Wednesday, June 25, 2003

When is the Use of Force Against Government Officials Justified? That's the question J.J. Johnson asks.

"There are many that passionately say they will never give up their guns. Others claim the government has no right to tell a person (especially a woman) what to do with their own body (flesh and blood). Is it therefore okay to allow the government to ‘take’ your own flesh and blood simply for not bowing to their authority?
This article should not be construed in any way to condone violence. But if the event that the Bryant or any other family facing the same peril makes it clear that the sovereignty of their home would be defended against government overreaching with whatever force at their disposal, this author would not have too much difficulty justifying their actions - even if they didn‘t live through it."

The Bryant family mentioned above are deserving of as much sympathy & material support as we can give them. The government transferred custody of the Bryant family's children to the department of Social Services ( DSS, or more appropriately SS) because they refused to force their kids to take a standardized test. No abuse, either physical, emotional, psychological or sexual has been alledged. They simply did not want their kids taking a test. They home school. They have the notion that they know their kids better than the government & that they'll decide how smart the kids are.

So when the government comes to take away your kids because you didn't file the appropriate paperwork, would you think force was justified to protect yourself & your loved ones?
Perhaps more importantly if the government came for your neighbors kids would you just watch helplessly out of your window & thank God it isn't you, or would you help your neighbor? Even if that meant taking up arms against the government?

Tell me what you think.

Our tax dollars are being used to demonize guns among children. At least in Aurora, Colorado that's what's happening.

"The U.S. attorney's office distributed $25,000 to the Downtown Aurora Visual Arts (DAVA) organization for the 'Drums Not Guns/Safe Circle Project.'
In addition, urban police departments, including Denver, Aurora, Lakewood and Colorado Springs, received $50,000 each for programs designed to reduce gun crimes and enhance local enforcement."

$25,000 from the feds to teach kids in Colorado that guns are bad but drums are good. Obviously the feds have never met any drummers. While I will always support any private funding for promotion of the arts, especially music, I'm generally against tax money going to promote it. Then again I'm not at all sure I'm in favor of tax-payer funded public schools. But there is no question that tax money should not be used to prejudice kids against an inanimate object that is constitutionally protected.

"The kids also made posters spreading the word that more than 95 percent of their peers in their middle school think there are and should be alternatives to violence."

Yes, there should always be alternatives to violence. But unfortunately in this world there sometimes aren't any alternatives. At least not acceptable ones.

Our kids are being taught fear & hatred of inanimate objects while being taught a strategy known for its ineffectiveness called appeasement.& it's being done with our tax money.
A guy in Idaho worked hard all summer, as did a lady in Pittsburgh so that kids in Colorado could learn to hate the very objects that could keep us from being killed, or worse still - enslaved. That's definitely progressive taxation.

In Ohio there's an interesting situation. Because of two different courts ruling that the state's ban on concealed weapons violated the Ohio Constitution the Ohio legislature has been negotiating with itself about what kind of 'shall issue' law to pass.
Now please keep in mind that since the courts have ruled that a prohibition on concealed carry violates the Ohio constitutions' enumeration of the Right to Arms that Ohio would be an ideal candidate to have a Vermont style law (i.e. no permit required). Yet, amid cries from the supposedly pro-gunners that a Vermont-style law can't be done, they choose to work out a "shall Issue' law.
Enter the head Republican - Bob Taft.
He claims to support the Right to Arms, yet he demands all sorts of restrictions upon any concealed carry bill. If his conditions aren't met, he threatens to veto.
Gov. Taft wrote a letter to clear up his position. The Toledo Blade printed it. I will fisk it.

Concealed carry with limits OK

I wonder if religous choice with limits is equally o.k.? Or freedom of the press with certain conditions?

After reading your recent editorial, I feel compelled to write and set the record straight on my position on the concealed carry issue.

In other words Gov. Taft watched The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas again last night & wondered if he could 'dance a little sidestep' to get out of the hot water he's in with the pro-gun base that is currently looking for a new candidate to vote for.

Throughout my public service career, I have been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the rights that it grants.

Up until now at least.

I have also been a strong supporter of the men and women on the front lines of protecting us, and I am proud to have received support from state troopers, the Fraternal Order of Police, and many local police groups in my statewide campaigns.

But what about the men & women on the front lines just trying to protect themselves because the people he thinks are protecting everyone aren't capable of protecting everyone? But could this have something to do with campaign contributions from some of those police organizations? (That is an admittedly baseless accusation since I do not know one way or the other about who contributed how much to Gov. Taft's campaign. Nevertheless it would be interesting to see if there's a financial connection.)

As I have repeatedly stated, I would accept a concealed carry permitting bill only if it contains rigorous training requirements and thorough background checks, and is acceptable to Ohio’s law enforcement community.

So unless the people jump through hoops that seem to appease the cops Gov. Taft doesn't want them to be able to protect themselves.

Because of my stand on these critical points, law enforcement officials had significant input in crafting the concealed carry bill that was approved on a bipartisan vote of the Ohio Senate.

Well either the cops are in the Gov.'s back pocket or the Gov.'s in the cops back pocket.

The Senate version significantly improved an unacceptable House bill by including a number of changes to safeguard both the public and members of the law enforcement community.

The House wouldn't play ball. They actually wanted a bill that minimally burdened the citizen. However the Senate did play ball & their bill has maximally burdened the citizen. Therefore the Gov. approves.

The Senate bill strengthens training requirements by adding a requalification component, increases penalties for violators, requires firearms to be locked away when a child is in a vehicle, requires a firearm to be in plain sight if a child is not in the vehicle, creates a felony offense for any person who possesses a firearm while driving under the influence, and increases safety for the men and women of law enforcement by notifying them through the Law Enforcement Automated Data System (LEADS) when a vehicle contains a concealed carry permit holder.

See if ya add ridiculous requirements that make it aggrevating to get the permit & renew the permit as well as use the permit, then maybe most people will not bother with the permit. I mean, if you carry a gun in the car for defense, what the hell good will it do if you have to lock it up when you're driving your kids around? So why bother? Apparently Gov. Taft feels that being able to protect your kids while driving isn't a Right & should be heavily restricted.
Also, please note the gun owner registration. Running a license plate will let 'em know if you're packing or not. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc, would have loved to have such a 'tool' for the safety of their law enforcement officials.

Despite editorial suggestions to the contrary, my position on this issue has been clear since 1997, when I began my first campaign for governor. And it is not negotiable.

So because since '97 the Gov. has disregarded the Rights of the citizens to have the means of self defense, he's not changing his view.

The Senate bill meets the criteria I have consistently outlined.

The Senate caved in & sacrificed the people's need for the Gov.'s wants.

Therefore I will sign the measure if it reaches my desk.

More or less if a concealed carry bill has to pass he'll sign it if it meets his conditions. But I'm not too sure he wants to see one pass at all.

I will veto any version of this law that does not meet my requirements.

If anyone dares pass a bill that interferes with the Gov.'s power, then he won't sign it.


Given the decisions of the Ohio courts that struck down the prohibition on concealed carry, I sincerely hope that some bright, eager young attorney sees that it can be used to strike down a 'shall issue' law, especially one as burdensome as the one the Gov. wants.

& I hope all you Ohio republicans remember that the Gov. cares more about his political agenda than your Right to self defense. & don't foget the Senators who traded your Rights for the Governor's favors.

Monday, June 23, 2003

"...I'd like to propose a project for the Libertarian Party vastly more important than running somebody for President, or for any other office. It's a project that could, in fact, make the election of a Libertarian President possible, by putting more people on our side than anything else we've ever done.

And we wouldn't even have to succeed—just make a big, happy, noisy, credible attempt.

I propose a Constitutional Amendment providing that, if any public official, elected or appointed, at any level of government, is caught lying to any member of the public for any reason, the punishment shall be death by public hanging.
I suggest we make this amendment our own, promote it constantly, everywhere and anywhere we go. I suggest that we corner politicians in public—and, even more importantly, candidates—and ask if they'll support this amendment. We must demand an answer and keep on demanding it until we get one.
And then we must ask—publicly—why these Republicans and Democrats think they have a right to lie to the people who not only pay their hyperinflated salaries, but who are supposed to be running this country. "

That's from a speech that L. Neil Smith gave. Here's a link to it. While it contains some things that may make you want to scream "conspiracy theorist!" I would point out that it leads to a very interesting idea. But of course if you disagree with any of the particulars feel free to elaborate in the 'comments' box.

But just imagine Hillary being asked if she'd support an amendment that levies the death penalty on politicians who lie... or Schumer, or Fienstien, or Conyers, or Dean, or Bush, or [insert politician here]. whether such an amendment ever had a shot at passing, I think the debate over it would be priceless.