Oppose S.843

Another idiotic assassination attempt on the Second Amendment, another round of emails to my elected mis-representatives.

I recently moved to Texas from the pitiful little state of New Jersey. I did so for many reasons, one of which was to reclaim my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It seems, however, that my erstwhile Senator, Frank Lautenberg, has not given up on his quest to infringe upon my rights.

I'm sure Lautenberg's hatred of firearms stems from his younger days as a Tory during the American revolution; he should do well to remember how badly the whole gun control thing worked out in 1775. But I digress...

I write to urge you to OPPOSE S. 843 (To establish background check procedures for gun shows).

Thank you.

I'm sure my two Senators (Hutchison and Cornyn) will do the right thing.

Update I (4/25): More on this abomination.

Update II (4/25): Reply from Sen. Cornyn:

Thank you for contacting my offices. Your correspondence has been received, and we will respond to you as quickly as possible. A copy of your message is attached below for your records.

If you need immediate assistance regarding an urgent problem you are experiencing with the federal government, visit the "Help With Federal Agencies" section of the website for details on how to proceed so that your difficulties are brought to my attention as soon as possible.

If you are seeking information or services from my offices that are NOT related to my Legislative duties, please visit my "Services For Texans" section for more information.

Warmest Regards,
U.S. Senator John Cornyn

Update III (4/27): Reply from Sen. Hutchison:

Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control legislation and the protection of law-abiding citizens' right to own firearms. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

While we all support the strongest measures to ensure that guns do not end up in the wrong hands, I believe that one of the most powerful deterrents we have is the consistent, full enforcement of the numerous laws that already address many aspects of the problem. For instance, there are more than a dozen laws at the state and federal level that deal with the use, carrying, ownership, or trafficking of guns, and we must prosecute without qualification those who violate these laws.

Rather than usurping the rights of law-abiding citizens, I believe we should vigorously prosecute those who use guns to commit crimes. I have worked to enact federal anti-crime legislation that imposes tough minimum sentences on those convicted of using firearms to commit crimes, prevents early parole for violent criminals, and provides federal funds to build new prisons and fund local law enforcement. I will continue to support legislation that fights crime and upholds our Second Amendment rights.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller. I submitted an amicusbrief to the Court in support of affirming the District of Columbia's gun ban as unconstitutional, and was joined by 55 Senators, 250 House members, and the Vice President of the United States. This historic decision will affect gun laws throughout the country that try to unjustly undermine our rights under the Second Amendment.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

Well, OK then...

Williams on Secession

The great Walter Williams sums it up:

Perry is right when he says that there is no reason for Texas to secede. There are indeed intermediate actions short of secession that states can take. Thomas Jefferson said, "Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." That suggests that one response to federal encroachment is for state governments to declare federal laws that have no constitutional authority null and void and refuse to enforce them.

While the U.S. Constitution does not provide a specific provision for nullification, the case for nullification is found in the nature of compacts and agreements. Our Constitution represents a compact between the states and the federal government. As with any compact, one party does not have a monopoly over its interpretation, nor can one party change it without the consent of the other. Additionally, no one has a moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. That's not to say there is not a compelling case for obedience of unconstitutional laws. That compelling case is the brute force of the federal government to coerce obedience, possibly going as far as using its military might to lay waste to a disobedient state and its peoples.

Finally, here's my secession question for you. Some Americans accept and have respect for the Tenth Amendment, which reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Other Americans, the majority I fear, say to hell with the Tenth Amendment limits on the federal government. Which is a more peaceful solution: one group of Americans seeking to impose their vision on others or simply parting company?

Emphasis mine.

(h/t: Reason)

Right-Wing Extremist

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Sovereignty

“Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.” - Sam Houston

Why Republicans Are The Minority Party (Part MCXVII)

Witness Spencer Bachus (R-AL):

Bachus discussed a number of topics in his speech Thursday morning. He did not give the response some small city officials were hoping for when they asked if he would oppose all gun bans.

Instead, he said, it may be necessary to ban some assault weapons to keep hunting rifles and guns from being outlawed.

How would Spencer feel about giving up some of his First Amendment rights -- say, the freedom to exercise his religion -- in order to protect other First Amendment rights, like his right to open his mouth to release his flatulence about gun rights?

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is not about target shooting. If you believe that it is, you are not fit for elected office.

He said he is discouraging those who ask him whether they should arm themselves in preparation for economic or government trouble ahead. "I think peaceful, nonviolent protest is the way to go," he said.

Sure. And when citizens attend peaceful, nonviolent protests and are categorized by their government as extremists and homegrown terrorists, then what?

This DHS report warns of the terrorist threat from those who "are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely."

Wow... that sounds just like me! Now I'm a Homeland Security terrorist threat! See you at the re-education camp, folks. But I digress... back to Bachus:

He said he also believes it is a threat that the criminals will begin out-gunning the police officers. He said everyone should also be aware of the role weapons are playing in the recent multiple shooting tragedies around the country.

I'm concerned about criminals out-gunning the police, too. But I am far more concerned about criminals out-gunning me. I do not and will not rely on the police or any other government agency for protection of my rights, life or property. They are under no obligation to protect me; this is a fact. Why should I depend on them?

If others want their lives to hinge on a 9-1-1 operator or a police officer who might be 30 minutes away, that is their choice; I would oppose any and all legislation to prevent them from doing so. Just don't interfere with my right and my duty to protect myself and my family by telling me which and how many guns I may own.

The Free and The Unashamed

I didn't write this... but I wish I had.

= A Declaration of Separation =

==== To The Governments & People of Earth: ====
We claim the right to exist, and we will defend it.

We do not seek to overthrow anything. We do not seek to control anything. We merely wish to be left alone.

All we ever wanted was to live in peace with our friends and neighbors. For a long, long time we bore insults to our liberty; we took blows, we did what we could to avoid injury and we worked through the system to get the offenses to stop. That has now changed.

We no longer see any benefit in working through the world’s systems. At some point, working within a system becomes cowardly and immoral; for us, that point has arrived. Regardless of the parties in power, their governments have continued to restrict, restrain and punish us. We hereby reject them all. We hereby withdraw from them all. We hold the ruling states of this world and all that appertains to them to be self-serving and opposed to humanity.

We now withdraw our obedience and reclaim the right to strike back when struck. We will not initiate force, but we do reserve the right to answer it. We did not choose this – it was forced upon us.

==== To The Governments of Earth: ====
You are building cages for all that is human. In the name of protection, you have intruded into all areas of human life, far exceeding the reach of any Caesar. You claim ultimate control of our property and our decisions, of our travels and even our identities. You claim ownership of humanity far beyond the dreams of any Emperor of any previous era.

Understand clearly: We reject your authority and we reject your legitimacy. We do not believe that you have any right to do the things you do. You have massive power, but no right to impose it upon us and no legitimacy. We have forsaken you. We are no longer your citizens or your subjects. Your systems are inherently anti-human, even if all their operators are not.

We are not merely angry young people. We are fathers and mothers; aunts, uncles and grandparents; we are business owners and trusted employees; we are mechanics and engineers and farmers. We are nurses and accountants and students and executives.

We are on every continent.

This is not a burst of outrage; this is a sober declaration that we no longer accept unearned suffering as our role in life.

For long decades we sat quietly, hoping that things would turn around. We took no actions; we suffered along with everyone else. But after having our limits pushed back again and again, we have given up on your systems. If our fellow inhabitants of this planet wish to accept your rule, they are free to do so. We will not try to stop them. We, however, will no longer accept your constraints upon us.

- From now on, when you hurt us, we will bite back. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone and you can continue to rule your subjects. We are happy to live quietly.

But if you come after us, there will be consequences. You caused this because of your fetish for control and power. The chief men and women among you are pathologically driven to control everyone and everything that moves upon this planet. You have made yourselves the judge of every human activity. No god-king of the ancient world ever had the power that your systems do.

You have created a world where only the neutered are safe and where only outlaws are free.

==== To The People of Earth: ====
We seek nothing from you. We do not want to rule you and we do not want to control you.

All we wish is to live on earth in peace. As always, we will be helpful neighbors and generous acquaintances. We will remain honest business partners and trustworthy employees. We will continue to be loving parents and respectful children.

We will not, however, be sacrificial animals. We reject the idea that others have a right to our lives and our property. We will not demand anything from you, and we will no longer acquiesce to any demands upon us. We have left that game. We reject all obligations to any person or organization beyond honesty, fair dealing and a respect for human life.

We will shortly explain what we believe, but we are not demanding that you agree with us. All we ask is that you do not try to stop us. Continue to play the game if you wish; we will not try to disrupt it. We have merely walked away from it.

We wish you peace.

==== To Those Who Will Condemn Us: ====
We will ignore you.

We welcome and seek the verdict of a just God, before whom we are willing to expose our innermost thoughts. Are you similarly willing?

We would stand openly before all mankind if it were not suicidal. Perhaps some day we will have to accept slaughter for our crime of independence, but not yet.

Your criticism and your malice are much deeper than mere disagreements of strategy or philosophy. You do not oppose our philosophy, you oppose our existence. Our presence in the world means that your precious ideals are false. Some of you would rather kill us than face the loss of your ideologies, just as those like you have either hated or killed every sufficiently independent human.

You present yourselves to the world as compassionate, tolerant and enlightened, but we know that your smooth words are costumes. Oh yes, we know you, servant of the state; don’t forget, we were raised with you. We played with you in the schoolyard, we sat next to you in the classroom. Some of us studied at the same elite universities. We watched as you had your first tastes of power. We were the boys and girls standing next to you.

Some of us were your first victims. We are not fooled by your carefully crafted public image.

==== What We Believe ====
#1: Many humans resent the responsibilities that are implied by consciousness. We accept those responsibilities and we embrace consciousness. Rather than letting things happen to us (avoiding consciousness), we accept consciousness and choose to act in our own interest. We do not seek the refuge of blaming others, neither do we take refuge in crowds. We are willing to act on our personal judgment, and we are willing to accept the consequences thereof.

#2: We believe in negative rights for all: That all humans should be free to do whatever they wish, as long as they do not intrude upon others; that no man has a right to the life, liberty or property of another; that we oppose aggression, fraud and coercion.

#3: We do not believe that our way of life, or any other, will make life perfect or trouble-free. We expect crime and disagreements and ugliness, and we are prepared to deal with them. We do not seek a strongman to step in and solve problems for us. We agree to see to them ourselves.

#4: We believe in free and unhindered commerce. So long as exchanges are voluntary and honest, no other party has a right to intervene – before, during or after.

#5: We believe that all individuals should keep their agreements.

#6: We believe that honestly obtained property is fully legitimate and absolute.

#7: We believe that some humans are evil and that they must be faced and dealt with. We accept the fact that this is a difficult area of life.

#8: We believe that humans can self-organize effectively. We expect them to cooperate. We reject impositions of hierarchy and organization.

#9: We believe that all humans are to be held as equals in all matters regarding justice.

#10: We believe that the more a man or woman cares about right and wrong, the more of a threat he or she is perceived to be by governments.

#11: We believe that there are only two true classes of human beings: Those who wish to exercise power upon others - either directly or through intermediaries - and those who have no such desires.

#12: Large organizations and centralization are inherently anti-human. They must rely upon rules rather than principles, treating humans within the organization as obedient tools.

==== Our Plans: ====
We are building our own society. We will supplement traditional tools with networking, cryptography, sound money, digital currency and anonymous messaging.

Our society will not be centrally controlled. It will rely solely on voluntary arrangements. We welcome others to join us. We are looking for people who are independent creators of value, people who act more than talk, and people who do the right thing because it is the right thing.

We will develop our own methods of dealing with injustice, built on the principles of negative rights, restitution, integrity and equal justice.

We do not forbid anyone from having one foot in each realm - ours and the old realm - although we demand that they do no damage to our realm. We are fully opposed to any use of our realm to facilitate crime in the old realm, such as the hiding of criminal proceeds.

We expect to be loudly condemned, libeled and slandered by the authorities of the old regime. We expect them to defend their power and their image of legitimacy with all means available to them. We expect that many gullible and servile people will believe these lies, at least at first.

We will consider traps laid for us to be criminal offenses.

Any who wish to join us are encouraged to distribute this declaration, to act in furtherance of our new society, to voluntarily excel in virtues and to communicate and cooperate with other members of the new society.

Free, unashamed men cannot be ruled.

We are The Free and The Unashamed.

What more to say? Except, of course, "Amen!"

To Protect and Serve

A little sample what we have to look forward to in the new & improved Former United States of America...



"Freeze and drop your Constitutional rights!"

"Write Your Congressman" -- Not Just a Cliché Anymore...

I don't remember ever writing to any of my elected representatives before, but I feel compelled to do so now. Here is my first (of many?) letters to Chet Edwards (D-TX), who represents the 17th Congressional District of Texas in which I currently reside:

Dear Congressman Edwards,

It has been said that if one's elected representatives do not know you, then they can not, and do not, represent you. With this in mind, I write to you to introduce myself. I am a new resident of your district, having left New Jersey after 45 years to settle in central Texas with my family. I choose to live in Texas, in part, because I believe in freedom; I oppose punitive taxation; and I take the Second Amendment literally. The elected officials in New Jersey clearly do not share my beliefs, therefore I voted with a U-Haul truck last August and now happily reside in the great state of Texas.

I am a member of no political party; I view Republicans and Democrats with equal suspicion. I judge politicians by their votes and actions, not their promises and rhetoric. Being new to your district, I know little about you other than what I've read on your web site and by briefly searching the Congressional records on THOMAS.

I applaud your support for our veterans, for domestic oil drilling, and for border security, yet I'm disappointed by your votes on the so-called "stimulus" package and other spending bills. I am of the opinion that government must live within its financial means just as my family must. If our household budget runs into a deficit, we do not have the option of transferring wealth from others in order to cover our shortfall; that government does this through forced taxation is irresponsible and contrary to everything I believe in.

After perusing your web site I am happy to see that you share my beliefs with respect to American citizens' Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, I urge you to support the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 (H.R. 197). The notion that I can cross a state border and instantly be transformed from a law-abiding citizen into a felon is pure insanity and antithetical to the Second Amendment which grants citizens of the United States of America gun ownership and possession rights, regardless of what state they happen to find themselves in. Any state law that infringes upon this right, I believe, is unconstitutional. While H.R. 197 is not a perfect solution to unconstitutional firearm laws, it is certainly a step in the right direction and must be enacted into law as soon as possible.

I also urge you to oppose all current and future anti-gun legislation, including the so-called "assault rifle" ban which targets firearms for their looks, not their function. Even though a blackened rifle with a folding stock might be too scary-looking for certain elected officials and bureaucrats, and even though the mere sight of such weapons might cause them to soil their panties, that is not reason enough to infringe on the Constitutional rights of honest, law-abiding citizens who keep and bear such arms for self-defense and sporting purposes. I do not own any rifles at this time, scary-looking or otherwise, but I reserve my right to own one or more in the future and resent a government that attempts to decide which firearms I may or may not own; that they would do so based on cosmetics makes it all the more insulting.

Thank you for taking the time to listen. I will be following your voting record closely during this 111th Congress and sincerely hope that you will earn my support in the next election.

I will post any and all future correspondence here.

Honor Student Kills 4 Cops, Guns Clearly To Blame

Honor Student

More proof that gun control works:

Gunman kills 3 officers, wounds 4th in Oakland
(AP) Sun Mar 22, 10:03 am ET - OAKLAND, Calif.

A police officer was battling for his life and three more were dead after a parolee with an "extensive criminal history" opened fire at a routine traffic stop and hours later gunned down members of a SWAT team searching for him.

The gunman was also killed Saturday, capping a day of violence that the Oakland Police Department said was the worst in its history. Never before had three police officers died in the line of duty on the same day.

[...]

Police said Mixon wielded two different weapons. One gun was used at the first scene and an assault rifle was used at the apartment building where he was hiding.

Jordan said Mixon had an "extensive criminal history" and was wanted on a no-bail warrant.

"(Mixon) was on parole and he had a warrant out for his arrest for violating that parole. And he was on parole for assault with a deadly weapon," said Oakland police Deputy Chief Jeffery Israel.

Call for tougher gun control in California (if that's even possible) in 4...3...2... Oh, silly me. It didn't even take that long:

Officer killings renew gun control issue
[...] Oakland police say Lovelle Mixon used a handgun to shoot the motorcyle cops who pulled him over and an assault rifle at the apartment. They say they believe this is an example of why parolees should not be allowed to have guns.

Mixon was on parole and had a warrant out for his arrest for violating that parole. He was also on parole for assault with a deadly weapon according to Oakland Deputy Police Chief Jeffery Israel.

The gun control issue is a controversial one, with 65 House democrats saying just on Wednesday, that they would oppose any attempt by the Obama administration to ban any military-style weapons.

Yes, gun control is the answer. It is obvious that the laws in this country need to be changed to make it illegal for violent felons to keep and bear arms. That would have stopped this guy, for sure.

Oh, wait -- it's already illegal for violent felons to keep and bear arms!?!?!? The hell you say! Well then, we should change the laws to place more restrictions on honest, law-abiding gun owners; that would have stopped this guy, for sure.

Note also the requisite mention of "assault rifle" in both these articles. Wouldn't be complete without that! They've got to go, too. I mean, aside from the gazillions of murders they commit (all by themselves, no trigger-puller required), think about all the bed-wetting by limp-wristed Leftoids that can be avoided if we eliminate scary looking guns.

In a nutshell: A career criminal let out of jail to walk the streets (by whom, I wonder...) commits murder with guns that he is forbidden by Federal and State law to own. Murder is illegal, gun possession by a felon is illegal, there are countless laws on the books already that this asshole has broken. The State of California knew he was a violent felon, they had him incarcerated, but decided it was in the public interest to let him walk free amongst us humans. And when this honor student commits murder (despite laws saying he can't do that) with guns (despite laws saying he can't own them) the answer is to place further gun restrictions on me?!?!?

Makes perfect sense, I suppose, if you're a citizen of the Leftoid Bizarro World.

Bonus Question -- Find the "assault rifle":

Now, what's the difference between the two?

Answer: NOTHING. Except that one is scary looking and makes Leftoids wet their panties. Both shoot the same rounds, both accept the same magazines, both can be used for "assault." Yet, one is on the would-be gun grabbers' shit list, the other is not.

Well, not yet, anyway...

Springfield Armory To Be Obaminated?

Don't like history? Just erase it!

The Springfield Armory National Historical Site in Massachusetts is a tribute to America's first and last national armory, the place where much of our national history was shaped (the above illustration is from Harper's Magazine in 1861 as the Armory tooled up for the Civil War).

Now it appears that the Armory itself has come under fire, this time from its National Park Service overseers.

Yesterday Jim Shepherd at the SHOOTING WIRE and I received information ostensibly from an insider whistle-blower that the Springfield Armory is quietly being disassembled. According to the information we received, the new director not only has no background in firearms — rather, from "textiles" — but sees no benefit in preserving "old guns."

Again, according to the information we received, the curator has been removed, the huge arms library has been closed and the new administrator is in the process of locking up the arms collections.

Via Michael Bane.

Why do guns need a museum, anyway? It's not like they were instrumental in the forging of our nation, right? Besides, guns kill people. Well... that, and preserve liberty.

Update: Been thinking about this all morning. The government funds all sorts of museums. Ellis Island and Alcatraz are both National Historic Sites under the purview of the National Park Service. The Holocaust Memorial, too, and the Holocaust, arguably, is no more about "American" history than is the Munich Beer Hall Putsch or the Blitzkrieg. (Also arguably, if the Jews had guns in 1930's Germany, maybe there would be no need for a Holocaust museum. But I digress...) Obama's so-called "stimulus" plan allocates $55,000,000.00 for a Mob museum?!?!? For Christ's sake...

Update 3/24: Or perhaps not. Via Outdoor Wire:

We've been receiving reports of moves afoot to make significant changes to the Springfield Armory National Historic Site. Those changes, sources told us, weren't to the betterment of the facility or the historically significant collection of thousands of unique and prototype arms either on display or in storage there.

Following a conversation with the top official there, I can report the rumors of the impending demise of the Springfield Armory collection appear to have been greatly exaggerated.

During my extended discussion with Michael Quijano-West, the Superintendent of the Springfield Armory National Historic Site yesterday, Quijano-West made it extremely clear changes were being made, but they were designed to make the armory collection and the accompanying historical archives more accessible, not to lock them away.

"We're not closing anything," he said, "in fact, we've expanded our operating hours to 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., seven days a week. That certainly wasn't the case before, hours were inconvenient for visitors. Today, there are only three days on our calendar when we won't be open: Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years Day."

Additionally, Quijano-West says, there will be longer summer hours this year, and guided tours on the weekends. All designed, he says, to help build interest in the historical site he calls a "gem" of American history.

"Springfield Armory is a significant, inspirational and unique treasure," he says, "it's a shrine of our country. And a story we'd like to share with even more visitors."

So what of the closure reports?

"Not accurate," he explained, "we are upgrading the facilities, and that includes relocating some office spaces. Upgrades will create separate archive and collection research areas in new multi-purpose spaces. Those spaces will enable researchers and photographers to examine either the archives or firearms in our collection on an appointment basis. And the rooms will also give us the ability to create temporary exhibits there, too.

"The whole goal of the upgrades is to make everything easier to see and more accessible - including the document archive. The archive is as significant as the armory firearms many of the documents support, but it's not been as well organized as it could have been in the past."

While the modernization of a portion of the exhibits building has caused the relocation of some of the thousands of firearms in the collection, Quijano-West says the intention has nothing to do with limiting access and everything to do with preserving the armory.

"Making this historical treasure available and accessible to the public is my goal," he says, "whether they like guns or not - there is something here for everyone interested in history, from General Washington to the architectural and cultural landscape of the buildings. It is really a work of art."

Does "like guns or not" mean a de-emphasizing the fact it is, or was, an armory?

"No," he explained, "in fact much of the earlier emphasis here has been on the manufacturing process. I keep reminding everyone that the manufacturing developments were, indeed, revolutionary, but the place was an armory. You can't ignore the firearms."

"We're working to interest school children in the area more interested in the facility. One project we've created is a poster called a poem on muskets," Quijano-West explained.

"Henry Wadsworth Longfellow came here and saw the Springfield Armory and was so impressed with it he wrote and published a poem about it. We took a high-quality photograph of part of our exhibits and put that poem with it. We'll be distributing it to area schools, hoping we can get kids interested in firearms and the Springfield Armory."

There have been changes at the Springfield Armory National Historic Site, and there are more changes planned. Some changes will be obvious, and others will be dedicated to the preservation and security of the entire collection.

Others, I was told, will make bring the facility into compliance with National Park Service policies on security and safety. None, Quijano-West says, will make this national historic treasure less accessible.

As a sworn federal law enforcement officer, Quikano-West explains he's particularly aware of the idea of security of everyone visiting - and working- at the Springfield Armory, but he's also determined to see that everyone has easy access to the armory, the firearms collection, and the associated document archives.

The entire facility he says, makes the unique importance of firearms to the history of America apparent -including our history not yet written. Hiding them away, he says, would not accomplish that goal.

Agreed.

Well, OK then.

Lou Dobbs & Stephen Halbrook on Gun Ownership Rights

(h/t Gun Rights Radio)

Flying the Terrorist-Friendly Skies

From The Washington Times:

After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.

Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.

The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.

It's not clear whether pilots who are currently permitted to keep and bear arms in the cockpit will be stripped of their weapons (though it wouldn't surprise me...) but it is clear that by cutting funding to the training program, our articulate and clean Teleprompter-Reader in Chief is going to prevent future pilots from arming themselves in order to maximize their ability to protect passengers.

(h/t: Ace, who poses an important question: "If you don't trust a pilot to carry a gun, what the fuck are you doing allowing him at the controls of a plane carrying 300 people?")

Fight the Real Enemy!

First, a word from our sponsor:

"The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest and ourselves united. From the conclusion of [their] war [for independence, a nation begins] going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of [that] war will remain on [them] long, will be made heavier and heavier, till [their] rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion." -- Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. (*) ME 2:225

And now, the news.

Our government overlords have revealed their new plan to combat terrorism, and it's a simple one: Just redefine "terrorist" to describe anyone who doesn't subscribe to the Leftoid worldview.

People (that is, "White Males") who own firearms, support Libertarian candidates, own a "Don't Tread On Me" flag, watch videos about the Federal Reserve, read Tom Clancy novels, believe in the US Constitution, and/or mistrust our government -- according to some nondescript government agency called the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), these people are the real enemies of America.

The MIAC report does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather on the so-called “militia movement” and conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order.

I don't believe in the supremacy of the white race, or any other. Nor do I believe in a Vast Zionist Conspiracy. I don't particularly like Ron Paul or his supporters all that much -- I find him to be the Ross Perot du jour, someone who can to make perfect sense while still giving me the heebie-jeebies. I am not (as yet) even a member of the Libertarian Party, mostly because I don't believe in wasting my vote as a matter of principle just to "send a message." That said...

• I DO consider myself to be a (small "l") libertarian and subscribe to just about every plank in the Libertarian Party platform.
• I DO believe in the US Constitution; I believe that it means what it says, and that it should be taken literally.
• I DO own firearms, which I keep and bear under the laws of the State of Texas and the United States of America.
• I DO oppose restrictive gun laws, and believe that an unchecked government eventually will move to confiscate my firearms.
• I DO oppose the notion of a one-world government and especially despise the United Nations, and find our government's cozying up to a collection of authoritarian thugs and and dictators to be sickening.
• I DO oppose the increasing federalization of the states; the Tenth Amendment is another one of those things that means what it says.
  

In short, I DO NOT TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT. Apparently for good reason, because they don't seem to trust people like me, either.

According to the aforementioned nondescript government agency, this qualifies me as a right-wing extremist and a terrorist threat. So be it. At least I'm in good company: Thomas Jefferson fought to have the Bill of Rights ratified along with the Constitution for that very reason -- he believed that government could not be trusted with power over the citizenry. He seems to be the grandfather of the so-called "Militia Movement" as defined by MIAC.

Unfortunately, what Jefferson feared and foretold 230 years ago is coming to pass; our rights have been ever so slowly eroding since the end of the Civil War, which effectively settled the question of whether states can secede from the Union, the first drop of White-Out to hit our Constitution. It's happened slowly enough that people don't even notice because they're too transfixed by American Idol.

Will I wake up one day and find myself on a government watch list because I choose to exercise my God given right to keep and bear arms? Or have a bumper sticker endorsing the "wrong" candidate on my Jeep? Or go to the "wrong" church? Or say mean things about our articulate and clean President on my blog? When will it end? And how badly? Am I paranoid, or merely observant?

The MIAC website has a handy form for citizen-comrades to report their neighbors suspicious activities. Maybe they'll add a check box for "Has Ron Paul Bumper Sticker on his Lexus" after "Miscellaneous Suspicious Activity with a Terrorism Nexus." If this doesn't give you the creeps, nothing will.

Meanwhile, back in Obama-land: Let's close down Gitmo and let those poor Islamic so-called "terrorists" go. While we're at it, stop calling Islamic Fascists captured on the battlefield while trying to kill American soldiers "Enemy Combatants" -- why, it might offend them. And besides, referring to them as such might lend credence to the notion that America is, indeed, at war. Which, of course, we're not.

We are so fucked.

Gun Ownership: Because I Can.

When in Texas, do as the Texans do.

Last weekend I exercised my Second Amendment right and purchased a Taurus 24/7 Pro DS 9mm at a gun show in Dallas. Despite being a longtime advocate of gun rights in America and an occasional member of the National Rifle Association, this is the first firearm I've owned. I had no intention of buying a gun that day, I was just looking around in order to educate myself, but my wife really wanted to buy one right away, so I let her pick out a handgun she felt comfortable with. She chose the Taurus over 9mm over similar S&W and Glock models; I would have preferred a sub-compact .45 as a carry weapon (I like the Glock 36, but the Taurus Millennium 145 is tempting...) but she thinks a 9mm might be easier for her to handle. Probably right. Taurus is a Brazilian company; I figure any nation that produced Ayrton Senna is perfectly capable of producing quality firearms.

So now I'm a gun owner. My leftoid pal up north is beside himself with the prospect of me turning into a gun nut. "Why do I need a gun," he asks? "Why does anyone need a gun? Their whole purpose is to kill people!!!" He attributes my desire to arm myself to "fear of boogeymen"; I attribute his anti-gun politics as "fear of gun owners". He thinks the Second Amendment is outdated and no longer applies; I consider the Second Amendment as a guarantor of our fundamental rights. And 'round and 'round we go -- no amount of reason or facts will change the mind of a fully indoctrinated leftoid, especially on the topic of guns. Ultimately, my decision to exercise my right to keep and bear arms is simple and needs no defense: Because I can. FYNQ.

As the current administration chomps at the bit to further government limitations on our Constitutional rights, including (but not limited to) the Second Amendment, I felt it was time to act. Anti-gun zealots in our government are either incapable of comprehending that pesky "shall not be infringed" language or (more likely) they simply don't care. Obama's record on gun rights is dismal; his Attorney General is on the record stating that he does not believe an individual's right to keep and bear arms is affirmed by the U.S. Constitution; and Congressional Democrats have already announced their intentions by introducing legislation to restore the so-called "assault weapons" ban -- which, as we have learned, bans pretty much any firearm they find to be scary looking and instantly turns thousands of law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen. If the left's early actions on taxation and spending are any indication, I expect they'll rush new gun control legislation through Congress before they can be held accountable in the 2010 elections, by which time the laws will be on the books and, given the scrotumless, roll-over nature of elected Republicans, will have little chance of being overturned.

America is stocking up: Glock is reported to be unable to keep up with the demand for their handguns; premium ammunition is becoming scarce; political uncertainty looms ahead. Some may see this as paranoia; I merely see it as a matter of practicality. If guns and ammo are to be restricted or heavily taxed in the near future, it makes fiscal sense to buy early and buy often -- I did the same thing when the FCC outlawed full-coverage VHF/UHF receivers back in the 90's; I would do the same thing if I knew there was going to be a hike in the price of bottled water.

So with this in mind, I intend to purchase as many firearms and as much ammo as I can afford while I still can; I am not alone on this. I shall strive to become as proficient as possible with all types of firearms; I will take advantage of the liberty afforded me by the great state of Texas to become a licensed concealed weapon carrier; and I will urge others to do the same. History has proven -- repeatedly -- that a right not exercised soon becomes a right lost.

This is News?!?!?

Gillibrand removes guns from under bed

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) has moved the two rifles that she kept under the bed to protect her upstate New York home, her spokesman said Monday.

"Given that the location of the guns has been disclosed, they have been moved for security reasons," Gillibrand's spokesman Matt Canter said.

She relocated the guns over the weekend while upstate to endorse Democrat Scott Murphy in the March 31 election to replace her in the 20th District, he said.

He also said Gillibrand, mother of a 5-year-old and an infant, kept the ammunition separate from the empty guns, and then later called to add that the rifles were locked in a case while stored under the bed. She had refused to describe her gun safety measures.

Gun-control activists questioned the safety of placing guns under a bed where children can find them and burglars look first. The National Rifle Association said it is up to gun owners to safely store weapons.

Gillibrand disclosed she had guns under her bed in an interview with Newsday last Thursday. A Newsday story on the interview ran Monday, prompting reactions by advocates for gun rights and gun control.

Gov. David A. Paterson, Sen. Charles Schumer and Mayor Michael Bloomberg declined to comment through their aides.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-Mineola), a gun-control activist threatening a primary challenge to Gillibrand over her pro-gun stance, said Friday said she does not criticize legally owned guns. McCarthy added, "I hope the guns didn't have bullets in them."

Rep. Pete King (R-Seaford), who has said he might run against Gillibrand, joked, "With Kirsten Gillibrand keeping two rifles under the bed and Chuck Schumer being so anti-gun, Schumer and Gillibrand have to be the Senate's oddest couple."

Gillibrand said she will make her first visit as U.S. senator to Long Island Friday. The trip's details haven't been released.

Gillibrand also has not replied to requests for a meeting by New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, said the group's executive director, Jackie Hilly.

As a result, Hilly said, the group will hold a rally on New York's City Hall steps Thursday to urge Gillibrand to work to pass three gun control bills. It will feature Lois Schaffer, a Great Neck woman whose daughter was shot and killed in her St. Louis home last December by teens with a stolen gun.

Long Islanders both criticized and defended Gillibrand.

"I am very upset about the whole thing," said Joyce Gorycki of Mineola, widow of a Long Island Rail Road official killed in the 1993 train shooting and co-chair of Long Island's New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. "I don't know why she needs two rifles."

But Tomasz Lorenc of Glen Cove, shopping at American Outdoor Sports in Farmingdale, said, "More power to her. There's nothing wrong with that. You have the right to bear arms."

Meanwhile, a search of the Lexis-Nexis database showed that Gillibrand has a Montana hunting license. But Canter said it's actually a fishing license.

Where to start?

"Gillibrand disclosed that she owns guns?"

Huh? Why is a simple statement that she exercises one of her Constitutional rights taken as a "disclosure," as if it's a conflict of interest or a sexually transmitted disease? The negative connotation of the word "disclosure" is telling of how northeastern elitists feel about gun ownership -- that it is something bad or dirty. Must we now "disclose" whether we engage in free speech or practice religion?

"I hope the guns didn't have bullets in them."

Fuckwit. That's where bullets are supposed to be. How else can you shoot scumbags who violate your property with ill intent?

"I don't know why she needs two rifles."

Excuse me? Whether someone chooses to keep and bear arms, and how many firearms one chooses to keep and bear, is no business of anyone other than the individual in question. If you don't understand, it's only because you're an illiterate who can't read the Bill of Rights and come away with a firm understanding of some very simple language. Gorycki's group, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, has little to do with gun violence; they're against gun ownership. Is Gorycki concerned that New York's junior Senator might use the two unloaded rifles kept under lock and key for violent criminal activities? No, she's "upset" because a law abiding citizen owns guns. Period.

Dear Santa Claus

All I want for Christmas is my two front teeth. And an armored transport, a mobile command center, some military grade carbines, and a few unmanned aerial surveillance drones.

From the U.S. Conference of Mayors wish list of all the things mayors across the country want the federal government to fund in the name of “stimulus” comes my own selection of some of the dodgier requests from North Texas cities. It starts on page 293, and my short list here is just a taste of the absurdity.

• Frisco wants $125,000 for an armored vehicle and $200,000 for a mobile command vehicle. You know, for all that gang tank warfare going on up in Frisco.
  
  
• McKinney wants $5 million for SWAT toys and stuff.
  
  
• North Richland Hills wants $51,000 for volunteer patrol volunteers. Let’s throw in $10 for a dictionary so they can look up the word “volunteer.”
  
  
• Irving wants $5 million for biometric scanners, digital cameras, RFID scanners — nothing Big Brother there.
  
  
• Grand Prairie wants $1.25 million for nicer landscaping around the public safety building.
  
  
• And finally, Arlington is really gearing up for urban warfare. Arlington wants $1.6 million for SWAT toys including more equipment for those deadly but camera-friendly no-knock raids, $56,000 for military grade carbines, $625,000 for unmanned aerial surveillance drones, and $130,000 for “covert ops.”

Are you stimulated yet?

The first question that pops into my head is, when the revolution inevitably comes will these, uh, stimulae be used by or against the citizens of Texas and other free-minded states who finally get fed up and decide to fight for their Constitutional right to secede from the Union?

(h/t: Reason)

Ashley Judd: "Save The Wolves; Kill The Moose And Caribou Instead"

Earth's new preeminent wildlife expert (and part-time shitty actress) Ashley Judd is speaking out against Sarah Palin's diabolical plan to kill all the wolves:



Thanks, genius. Noel Sheppard astutely points out:

"What's astounding here is that nowhere in the ad is the viewer apprised of why the wolves are being hunted, or the history beyond this policy."

But is it really astounding? Since when are idiot CelebRetards held accountable for their words or actions?

Sheppard goes on to show how Palin isn't "casting aside science," but that the wolf reduction is part of the state's predator control program, it is being done at the request of Alaska state biologists, and the evil "bounty" that seems to so upset Ashley is being offered in order to meet the biologists' requirements:

The Palin administration is anteing up cash because the number of wolf kills this winter is behind schedule. State biologists wanted 382 to 664 wolves killed by the time the snow that helps with tracking disappears this spring. The predator-control season ends April 30.

As of Tuesday morning, 98 wolves had been killed by aerial gunners, hunters and trappers.

Read the whole thing.

Pop Quiz: Are Alaska state biologists guilty of "discarding science," or is Ashley Judd simply another fuckwit Hollywood leftist whose perky little B-cup titties are bigger than her brain?

Now a personal anecdote: One Sunday morning this past December I met a kid (OK, he's probably 20-something years old, so to me he's a kid...) named Jesse who my in-laws called out to their place to hunt coyotes on their property. Jesse is part of a university program (UT, A&M, I forget which) which hunts coyotes all over Texas. He bagged one coyote that Sunday, said it was his 108th 208th kill of the year. I'm not sure how many other hunters are involved in the program, but I'll wager that if Jesse can kill over 100 200 a year it all adds up to a veritable shitload of dead coyotes. I'm sure Ashley would find her delicate little panties in a wad over this, but the fact is coyotes are predators. They've killed countless animals at my in-laws place over the year including llamas, goats, geese, and cats. They're not much different than wolves, except perhaps less dangerous to humans. [Correction: Dad informs me Jesse's 2008 total was 208, not 108. Outrage from Ashley and the anti-Palin wingnuts remains the same: zero.]

As part of the program, Jesse sends in teeth, DNA swabs, and other stuff for analysis so state officials and (real, honest-to-God) scientists can track populations, movements, and other data which is used to manage and control the coyote overpopulation problem and protect other species that coyotes prey upon. Is this, too, what Ashley would call "casting aside science?"

Perhaps Ashley believes there isn't any overpopulation problem because, hell, there are no wolves in her "environment" -- i.e., her backyard in Malibu or wherever the fuck she ekes out her charmed, elitist existence these days. But some of us in the real world understand two things that probably never crossed Ashley's pea-sized mind.

First: Wildlife management is necessary, and hunting is how it works. It's not done to be mean to those poor coyotes and wolves; it's done for the good of the species. It's done all over the country, not just Alaska. Too many predators sooner or later results in a reduced food supply, which then results in starving predators and/or attacks on new food sources (like our pets and farm animals). Without wildlife management, bad things happen.

Second: We all know this is not about wolves, or hunting, or the environment. It's about Sarah Palin. Two weeks into Obama's presidency and the Left is already launching it's attack campaign for the 2012 election. If it really was about the wolves, then why now? Why not four years ago when the program started?

The program, now in its fourth year and operating in five areas of the state, is designed to increase moose and caribou numbers by reducing the number of predators.

In other words, if Ashley Judd gets her way, more moose and caribou will die!!! Is that what she wants? Why isn't anyone protesting Ashley Judds immoral War on Moose and Caribou?!?!?

Oy. These fucking Hollywood types make me want to puke.

Shall NOT be infringed.

Boldface mine:

Court Weighs Right to Guns, and Its Limits
LINDA GREENHOUSE | Published: March 19, 2008

WASHINGTON - A majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready on Tuesday to embrace, for the first time in the country's history, an interpretation of the Second Amendment that protects the right to own a gun for personal use.

That may be the easy part.

The harder question in the case challenging the District of Columbia's handgun ban is what kind of restrictions the government could constitutionally place, in the name of public safety, on the newly recognized right. The answer to that question, on which the outcome of the case will turn, was less clear.

Newly recognized right? "New" since, like, 1789? RTFC, asswits.

As to "what kind of restrictions the government could constitutionally place" on gun ownership, here is my proposed list of restrictions:

1. Don't shoot anyone who doesn't deserve to be shot.
2. Umm.... well, that about covers it.
   

Don't. Tread. On. Me.