The Minuteman » Bigotry

Category Archives: Gun Control

Gun Control Is Racist

By | | , , , ,
Comments Off on 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…

By | | , , , , ,
Comments Off on 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

By | | , ,
Comments Off on 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?

By | | , , , ,
Comments Off on 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.

Gun Control = More Crime

By | | , ,
Comments Off on Gun Control = More Crime

I’ve said it before and I’ll continue saying it until I die. A news paper in the UK has confirmed it.

Disarming the law abiding only serves to protect the criminals!

Obama on Self-Defense

By | | , , , , , ,
2 Comments

I haven’t written much lately because I’ve been tied up with work and making sure I graduated from college. Not to mention the fact that I’ve been trying to benefit my blood pressure by avoiding things that just flat out piss me right the hell off. Well I stumbled across something today that pushed my button so hard I can’t stand it.

“In 2004, while running for the U.S. Senate, he[Obama] promised to bar citizens nationwide from receiving concealed-carry permits.”

WHAT!? Oh so now states aren’t good enough to determine how best to serve and protect their own people. No one in this fine country except those “you” Mr. Obama deem fit is capable of carrying a firearm. I know for a FACT from talking to my local Sheriffs and Police force that I get considerably more range time than they do. Not only that I have a larger ammunition budget for just myself than the whole department. So you can NOT give me that crap that they are better trained.

Your statements basically say that we must depend upon the police for our protection when it has been stated by the Supreme Court that “The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.”

Obama is nothing more than a bigot who hates gun owners because they believe in doing things themselves and not depending on a socialist government for survival. Every person, and I mean everyone has a god given right to self defense with any weapon that man has created. “The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever … the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

Criminals don’t follow the laws, only the law abiding. We see what his ban’s on concealed carry have done to different places, why must he force us to all be complacent victims.

The media is just as much to blame however for the misconceptions about concealed carry. I just found this link. In it they list the arrest of the Appalachian School of Law shooting was due to students tackling him. I wasn’t aware that using a firearm was now called “tackling”.

Mayor Nickels and Concealed carry

By | | , , , , , ,
Comments Off on Mayor Nickels and Concealed carry

Lately the idea of living on the west side of Washington has become more and more displeasing. I have been seeing Strong examples of the differences between myself and those hippie feel good tree huggers.

I haven’t written much lately due to the fact my writing would have been clouded by anger, most of this from the city of Seattle. First time I knew something was going to be blogged was after the Folklife shooting. I’m not going to discuss it much because many of the details I feel important and relevant still haven’t come out, such as why the argument started and what actually occurred. All we have is the biased output of the media which only focuses on him ignoring the other party. Not to mention the fact he by no means represents the majority of concealed carry permit holders, and there are many things that make me wonder why he was issued a permit.

Instead I’ve discovered that Mayor Nickels is going with a knee jerk reaction and is disregarding state law and imposing restrictions on concealed carry by licensed permit holders. Instead of actually getting to the root of the problem, he feels it better to impose restrictions on law abiding citizens. What’s worse is the method by which he is doing it. Instead of this being handled by the city council, which policy such as this should be, his issuing an executive order; thus by passing public discussion and outcry. It has been shown in state after state Concealed carry lowers crime rates, and now in an “effort to go forward” he wants to go backwards.

From this we see who’s side Mayor Nickels is on which is to provide a safe working environment of rapists, murders, and thieves. Not to mention he is as much a criminal as any other jack booted thug by his own blatant disregard for the law.

Bloomberg vs. Adventure Outdoors

By | | , , , , ,
Comments Off on Bloomberg vs. Adventure Outdoors

Evidently when that douche failed at getting his lawsuit against gun manufactures to succeed; he instead decided to attack gun stores.

“Bloomberg’s suits said Adventure Outdoors and the others did little to ensure they were making only legal sales and, as a result, those weapons were used in crimes 900 miles away.”

So, let me get this strait, Bloomberg didn’t think that the sales were legal so he initiated the lawsuit. The ATF, with the way they conduct business, would have steam roll this guy already if he was doing things incorrectly. Not to mention the fact that previously Mayor Bloomberg had said this in a deposition:

NSSF noted that perhaps the mayor’s insults stems from his self-professed ignorance of our nation’s firearms laws and regulations, business practices of firearms retailers and the duties of the ATF. “I don’t know what the law is and what procedures are,” responded the mayor to a deposition question on illegally purchased firearms, NSSF quoted him. “I have no knowledge of what appropriate safeguards are for a dealer to comply with the law or what standard practices are in the arms business,” they quoted him.

In the same deposition Mr. Bloomberg admitted he did not know that ATF conducted inspections of firearms retailers. “I didn’t even know they had inspections,” the bewildered mayor offered and Bloomberg also noted that he did not know what a Federal Firearms Transaction Record, commonly known as a Form 4473 was or a NICS background check.

Looking at the lawsuits themselves, they are insane. In order to buy a firearm and then immediately transfer it is a felony, that’s like buying for someone else. To sell knowingly to a felon, is a felony in and of itself, again fail to see how this is the stores fault. This is nothing more than an attempt to find another way to prevent law abiding citizens from their right of self defense. These firearms could have just as easily been stolen from someone’s house and then taken to New York and sold. Seriously who tries to sell stolen guns in the same town where you got them.

As an FYI you will get caught, I have seen it happen. Guns have gone into shops on consignment and the owner sees it up on the shelf and says, “That’s my gun.” A quick records check by the owner indicates it is, the weapon goes to the police and the person that brought it in is contacted. Then they follow the trail back who stole it.

With all this focus on the “bad” what about the “good” of firearms and firearms ownership Mr. Bloomberg. Or might he have forgotten an Oath and Law that he became a part of a long time ago and that the trail didn’t end. He by no means is acting in a manner to uphold that first tenant of the law. The proof is in that he is discussing and attacking based on presumptions he knows nothing about. He is willingly operating blind at the misfortune of others.