidize one-way tickets to North Korea for them? That is a compromise I could agree with.

I am firmly of the opinion there are far too many laws, regulations, and rules in this country. I suspect the world would be a better place if about 99% of them did not exist. I wouldn’t even be surprise if 50% of them could go away and no one would even notice they were gone. That said, I still obey nearly all of them I am aware of. I pay all my taxes. I try to stay within the speed limit and store my explosives as per the advice the ATF gives me.

I can’t tell you how many times Barb and I have grumbled to each other that we must be stupid for following the rules or for not trying to scam the system in some way. She sees so many people in her work at the hospital who get free medical care at taxpayer expense. Many are drug (I include alcohol an tobacco as drugs) addicts or just find ways to get on disability when they actually could be productive members of society. Many of them demand to stay longer in the hospital and be taken care of. They refuse to get out of bed or to do the exercises that would help them become strong enough to walk on their own. They even show up drunk and unable to stand well enough to do their therapy without hurting themselves or their therapist. Your, and my, tax dollars are paying for all of this. And of course they all are firm believers in a government that takes care of them. They are lefties.

They should either follow the letter and the spirit of the rules that give them a free ride or they should be removed from the welfare system.

It turns out it’s not just the “little people” that ignore the rules and get away with abusing the system. A case in point is Arianna Huffington:

Huffington refused to turn off her Blackberry just before takeoff from Washington D.C. on a flight bound for New York City.  Huffington continued to use the phone during and after take-off which greatly antagonized a nearby fellow passenger.   Huffington kept the phone on throughout the flight even though the passenger, Ellis Bellodof, repeatedly asked her to turn it off.  Eventually, the two “caused a disturbance” so loud that security was called immediately after the plane landed at New York’s LaGuardia Airport, and both Huffington and Belledof were escorted off the plane for questioning.  Both were released without charges.

Now, I think the rule against using your cell phone on the plane is pretty stupid. To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence cell phone usage interferes with the planes electronics. And all of the recent airplane travel I have been on required that I not just put my phone into “Airplane mode” but actually turn the phone off. The only valid reason for that final rule is to make enforcement by the flight attendants a little bit easier. It’s far easier to see that a phone is off (it isn’t being used) than to verify the phone is in “Airplane mode”.

Despite thinking the rule is stupid I just frown a little bit and I turn off my phone when first asked to so. But this upper crust lefty, Arianna Huffington, does not obey this rule. That pisses me off. The airlines should either get rid of the rule (preferred) or refuse her service on their planes.

But what I think the bigger lesson here is that there are a lot of people on the left who make rules for “other people” yet don’t follow the rules that are supposed to apply to them. Case in point, legislators that advocate for restrictions on firearms. The Second Amendment is a “rule” they refuse to acknowledge. At the Federal level the enumerated powers of the constitution is ignored. Do you remember what Nancy Pelosi said when asked where the constitution gave the Federal government the power to implement the takeover of health care? She said, “Are you serious?” That pisses me off.

They are rule makers. If they don’t obey the rules how can they expect others to obey them except at the point of a gun? Is that why they want to remove guns from the public? Because the only reason they will obey the rules that supposedly apply to them is at the point of a gun?

Legislators, of any political persuasion, that ignore the highest rule of the land should either change the rules, leave the service of this country, or be removed from service—preferably in chains.