Category Archives: Politics

Another dilemma for congress

Posted on by

The gun rights people in the U.S. Congress have been giving their anti-gun bigot co-workers some interesting dilemmas recently. There was the elimination of D.C.’s gun laws amendment attached to the bill giving D.C. residents a voting member in the house (on hold). Then there was the removal of guns restrictions in National Parks attached to the “credit card reform” legislation (passed!). And now there is this (via email from Wesley D.):

The Pink Pistols and GOProud are supporting Senator John Thune (R-SD) on an amendment to recently-introduced Federal “so-called hate crime” legislation, Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

…

Conceptually, the amendment would allow citizens with concealed carry permits to carry handguns across state lines with reciprocity, while following local concealed carry laws. That makes sense to me. If the original legislation is intended to reactively punish thuggish citizens for “so-called hate crimes,” it only makes sense to also proactively make it easier for all citizens to defend themselves and prevent the “so-called hate crimes” in the first place.

Although I agree with Linoge on a philosophical basis I also am of the opinion that once our enemies violated that principle (Hughes Amendment, Lautenberg Amendment, etc.) it would be unethical for us to defend our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms on an unequal playing field. We are only playing by their rules. So when they start whining just tell them something like, “Karma is a bitch ain’t it?”

See also posts by Phil and Ride Fast.

Quote of the day–Ben Franklin

Posted on by

This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.


Ben Franklin
[I can’t say that I disagree. The problem is that people have not been taught to know and prize their rights. Ignorance has been a big part of our country’s downfall. People vote for politicians promising perceived benefits without glimmer of recognition there might be unintended consequences.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Wilhelm Reich

Posted on by

The fact that political ideologies are tangible realities is not a proof of their vitally necessary character. The bubonic plague was an extraordinarily powerful social reality, but no one would have regarded it as vitally necessary.


Wilhelm Reich
[I’m thinking of dominate political ideologies of Democrats and Republicans. Extraordinarily powerful social realities with the utility of the bubonic plague. That sounds about right.


The major political parties appear to have no principles or underlying philosophy. As near as I can tell they are merely coalitions of people in desire of fame/power/money. Political ideologies based on consistent philosophies such as the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party are for the most part unable to achieve power. This is in part because they are consistent philosophies which makes them less willing to compromise.


I sometimes fantasize of creating a political system that makes such coalitions of zero or negative value but have been unsuccessful of anything approaching something feasible. I keep coming back to enumerated powers such that the coalitions can’t exceed certain boundaries. We tried that once and look at what we have now. There needs to be a “Fourth Branch of Government” or something that does nothing but permanently nullify laws and remove politicians who voted for them from government if something like 10% of the members think the law violates the constitution.–Joe]

Can We Put This to Rest, Please?

Posted on by

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard from an anti-rights activist; “There are ‘Reasonable Restrictions’ on all rights…” as an attempt to convince us that gun restrictions, in and of themselves, are not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s been a lot.  As often as not, the pro-rights advocate falls for it, too.


The main argument the anti uses is the old, “You can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” meme as an example of a Reasonable Restriction on a constitutionally protected right (you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, therefore your second amendment rights are null and void.  QED).


Oh please!  Seriously; when has fraud been a candidate for the title “free speech”? 


Anyone?


It is a malicious fraud to yell “Fire!” if there is no fire.


The first amendment does not protect fraud, libel, slander, or incitement to illegal violence as “free speech” any more than the second amendment protects armed robbery and murder as an integral part of the right to keep and bear arms.  It says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.  It doesn’t say, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms and to threaten, to rob or to kill anyone they wish, shall not be infringed”.


We can readily accept laws against robbery, aggravated assault, and murder without our second amendment rights being threatened in the least.  “Keeping and bearing” arms has nothing to do with committing crimes using said arms.  Keeping and Bearing is absolutely protected, and, well, crime is crime.  Can you say, “Duh”?  Everyone together now;  “Derrrrrr!”


Can we please not, ever, allow the old (says in a snotty tone) “Well, there are plenty of Reasonable Restrictions on other rights, and I don’t see YOU opposing with THOSE” argument to get any traction whatsoever?

Quote of the day–Thomas Jefferson

Posted on by

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.


Thomas Jefferson
[One might reasonably conclude that the bailout of the automobile and banking industries is evidence that this principle has been forgotten in the years since Jefferson help found this nations government. But then what do I know? I’m not the constitutional law professor who actually respects the constitution like President Obama.–Joe


Update October 28, 2012: This is a bogus quote. Thoreau said essentially this if you want to quote someone famous on this topic.]

Seattle Library rules on firearms

Posted on by

I received this just today which is too late for attending their hearing or sending in comments but via an email from Mike B. we have this:



Category A (Library Specific Violation)


…


Possession, except by law enforcement officers, of a firearm on Library property (with a valid permit),


…


Category E (Serious Violation Toward Person(s) or Property)


…


Possession, except by law enforcement officers, of a firearm on Library property (no valid permit).


So what they are saying is that even though the State has said local governments may not regulate firearm possession the city library is going to do it anyway. They recognize the existence of carry permits but will not honor them.


It sounds to me like it is time for a lawsuit. Email to appropriate people is in the works.

Quote of the day–Fred Woodworth

Posted on by

If human beings are fundamentally good, no government is necessary; if they are fundamentally bad, any government, being composed of human beings, would be bad also.


Fred Woodworth
[I think Woodworth overlooks some fundamental issues with things like his opposition to profit in economic relationships and ownership to raw land but I think he makes some valid points about the non-utility of government.–Joe]

Safety Shmafety

Posted on by

We in the pro-freedom camp (Americans) spend too much time arguing about safety.  Or rather, we argue safety far too often in the terms laid down by our enemies– the enemies of liberty.  Though the statistics are often on our side, we’re granting the basis for the argument (that government exists to promote the physical safety of the individual) to the enemy.


Wrong premise.


Too many police departments, for example, call themselves Departments of Public Safety and the like.  That’s not their function, per se.  Their proper function is to enforce the law and the primary purpose of law, in the uniquely American sense at least, is to promote and protect your rights.  That this function has been corrupted over the years does not change the original intent.


The American Revolution was indeed fought for safety, but the safety so dearly bought therein was a rather different kind of safety from that promoted by the neo-Fascists.  It wasn’t the kind of safety taught at your local public school.  It wasn’t the kind of safety we’re training for in a fire drill or in a drivers’ education class.  That kind of safety is properly the responsibility of the individual or of private interests.


The kind of safety for which the Revolution was fought and for which the constitution was written is safety from government interference– safety from the enemies of liberty both foreign and domestic.


Historically, out-of-control governments have presented a danger to public safety far greater than all common criminal activity and standard physical danger combined.  Some government or left-wing hack asserting that we need more government intrusion as a means of promoting “safety” is a bit like advocating mass sex orgies for the promotion of abstinence.


When we’re arguing safety and public policy then, we need to make it clear beforehand which particular kind of safety we’re discussing– the safety of subjects owned by the government (the safety of tyrants and sycophants) or the safety of a free people.  They are near polar opposites.

Guns in national parks goes to the house

Posted on by

The credit card bill with the amendment for restoring our rights to keep and bear arms in national parks passed the Senate a few minutes ago:



_ Includes unrelated provision that would allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.


It’s not a sure thing it will get passed into law yet but the chances aren’t too bad:



The 90-5 vote, following a 357-to-70 vote in the House on April 30, made it likely that President Obama will have a measure on his desk before the Memorial Day recess. The differences between the House and Senate versions will have to be worked out, but given the political atmosphere it seems likely that the House-Senate negotiations will move quickly.


Amazing. And this bill is much better for us than the ruling change the Brady Campaign shot down with the bogus “no environmental assessment study was done” lawsuit.


The Brady Campaign may have not only wasted their money but they may get a worse result for their efforts.


Be on the lookout for more Sad Pandas.

Buffers take a beating

Posted on by

In the U.K. the Speaker of the Lower House of Parliament has several duties. Some of these have been hazardous to their health:



The Speaker sets the agenda for debate in parliament, calls on members of parliament to speak, can limit question time and decide whether amendments should be voted on.


They also traditionally serve as a liaison with the monarch, acting as a buffer between the Commons and the sovereign.


In the past, when relations between the two were not always so good, Speakers had a deadly job. In fact, nine Speakers, all prior to 1560, died a violent death, one murdered, one killed in battle and seven beheaded, two on the same day.


I’m all for our Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi resigning because of her scandal (as the U.K. speaker is) but being beheaded seems a little over the top (as well was being a little off the top).

Quote of the day–Kurt Hofmann

Posted on by

The citizen disarmament advocates may indeed eventually get their “terrorist” incident.  The question is this: are they trying to forestall that, or to provoke it?  At some point, some concerned patriot is going to wonder if it’s time to paraphrase Patrick Henry (one of the original “right-wing extremists”): “If this be terrorism, make the most of it.”


Kurt Hofmann
May 15, 3:56 AM
How to disarm the citizenry in 3 easy steps
[Patrick Henry may not have actually said this, but Hofmann does ask a good question.–Joe]

Bloggers are making an impact

Posted on by

Sebastian, Kevin, and others were quoted in the Christian Science Monitor today after being interviewed last night in Phoenix.


Bitter pulled The Josh Sugarmann Endorsement out of that article.


Great job guys! It makes me wish, even more, that I was there.

Another year of amnesty for Canadian gun owners

Posted on by

Canada said they wanted all the guns in the country registered. The gun owners said, “Μολὼν λαβέ“. Canada said, “Okay, how about we waive the license fee and you get another year to register them?” The gun owners said, “Μολὼν λαβέ“. The registration law was passed in 1995. It’s now 14 years later and what is the story? See for yourself:



The Honourable Vic Toews, President of the Treasury Board, on behalf of the Honourable Peter Van Loan, Minister of Public Safety, today announced the re-extension of an amnesty and other measures that helps firearms owners comply with the law.


“This Government has, once again, extended the amnesty to continue to bring law-abiding citizens into our licensing system,” said Minister Toews. “We are preventing the pointless criminalization of non-restricted gun owners, who are working to come into compliance with our firearms laws.”


“Make no mistake. This amnesty actually serves to enhance public safety. When previously extended, the amnesty encouraged an increase of gun owners registering as licensed firearms owners, as did the other measures we are renewing today,” said Minister Van Loan.


The following three measures, which will encourage compliance and reduce the administrative burden on lawful firearms owners, are now in effect until May 16, 2010:


– Extending by one year an amnesty which allows individuals in possession of unregistered non-restricted firearms to take steps to bring themselves into compliance;


– Extending by one year the current fee waiver for firearms licence renewals or upgrades; and,


– Allowing eligible holders of expired Possession-Only Licences to apply for a new one within a year.


“Our effort to combat criminal gun crimes remains strong. We have introduced mandatory prison sentences for those who commit gun crimes and tougher bail rules for serious weapon-related offences,” added Minister Van Loan.


All together now, everyone!  Μολὼν λαβέ

Due process? Who needs it?

Posted on by

H. R. 2159 would allow the U.S. Attorney General deny people an ATF license for firearms or explosives without due process:

The Attorney General may deny a license application if the Attorney General determines that the applicant (including any responsible person) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’.

“Appropriately suspected”? Yeah, right. Like I donated money to his bosses opponent in the last election? Or he read Why Boomershoot?

Surely it there must be some sort of hearing and you are given a chance to see or respond to the evidence they used to arrive at the decision, right?

by striking ‘The Attorney General may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, revoke’ and insert ‘(2)’;
…
(1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting ‘, except that if the denial or revocation is pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(H) or (e)(3), then any information on which the Attorney General relied for this determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security’ before the period;
…
‘(b) In any case in which the Attorney General has denied the transfer of a firearm to a prospective transferee pursuant to section 922A or has made a determination regarding a firearm permit applicant pursuant to section 922B, an action challenging the determination may be brought against the United States. The petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the petitioner has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 922A or 922B. The court shall sustain the Attorney General’s determination on a showing by the United States by a preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General’s determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 922B. To make this showing, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security. On request of the petitioner or the court’s own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General’s determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.’.

No crime need be committed. The AG just has to have a bad feeling about you and you don’t get to see or respond to the evidence being used against you.

What Henry Kissinger said comes to mind.

Quote of the day–Ben Franklin

Posted on by

God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: This is my country.


Ben Franklin
[Unfortunately just the opposite has happened. Anywhere I may set my foot on this planet is oppressed and there is no place that I can say I want to live with this system of government. Now that Cheerios are being considered a drug (and here) will the fields in which we raise the oats for them be treated like fields of opium poppies?–Joe]

Progress at the Federal level–amazing

Posted on by

This afternoon I watched with fascination on my cell phone as I got Twitter updates from bitterb on the amendment to a Senate bill that would allow guns in National Parks. It was debated and passed 67-29.


Can it pass in the House? Will Obama veto it if it reaches his desk?


Last November I could not have imagined any pro-gun bill passing by a 2/3s majority in either house at the Federal level.

I have to laugh

Posted on by

Socialism. It’s made of FAIL:



The state budget deficit has nearly doubled in the past two months, climbing past $15 billion, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger disclosed Monday.


The sober news comes a week before a May 19 statewide vote on a set of ballot budget-related measures that, if defeated, would push the deficit past $21 billion, Schwarzenegger warned in a letter to legislative leaders.


It was Socialism that brought about the collapse of the U.S.S.R. It will be socialism that brings about the collapse of the California government. And I’ll not be surprised if it brings down the U.S. government as well.


And as painful as it will be to most people I’ll still laugh because I’m not above saying “I told you so.” And I’ll have all the food, clean water, and the guns and ammo to defend it while the socialist “intellectuals” are unable to find a way to dispose of their own waste in a sanitary manner let alone find water or food fit for consumption. They can tell me, again, how important, how right, how justified they are in their cities as they cry themselves to sleep with an empty stomach, in their own filth, in the dark.

Quote of the day–Traction Control

Posted on by

As the “Right Wing” is now being singled out by the Janet Nepolitano’s DHS as “extremists” and taxation is inevitably being prepared to bankrupt generations to come, perhaps we should realize that War has already been declared on American Values, Heritage, Birthright and Prosperity.


I say we prepare to designate households, then neighborhoods, towns, cities, counties, States, Regions and eventually the whole country as “Hell No” zones.  Starting with the refusal to pay ANY TAXES, and showing up en masse to prevent the lawyers from enforcing any individual seizure of private property in a self-proclaimed “Hell No“ zone.


Rolling back every law enacted since the Constitution was ratified would be a good start, too.


I hereby declare ALL Taxes are against my consent.  And pledge to defend any other household to declare itself a “Hell No” zone. 


Beginning with mine.


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!


Traction Control
May 2, 2009
Democracy Overrun in Pakistan. In the US? Hell No!
[I admit to getting a warm pleasant feeling from the thought. But most of my taxes are paid without my control via payroll deductions and as part of the purchase price as in sales and gas taxes. It will take people “unplugging from the grid” to even to begin to accomplish this on a wide scale. That doesn’t mean I might not support others that can establish a “Hell No” zone but I’m not sure how much that would help.–Joe]

Is that what you call it?

Posted on by

From the New York Times:



Two weeks ago, Mr. Schumer, a prominent gun control advocate, invited Ms. Gillibrand to a news conference in Manhattan to unveil a gun control plan.


When it was her turn to speak, Ms. Gillibrand faced skepticism, given her past support for gun owners’ rights. “How much of this is political expediency?” one reporter asked.


Eventually, Mr. Schumer, stepped in, saying he, too, made adjustments when he went from a House seat to the Senate. “When you start representing a new area, you learn, you meet other people and you grow,” he explained.


Then the news conference came to an end and the two senators strolled off to lunch.


Would you call it “growth” if a defender of equal rights for blacks started praising George Wallace’s segregation policies? For Gillibrand to support a gun control plan and “stroll off to lunch” with Schumer is like a NAACP supporter going to lunch with David Duke. Gillibrand is just another politician without principles.

Platform of a bigot

Posted on by

Keep in mind that laws aren’t written or enforced which punish inanimate objects or violent crime. Laws only punish people who possess those objects or commit those crimes. Hence what District Attorney candidate Richard M. Aborn says he plans to do is actually attack people who own guns–people exercising a specific enumerated right:




He has received endorsements from a former police commissioner, William J. Bratton, and from several elected officials, and on Monday, he released his first detailed policy paper, a five-point plan for combating gun violence in Manhattan.


The plan calls for a regional interdiction approach to gun trafficking; more gun buyback programs and a program in which parents could give the police permission to search homes for guns; a requirement that pistols sold in New York include micro-stamping technology; a five-year renewal process for handgun permits; and support for a national gun-control strategy.


What would be the public response if he announced his “five-point plan” for combating Jewish vermin in Manhattan? Or putting uppity blacks in their place? And what of the people that endorsed such a person? They would, and rightly so, have a tough time getting a job as a janitor in Manhattan. A job as an elected official? The only thing they could get elected to would be a prison cell by a jury.


But this isn’t the way things are supposed to be. This is New York and an article in the New York Times. Where such bigotry is the norm and bigots such as Aborn are not only tolerated but praised. Just like some deep south sheriff who roughs up blacks for entertainment on Saturday nights Aborn is praised and endorsed by many. He should be prosecuted under 18 USC 241 and/or 242.