As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people. — Jeff Snyder
[After writing the previous post, I felt this as fitting quote. –B]
Obama claims to support second amendment rights, and states his administration has no position on gun control. Yet all of us who actually have a brain find this to be no surprise. Instead of destroying the second amendment over night, he’s just going to do it over 30 years.
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.”
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.
“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]
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.
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.
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//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//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.
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!