Saturday, March 14, 2015

The Highs And Thurlows

Via Mandy Connell, I see that state rep. Thurlow is upsetting his constituents. In case you didn't jot it down, Thurlow voted with the dems to kill a bill that would have forced the CBI to respond to NFA paperwork within 5 days. He did vote correctly on the other gunowner bills that were up that day, but his attempts to reach across the aisle in other areas are ticking off folks that voted for him. This is perhaps why the old guard GoP around here doesn't like the concept of recalls - they know it can be used against RINO's just as effectively as against dems.

Friday, March 13, 2015

Ten Years American Time Etc

Again, apropos of something in particular (though probably none of my damn bid'niz), a few vids below the break.


Sunday, March 08, 2015

Killing Daylight

Savings Time, that is. Here's an article discussing some of the reasons to nix DST. I will add this; all the hipsters who revel in the extra hour of daylight after clocking out of their 9 to 5 - they, like proponents of smoking bans, think musicians make way too much money.

Ya see, DST results in folks spending less time in bars. I don't just mean the little dance joints with electronica blasting louder than the obnoxiousness of the $20 cover, I mean bars where working bands ply their trade. Less of a crowd means less revenue is generated, and therefore less money the bar owner has to pay the band.

So when someone asks why aren't there any good blues bands around any more and everyone's stuck listening to N'Sync records at the local bar of choice, now you can tell them - it was the government's attempt to make thing better by arbitrarily changing the time so senators can have an extra hour-ish on the back 9 each day.

(I'm not exaggerating all that much - the decrease in revenue because of DST won't usually wipe out a bar scene where live music is the draw, but it will hamper it for the players. Making a living playing music was difficult enough that even a little bit mo' difficult can't be justified to me by skiiers wanting to stay on the slopes til 8 or 9 p.m.)

Petty Is As Petty Does

Ages ago, I was a regular on a Guns and Ammo forum. I am not positive, but I suspect that a notable gunwriter who at that time had recently dropped by started grumbling about KeepAndBearArms.com as there were several postings from there that did not present the NRA in a good light. I defended the use of KABA as it was very informative, especially back then, and tried to explain that it was a clearinghouse of firearm related news, though it seems the powers that be were either daft or biased. A new policy was announced that any posts containing links to KABA would be deleted. A few days later, one of my posts was deleted because it contained a link to a KABA story (I forget the details, but I recall it wasn't bashing the NRA or anything - just a bit of news I thought relevant).  I left. Never posted there again. Never bought another G&A magazine or anything from Petersen Publishing.

So it's a bit sad that KABA has resorted to the same petty behavior.


Ya Best Stay Off His Lawn

Perusing the CMP forums I stumbled across a post that I thought was worth sharing. Here's the accompanying photo:

And here's the post about a vet acquiring his first Garand since leaving the Army.


The person who posted and the vet pictured live in Wyoming. If they'd been just a few hundred miles south this neighborly gesture would have involved a trip to a gun store, government paperwork, a fee and a wait for approval from some bureaucrat, all to make sure this octogenarian wasn't one of the wrong people.

Luckily they live in America* instead of Colorado, so it was a rather simple exchange. Somehow, even without government oversight, I don't think anyone is gonna lose sleep worrying about this fine old gent knocking over  a liquor store with his recent acquisition (well, except for those jack-asses who want to keep this "military-grade weapons off the streets"**). Trespassing would be ill advised however. Remind's me of a post over at The Smallest Minority: Old Men Must Be Dangerous. Go read that one if you haven't already.
 


(*That'd be the current America, not the Bloomberg/Obama/Gottlieb America where Universal Background Checks would have been traded for some beads and promises not worth the paper they're printed on. Remember this tale when folks try to sell you on UBC's for some other concessions. Don't let America become BOG'ed down.)

(** At the cost of at least 41 jobs and over the objections of Senator Leahy (D-Vermont) amongst others, Obama used his executive power to block the re-importation of M1 Garands from South Korea, implying that they were too dangerous for mere civilians to possess. Criticism of this move could be found in the expected places, like Ammoland but also from Obama-friendly sites like the Huffington Post. [The CMP does not use commercial channels to acquire its stock of M1 rifles and is therefore unaffected.] Of course, I regard this action of Obama's as a high crime and/or misdemeanor and am sorely disappointed that impeachment proceedings have not begun in regard to this.)

Saturday, March 07, 2015

Wait A Minute or 77,760

It is worth mentioning that the Colorado GoP had a stand off with the dems here over increasing funding for the CBI's background check department.  Colorado Pols wasn't happy with them ( that's a very left leaning publication btw) and has a nice conspiracy theory take on things (i.e. the GoP wants the backlog to go past 90 days so people won't have to have background checks for CCW permits). The Gazzaette has a more head covering-sans-aluminum foil discussion:

"If we're going to add people and we're going to expand the program, it's more appropriate to do it during the budget, not a supplemental,' House Minority Leader Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, said. 'I think that is a department that the numbers may fluctuate."

Further, Sloan (the head of the CBI) has a problem with arithmetic. Back in 2013 before the gunonwer control laws were passed, the CBI had trouble keeping up with background checks. wait times were well over 9 days at one point. Finally CBI re-allocated some staff to reduce the backlog,  but it always seemed to me that the long waits had more to do with Sloan wanting to use them as an excuse to increase his budget than them merely being overwhelmed. His comprehension seems questionable as well, judging from his inability to answer a question about a law he supports and would oversee enforcement of.

Back to the Gazette article, with the appearance of deceptive practices by the CBI's head, I find this next quote to be plausible:
"DelGrosso said the denial of funds shows the agency was not convincing in the need for the mid-fiscal year budget increase."

So perhaps the budget committee used calculators when Sloan was speaking?

"Traditionally, when the House and Senate cannot agree on a final version of a bill a temporary committee is formed to hash out the issue and find a middle ground.
On this issue, however, Senate Republicans adhered to their original version and sent the bill back to the House to either be approved without the background check appropriation or the entire bill would die."

That's promising.

The Durango Herald also covers this story:
"The current wait time is about 54 days on background checks. The additional money aimed to lower that time to about 20 days. Wait times are expected to increase past 54 days without the funding. Colorado law requires permits to be issued without a background check if the wait time crawls past 90 days."
54 days? 54? To get permission to exercise a Right? And Sloan's request for more funds would only cut that wait to 20 days? I'd assume that's 20 business days, mind you. 54 days is 77,760 minutes to wait on something that should be instantaneous if it is to be tolerated at all.
"But Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, chairman of the JBC, said some of the blame should be placed on the CBI. He also suggested that Colorado should adopt a different concealed-carry background check law that models one used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which Lambert said would reduce wait times to one day.
'I believe the request at this time is superfluous and unnecessary,' Lambert said."

So it may not be that the GoP has a problem with the concept of background checks 9much to their discredit), it could be that they think that waiting 20 days, or 54 days, or more than one is ridiculous. 
It's nice to see the GoP here showing some backbone. Shame the same can't easily be said of the national Gop. But if the Colorado GoP was really interested in protecting the Rights of folks to own and carry weapons, then they should expand this new-found linkage of vertebra into a broader effort, similar to the one I proposed here.

Colorado Pro Gunowner Bill Updates Continued

 The previous update can be found here.

The hearing for SB15-175 (the magazine capacity ban repeal [.pdf]) will be on Monday, March 9th at 1:30 p.m. MDT in room 271 of the capital building in Denver, Co

Here's the senate's judiciary committee page where you'll find contact info. A note in the senate calender said that remote testimony was available for this committee session, so if you'd like to testify but cannot make a physical appearance at the capital then go to this page, fill out the form and select the location closest to you from the drop down menu. It seems they have several locations around the state for a person to testify from. It's not perfect, but it'd save you driving into Denver from way out of town.

I am not positive, but the Colorado Channel may stream audio and/or video of the committee hearing. Try them at 1:30 p.m. MDT.  

HB15-1152 (a permitless carry bill [.pdf]) will be heard by the house state, veterans and military affairs committee on Monday April 6th (time and location to be announced).

HB15-1168 (carry on school grounds by permit holders [.pdf]) will be heard by the house state, veterans and military affairs committee on Monday April 6th (time and location to be announced).

That's all the movement on these bills since the last update (linked to at the beginning of this post). 

The house state, veterans and military affairs committee is where the leadership sends bills that they do not wish to see on the house floor for a full vote. Last time they killed all the pro-gunowner bills that were before them. It's likely that they'd do the same this time around. I should note that noted "civil rights" lawyer Joe Salazar (you remember Joe don't ya? Mr. "A woman shouldn't carry a gun because she doesn't know if she's being raped"?) is the vice-chair of that committee. That he might ever forget that he uttered that sentiment would be cause for the very stones themselves to weep, so if you're in his district by all means, keep mentioning it to him and anyone that can listen.

As I said it's likely that the kill committee will live up to its name. Still, it's worth writing your reps and showing up if you can. The senate committee is much more favorable, but again it's a good idea to show up if you can, or contact your senator if you can't.

Friday, March 06, 2015

March Sixth Two Thousand Fifteen

I'm very tired and where I am it's almost the 7th and I'm just not up to attempting a clever title or explanation (I don't claim to actually come up with anything clever, I merely try) for this post. Here's Tony! Toni! Tone! doing an old fav of mine from 1993. Enjoy.

Monday, March 02, 2015

More On The Law And Open Carry

The video below was posted about by Say Uncle and (with a h/t to Mr. Vanderboegh) Bob Owens. I'll embed the video here as well, for y'alls convenience.



A lot of folks, gunowners even, seem to feel that this fellow's detention was justified and the cop did no wrong. Some downright nasty condemnation of the open carrier has been and likely will continue to go on (from gunowners no less). But there's another video I'd like you to watch before you start to load boulders into that onager (that sits atop the Maison de Verre in which you may reside) and fling them at someone who looks differently than you and enjoys his Rights in a different fashion than you may be accustomed:



In this instance, I think a lot of gunowners would benefit from learning More, n'est-ce pas?

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Snow Related Note Part Deja Vu


This isn't the same pic from the other day (this one was taken a few hours ago) but it is oddly reminiscent, no?
The snow was almost all melted off the bike by Wednesday morning. But then fell another few inches (and by few I mean just shy of 8) of nature's own Darwinian Test Media, Driver, Instantaneous. That's slacked up but they're calling for another few inches tonight, and a few more inches through the weekend (with a predicted high of 19 today and climbing up steadily to a balmy 29 by Sunday). At last check, we were two-point-something inches away from being the snowiest February on record. I am confident that by Saturday evening we will have the raw material to exceed that quota and thus provide meteorologists from all around an excuse to break out their erasers and scribble some new lines, or go boarding or something.

To toss in something gun related (cause this is a gun blog primarily. I think): all those gelatin tests that proved your round of choice was superb and reliable and tacticute and all that - you did see how it did with a few layers of denim in front of the Jell-o didnja? Cause methinks in the icebox that is this part of the world (and perhaps yourn too) the bad guys like to bundle up just as sure as they don't like to leak, and having that nice, downright purdy snapshot of what your projectile does in bare collagen derivative may not tell the whole story once the thermostat justifies a parka. Just askin'.

 But (as if one needed an excuse) this weather does seem to warrant a little Over The Rhine:

.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Still Smokin

Ah, Sleepy Brown, son of Jimmy Brown (lead singer and sax player for the ol' disco band Brick). This tune of his has a groove so deep that it's damn near pornographic. Contrary to the beliefs of Steve Goodman and David Allen Coe I don't think there's a "perfect" song for any given genre, but this tune right here comes about as close as one could to the platonic ideal of R&B groove. I bring this tune to ya for two reasons. 1; it reminds me of damn near every bass player I've ever known some old pals and 2; it seemed fitting since the idiots that run Boulder are at it again:

Boulder's Expanded Outdoor Smoking Ban Get Final Approval

"The ban will apply within the boundaries of the downtown business district, which extends several blocks around the Pearl Street Mall, including alleys within the district, all city parks and open space, Chautauqua, Flatirons Golf Course, multi-use paths, within 25 feet of those paths, and within 25 feet of bus stops and building entrances."

Outdoors. Because second hand smoke? Nope; this is nothing more than an attempt to wipe out behavior, perhaps a subculture as they see it, that they find undesirable. That's why it includes e-cigarettes.

"The vote was unanimous.


That should simplify things, like voting the bums out, or getting indictments. At the very least, if anyone on your property mentions that they're on the Boulder City Council, you won't have to ask their name and thumb through a list - you can just grab them by the scruff and toss them out..

Monday, February 23, 2015

On Malls And The Price Of Slavery

Last summer a former deputy CIA director warned of possible attacks at shopping malls, saying if a terrorist showed up with an AK-47 and started shooting it wouldn't surprise him. Last fall reports of the Islamic State operating just across the southern border were taken seriously enough for a military base to alter the way it handles its security.

Here and here are stories (with annoying auto-play vids) about a recent Al-Shabaab (an Islamic terrorist group that is aligned with Al-Qaeda) video calling for armed attacks on American shopping malls.  The Mall of America was mentioned specifically and they have said they were increasing security measures - perhaps by making their Gun Free Zone signs bigger? After the Al-Shabaab attack on the Westgate mall in Kenya, the Interpol chief said there were two methods to protect people from similar attacks; either create an extremely secure perimeter or arm the citizenry. I guess Mall of America didn't get the message.

Michael Bane elaborates on the threatening messages the Islamic State has for the u.S.and some thoughts to keep in mind as well as to act on. He also points to something that has been making the rounds - the Islamic State's price list for slaves.

According to this list a Yazadi or Christian girl between 10 and 20 years old will sell for $130. There's a reason they failed to list the price for an American girl -  at 13 years old the price is already way too high for them to pay:


And as an American woman gets older that price ain't getting no cheaper:


More and more women are becoming gun owners in this country. The reasons vary, and most likely protection from the more common domestic variety of thug is the main concern, but not ending up on the auction block is a definite incidental benefit. Free people own guns. Slaves don't.

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Colorado Pro Gunowner Bill Updates

On February 23rd at 1:30 p.m. MST in room 271 of the Capital building in Denver, Colorado, SB15-175 (The magazine capacity ban repeal [.pdf]) will be heard by the state senate's judiciary committee. It will likely pass out of committee but it's still a very good idea to keep the pressure on.

Here's the senate's judiciary committee page where you'll find contact info. A note in the senate calender said that remote testimony was available for this committee session, so if you'd like to testify but cannot make a physical appearance at the capital then go to this page, fill out the form and select the location closest to you from the drop down menu. It seems they have several locations around the state for a person to testify from. It's not perfect, but it'd save you driving into Denver from way out of town.

I am not positive, but the Colorado Channel may stream audio and/or video of the committee hearing. Try them at 1:30 p.m. MST. 

SB15-086 (The UBC repeal [.pdf]) passed out of the senate judiciary committee (3-2) and was sent to the senate finance committee.

SB15-032 (The permitless carry bill [.pdf]) passed out of the senate and is waiting to be introduced in the house. (I discussed this bill a bit in this post here.)

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners' Billwatch page is a good way to keep up with the status of things in the state legislature, if you ain't hip to it already.

Update: 02-22-15 19:50 MST The hearing for SB15-175 has been postponed due to inclement weather.

Update: 03-07-15 14:25 MST The hearing for SB15-175 will be on Monday, March 9th at 1:30 p.m. MDT in room 271 of the capital building in Denver, Co. 

Snow Related Note Part Sumfinsumfin

Sometimes after not riding for a spell a person will brave the cold and risk getting a little chilly just to get some time in on a bike.

Today definitely ain't sometimes.


Stick Fighter

I've often said the courts, not the legislature, are our best hope in having the Right to arms respected. That should not be taken as implying the courts are honest, rational or even timely.

For 12 years Jim Maloney has been trying to have the courts declare that the possession of two sticks and a rope is not something that should be criminal in New York. Here's his web page giving updates and history on not just the one, but now three nunchuk cases in New York. The latest of which is a foreigner, just passing through a NY airport, being arrested for having nunchuks in his checked luggage (sound familiar?).

12 years for the original case. Twelve. Years. Post McDonald it was remanded back to the district court where it awaits further action. But 12 years to have a court say that owning a pair of sticks tied together with a rope is not a crime? Judge Narragansett would be rolling over in his fictional grave.

Oh, just coincidentally as they were serving another, totally, really, seriously, for true, unrelated warrant cause they'd never try to harass anyone or anything even though he was not guilty of what the warrant said and they for sure wouldn't trump up a charge and serve a warrant just to have an excuse to look for nunchuks, the NY State police just happened to find a pair of nunchuks in Mr. Maloney's home recently. He was arrested charged and convicted. It's a misdemeanor but a 2nd offense would be a felony.

I always found it ironic. Nunchuks were invented in response to a weapons ban so folks would have some means of protection against thieves and thugs, and here several centuries later the thieves and thugs have gotten around to banning nunchuks.

But the Right to arms is not just about firearms. Knives, swords, clubs and even sticks tied together are weapons that must be protected against government intrusion. And of course, machetes...

This Is Sworda Ridiculous

A NY state senator wants to ban machetes (h/t SayUncle). The article itself as well as the concept behind it are fisk-worthy.


Norman Architecture

Norman v State (.pdf) was a case from Florida's 4th District Court of Appeal  where the state's ban on open carry was challenged. Eugene Volokh, Sebastian and others have written about the case approvingly, because even though it upheld the state's ban on open carry it opined that a state could ban open or concealed carry, but not both. It had to leave at least one of the two options available.

The court used a two step test, the first step determined whether the law severely intruded upon the core Right (armed self defense outside the home), and the second step what level of scrutiny should be applied. The court decided that since it only affected one mode of carry, with the other available, that it was not a severe burden on the core right. The court went on to apply a light form of intermediate scrutiny - probably a bit more strict than rational basis, but not quite as harsh as actual intermediate scrutiny. The court also declined to consider an overbreadth challenge to the open carry prohibition.

The court erred in several places, and those who think this some sort of victory are mistaken.


Friday, February 20, 2015

Colorado's Solution

In this post I explained how the old guard of the Colorado GoP has been much more concerned with preserving its own power than with winning elections or helping gunowners. Here I'll try to explain what the Colorado GoP could do to repeal the gunowner control laws passed in 2013 (and before) if they were serious about protecting the Right to arms.

What they could do, if they were serious, is to put the brakes on everything. A legislative blockade, if you will.


Colorados Problems

In a continuation of this post, I'll try to explain, to the best of my knowledge, how Colorado wound up where it is. And as usual I completely circumnavigate even the most fledgling attempt at brevity. So fill your glass, grab some snacks and remove any objects of a toss-able nature.


Colorado Corrections

Sebastian has some suggestions for what can be done to win Colorado back. Bless his little Yankee heart.
First, at least he's thinking enough about us trapped behind enemy lines to try to give us some supportive advice, and I really do appreciate that, and hope he (or none of y'all) will take this as me ripping him down. But there are a few corrections necessary:

As well as Sebastian's post linked above, I refer you to two previous posts of my own: Bloomberg's Money Was Well Spent and The Audio Of The First Round Of 2015.They both concern the pro-gunowner bills in Colorado so far this year.

SB15-032 (.pdf) was not a constitutional carry bill. It was a permitless carry bill. The difference is thus: this bill would have eliminated the permit requirement to carry a concealed handgun for anyone over 21 and "granted" the same "authority" and imposed the same limitations as a concealed carry permit. A constitutional carry bill would have simply eliminated the prohibition on carrying a weapon. With constitutional carry, a 20 year old could slip a 4" knife in her purse  (currently it's 3.5" for a concealed blade) & not have to hand it over to a "peace officer" if she is for some reason detained. With this bill, a 20 year old who only owns a knife would be out of luck if that knife had a blade over 3.5 inches. This bill is an improvement, but it's not actually constitutional carry.

Almost all the house bills were shot down 6-5. One was lost by a 7-4 vote. That means 1 republican, in this case Dan Thurlow, voted with the anti-gunowners. I can speculate as to why, but I have nothing definitive.

Sebastian dislikes Dudley Brown, head of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. That's cool - I don't really care if folks don't like someone. Hell, I don't even care if folks don't like me. But RMGO has been the only pro-gunowner group in this state since I've been here. The NRA's state affiliate, The Colorado State Shooting Association, has been milquetoast at best, and outright hostile at times. When actual constitutional carry bills have been brought up in the past, we weren't busy fighting the anti-gunowners, we were busy fighting gunowners, mainly permit holders and instructors, and the CSSA (and at times the NRA itself ). I refer to you this very old (and of course very long) post of mine comparing Colorado's then brand spankin' new "shall issue" ccw law to the may issue it replaced and the better carry bill it stepped on. Also if you really want to know the sordid history of gunowner groups in this state (at least where it concerns RMGO and the CSSA and NRA) this piece by Ari Armstrong called A House Divided is worth the time.

I am not concerned if anyone thinks that Brown is personally a great guy or the biggest jerk in the world. What is important is that Brown knows Colorado politics and he almost always advocates the most principled position available, certainly more principled than the CSSA or the NRA to date. And by principled I mean having the most respect for the Right to own and carry weapons. I've disagreed with him a time or two, and it's not likely he and I will go out golfing any given weekend. But he and RMGO have been fighting for more freedom for me and everyone in Colorado. The NRA and CSSA for the most part haven't.

So no; Brown isn't a false prophet. Flawed perhaps, but not false. Until someone shows me an alternative RMGO is the only pro-gunowner organization in Colorado. Driving folks away from them, unless it can be shown that they've been supporting gunowner control, is counter-productive if you're pro-gunowner (which not all gunowners are).

Now, Sebastian says we must find republican "...candidates who can win in that state’s more socially liberal political climate."

Isn't that just precious?

That's been tried. That's how we wound up where we are. And it deserves a post of its own.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

A Few Things Volume One

 A few thoughts on various subjects (some definitions to ponder, gunowner registration ain't acceptable, the proposed 5.56 ammo ban and why the "simple fix" won't work, on blaming gunowners for legislators' evil, the dangers of national reciprocity, what to do about gunnowners that don't show up, and politicians - not open carriers -are the problem) that'll likely tick off all both of my readers:


Monday, February 16, 2015

Garand Development Plan

Do you know how to make a Garand better? You can’t. A Garand within specifications is about as good a general purpose rifle as you could hope for. What you can do is make a Garand better for your specific purpose. Think a Garand is too short? You can add some length to it. Think a Garand is too long and heavy? You can reduce its length and weight. Want it chambered in a heavier or milder cartridge? That can be done. Add optics? There are several solutions depending upon your desire. It’s even possible, in theory – I haven’t tested this out yet myself – to make a Garand float! It’s not as easy or versatile as a shooter de la poodle an AR to optimize for your tastes, but a Garand can do a lot of things as is, and it can do a bit more with some work.

To illustrate I’ll walk you through what I’ve done and am doing (or at least currently plan to do) to some of my Garands:  


Saturday, February 14, 2015

Humorous Valentinus

In honor of the occasion (otherwise known as SAD - Singles Awareness Day, or more ominously as VD) for your consideration I'll offer two videos. The first from our favorite Token Libertarian:


& the second from miss Chaka Kahn


Oh what the heck, let's make this a trifecta after this anecdote:

What Hollywood and its studios often do to movies is downright criminal and tends to show that the folks way at the top aren't exactly turning down offers from NASA on a weekly basis so they may become slaves to art. Case in point, after a very positive screening of a picture in 1961 an executive with the studio went on a mini rant about how he hated the most prominent song in the movie and wanted it removed.  This infuriated the star, one miss Audrey Hepburn, so much that she - well reports vary from her standing up and stomping her foot as she said he'd remove the song "over my dead body!" to a more profanity filled protestation of the proposal. The song stayed in and despite it actually being a nicely written (and nicely performed by miss Hepburn) little ditty for its genre it has, ever since, in elevators and dentist's offices across the globe, been butchered more mercilessly than an eraser at a budget meeting run by Democrats in an election year. Shame as it really is a sweet little tune. And here it is.





An Offense In Speech

Public servant Rhonda Fields, satisfied that her efforts at disparaging the 2nd article of the Bill of Rights won't be reversed this year, has decided that pesky 1rst article is getting in her way:

Douglas County family affected by attempted suicide supports 'Cyber Bully Bill' Measure criminalizes electronic harassment

"Fields is sponsoring a bill (HB 15-1072) that would criminalize harassment via 'interactive electronic devices.'
'I think we need to send a strong message that there's going to be accountability associated when people use hate as a force of intimidation and harassment,' the lawmaker said."

If you click on that link embedded in the quote you'll see a .pdf of the bill in question. Public servant Field's bill would alter the current law outlining what harassment is, affecting only subsection e. Added are the words "directly or indirectly", "or directs language towards another person", and "or other interactive electronic medium".


Thursday, February 12, 2015

That Ain't Right

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the people to obtain a permit to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That can be the only explanation for the title of this bill:

The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (h/t SayUncle).


Wednesday, February 04, 2015

Make Our Beautiful State Free Again

Via The War On Guns, I found this article at Colorado Peak Politics that contained the following video of Lily Tang Williams testifying for the repeal of the Colorado magazine capacity ban. The lady has a website as well as a facebook page and a Youtube channel if y'all would like to tell her that y'all appreciate her taking the time to speak up for her Rights, and to try to make this state free once more.


The audio isn't the best so I'll include the text she read from below the jump


The Audio Of The First Round Of 2015

I spent a little time listening to audio of a committee hearing on various gunowner bills in Colorado. Here's a post on what those bills were

Here's a link to archived audio of Colorado legislative committee hearings. I couldn't find one for the Senate judiciary committee hearing. On the left hand navigation bar under House Committees click the State Veterans and Military Affairs link and look for February 2nd 2015.  This will open a pop up where you can listen to the hearing if you have a little over 9 hours to spare. I just started listening and they seem to be alternating between pro and anti testimony.


Bloombergs Money Was Well Spent

The Colorado House State, Veterans and Military Affairs committee met on Monday. Up for consideration were 5 pro-gunowner bills.

HB15-1127 would eliminate civil liability for businesses that allowed folks to carry concealed within their establishments.

HB15-1050 would repeal the state's universal background check law.

HB15-1009 would repeal the magazine capacity ban.

HB15-1006 would make the CBI respond to applicants for NFA firearms within 5 days of receipt with either an approval or a denial with an explanation of said denial. 

HB15-1049 would expand the state's "make my day" law to include businesses.

All except HB15-1006 were killed by a 6-5 vote along party lines. HB15-1006 was killed 7-4 with Dan Thurlow (R) joining the democrats.

If you're wondering why Thurlow would vote this bill down, so am I.

Meanwhile the Colorado Senate's Judiciary Committee passed out the 2 pro-gunowner bills it heard that same day on party line 3-2 votes.

SB15-086  repeals the universal background check law.

SB15-032 is a permit-less carry bill (person must be over 21 and only concerns handguns).

The Senate bill will go on to a full vote in the Senate, then if passed will head to the House, where likely they'll be sent to the same kill committee and be killed. Though it is possible with enough pressure they could pass. Possible is distinguishable from likely I'm afraid, but I see no reason to not apply as much of that political pressure as possible, if for no other reason than to make them squirm.

I could find no archived video of the hearings, but there is audio.

Here's a link to archived audio of committee hearings. I couldn't find one for the Senate judiciary committee hearing. On the left hand navigation bar under House Committees click the State Veterans and Military Affairs link and look for February 2nd 2015.  This will open a pop up where you can listen to the hearing if you have a little over 9 hours to spare. I just started listening and they seem to be alternating between pro and anti testimony.

In another post I'll try to wade through some of what was said.

Of Moose And Men

Brainard Lake Moose Kill triggers tighter restrictions for hunters.

Funny, some hunters are blaming this fellow who legally took a moose for the government making the rules more strict. Not the government agency that actually made the rules, or the progressive types who clamored for "something" to be done, but the "law abiding" hunter.

That's just silly isn't it? To blame someone that didn't do anything wrong for the actions of a group that wanted to justify their power over an activity? I'm just glad gunowners in general don't participate in that kind of nonsense. /sarcasm

When I first moved to Colorado I remember reading an article in the Rocky Mountain News about some people who moved into the suburbs of Boulder. They were on their back porch with their son, watching a deer mosey on through their backyard. Then a mountain lion decided to make a snack out of said deer. They were horrified. Why, their son, their precious little Timmy was watching the beauty of nature and this vicious predator committed an act of violence right in front of his eyes. That deer was being repressed, right before their eyes! And since the deer was brown it could have been considered a hate crime! So they called 911 and were very disappointed that the sheriff refused to drive out and arrest the miscreant ("Ma'am, we just don't have handcuffs that fit cougars").

The same folks who complained about a hunter taking a moose would have likely been upset if the hunter had four legs instead of two. The difference is that if the hunter had four legs they'd have been justly ridiculed for their reaction (just as I made fun of the couple that were surprised how big cats get their dinner). Whereas since it was an evil human doing the deed, then they failed to get their proper dose of mocking which would have hopefully prevented them from repeating this behavior.

But left unchecked, this kind of fuss will reduce the areas where hunters can actually hunt. Not because of the hunter, but because of a government agency that seeks to appease whiners that get upset at the thought of a person getting their dinner the old fashioned way.

Sunday, February 01, 2015

First Round of 2015

The Colorado House committee on State Veterans and Military Affairs will hear some firearms related bills at 1:30 p.m. Monday, February 2nd. Two of them are repeals of the magazine capacity limit and the universal background check law respectively. The other three concern eliminating liability for businesses that allow folks to carry concealed, expanding the castle doctrine law to businesses, and forcing the CBI to act on NFA paperwork within a set amount of time.

The same day, same time the Colorado Senate's Judiciary committee will hear two firearm related bills; one concerning permitless carry, the other a repeal of the universal background check law. 

For links to texts of the bills in question as well as other info concerning firearms related bills during this legislative session, check out Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Billwatch page.

The Colorado Channel will be streaming the committee meetings live and I do believe they'll have an archived recording of it if you missed one.

Friday, January 30, 2015

Dobynsgate Updated

Here are some updates about Dobynsgate:

Jay Dobyns wikipedia page

From David Codrea (of The War on Guns fame)

Judge alleges 'fraud on the court' by government attorneys in Dobyns case

Revoked judgement in Dobyns case reveals further government misconduct

David Codrea and Jay Dobyns on Armed America Radio (auto-opening audio file)

From David Hardy (Of Arms and the Law fame)

Unsealed court files in Jay Dobyns case full of bombshells

More on Jay Dobyns case

Judgement in Dobyns case

Busy Day

Go read. And please spread it around - Facebook, Twitter, whatever. This should have much more coverage than it has so far.






Crazy

 Miss Claire pointed out two articles on mental health and gun ownership the other day. One was concerning the idea that too much time spent on the internet could disqualify someone from owning firearms. The other explains that more than half of the populace may have a diagnosed mental illness.

Mr. Vanderboegh points to an article that claims opposition to authority is a form of mental illness.(which is based upon the same source as the first article about internet habits; the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (5th edition) which was released in 2013.

Chipping in my 0.008 Drachma's, I stumbled across something else. The very weak and complicated links between mental illness and gun violence is an article concerning a study entitled Mental Illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (.pdf). Not exactly a pro-gunowner take on things, but it does refute the idea that all folks with mental illnesses are dangerous and it could provide some defense against the notion that background checks should be expanded to catch the mentally ill as they're not that much of a concern..

Now all of these together should make the notion of using mental illness as a disqualifier for firearms ownership a problematic and troubling proposition. If the definitions in the DSM-5 that are mentioned above are used, then we could all very well be "the wrong people".

For the halibut, below the fold will be a probably-not-safe-for-work director's cut video from our favorite rock star machine gun owners and the music video debut of Arwen Undómiel.


Sunday, January 25, 2015

Dobynsgate

I assume that most folks that visit here are already keeping up with the other fine bloggers listed on the blogroll. Just in case it missed your notice I'd point you to this Examiner column penned by David Codrea in which he explains the allegations of fraud (by the presiding judge no less) against the ATFEIEIO and the DOJ in the Dobyns case.

I'm a bit rushed so no time for extensive commentary, and Mr. Codrea's piece has about all the information on the situation that's available, but I will point out that it'd be downright shameful if the mainstream media did not pick up on this story and run with it. Likewise, if any republican (or democrat for that matter) had a lick of sense, this case would be mentioned every time the question of the ATFEIEIO's or the DOJ's budget came up. 


Friday, January 23, 2015

A War Most Civil

In Marvel Comic's Civil War storyline, a conflict develops over the proposal of a Superhuman Registration Act. Tony Stark (Iron Man) supports such a law, on the basis that it is inevitable and if they are part of the process they can temper the bill so that the resulting law won't be as onerous as it otherwise would be. Opposition to the act is led appropriately enough by Captain America. Initially both sides engage in argument and debate, but after the act passes the pro-registration side starts to hunt down and actively combat the anti-registration heroes. It ends with the anti-registration faction surrendering to avoid further bloodshed, and Captain America imprisoned (and eventually assassinated).

Just twixt you and me, any strategy that leads to Captain America being offed by his own government is not a cool one.


Thursday, January 15, 2015

Less Bad Is Worse

A few seemingly pro-gunowner groups have supported gunowner control laws, using the justification that the law was going to pass no matter what, but by supporting it they were able to enact changes that lessened its severity. It as inevitable but by supporting it they made a bad law less bad.

I disagree with damn near everything about this practice, and I openly question the motives and sincerity of folks who use such rationalizations, but let's look at the premise:

Law X would be bad, but it has enough support that it will likely pass. So support is given to Law X and some changes are made, transforming it from a severe law to a moderately bad one. Does this help overall?

By taking a severe law and injecting some measure of moderation into it then the immediate results is that it has less of a drastic impact in the short term, but in the long run it makes it harder to repeal. It is easier to convince a legislature to revisit and repeal a law that is a big change that negatively impacts people than it isif the law was only a moderate change. The same is true of court rulings, and most importantly convincing people to disobey such laws.

Let's say Law X would prohibit magazine with a capacity of more than 6 rounds. Due to the extreme nature of such a law it would not be difficult to persuade either a future legislature or a court that the measure goes too far by almost any standard, and encouraging non-compliance wouldn't be difficult. But if Law X were modified to prohibit magazines that held more than 15 rounds it would make compliance less onerous and consequently make it more difficult to convince a legislature or court of its burdensome nature.

In the short term it seems to help by lessening the damage done by a law, but in the long run it makes a law harder to repeal or have ruled unconstitutional. Further it makes intensifying the effects of a law by further additions over time more plausible. Law X prohibits 15 rounds today, but in 5 years it's reduced to 12, then 10, and finally after a decade or two it's down to the original 6 round limit. Going from unlimited to 6 in on swoop is pretty shocking. Going from unlimited to 15, then to 12, then to 10, then to 6 over the course of some years is less striking. People would gradually become accustomed to it and that would reduce pressure on the government to change such a law.

You know the old saying about gradually turning up the heat to boil a frog. Well imagine a pot full of frogs and when the heat is turned up too fast, some frogs yell to the chef "Hey! Turn it down or we'll jump out of the pot!". That is what the long term effect of "making a bad law less bad" is, and the folks who advocate it, no matter how well meaning, are in the long run hurting the very cause they claim to be aiding.

(Remember, appeasement is for chumps)

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Was The Spent Spun

I'm using numbers from Dean Weingarten's Analysis of I-594's passage

Polls have shown over 90% support for background checks. The mainstream media was overwhelmingly supportive of I-594. Bloomberg, et al spent over $10 million to get this "universal" background check passed in Washington state.

$600,000 was spent to directly oppose Washington's "universal" background check initiative. The initiative passed with just shy of 60% in favor.

The strategy was to promote a competing measure to I-594. That competing measure was I-591. It was hoped that it would cause voters to vote for it instead of I-594, but if I-594 passed anyway that I-591 would be passed as well and negate I-594.  According to ballotpedia's I-591 page, about $1.2 million was spent promoting I-591.

What I'm wondering is if $600,000 was enough to drop theoretical support from 90% (according to more generalized polls - I'm seeing between 60% & 81%, counting undecideds on the high end but not countig them on the low end, for polls specifically about I-594) to a little over 59% (according to election results), then would spending that $1.2 million on direct opposition to I-594 instead of using it to pimp I-591 have caused I-594's defeat?

Perhaps we weren't outspent, but rather we misspent. 

Something to ponder if anyone tells you that we tried to fight "universal" background checks in Washington state and lost because Bloomie the Hut has too much money.

(Remember, appeasement is for chumps)



Monday, January 12, 2015

Bobbing For Appeasement

Like a 17 year old sci-fi geek who just got the Clockwork Angels Tour on Blu-Ray, I'm a bit rushed.

Et tu, Bob? Seems Bob Owens is playing Halifax to Gottlieb's Chamberlain.

To refute his, Gottlieb's and any others' counsel when they speak positively of appeasement, may I present for your edification:

Agin' Background Check Appeasement

The Wrong People

All We Are Saying Is Give Appease A Chance

Bouncing Background Checks

Also, Joe Huffman's thoughts on Background Checks and Neal Knox's tale about The Belgian Corporal.

To try to sum it up (though clicking those links will lead to a much more thorough understanding of the danger and futility of background checks) giving in on background checks will not accomplish anything for us in the medium to long run, as whatever short term gains we receive will be overshadowed by the harm background checks and our acquiescence to them cause us. It will erode the principals upon which we base our opposition to laws that intrude upon our Rights, while furthering the anti's cause. It will not stop the anti's, it will help them. It will not help us, it will hurt us. What we must do is fight, not just an expansion of background checks, but all background checks, even the ones we endure now. Surrendering is not fighting. A wise fellow once said that evil is never stopped by fleeing from it. I'd posit that evil is never stopped by compromising with it.

Remember, appeasement is for chumps.



Saturday, January 10, 2015

Bouncing Background Checks

If you've read anything I've written in the past week (or ever) you've probably realized that I'm opposed to background checks under any pretext whatsoever. I think supporting any sort of expansion of background checks is an unwise move and definitely not the best option we have as gunowners. So, what should we do instead of appeasement?

The biggest problem we have regarding background checks (and proponents of appeasement continually bring this up to justify their position) is public opinion. Polls and initiatives so far have shown that a majority of people support background checks and/or their expansion. In large part this is because the mythology of background checks (i.e. keeping "the wrong people" from acquiring guns) is appealing to people. Most folks don't delve deeply enough into the subject to realize how ineffective background checks are at their purported goals, or how dangerous background checks are to them, or the potential consequences and co-requisites of background check expansion. This, as always, is the tactic that our opposition relies on; misinformed or ill informed electorates.

So what we should do is simple (which is not to be confused with easy). The solution to ignorance is education, not capitulation.We should inform the electorate. Here are my ideas on how to accomplish this:


Thursday, January 08, 2015

All We Are Saying Is Give Appease A Chance

Let us take a look into a fairly reliable crystal ball I like to call history and see what will happen if we choose appeasement by supporting "universal" background checks in exchange for other concessions...

Let us assume we can get some modest gains in exchange for supporting some sort of "universal" background check. National CCW reciprocity is most likely, and perhaps another bone or two, such as suppressors or short barreled long guns being removed from the NFA,  It's possible we could see some sort of "restoration of Rights" process for non-violent offenders. There will of course be a provision that makes a federal database of guns illegal, as well as exemptions for family and spouses. It would likely only apply to sales or long term loans, gifts and trades. The devil being in the details it's no use to speculate about all the possibilities so let's just go with something general for this discussion.

So we support "universal" background checks at the national level. What then?


Wednesday, January 07, 2015

From The Billing Department

I wasn't sure if anything would be filed yet, it being only the first day of the session, but I did find some firearms related bills in the Colorado legislature.


State of the State

 That'd of course be My, the State. So how are things in The Centennial State you ask? In the words of Hoyt from John Boy and Billy's The Big Show, not too good.

If you're in Colorado, fear for your wallet and your liberty, and possibly your virtue as well:

The Colorado Legislature is back in session.


Tuesday, January 06, 2015

From My Cold Sled Hands

Dubuque, Iowa is the latest in a number of towns and cities that have banned sledding. Yep. Sledding. The bans appear to be limited to city owned property.

"We have all kinds of parks that have hills on them,' said Marie Ware, Dubuque's leisure services manager. 'We can't manage the risk at all of those places."

The risk they speak of is from lawsuits:

"...a $2 million judgment against Omaha, Nebraska, after a 5-year-old girl was paralyzed when she hit a tree and a $2.75 million payment when a man in Sioux City, Iowa, slid into a sign and injured his spinal cord."

I found some info on the Omaha case mentioned above. A family's two daughters hit some trees at the bottom of a hill while they were sledding. The family's attorneys claim the city is responsible because they knew the trees posed a hazard to sledders. Connelly v. City Of Omaha was decided by the Nebraska supreme court in july of 2012, affirming the appeals courts awards to the plaintiffs although modifying the amount of damages. Judge Narragansett could not be reached for comment.

Back to the original article:

"Most people realize that cities must restrict potentially dangerous activities to protect people and guard against costly lawsuits, said Kenneth Bond, a New York lawyer who represents local governments. In the past, people might have embraced a Wild West philosophy of individuals being solely responsible for their actions, but now they expect government to prevent dangers whenever possible.
'It's a great idea on the frontier, but we don't live on the frontier anymore,' Bond said."

At the part where they mentioned "New York lawyer" I  somehow just felt like I was being lied to, and instinctively put one hand on my wallet and the other on my Garand.

That is part of the problem though; progressives from more densely populated states try to use the "old west" rationalization to justify any encroachments on not only individual freedom, but individual responsibility as well. A question though - if it's not a frontier then what are all these carpetbaggers doin' 'round here? Come to edjumacate us hicks on our earth killing sled-risk-takin' ways? To enlighten us about how the collective matters more than the individual? That government is responsible for us in every way imaginable and must protect us from ourselves?

"...[Assistant city attorney Tom] Mumgaard said courts in Nebraska have decided cities must protect people, even if they make poor choices."

Ayup. That's exactly what they came out here to tell us about.

The good news is there is resistance to such efforts:

"In Omaha, the city banned sledding at a popular hill as a test one winter after losing a lawsuit, but decided to allow it again after most people ignored the restriction.
'It wasn't practical,' assistant city attorney Tom Mumgaard said. 'People wouldn't abide by the ban."

 Gee, imagine that - people ignoring a law. I wonder if this could have any implications for gun owners...?


The Wrong People



“The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun.

That was from a speech President Obama gave on January 16th of 2013 as he unveiled his plan for new gunowner laws. It is true that an estimated 1.5 million people were denied permission to exercise the Right of owning a firearm during that time frame. But pay attention to what he called them – “the wrong people”. 

Monday, January 05, 2015

Agin Background Check Appeasement



It has come to my attention that there are certain segments of the gun owning community that feel conceding on the issue of background checks is a politically and pragmatically wise course of action. The idea is that since gunowners were outspent in Washington state in the fight over passage of I-594 that such losses are inevitable in other states, therefore if we support some form of universal background check we can reduce the damage done by an I-594-like law. The most prominent proponent of such an idea is Alan Gottlieb of SAF and CCRKBA fame, but he is not alone.

To this notion I must not only say “No”, but “Go to hell no”. Allow me to break it down:

Sunday, January 04, 2015

If You Don't Know Me By Now

I seem to have found myself back on blogger, and having been away for so long I'm not quite certain what all these buttons do. So don't pay too much attention to this post as I'm just experimenting to see what all I can or can't manage. I may or may not try to spruce the place up a bit, but my time is limited and there were a few topics I wanted to touch on so it's possible I'll just try to crank out those and leave the page as it looks now. Or close to it. So, do pardon the mess.

Oh, if you're wondering, I picked the title of this post because the template I went with is a simple red. ;) In case you didn't catch that, I'll post a vid in the extended entry:

Friday, December 08, 2006

Witness Pics



The first target I shot with the new Witness Elite Match in 10mm. This was using American Eagle 180 grain FMJ's which traveled around 1025 fps. The distance to the target was roughly 30 feet.


The second target was shot with handloads. Speer 180 grain TMJ's on top of 8.5 grains of Longshot. They were clocked at around 1180 fps.

Here's another one of the targets hopefully in an easier to see format.




8.9 grains of Longshot pushed those Speer 180 grain TMJ's to around 1240 fps



& this is the first target shot with handloads again.

As I said, er typed it was only around 30 feet because I was mainly trying to chronograph the handloads but the accuracy doesn't seem to be too bad considering I've never been a great pistol shot.

For a more detailed review see Can I Get A Witness Part Two

Friday, August 26, 2005

...So Long As 100 Of Us Can Remain Alive...

On Tuesday, August the 23rd of 2005 Sir William Wallace was honored in a ceremony in the place where he was executed by the English in 1305.

Sir William Wallace was further honored by a few polls over the years:

"Opinion polls in recent years suggest between a quarter and a half of Scotland's 5 million people want the same independence from London which Wallace fought for seven centuries ago."

The man who honored Wallace in the ceremony went further to show his respect:

"Our country is still ruled from somewhere else,' he said, referring to the British parliament. 'It's time the leaders in Scotland woke up and listened to what the people want."

That quote was from David Ross, historian, author, musician & International Convener of the Society of William Wallace. I also recommend looking at his site WalkforWallace.com.

700 years ago Wallace was tortured, executed, butchered & scattered because he dared stand up to a foreign king who claimed dominion over his home. Today Scotland is still subject to the foreign land that Wallace fought against. It would seem to me that honoring Wallace would have to entail at least some sympathy for Scottish independence.

Now if the Scots wish to live subject to British Parliament then that's their decision. I'm not a Scot & I would not presume to tell them what to do with their country. But if you're wondering whether I'd support those Scots who wish to live absent the British Parliament my answer would have to be aye.
Oh Good Grief

This is not directly gun related (though I might play a round of "Six Degrees of John Moses Browning").

Gretchen Wilson is being asked by some ass in Tennessee (actually the AG, or Ass, Generally) to stop using chaw (i.e. smokeless tobacky) at her concerts.

"State officials said
Gretchen Wilson can be seen on concert jumbo screens pulling a can of Skoal from her pocket while performing her new song, 'Skoal Ring.'
That may violate the 1998 settlement between states and tobacco companies forbidding tobacco ads targeting young people, Attorney General Paul Summers said."


WTF??? Exactly how does it violate an agreement miss Wilson was not a party to?

"Many young people attend your concerts and purchase your music and T-shirts,' Summers wrote in a letter he sent to Wilson Thursday. 'Because your actions strongly influence the youth in your audience ... I ask you to take steps to warn young people of negative health effects of smokeless tobacco use."

Huh. Well I wonder how many "young people" read papers that have asshatted quotes from the AG of Tennessee? Doesn't that impart a duty on him to remove his head from whoever's orifice it's currently entrenched in? After all, we wouldn't want impressionable young folks to start acting like self righteous controlling statist assholes now would we? I mean aren't there negative effects of participating in such behavior, well other than being accused of being a lawyer? (To all my lawyer pals, nothing personal, but damn - jerks like Summers give the other 2% of ya'll a bad rep).

"The landmark $206 billion tobacco settlement 'provided that advertisements such as this would be and should be prohibited,' Summers said."

Hmmm. I am almost certain that "advertise" was used in the sense of compensating a person or company for the promotion of their wares or services. That would exclude the more generalized sense of advertise (i.e. AG Summers advertised both his ignorance of the law & his disdain for private actions not controlled by the state with his asshatted statements).

"U.S. Smokeless Tobacco does not have an agreement with Wilson or any artists to promote its products, said company spokesman Mike Bazinet. Summers said his office is also contacting the company about the use of its products at Wilson's concerts."

Hmm So Summers, being the astute paragon of legal intellect that he is, is claiming that an agreement between party A (the tobacco companies) & party B (the government) is enforceable against party C (miss Wilson). What a brilliant actionable strategy. I know; next why doesn't he make Smith & Wesson sign an agreement - wait, not Smith & Wesson since some still aren't over the last time they did that - let's get Rug...er, Col... Damn. I'm running out of untainted firearms makers. Let's get the firearms industry to sign an agreement with the government saying that none of their products will be "advertised" during a crime. That way should anyone use on of their firearms while committing said crime then the AG can write them a letter telling them to stop cause kids are impressionable.

Asshat.

Disclaimer: I don't know miss Wilson. I've heard one or two of her songs but only in parts. I did hear "Redneck Woman" when I was in the Carolinas, but it was performed by my friends in a band called Latitude not by miss Wilson. (In case you missed it the url was for Latitude; Myrtle Beach's finest Beach, Dance & Party music duo - now hopefully they'll stop calling me about that 20 bucks I probably owe them ;D ) Further I don't use Skoal or any other form of smokeless tobacco. I smoke cigarettes with an occasional cigar thrown in the mix. I am not being paid by miss Wilson, Skoal, or any group generally opposed to asshattery in public orifice office holders.

I am a musician though & the idea of the state even having a freakin' opinion on what I do that is not against any law, legit or contrived, is as repulsive as Tipper Gore's explorations into a new special place back in the mid 80's. I don't care if smokeless tobacco is bad for you. I don't care if fast food is bad for you. Nor do I care if language or subject matter is offensive. If you don't wish to be subject to that kinda of thing then don't go to the damn venue where it's occurring. If you don't want your children to be exposed to that kind of thing then don't let them attend the venue where that will be occurring.

I mean bloody hell, what's next? Banning t-shirts or caps cause they have a picture of a firearm? - oh, nevermind. Or perhaps suspending young children for playing cops & robbers at school? Er, nevermind again. Oh surely some places haven't proscribed the spelling of the word "gun" have they? Ayup.

The root of this (& here's how it does come back to firearms, albeit indirectly) is the desire to prohibit things that aren't thought to be proper. Even when things are popularly accepted there are some who would deny those things to others based on their own beliefs. (Temperence anyone?) It's different in specifics for sure, but the base is constant: someone is doing something I do not approve of therefore I will try to get them to refrain. Now acting asan individual I can tolerate a bit of that. But as an individual I can also tell you to go straight to hell & disregard any entreaties to stop whatever my "offensive" behavior is.

Summers is not acting as an individual. He's acting as an agent of the state of Tennessee. He has not told anyone they must stop doing anything, but the weight of the state is presumed to be behind him if he did so. If he wished to voice his concerns to miss Wilson as an individual then it wouldn't be that much of an issue for me. But to use his office to ask someone to reduce or eliminate a legal behavior because he does not approve of such behavior is a subtle yet brutal strike at the notion of a people not controlled by the state.

Sure, smokeless tobacky might be bad for ya, but it is not the states' place to protect us from ourselves. The states' place is to protect us from each other whenever we try to disparage the equal rights of one another. Anything more than that is more dangerous than any substance in a can could ever be.

Considering the title of some of her songs ("Redneck Woman"; "Pocahantus Proud"; etc.) I sincerely hope miss Wilson does not give AG Summers the typical southern courtesy & keeps the Marlboro red between her lips while she tells him to kiss her country fried ass.

Monday, July 04, 2005

Independence Day. The 229th anniversary of a statement of freedom from a government that impeded individual liberty. (Please note: the holiday is called Independence Day. It occurs on the 4th of July. Unless you typically wish people a happy 25th of December or ask if they have plans for the 31rst of December then please try to refer to the holiday by its rightful name. Referencing it by its date belittles the import of it to just another day that you don't have to work & the banks are all closed - thanks.)

Some are unhappy with the way things are yet hopeful. Some othersare unhappy with the way things are & feel dejected. There is a long list of grievences to be unhappy about for sure. Though unspoken as the cause, it's not difficult to speculate on the nature of some folks depression.

I was thinking about making a big long post filled with links to support the greivences I have against the government - or perhaps more accurately the ones it seems to have against me. The links above do a fine job of that, even if they're somewhat understated. Instead I'll point you to this post on Patriots' Day; this one about the Mecklenburg Declaraion of Independence & the Mecklenburg Resolves; this one on The Declaration of the Causes & Necessities of Taking Up Arms (No Quarters has more on the Document that We Forgot); this one on Independence Day; & this one on Bill of Rights Day. I'll also point you to The War on Guns' Patriots Day post as the pictures sum up things too accurately. Tell Me How Do I Get To My America? is another one I'd ask you to glance at. & it will be much worth your while to visit this post of IsThatLegal's where an Independence Day speech by then AG (soon to be Supree Court justice) Robert Jackson is transcribed.

Today is not a happy one for me. I think of my state & the Republic which she is a member of & I find little comfort or cause for celebration. I won't wax dramatic on you about it but I will say that I have little or no faith in the government & not much more in the people. Churchill said that it's good for an uneducated man to read a book of quotes. I admit I have found this to be good advice for myself at least. Sometimes words from others give solace & comfort to a troubled soul. I will leave you with some excerpts of folk more sober in thought & spirit than I am currently.



"Suppose two-thirds of the members of the national House of Representatives were dumped into the Washington garbage incinerator tomorrow, what would we lose to offset our gain of their salaries and the salaries of their parasites?" - H L Mencken

"It is the fundamental theory of all the more recent American law...that the average citizen is half-witted, and hence not to be trusted to either his own devices or his own thoughts." - H L Mencken

"A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar" - H L Mencken

"It [the State] has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion; its agents become a separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot. But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men." - H L Mencken

"The argument that capital punishment degrades the state is moonshine, for if that were true then it would degrade the state to send men to war... The state, in truth, is degraded in its very nature: a few butcheries cannot do it any further damage" - H L Mencken

"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-bye to the Bill of Rights" - H L Mencken

"Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods" - H L Mencken

"All government, in its essence, is organized exploitation, and in virtually all of its existing forms it is the implacable enemy of every industrious and well-disposed man" - H L Mencken

"The ideal government of reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone" - H L Mencken

"It is the theory of all modern civilized governments that they protect and foster the liberty of the citizen;it is the practice of all of them to limit its exercise, and sometimes very narrowly." - H L Mencken

“The average man’s love of liberty is nine-tenth’s imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty--and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies. It is, indeed, only the exceptional man who can even stand it. The average man doesn’t want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” - H L Mencken

"Anything that is moral for a group to do is moral for one person to do" - R A Heinlein

"No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law. He simply follows the eleventh commandment" - R A Heinlein

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects" - R A Heinlein

"Any government will work if authority and responsibility are equal and coordinate. This does not insure 'good' government; it simply insures that it will work. But such governments are rare; most people want to run things but want no part of the blame" - R A Heinlein

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do" - R A Heinlein

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it" - Ayn Rand

"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles." - Ayn Rand

"A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims" - Ayn Rand

"Evil requires the sanction of the victim" - Ayn Rand

"It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master" - Ayn Rand

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws" - Ayn Rand

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force" - Ayn Rand

"Government 'help' to business is just as disastrous as government persecution... the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off" - Ayn Rand

"Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property" - Ayn Rand

"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law" - Ayn Rand

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)" - Ayn Rand

"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time" - Sir Winston Churchill

"It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required" - Sir Winston Churchill

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." - John Philpot Curran

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government" - Alexander Hamilton

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual" - Thomas Jefferson

"Can our form of government, our system of justice, survive if one can be denied a freedom because he might abuse it?" - Harlan Carter

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government" - Edward Abbey

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood . . ." - James Madison

"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

For a few more quotes look here.