[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Thursday, September 15th, 2011|
|Monday, June 20th, 2011|
A Nation of Cowards
I'm pretty sure this has been linked to before, and the content itself is dated 1993, but the concepts are just as valid today. I've cited the portions that stood out to me as most succinctly representing the ideas and ideals of the essay, but the whole thing is worth reading.A Nation of Cowards | Jeffrey Snyder | RKBA.org
-- [While people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants.
How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods? [...]
How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you? [...]
It is by no means obvious why it is "civilized" to permit oneself to fall easy prey to criminal violence, and to permit criminals to continue unobstructed in their evil ways. While it may be that a society in which crime is so rare that no one ever needs to carry a weapon is "civilized," a society that stigmatizes the carrying of weapons by the law-abiding -- because it distrusts its citizens more than it fears rapists, robbers, and murderers -- certainly cannot claim this distinction. Perhaps the notion that defending oneself with lethal force is not "civilized" arises from the view that violence is always wrong, or the view that each human being is of such intrinsic worth that it is wrong to kill anyone under any circumstances. The necessary implication of these propositions, however, is that life is not worth defending. Far from being "civilized," the beliefs that counterviolence and killing are always wrong are an invitation to the spread of barbarism. Such beliefs announce loudly and clearly that those who do not respect the lives and property of others will rule over those who do.
In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (or, in modern parlance, does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly. In truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly. [...]
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the first case in which the Court had an opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment, it stated that the right confirmed by the Second Amendment "is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The repeal of the Second Amendment would no more render the outlawing of firearms legitimate than the repeal of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would authorize the government to imprison and kill people at will. A government that abrogates any of the Bill of Rights, with or without majoritarian approval, forever acts illegitimately, becomes tyrannical, and loses the moral right to govern.
[xposted to guns
|Friday, June 17th, 2011|
|Tuesday, June 14th, 2011|
Freedom in the United States
Freedom in the United States | Bayou Renaissance Man
) -- [That's the title of an updated report from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. It follows their first report on the subject in 2009. I highly recommend the report for all those to whom personal freedom and individual rights are cornerstones of their philosophy of life.
[xposted to sos_usa
|Thursday, May 26th, 2011|
|Thursday, May 19th, 2011|
Swat teams kills Marine, no film at 11
What's the term I've been accused of again?
Oh yeah, of being a Cop Hater
, or a Cop Basher.
When the police murder a Marine in his own home, it's real hard for me not to hate.
A Marine whom the local Jack Booted Thugs (I'm sorry, Law Enforcement Officers) say fired first even though his safety was on was hit 60 times.
SIXTY. By what is supposed to be a god damn Police Department. Not a damned fire team, not but the opposing forces in Iraq. By POLICE OFFICERS. In his own damn home. For having the audacity to be armed when investigating folks breaking into it.
Oh, and they couldn't be bothered to treat his gun shot wounds, nor allow anyone else to treat them.
The Sheriff's Department operator said people at the scene wanted the medical help to stay back because they might be dealing with a "barricaded subject."
This is from the Cops that are already inside the damned home!
I don't hate Cops in general. But I sure as hell hate the Cops who murder my fellow citizens in their own homes.
Officer Safety has become all consuming. That's very cute. No, really, it is. It would be a serious thing for me, instead of a cute BS excuse, if cops didn't KILL US in the name of Officer Safety.
Are we at the point in our police state where we have to assume that the intruders at our door might have the protection of the government on their side?
What is a free citizen to do?
|Friday, July 2nd, 2010|
|Thursday, May 27th, 2010|
Man strands elderly residents in homes
A man buys a bit of delinquent property from the government for $2000. The property completely encircles a developed multi-dwelling lot. He then sends each of the folks living on the surrounded developed lot notices demanding payment for their continued crossing of his property. The payment he demands is $80,000 per dwelling.
This sounds pretty dastardly.
The popular opinion seems to be that he will be laughed out of court on a common law right-of-way stance.
I wouldn't fault that outcome personally, even though it would be the government forcing a private citizen under threat of law to allow trespassers on his property, or a forfeiture of his property.
Yet the owners of the developed property could have taken steps to prevent this, and are negligent it not doing them.
This reminds me of an argument put out by a few big L Libertarian against the government forcing business owners to allow armed citizens unto their property.
Is the right to protect one's life a lesser right, a lesser Property Right, than the right to access one's surrounded property?
It is not a perfect analogy, no analogy is, but the principle seems very similar to me.
If a property owner can strip you of your right to self defense on their property, surely
they can stripe you of your right to traverse their property.
Is not the right to self defense a more important property right than the right to control those who treed upon your floor?
(cross posted, hat-tip to Say Uncle
for the story link)
|Monday, May 17th, 2010|
Let's play a game of "what if?"What if the SWAT team in Detroit hadn't kicked in the front door of the downstairs apartment, but had instead knocked on the door after surrounding the building?
They have ballistic shields for the door knocker to take cover behind, so the risk of the bad guy shooting through the door can be addressed.
This could trigger a fire fight, and the folks inside could die as a result. Yet that would be the bad guy initiating force, actively putting the occupants at risk, and the occupants sure as hell have a say in the matter. If the SWAT team is both lucky and good, they might be able to take out the bad guy as soon as he initiates force.
A stand off could ensue. This could tie up this SWAT team and their backup for a period of time, but would probably end without a dead child.
Of coarse, the bad guy could just give himself up.
What they did up in Detroit was have their version of a SWAT team (Special Response Team, SRT) knock announce, then kick in the front door late after midnight early Sunday morning. One of the officers had his damn finger on the trigger of his firearm, and after interacting with the grand mother somehow (Later Sunday, police spokesman John Roach said the officer and grandmother may have simply collided.)
shot and killed the 7 year old girl.
Oh, and the badguy was not living in the same apartment as the dead 7 year old girl. "Police say they got their man but have not said if he was arrested in the raid on the downstairs or upstairs apartment
It's not as if they didn't know about the two different apartments either.
"He said the search warrant allowed police to search both the downstairs and upstairs units.
Are we going to stop killing innocent people anytime soon?
Here's a fun article to close on, Girl Suffers Gunshot Wound to the Head
The police chief says in the last six months, a three-year-old was shot and killed in Detroit, and there have been other accidental shootings involving children. He says there are too many guns in the city and too many irresponsible gun owners.
More Militarized Than the Military
Police in the United States of America are more Militarized than the Military
Generally, our troops, including the special ops guys, use what we call "cordon and knock": they set up a perimeter around the target location to keep people from moving in or out,and then announce their presence and give the target an opportunity to surrender. In the majority of cases, even if the perimeter is established at night, the call out or knock on the gate doesn't happen until after the sun comes up.
Oh, and all of the bad guys we're going after are closely tied to killing and maiming people.
What might be amazing to American cops is that the vast majority of our targets surrender when called out.
Got that? Our military, when looking for enemy combatants, doesn't even do no-knock raids or knock and announce raids!
It's getting harder and harder to understand the justification for most SWAT raids.
|Thursday, January 21st, 2010|
Austin Gun Show Thuggery
Austin gun show update: Interviews reveal bigger picture
There are no clear-cut villains and victims here.
No clear cut victim, except the private citizen wishing to sell his private property at the gun show.
I think that's a pretty big victim list. It saddens me to see that Howard Nemerov does not consider the private citizen deprived of the ability to conduct lawful transfers of private property to be a victim.
Would the non-victim status still apply if the rule was "No discussion or promotion of Buddhist behavior on the floor or on the property"?
The force of law was used to threaten a public company to change it's rules on private citizen activity.
If this was a free speech case, the term "chilling" would have been brought up by now. When Agents of the Government talk to you about something you are doing that they don't like, that is an implied threat. That is the "Chilling" effect.
Why is this OK again? Oh, that's right, because no overt threats where made. Implied threats of government action don't apply to gun rights or property rights, only to free speech rights.
Here is another side of the story that nice fellow Howard Nemerov didn't cover in his Examiner article.
Police, under the direction of ATF, told Boedeker he would be required to follow their “recommendations” or they would close down his event. Boedeker said he was told “you do what we say or we shut you down.” He said the ultimatum was recorded by the police and ATF.
|Friday, November 13th, 2009|
Comprehensive Gun Control Rebuttle
I've got some spare time, so lets just cover all the bases.
Conceal Carry: Some states have it, others don't. Some require training, others don't. Two states do just fine with no permit system at all. Most have different laws on what is "concealed" vs. what's "Open" and where and how and how many guns people can carry.
Bottom line: There isn't a difference. You're no more or less likely to be harmed, wronged, or killed by a person who is carrying lawfully no matter if they had sanctioned training, or not, or if there were discrepancy laws on how and who could be issued or not. Concealed carry is not a problem. If you have a problem with it, YOU have a problem, not us.
Also Vermont and Alaska do just fine with no permits. If you can legally own a gun, you can carry it however you want to. I have multiple permits to carry. I carry everywhere where I lawfully can. I see DOZENS of police officers in my-day-to-day. I've never been asked to verify my permit. Mostly because they don't know...or simply don't care, that I'm carrying a gun and going about my day. If you own a gun (lawfully or not) you can carry it. The permit does nothing but add additional charges for when something happens. Let's face it, if you do something illegal while carrying a gun, the anchorites, and society at large have enugh juice with the system to deal with you, permit or no. So essentially they're pointless and expensive.
Gun-Free Zones: Can you guarantee my safety? I can't. The Police can't, and they won't (just ask them). I carry a gun because I know pure safety doesn't really exist, and if I'm in danger I'll use whatever means available to me to stay safe. Part of that is my personal firearm(s).
If you restrict where I can carry you are taking the burden that I am willing to carry onto your own shoulders until I can re-arm myself and resume my personal responsibility. I hope you're fine with that, because if something happens to me, or anybody else, I'm going to do my best to hold you responsible
Guns in Bars: Just about every place restricts people from getting drunk while operating or carrying guns. Furthermore if you do anything stupid or dangerous with a gun, you're breaking the law, drunk or no. Restricting guns just because somebody MIGHT (or might not) have an adult beverage while in there is pure stupidity. Also you're creating a Gun-Free zone and making a guarantee to keep me safe while I'm in there. That's a promise you can't keep, so it's stupid and dangerous.
Gun Rationing: Care to explain to me how somebody with 2, 3, 15, 20 ect guns is MORE dangerous to you than a person with one? Crimes like Virginia Tech or the Fort Hood shooting were done with small numbers of guns (Cho from VT bought both of his guns under a one-gun-a-month law) as far as I can tell the shooters only used one of the guns they had. If you think One-gun-a-month or similar will somehow stop or hinder gun trafficking, remember that gun trafficking already breaks multiple federal laws, plus whatever additional state or local laws that may exist for any and all of the areas involved in the crime. If all these laws don't stop it, isn't it a little naive to think one more will do anything?
Gun Registration: Been tried all over the place. Has failed to accomplish anything in all of them. Also it has the additional fault that it can and has been used to confiscate property that is doing no harm.
"Assault Weapons" bans: First up this is a completely made-up term and is essentially meaningless to anybody who knows anything on how guns function. The only reason why this term is even used was because its proponents intentionally misled an uneducated public to believe these guns were able to do things they simply can't. It was founded on a lie, anybody who supports such lies either has no idea what they're talking about or is lying to you. It centers around cosmetic features like protruding pistol grips and bayonet lugs, among other things. There is no "Assault Weapons" ban in any place at any time that a lawful person cannot buy a firearm that is nearly identical to a banned one that is 100% legal.
In addition to all of this, these guns are regularly used by private security, as well as Police and other peace officer forces. Why? Because they're ideal items for personal defense. Personal defense is 100% legal. These guns are good for personal defense, therefor they should be 100% legal.
The NFA: Overall a dumb law that does nothing. It heavily restricts noise suppressors. All cars are required to have these, as well as most industrial machines and buildings. Gun clubs are under constant threat because of complaints of noise. It's safety equipment and should be used as such. Criminals can already take advantage of these devices as they can easily be built from common household equipment and with common household tools. They largely don't because just like muffled car, muffled guns still make noise. Also a suppressed gun is larger and harder to carry around than one without, lastly threatening and/or shooting people tends to get noticed no matter how quiet your gun is.
It heavily restricts guns over .50 Caliber. Care to explain to me what changes when I increase a bullet/bore diameter from 0.50 caliber to 0.51? I didn't think so. That's all this law does. Also it exempts shotguns as they have historically been larger than 0.50. Hunters put rifled barrels on shotguns all the time, and they by all intents and purposes have a larger than .50 Caliber rifle. This is not against the law, nor does it do anything more dangerous than any other gun. Pretty stupid, huh?
It restricts the length of a gun barrel on a rifle or shotgun. Of course if you build a pistol up from the same mechanical components you have have something very similar. also there are many handguns chambered in rifle or shotgun rounds, or rounds that are very similar, or more powerful. The law does nothing to these guns, and society at large has no problem with them anyway.
It restricts guns that don't look like guns. Ummm can you explain to me what about an AR-15, and FNH S2000, an M1911A1, a Glock 22, a Kel-Tec P3AT, and a Mauser C96 have in common that makes them "Look like a gun"? Guns are built to work, what they look like is irrelevant
It restricts weapons capable of full-auto fire. Honestly I can't see what the big game-changer is with this feature? Generally it means the gun needs to be less powerful or bigger and heavier, or mounted to a fixed position to be controllable, and will require the shooter to carry more ammo and reload more. I fail to see what tactical advantage they supply outside of some very specialized military applications. Because I don't see much of an advantage to them (and they're expensive to shoot) I personally don't want one. Because I don't see an advantage to them I also could care less if somebody else wanted to buy one.
As far as a criminal or terrorist attempting violence with them I'll just note the more you reload the more chances I have to return fire with my own weapon or escape to safety.
Universal background checks. I live in a state that has universal background checks. Criminals still buy and sell guns on the black market. If you live in a state that doesn't have universal background checks, criminals buy and sell guns on the black market. If they pass such a law nothing will change, except they will be violating one more law on top of the countless laws they're already violating.
The GCA: This law I have only small issues with. If somebody is so insane they need to be confined to a mental hospital. If somebody has shown a history of violence, I don't want them to have more tools to commit violence. Still why are ALL felons restricted? It's a felony to catch lobsters in my state without a license. Its a felony to own sex toys in others. It's a felony to fail to pay your taxes. If sentencing guidelines are changed it can be a felony for ANY crime, as well as now legal activities can be declared illegal and a felony. I don't see how this has any relevance to a person's right to keep and bear arms.
The saying goes "If somebody can't be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't be trusted to be in public" I agree with that statement, but sadly we don't have the man power to implement such an ideal, nor do I trust the court system to be able to determine that.
I think all people of restricted status should be able to petition the court to have their restricted status removed.
Gun/ammo serialization: Essentially already in place. These numbers are very useful for factories to have quality control on their product. Its also useful for people to keep track of their property. Its also quickly and easily defeated by hand tools. This includes "Micro-stamping" technology, which at the time of this writing has not been proven to work effectively, and can be easily removed in a short period of time.
"Safe Gun" rosters: Like any product, guns can be faulty. Just like any product if a fault is found in a gun the company that provided a faulty product is liable. Fines and lawsuits can easily ruin a company, so most companies provide high-quality and safe products. This includes guns. if a product is later found to have a defect, like most products a recall is made and done at the company's expense. Because of this all guns on the market are very safe if used properly (Most products are unsafe if used improperly, guns are no different), any place that proposes or implements a "Safe Gun" roster or testing is simply removing guns that ARE safe from the market in order to restrict how and who can buy guns.
Suicides: Yep in America about 50% of people who kill themselves use guns. I have yet to see any data that shows that by somehow removing guns from the equation will do anything to suicide rates. If people claim they want to ban guns because of suicide, ask they why are only 50% of the people who take their lives important?
Universal Gun Permitting, and blanket gun bans. Sorry, the 2nd Amendment protects our rights to keep and bear arms. If you want to push laws like this you're going to first have to repeal that Amendment. Good luck. Also gun bans and universal permitting have been passed in several states and countries. The results do not point to success.
That seems to cover most of them. I took the time to type this so you can spend your time doing more constructive things than argue an issue that is so conclusive.
Feel free to distribute the link to this post or copy and paste it at will. If you do copy and paste, or use any large part of this please be considerate of my time and attach my name to it.
Let's put this dog to Bed.
|Thursday, November 12th, 2009|
Ed Driscoll » End Clinton-era Military Base Gun Ban
For those who are wondering why an army base of all places is, effectively, a gun-free zone, the Washington Times notes its origins:
Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases.
One of the left's dearest delusions is that gun free zones make people safer.
As any survivors from gun free zone massacres could tell you, only law abiding citizens obey laws restricting guns.Ed Driscoll » End Clinton-era Military Base Gun Ban
Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood
Guns and Walmart, two bogeymen of the left. Great article. Ed Driscoll » End Clinton-era Military Base Gun Ban
The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Fort Hood understands all too well. In an interview on CNN Monday night, Anchor John Roberts asked Mandy Foster how she felt about her husband’s upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: “At least he’s safe there and he can fire back, right?”
For now Mrs. Foster, for now.
|Thursday, November 5th, 2009|
7 dead, 12 injured in Fort Hood shooting
Seven dead and twelve wounded at Fort Hood in a shooting by at least two, and maybe three gun men, reportedly the gunmen are in uniform.
This happens in what is effectively a gun free zone.
Our military disarms our service members on base folks. Once past the gate guards, if they are even armed (empty handguns don't count as being armed), one can expect to not meet armed resistance except for Military Police.
Damn the cowards who disarm our own damned military. Damn them to whatever hell they believe in.
|Monday, November 2nd, 2009|
UPDATE on Lib Lawyer shooting IN HIS OWN WORDS
Forget all the banter of 144 comments on the blog, (tempest in teapot as usual lib-tard such) here's Jim's update. Most importantly, he is recovering well and will be out on Wednesday if all continues accordingly.
Jim Duensing // Nov 1, 2009 at 6:42 pm
First, I’d like to thank everyone for their prayers and well wishes.
I have suffered a broken arm. It is currently pinned in 4 places. Additional surgery on it will probably take place on Wednesday.
The shots to my midsection missed all vital organs. Three shots were fired from behind me and to my right. The doctors believe that two of the shots made contact. It appears that one entered my right pec, bounced off my sternum, went through my left pec, then shattered my humerous just above my left elbow. The second shot went in my lower right abdomen and exited my left abdomen without hitting any vital organs.
I am well on the way to recovery. and expect to be released from the hospital shortly after my surgery on Wednesday.
I am disappointed that the CCLP issued a press release without having spoken to me first. As a result, it contains misstatements of fact.
Here is what happened.
I was pulled over for driving straight through an intersection in a right turn only lane. I did signal for my lane changes to the left.
After exiting the vehicle at the officer’s request, I was standing with my back to the vehicle. The car’s open door was to my right. My hands were raised above my head. I was calmly speaking to the cop attempting to talk my way out of being taken to jail over an unpaid High Occupancy Vehicle ticket.
With my hands raised above my head, the cop shot me with a taser in the chest. As I have had heart problems since my premature birth, I believe a Taser to be a lethal weapon. Several people without heart conditions have been killed by this weapon.
When the taser began electrocuting me, instinct took over. I have been shocked by standard 120 volt electricity, which is what is used in your home. That was bad enough. Metro’s tasers contain “50,000 volts of pain compliance” according to one of the cops at the family law court who was operating the checkpoint.
Let me tell you, it is quite painful.
I immediately turned to my left and began moving away from the source of the electrocution. By the time I got to the back of the vehicle, I had reached up with both hands, grabbed the electrodes, and pulled them away from my chest. The juice then flowed through my arms - not my heart. As I lay here in my hospital bed, I firmly believe this instinct saved my life.
I continued running away from the taser. I heard the cop fire it again, but did not feel an additional shock.
I was running down the sidewalk with empty hands. I heard three pops from behind me. At first, I thought it was another taser shot. Then, I saw my left arm dangling.
I was taken down by a second officer - who was nearby conducting a separate unrelated traffic stop. He had me lying facedown on my broken arm. It was at this point that he found my licensed and registered pistol in my right cargo pants pocket and my Emerson folding knife in my right front pocket.
Let me reiterate. I am a firearms instructor at the world’s largest firearms training facility. I always carry a gun and at least one knife. I NEVER pulled either of these items out of my pockets.
The shooter was on my right side and from his perspective had to have been able to see that my right hand was indeed empty. The officer that I was running toward never reached for any weapon.
I’d like to publicly thank the Trauma surgeons at the UMC Medical facility. They did an excellent job. The reason additional surgery on my arm is necessary is because the wounds to my chest took priority. For good reason, they worry first about life, then about limb.
Again, thanks everyone for their well wishes. I have spoken to several people on the phone since being released from custody - although I still have not heard from the CCLP or the NVLP chairs.
To my knowledge, the CCLP had not issued a press release in years. I’m not sure why it felt compelled to issue one in this instance which contained misstatements of fact and which clearly tried to distance the CCLP from one of its members. Although, not an officer, I am a voting member of the CCLP excomm. Needless to say, my editing advice was not sought on the press release before it was issued.
Incidentally, I was returning from a trip to Carson City, following the Teabagger Express in support of my 2010 Senate campaign to unseat the Senator from Searchlight.
The campaign website is http://www.HellForHarry.com
. I feel compelled to mention this, because neither the RJ nor the LP included this information in their written statements.
Rather than send flowers, please send your condolences in the form of campaign contributions :)
In liberty, with eternal vigilance,
|Thursday, October 22nd, 2009|
|Friday, September 4th, 2009|
|Tuesday, August 18th, 2009|
Self Defense Products and Home Security Equipment
My wife and I recently started a great new business offering self defense products and home security equipment (FuzzCountry.com). I thought you would all be interested in what we have to offer. We carry many self defense products, both lethal and non-lethal. We sell stun guns, tasers, martial arts gear, batons (including expandable batons), knives, swords, pepper spray and so much more. We also carry high tech spy gear, surveillance equipment and various home security products. If you're interested, please take a look at what we have to offer.
We are passionate about the products we sell, and we are strong proponents of self defense products and alternatives to firearms, particularly in areas where firearms are not allowed. Our customer service is excellent, and we offer a professional, legitimate online shopping experience! We will go above and beyond for you!
So, below is a link to the site. Please feel free to email us with any feedback as to how we can improve the site:www.fuzzcountry.com
Why shouldn't someone carry at a political event that includes the president?
|Tuesday, August 11th, 2009|
Chris Matthews gets owned...
All up in arms about an armed civilian standing around outside at a rally...Link to video
William did amazingly well, and fielded Matthews leading questions with aplomb.
There are plenty more videos from other networks, typically ranting and totally flummoxed that those of us who don't live in occupied territory are actually "allowed" to carry guns.
One thing I do think I might have said if I were in his shoes, and asked why I chose to carry at the rally, might be to simply say that I carry every day, and I would have to make a conscious effort not
to carry at the rally. Current Mood: amused