|
|
Sunday, April 20th, 2008
| |
11:04 pm
|
The interestingly timed raid on the religious/cult community/ranch/compound has me rather worried about what in the hell ever happened to our society.
The government, based on a single anonymous phone call/tip, show up with armored vehicles, battle dress uniforms and Assault Rifles (not the nice semi-auto rifles like I own) to take all the kids from private homes on private property.
The government not only did all this with a minimal of probable cause, but then they took all of the material that documented the raid from the religious folks.
I gotta tell ya, this scares the hell out of me.
I don't understand how the government taking recordings of the raid can be constitutional.
I'm pissed off that the government can't be bothered to have individual custody trials. They are doing their best to turn this into a circus for the people, instead of being bothered with that whole justice thing.
I'm pissed off that the government can take over 400 kids based on one fucking phone call. I call that jack booted thug behavior. The kind of thing that happens in a society that is NOT free.
And I don't give a shit about the reason, stealing kids en masse without a trial is WRONG. It is behavior outside of the constitution. Even if the government (we) caught a guy raping a little girl, that is NOT a reason to take every single minor in the area.
Of coarse these religious folks might be fucked up, they might be gang raping the females for all I know. But I don't know. And you don't know. And the government doesn't know.
There has been no trial.
No hard evidence that I've seen with regard to wrong doing on the part of the religious folks, and the government has gone out of it's way to hide it's actions from view, so I have no idea if the government has continued to do wrong (threatening military force on it's citizens is WRONG).
Yes, protecting children is a good thing. But if we violate the rights of the many because of the possible actions of the few, what deformed flavor of justice are we serving?
Whose rights are due next to be run over by an armored vehicle?
Humbug.
P.S. I have a hard time understanding why pregnant 13 year olds aren't help to the same standards in a public school as they are seemingly being held to in this case.
Are we to believe 13 year old kids aren't fucking each other in this case, or that men older then 18 aren't fucking 13 year olds that attend our school system?
|
|
(8 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, March 23rd, 2008
| |
1:42 pm
|
I could agree with the idea of "reasonable restrictions" to the right to keep and bear arms if those collectivist bastards understood the word "reasonable".
But their idea of "reasonable restrictions" is much closer to total control.
If we had their idea of "reasonable restrictions" on freedom of speech, we certainly wouldn't be allowed to blog without government approval. I foresee daily limits on word count, with a monthly limit on comments and posts.
A gun banners idea of "reasonable restrictions" tend toward bans on what we are allowed to own (machine guns, short barreled firearms, mufflers for firearms), banning entire classes of firearms (handguns in Washington DC and Chicago), limiting how often we can buy (1 handgun or firearm per month), limits on how many we can own (arsenal laws), limits on who is allowed to carry (bans on carry, or May Issue conceal carry laws, in New York City you have to be politically powerful to get a carry license), and draconian limits on self defense (must retreat laws, prosecuting home owners for shooting home invaders in New York City and Washington DC).
So this forces me to argue for no limits. Now, I can't in good faith say folks should be allowed to own biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. But I do honestly believe they should be allowed to own artillery pieces, armored vehicles, and fighter aircraft, and of coarse machineguns, sub machine guns, assault rifles, grenade launchers, and short barreled shotguns.
Banning criminals from owning firearms is interesting. I don't believe threats to society should be legally armed. But I'm very much oppose stripping the right to be legally armed from folks who cheat on taxes, defraud their companies, ask for money or pay money for sex, or use drugs.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, March 19th, 2008
| |
9:51 pm - What does "the right of the people" mean on their planet?
|
In the next few months, we might have a ruling in the first Supreme Court case about the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution in 70 years.
The Second Amendment readsA 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. The amazing thing is, some folks honestly believe "the right of the people" is a collective right, not an individual right like "the right of the people" in the First AmendmentCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I just don't understand this. It's the same damned ENGLISH words for gods sake. It's the same in the Fourth Amendment as well.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Of course, a lot of the folks who believe the Second Amendment is a collective right also believe the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to us mere citizens either. Or at least not if they believe any of us to be a criminal.
I deeply hope our Supreme Court reinforces the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and strike down the Washington DC Handgun Ban.
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, March 18th, 2008
| |
3:05 pm
|
The (Washington DC) City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."
Self Defense is not a legitimate use?
This from members of the government who are protected by police officers armed with handguns?
Disarm everyone in the District of Columbia, or disarm no one.
Case closed.
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
| Monday, March 17th, 2008
| |
7:02 pm - Immigration vs Illegal Immigration
|
I've seen the following question posed else where on the internet, and I figure I should give answering it a go.If you’re adamant that you only oppose illegal immigration, then do you also support vastly expanding the number of legal visas the federal government grants to low-wage, low-skill workers (which at the moment is an exceedingly small number)? If we don't have to subsidize their jobs, their health care, and their income, then I'm all for more legal immigration.
If you envision more low skill, low income works being imported to do the "jobs American's won't do" (tm) for a crappy salary, then no, I don't support more legal immigration.
The only jobs I've seen described as "jobs American's won't do" (tm) are those with artificially low wages sustained by a workforce who isn't taxed, doesn't pay for health care, and generally doesn't have much respect for our laws at all.
If we allow those jobs to compete on the real job market, paying un-subsidized wages, then hell yeah, let's allow as many folks to come here as they want.
If we get rid of the welfare state, open boarders would even work.
|
|
(7 comments | comment on this)
|
| |
1:14 pm
|
Ya know, I wonder if Washington DC banned gay marriage with a law, and the Supreme Court was going to hear a case against the law banning gay marriage, what would the head lines read?
A. "Supreme Court to hear challenge to DC marriage law"?
B. "Supreme Court to hear challenge to DC gay marriage law"?
C. "Supreme Court to hear challenge to DC gay marriage ban"?
I'm willing to bet it would be C.
When headlines are written about the Supreme Court hearing a challenge to Washington DC's Ban on Handguns (if the headlines are written at all), they don't say anything about it being a ban, or about it disarming people. It's merely a gun control law.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Sunday, March 16th, 2008
| |
11:13 pm
|
I saw a movie yesterday, "Spy Game", that reminded me of the insanity and irrationality of us as people.
One of the female characters says something about all the weapons used to fight wars come from other places, like Russia, the US and Europe.
I don't get it, is it more noble to die from a machete or ax then it is from a bullet or mortar round?
Right now we have folks, folks I would have to assume can tie their shoes, drive an automobile, use a PC, and earn a living, who seemingly in good faith believe that the tool is the problem when it comes to crime, malicious violence, and murder.
I just can't understand. We have governments who refuse to arm future victims of genocide in Africa because arming the helpless would escalate the violence.
Isn't that the fucking point!? To allow the unarmed a chance to at least take their murderers with them?!
Why would we seek to enable human predators by making sure their prey is that much weaker?
Predators can always choose the weaker prey, and chances are the predator has spent more time practicing their attack then any defender has practiced their defense.
But an easy to use tool like a firearm can greatly even things out. A 95 pound person can project the same force with a revolver as a 300 pound predator. If enough 95 pound people go about their days armed, the 300 pound predator will come to understand that his prey is equipped to fight back, that maybe he's in the wrong line of work. He might come to understand that his life is on the line if he decides he's going to rape that cute woman over there, or maybe he'll comprehend that little man at the bar who just paid for his drink with a wad of cash is not worth mugging, if the predator might die in the act.
Yes, this isn't perfect, nothing we ever do ever will be. But at least folks would have a chance of fighting back. At least the consequences of death might be a deterrent for all the bad guys out there.
Sure, the good guys are going to loose some of the time. Sure, a good guy might harm or kill another good guy. But I will guarantee that the bad guys will win much more often, and will harm and kill much more often, if they are not effectively opposed by good folks.
Escalate the situation folks. Buy a gun. Learn to use it. Carry it.
It's your life, it's worth protecting. That you can also protect the lives of your loved ones and friends is one hell of a bonus.
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, March 6th, 2008
| |
12:15 am
|
People say the dumbest things.
These guys that march into public places and start shooting usually end up taking their own lives with a bullet to the head. Do you think that this end is not figured into the plan? How does the threat of death or return fire deter someone who is planning to die anyway? These guys are not planning to escape...they're not wearing body armor. In these shootouts that will supposedly deter shootouts, will the person who fires back and hits a bystander be considered a murderer or a hero? posted by "Jason" as a comment at the LA Times
It's not about deterring bad guys you moron. It's about STOPPING badguys. Cops don't carry guns to DETER. They carry guns to project force and STOP badguys.
It's like the morons who believe an escalation of violence is a bad thing when a murderer is murdering people. I suppose shooting the bastard raping your daughter would be a bad escalation as well? How about if the cops shoot the murderer? Is that a case of bad escalation?
What a bunch of scared ninny idiots. To think my basic human rights are supposed to be negotiable with these dolts!
|
|
(16 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, March 2nd, 2008
| |
10:46 pm
|
|
I think I'm going to start reviewing some of the firearms toys I've been collecting over the years.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, February 10th, 2008
| |
12:09 pm
|
 |
What's Your Political Philosophy?
created with QuizFarm.com |
| You scored as Libertarian Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering, as long as you don't violate the rights of others. This translates into strong protections for privacy and property rights, and a weak to non-existent social safety net.
Libertarian |
| 90% | Pro Business Republican |
| 80% | Foreign Policy Hawk |
| 75% | New Democrat |
| 50% | Socially Conservative Republican |
| 40% | Green |
| 35% | Old School Democrat |
| 30% |
|
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Thursday, January 31st, 2008
| |
11:38 pm
|
Something happened two nights ago that made me very proud of my wife's reactions.
Just before 10 PM, there's a heavy knocking at our front door. It's not a friendly knock, and we surely don't except anyone to come over so late mid-week. I hop up and grab my carry handgun of choice, my Glock 30, to go see who it might be.
My wondrous wife also hops up and grabs her carry handgun of choice, a Springfield EMP, taking station just inside the bed room door, where she can see the entryway.
I look through the peep hole, and see not a damn thing, turn to look at her and shrug, and again comes a loud knocking/beating on the door. I look again, nothing. So I verbally challenge. Turns out it's the cops, rapping on our door with a maglite from a few steps down (pretty good tactic), I can see him through the window if I move the blinds. I don't want to open the door with Glock in hand, so I have to stuff it in my pocket.
Lessons learned:
My wife moved to give me backup without any communication from me. I learned it's an awesome feeling to have instant armed backup. I'm VERY proud of her.
I need to keep a loaded long gun or two around. Answering the door with a handgun is OK, but I need to have a shoulder weapon available for the covering party (my wife).
If I do use a handgun, put on a holster to stash it in. It's not a good idea to be visibly armed if the door needs to be open.
|
|
(8 comments | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, January 10th, 2008
| |
12:02 am - We're fucked
|
http://www.nssf.org/news/fromBP.cfm?BPseq=704
So, First Data and CitiGroup have terminated the merchant accounts of federally licensed firearms retailers, distributors and manufacturers if they conduct any business non-face to face.
No more ordering a rifle from a dealer in Florida and having them ship it to your dealer near your home. Hell, no more having your dealer special order the rifle for you and paying their markup.
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
| Monday, December 31st, 2007
| |
12:03 am
|
Why in the world do liberal Democrats hate gun owners?
Out of the eight major Democrats running for President, 7 of them are so damned anti-gun it's a wonder the elitist bastards don't think we're stealing their oxygen.
So what gives?
How are we supposed to trust these socialist dolts with running the country?
How in the world are these gun grabbers supposed to be BETTER then the Republicans?
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Monday, December 10th, 2007
| |
6:58 pm - This is the problem
|
The Truth About the Philadelphia Outfest Arrests
HRC proclaims how well the criminal justice system works.
It must be just for folks are jailed for expressing their opinion via speech (even if the opinion is insane). It must be just to be prosecuted for obstructing a highway in the middle of a festival full of people obstructing the very same road.
How about being charged with failure to disperse? Does the right to peaceably assemble having nothing to do with the first amendment of the US constitution? Is that just?
Yet even though they apparently didn't cause any harm at all, they obviously committed the thought hate crime of protesting something considered PC.
And to be denied even more of your rights by the first judge you are forced to deal with, that must be just.
Spending one's income to defend oneself from insane criminal charges is certainly justice being served right?
Yep. The justice system worked pretty well at squashing the rights of the few, and making them pay for the privilege of being stripped of their rights. Yep yep.
HRC backs up their claim of how necessary and fair hate crime laws are by how popular they are, with 45 states and "every" LEO organization supporting them. Of coarse, popularity has nothing to do with justice, Jim Crow laws where widely popular, gun control is widely popular, and prohibition was popular enough to be made a constitutional amendment.
That HRC can state that these infringements of basic civil rights show how well hate crime laws are applied is grand double speak. Very 1984 of them.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| |
7:52 am
|
Ok, I'm confused.
Human Rights Campaign isn't concerned about, you know, human rights, but specifically about the rights of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, ext equal rights.
I just don't get it.
I'm sure I haven't been persecuted enough or some such drivel, but in my mind, pushing for equal rights does not mean pushing for specific rights for specific folks.
Perhaps we haven't had enough "everyone is equal, but some are more equal" nonsense for some folks, but I'm rather damn sick of being looked down upon for being a white male. Not only is it seemingly the bane of society for me to say anything about being a white male, but anyone who even brings up equal rights for white boys is labeled a racist, while pretty much anyone not apparently caucasian can form peer groups, non-profit organizations, lobbyist funding parties, and protest groups at will. And the best part is, it's all based on the skin tone of the apparent caucasian male, heritage has zero to do with any of it. At least if one is appears caucasian.
And back in 1980 it seems some folks decided that human rights especially apply to GLBT folks. Amazing. I don't even want any especial rights. I just want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
|
|
(5 comments | comment on this)
|
| Friday, October 26th, 2007
| |
10:32 pm - Fuck Em
|
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
Looks like we are all fucked folks.`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.
`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs. And that's just the definitions.
We loose.
Much like everyone is rational from their own view point, everyone is an EXTREMIST from someone else's view point.
Think on that.
Me, I wonder if we really do have another year or so to add to our supplies.
(hat tip Tam via ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) kitiara
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, October 9th, 2007
| |
9:23 am
|
Happy Kill a Commie day!
40 years ago today, Che Guevara got his commie little ass executed by the Bolivian Army.
Maybe with enough support, we can make this a world wide holiday! We might even be able to convince folks to kill their own commie!
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, September 27th, 2007
| |
6:44 am
|
I'm entertained by the arguments that "You need to understand both religion and atheism to its fullest extent before you try to carry on a debate about it." I mean seriously, I don't need to understand the flat earth theory in order to argue the reality.
I don't have to understand totalitarianism in order to debate for freedom.
I certainly don't have to understand rape in order to argue against it.
So why in the world would I have to understand religion in a deeply meaningful way to argue against it?
One only has to understand that something is wrong and the why of it being wrong to oppose it. One does not have to understand the ins and outs, the base motivation, or WHY something is so compelling.
|
|
(9 comments | comment on this)
|
| |
6:29 am
|
well that was fun.
I took yesterday off work with the plan to play Halo 3. Ended up beating it via Co-Op with sharpnarf Tuesday night.
Caty stayed home with a headache Wednesday.
I woke up Wednesday to go to sushi with some guys from work. Came home, played a bit, Caty woke up, ate something, and went back to bed. I followed for a nap.
I woke up feeling crappy. Attempted to go to dinner, felt bad, canceled. Came back inside, threw up. And threw up. And my head hurt worse. And threw up some more.
In the end, it was almost 9, I'm in bed miserable, and my love Caty bought me some Head On because I couldn't keep pills down.
Now I feel a lot better, but I puked my guys out so I'm hungry and weak.
Caty's a sleep on the couch, since she slept most of yesterday, she couldn't sleep last night. I don't know if I should wake her up or not.
|
|
(6 comments | comment on this)
|
| Monday, September 24th, 2007
| |
11:32 pm
|
Lots of talk about why we do the things we do lately.
Some folks use religion as a guide. Others prefer the laws of whatever government they live under. Some folks use a lack of religion to justify their actions.
I myself seem to have believed for literally as long as I can remember that only I am responsible for what I do. I am morally responsible.
I still believe the same today. It doesn't matter what is expected. Laws are not controlling, they only spell out the consequences of certain actions if discovered. Religious views have never, ever mattered.
I do what I do mainly centered around the enjoyment of my life. Survival is required for enjoyment, and my family and friends are as well. That's the only thing that drives me.
If I do not enjoy life, I am obviously doing something wrong!
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, September 20th, 2007
| |
12:10 am
|
Ya know, as much as the yahoo's yell from the roof tops about the superiority of Firefox to IE, I'm amazed at how truly craptastic Firefox can be.
Nothing like "You WILL BE UPDATED MORTAL" pop up boxes to kindly let you know that, hey, without your permission, a program on your PC didn't only go out and download content, but it installed it without your consent.
Sounds like malware to me.
I'd uninstall it, but I like having 3 different browsers installed.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, September 19th, 2007
| |
11:15 pm
|
|
| Monday, September 3rd, 2007
| |
1:57 pm
|
Ya know, I've heard of a lot of things described as "Mil Spec".
But I've never before seen a Golf Putter called Mil Spec.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, August 19th, 2007
| |
3:28 pm
|
|
| Saturday, August 18th, 2007
| |
7:37 pm
|
How to Survive a School or Workplace Shooting
Can anyone believe this bit of group think victimization?
In the main article, no mention is made of being armed at all. Hiding is supposed to be the best idea, or playing dead (and somehow this protects your vital organs!).
And in the Discuss section, the little commies claim that being armed is a HORRIBLE idea.Carrying a weapon suggest that you have the time to take the weapon from whatever it is, arm it, sight the shooter and fire. You know, because it's SO much faster to run and hide or play dead then it is to dry and shoot the murderous individual.
I suppose in disarmed victim land, if one illegal carries a gun, one carries it unloaded, in a off body location, with the magazine or speed loader in a different location, and they all have very complex sights.
This sort of inane drivel truly pisses me off.
Why do so many people prefer to be murdered, or more likely, would much rather others be murdered, then to attempt to fight back effectively?
|
|
(5 comments | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, July 19th, 2007
| |
8:14 pm
|
Dad says I got a Jury Summons at his house today.
I had him open it while I was on the phone, and in it they say I missed my last one, and that I can be held in contempt of court for missing this one.
Now, I have no problem with Jury Duty. That's fine and dandy.
But before the idiots threaten me legally, I'd like the fucking idiots to send the Summons to my home. Not my fathers. MINE. You know, the one on my Drivers License. The one on my CHL.
But the fucking idiots send it to my dad's house, and evidently have sent a previous one to his house as well that I missed.
Fucking idiots.
I wonder if I'm even Jury material. Something tells me they won't like my views if they ask the right questions.
|
|
(5 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, July 8th, 2007
| |
9:53 pm
|
So we're broke. Not used to a second car payment. Fun times.
The nice thing is, while we HAVE to take our lunch and eat at home this week, I'm looking forward to saving money and taking our lunch and eating at home much more AFTER this week:)
Oh, and I sold off a gun to get another gun. Picked up a Browning Buck Mark from Academy finally. Got the Buck Mark Camper for a pretty good price, though all of the Buck Marks at Academy only had one magazine, so I only got one mag with it. Oh well.
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
|
|
|
|
