Duly qualified eh?

So the city of Harvey Illinois, a suburb of Chicago had 21 guns stolen. It is a suburb of the same Chicago that some politicians claimed recently the National Guard was needed to bring the murder rate under control.

Let me get this straight, the bigots claim that civilians are too irresponsible and are not capable of safely handling and storing a firearm, yet the bastion example of Law Enforcement for a single municipality looses 21 by themselves. Lest the fact that the ATF has lost firearms that were then later used to commit crimes. Though I am beginning to see a pattern emerge from behavior of those determined to be “duly qualified” to carry and handle firearms.

The scariest line from the article was this:

At 4:15 p.m., Harvey spokesman Sandra Alvarado said, “after some really awesome investigating this afternoon, many of the stolen weapons were recovered, along with many other items that were stolen out of the gun range.”

Followed by:

Alvarado could not say where the guns were recovered – or if anyone has been arrested. Or how many guns are still missing.

This confirms the suspicions created by the first line. The public has no idea how many weapons are still unaccounted for, and the most depressing thing is that they will probably be used to commit a crime against a law abiding citizen who paid for those weapons through taxes. That citizen will be deprived of life and/or property by a criminal because his government deprived them of the liberty of self-defense. Self defense is a Devine right that cannot be restricted or limited by the laws of man yet for some reason some men think ill of that right and demand it be restricted. It is restricted by the same group of individuals that are inadvertently arming the criminals, it is not irony, it is idiocy.

Quote Of the Day May 11, 2010

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” — H. L. Mencken

[Somehow after the attempted bombing in Times Square the idea that the rights of law abiding citizens needed to be further restricted for our own safety is by no means a coincidence. Our would-be masters know the above and adhere to the policy, "Let no good crisis go wasted." I am ashamed that Michael Bloomberg is an Eagle Scout, obviously he learned nothing from that trail. –B]

“Green Economy”

So I was searching around catching up on recent events and stumbled across an article from The University of Washington. Evidently the college Republicans and Democrats had their debate recently.

I was skimming through the article, it had the standard boiler plate arguments about “cap and trade” and concealed carry on campus. What caused the sudden in-depth review of the article is the following line:

‘”A green economy doesn’t have to be a successful one,” Rigsby said’

Did you just say what I think you said? We need to legally mandate an economy that will be unsuccessful. Obviously you’re a little short of brain cells. If our economy stops being successful everything is going to come to a crashing halt. Here’s a question, if the economy structure is going to be unsuccessful, why will anyone invest money in it, including China which is paying for the bailout and Obama-Care? This includes both private and government investors. The goal is to make money; if something is uneconomically viable something has to change. You can NOT legislate that change, though you can try to provide incentives.

I just find the above statement as the prime example why I think government should be extremely limited. Often those in power are not faced with the immediate and harsh consequences of their decisions. What’s worse is when their idea fails; they insist that the failure is the result of some outside influence that needs to be fixed.

A prime example of this is the gun-control debate. Chicago has one of the highest homicide rates in the country as well as the most strict gun control measures. The problem according to Daley and the bigots though is not that gun-control doesn’t work; it is that guns are brought from the outside. Now the powers that be would like to bring in the National Guard to help fight the crime wave. Evidently Chicago’s finest is not enough and they think that deploying the soldiers will somehow curb crime.

Here is a solid lesson in how things work. Police are there to enforce the laws and punish those who break the law. Note I did not say prevent. It is the duty of the civilian population to prevent crime. This is done by making the criminal environment an unsafe one. Why is Chicago’s homicide rate so high? It is because the environment for criminals is safe. A law abiding citizen cannot protect themselves without breaking the law themselves.

Gun control doesn’t have to be successful about controlling crime, just in controlling the slaves.

Gun Control Is Racist

Talk about a blast from the past. I found a bunch of stuff I handed out at school from time to time.

Needless to say my teachers were less than appreciative.

Then after doing some more digging around I discovered that not only does the JPFO think that those people are Bigots… but they have mental problems. I also found a copy of “‘Gun Control’ Kills Kids”.

I don’t know how I missed that post on Joe’s blog, but somehow I did. From looking at it, it was probably before I started reading it often.

All warm and fuzzy…

I read something today that made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Not in the good way either. Here are a few snippets from what I found.

(U) decentralized

terrorist movement

(U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who

pursue shared ideological goals through tactics of leaderless

resistance independent of any larger terrorist organization

 

What are they doing that makes them terrorists?

Resistance defines something other than terrorist. Here’s the definition of terrorist:

(n) terrorist (a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities)

That definition is very straight forward and to the point. However a group of individuals with similar ideological goals are terrorists. Yes I’m stretching but do you think they wont?

 

(U) hacktivism (U//FOUO) (A portmanteau of “hacking” and “activism.”)

The use of cyber technologies to achieve a political end, or

technology-enabled political or social activism.

Hacktivism might include website defacements,

denial-of-service attacks, hacking into the target’s network to

introduce malicious software (malware), or information theft.

 

Now they say might include, however the main definition states the use of cyber technologies to achieve a political end. Blogs are a cyber technology. That’s just for starters.

The one that made me want to post on this though is the following.

(U) direct action (U//FOUO) Lawful or unlawful acts of civil disobedience

ranging from protests to property destruction or acts of

violence. This term is most often used by single-issue or

anarchist extremists to describe their activities.

 

I have highlighted, underlined, bolded and italicized the key word that should NOT be in that statement. You are now profiling people doing legal action as extremists. Basically the vibe I got from the whole damn thing was you could place just about anybody into the definitions. It is also the most bigoted racist thing I have read in a LONG time. This is part of their new set of tools to weed out those who are not good little sheep. The best way to control speech and actions is to just make it uncomfortable to express yourself. Talk about firearms in schools is a forboden topic now. These same schools claim to be open to the free exchange of ideas. The correct statement is they allow the regurgitation of their ideas.

 

God I need a beer. Guess I need to update my SHTFP. This is getting downright scary.

Hat Tip to TriggerFinger for the school story.

Washington AFL Discrimination

A friend from work was affected by the current issues in the state of Washington regarding an Alien Firearms License. Ends up he’s actually been involved in the law suit against the state of Washington. He delivered good news the other day. Evidently the WA DOL was avoiding issuing new licensees for whatever reason. To me this is like BS stamp taxes, we require you to have one to be legal but we won’t issue them. Luckily 1052 should put an end to this BS, which amazingly Washington is the only state with a BS law like this on the books.

Here is the Second Amendment Foundations release from when the case opened.

The good news is he finally got his AFL in hand. He’s off to buy a celebratory firearm!

When to fight?

On Joe’s blog today Joe posted another question from Mark Philip Alger to go along with the “Just One Question“.

To summarize here:

When is it proper, for example, to use force to stop a legislator engaged in unconstitutional actions? Indeed, when is it required of those who have sworn oaths to… protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic…?

This is a question I have often asked myself over and over, and it is a very critical item. There have been numerous comments made on the subject and many have different feelings. Ultimately I think everyone has their own independent tripwire of what will “set them off”. Joe’s page on Civil Disobedience serves as a good resource to those who have never pondered the question.

I read that new post just after re-reading the Declaration of Independence. Now if you’re wondering why I would spend my free time reading that, or the Constitution or any other numerous items regarding history, it’s because I don’t want to repeat it. A smart man learns from his mistakes, a wise man learns from other peoples mistakes. History gives you the ability to see events and what occurred because of them.

Back to the point however many only remember a few phrases, such as: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Many do not remember the laundry list of things that was done by the King that was presented as evidence. Now while many of these may not directly pertain to our present state of affairs, we should however also note other lessons that we’ve learned in the 20th century.

My personal thoughts on the subject is that the denial of the any specifically enumerated right of the people, most especially the right to keep and bear arms is a tripwire. Any and all attempts to prevent the people from being able to arm themselves properly for the defense of themselves, family, or property serve no other purpose to make us subservient to the state. This includes attempting to restrict ammunition by tax, or by requirements. A firearm without ammo is only an expensive club. While some would argue that you can stash weapons and use them at a later time, not everyone will be successful in stashing weapons. With restrictions on firearms, restrictions on travel and speech will exist limiting our ability to organize.

My definite words to live by are the lessons of the 20th century. When it came to New Orleans after Katrina, certainly shoot any soldier collecting weapons, nail the police chief, and the mayor too. At this point their sole goal is to be bigoted against us and kill us. To me it’s like negotiating with a terrorist who only wants you dead, what is there to negotiate? If it reaches this point you must trip and act. As for legislating it’s much harder to say. If someone actually starts collecting after legislation, they are definitely guilty, but who will hold them accountable.

These are just my thoughts on the subject, they’re very fluid and it’s a topic that is very difficult. It is not clear cut like someone attacking you in your house or stealing your property. However it is someone stealing your rights.