The Minuteman » Bigotry

Category Archives: Gun Rights

“Green Economy”

By | | , , , , , ,
Comments Off on “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.

Due Process, What’s that?

By | | , , ,
Comments Off on Due Process, What’s that?

Evidently Child Abuse registries are much like restraining orders, due process is unnecessary to be listed. Many people do not realize how many rights are disrupted without requiring your presence in court. Merely being charged with a felony permanently disrupts your ability to purchase firearms. Well permanently unless you’re willing to pay money to the ATF and FBI. I was unable to purchase firearms due to a NICS black list for a year after the charges were dropped. I was not convicted of a felony, the charges were dropped, the State of Washington even returned the firearm I had in my possession the day of the accident, yet I could NOT purchase a firearm. That NICS hold did not even require my being found guilty in court, it was automatic. To this day that blip on my record still causes issues. I receive a week hold when purchasing firearms others can walk out with immediately. I’m delayed in background checks for other materials, such as when I got checked out to work for Joe. Once your name is placed onto any list, it is difficult if not impossible to remove. If you can remove it, they extort you for money.

It ends up that someone getting a restraining order also results in limited rights for the target without due process. If rights of an individual are going to be limited, substantial evidence along with due process is required. Some people may feel I’m being too harsh, but if you are so afraid of your Ex that you feel you need a restraining order and their rights should be limited, you need to be willing to go to court and testify in front of them. You also need to have evidence to show that your fear is well founded. No person’s rights should be violated, much less without due process. If you feel differently so be it, however I would like to point out the Fifth Amendment says otherwise (emphasis is mine):

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

While all these things are done with an effort to do good things, rarely do I ever see any real good come out of them. Restraining orders are often abused as well and used as a revenge tactic because of their hampering ability. For some it’s a way to “get even”. More often than not I hear about honest hard working people caught in the middle. Furthermore, if you’re that afraid of your Ex, I highly doubt a restraining order is really going to do it. I would suggest instead getting a hold of myself, Joe, Laurel, anyone in the gun community and ask, “Can you teach me to shoot and defend myself.” I do not know of anyone who would not take the opportunity to teach and help. The wonder of the freedoms we have in this country come with responsibility, if you don’t want the responsibility, you will inherit the risks that go with it. Because of that fact, any law that attempts to solve a “problem” and violates due process and hampers and infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens is not acceptable and not a solution.

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!

WSU Hate-Crimes and Forced Victimization

By | | , , , ,
Comments Off on WSU Hate-Crimes and Forced Victimization

This morning on the radio it was announced that recently there have been hate crimes on the WSU campus. What I heard was “Forced disarmament ensures victims for hate crimes!” Many would look at the geographic location and figure that it’s because we’re “rural” and don’t like people who are different. The fact is though, this is actually pretty far off and one hell of a stereotype. The same crap happened while I was at UW in Seattle. This same stereotype is often used against gun owners. This is even more of a slap since many gun owners view firearms as a line of self defense that EVERYONE has a right to. It is the universal leveler than ANYONE can use to defend themselves.

The fact that the University forces everyone, including those who want and have more need than normal to provide for their own personal defense, to be disarmed is disconcerting.

“I would never have thought this would happen on our campus and I think it shocks the overwhelming majority of campus,” Scheller said.”

While I most certainly agree that it is shocking, as well as saddening. The idea that she believed that it couldn’t happen on the WSU campus was her first mistake.

“We are disturbed and saddened by the recent events,” she said. “Of course we want all our students to feel safe, secure and respected.”

What people do not realize is that the biggest reason for concealed carry is not to “shoot” but to provide a deterrent. No attacker wants to end up in the hospital at the hands of his “victim”. Disarmament serves as an illusion of safety and security. However, when you are attacked while disarmed, how can you effectively fight back, especially when outnumbered or over powered? Besides, these people already are breaking the law, what’s to stop them from using weapons? Another disturbing fact however, is the fact that it appears that the attackers are casing their victims by finding them at the GLBTA sponsored events.

“Hogan, a junior French and Spanish major, said he didn’t recognize the man, but the man recognized him from an event sponsored by the GLBTQ community.”

This shows premeditation in their actions and is quite disturbing.

For those at the University of Idaho or at Washington State University that feel affected by this, please feel free to contact the Palouse Pink Pistols, or myself or anyone else. No one has to live in fear, and no one should!