Saturday, December 1, 2007
Within the first few sentences, he contradicts himself:
The Constitution says it is "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." It is confusing, therefore, to conclude that the Second Amendment - with its explicit militia purpose - might somehow provide individuals the right to mount an armed insurrection against the very law and order that the militia was designed to defend.
There is no Second Amendment right to treason.
It's for when the Government is no longer following the Constitution is when the populace, by the very intention of the Founding Fathers, is morally, ethically, and legally allowed to rise up.Paul continues w/ his completely unsupported myth that the militia was "governmental military institution".
And he claims we fabricate things.
Friday, November 30, 2007
And we're supposed to trust them, and teach our children to trust them, with our safety?
I can't really say anything more than that.
The NRA is not pro 2nd amendment. The NRA is pro-everyone having guns and using them for everything.
Watch the Simpsons when Homer gets a gun.
So LeftRight, do you get your schooling from the Peabody's Improbable History as well?
The family of a groom accused of teaming up with his brother and his cousin to beat up an Orland Park cop at a wedding were celebrating Thursday night after all three men were cleared of the attack.
But after claiming that Andrew, George and Jason Terrell left him in fear of his life during the four-minute-long brawl at Silver Lake Country Club on March 18 2006, it was the professional reputation of 21-year veteran officer Pete Diangi that took a beating at the Bridgeview courthouse, with Judge David Sterba ruling that Diangi's "very aggressive" actions were to blame for the ugly scene that left the Terrells' big day in ruins.
The melee started when Diangi challenged Jason Terrell in a corridor for allegedly supplying underage drinkers at the wedding, leaving Diangi with cuts and bruises and a torn shirt. Diangi, who was working plainclothes security at Andrew Terrell's wedding to Melissa Schultz at the upscale golf club, was "doing his duty," Sterba said.
But by failing to properly identify himself as a police officer or security guard, Diangi was responsible for the ensuing chaos, Sterba said.
While other "Only Ones" may be responsible for a murder due to protecting one of their own.
BOLINGBROOK, Ill. - Eighteen times in two years, Bolingbrook police were called to fellow officer Drew Peterson's home because of trouble between husband and wife. But Peterson's wife could never get authorities to arrest him. In fact, she was the only one ever charged...
Vicki Connolly, Peterson's second wife, has said that during their marriage, an increasingly controlling Peterson hit her and told her he could kill her and make it look like an accident.
Connolly said police sometimes came to the house when the couple were having problems, but she said the officers were friends of theirs and no reports ever were filed.
The ordinance would remove local exemptions like Riverdale which has less restrictive laws than Chicago. In the usual bit of hypocrisy, this measure is supported by the MMM and BC. They are the ones screaming that local ordinances should be allowed. But apparently only if those ordinances are anti-gun. As a matter of fact, they reduce the grade of states that don't allow localities to creates "stronger" laws.
They're still talking out of both sides of their mouths and choking on it.
They are also now calling for the complete banning of gun shows. No more "100% background check"and "loophole" lies. They finally admit the truth of what they want.
Uncle has more. He also notes that Gonzo of the "Gun Guys" ( a real paid lobbyist shill, note that Ms. Washington) is also squealing about the debate, whining that they're "pandering to the gun extremists".
I'll ask again. How many candidates, leading, trailing, or otherwise, are begging the Brady Campaign, or any anti-gun group for that matter, for their endorsement?
Why would that be? Oh, right, because us "gun extremists" outnumber the "anti-gun extremists" 100:1. Even on their own web sites. That's called pandering to your constituency.
TO Sebastian also notes that it's not an AK-47 like Paul claims and is even CA AWB legal. He must be the resource CBS and CNN use for their anti-gun rants.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
And he brings up the usual PuSH'er lies of the NG = the militia, Miller = "collective rights", Right of the People = a privilege, "Assault Weapons" = Fully autos', scawwy .50 cals, etc.
Ho Hum indeed. Get some new material.
Update: Molonlabe notes that Bryan does some erasing and editing of his own:
Here's the real blatant lie by Bryan:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use (of a firearm)...has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
What's with the (of a firearm) part? Lets see what it REALLY says:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Miller addressed the defendant's right to own a sawed off shotgun, not a firearm in general.
Apparently his "easing gun regulations" does not mean "assault weapons".
So, just like most politicians, he's a lying piece of crap that will say anything to get elected.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
That sent up red flags in my memory so I started to do some searching. I found nothing but the nagging memory was still there. I knew I remembered something about it so I sent out requests to the Blogosphere. TO Sebastian came through w/ his strong Google-Fu. Dennis Hanigan, spokesman for the Brady Campaign, erased "People" when quoting the amendment. Telling isn't it.
And here's the really fun part. The associated link on the Brady Website is no longer active and just keeps sending you back to the front page. The YouTube video is also gone. Just to make sure, I got a screen cap of it:
Proving once again that they are complete and total hypocrites in their anti-gun bigotry.
They seem to forget. They've spouted off so many lies and so much nonsense, that whatever they say, we'll have counters to. Many of us work together and we use our resources to support our cause. We don't just rely on taglines and meme's provided from one group, unlike the majority of the Brady supporters.
Update: Like I said, we support eachother. Kaveman found the video.
WarOnGuns and Armed and Safe was where I read it originally. I knew my memory wasn't completely faulty.
NATO had started posting Afghanistan combat videos on YouTube to combat Taliban propaganda on the same media. Some of the videos show Taliban using women and children as shields.
We'll see if it helps.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Paul, in his never-ending wisdom (or more accurately his IT sycophants) has posted a new screed on HuffPo to try and cover the trashing they took in the previous post (as usual). In it, he makes the mistake of bringing up the "Purpose Clause" in the Miller decision. Just FYI, it reads:
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces [i.e., the "well regulated Militia,"] the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The decision was based on the fact that there was no evidence presented and the lack of knowledge of military firearms by the justices as shotguns were regularly issued:
IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THAT POSSESSION OR USE
OF A "SHOTGUN HAVING A BARREL OF LESS THAN EIGHTEEN INCHES IN LENGTH"
AT THIS TIME HAS SOME REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRESERVATION OR
EFFICIENCY OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE SECOND
AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR SUCH AN INSTRUMENT.
CERTAINLY IT IS NOT WITHIN JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THIS WEAPON IS ANY PART
OF THE ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT OR THAT ITS USE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO
THE COMMON DEFENSE. AYMETTE V. STATE, 2 HUMPHREYS (TENN.) 154, 158.
Either way, that means Paul accepts the fact that military firearms are protected under the 2A and that the Miller court clearly stated :
These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Yet, as is usual for the PuSH'ers, they are lying to themselves and the public. They specifically want to ban "Assault Weapons" which, according to them:
The guns covered by the Assault Weapons Act were semiautomatic versions of fully automatic guns designed for military use.
The military features of semiautomatic assault weapons are designed to enhance their capacity to shoot multiple targets very rapidly.
So they're saying that "Assault Weapons" fit the Purpose Clause yet they are still trying to ban them.
What do they say about .50 cal rifles?
Capable of destroying armored personnel carriers, aircraft and bulk fuel and ammunition sites, the .50 caliber sniper rifle is now proliferating in the civilian market...
First used by the military during the Gulf War, the .50 caliber BMG anti-armor sniper rifle is no ordinary rifle. Its design enables the destruction of military aircraft and heavy machinery from long ranges. The concept of discrete shooting distances shaped its use and image as an ideal sniper weapon...
Once again, these seem to fit the Purpose Clause like a glove.
So, the Brady Campaign is saying that the Militia, when properly armed, are a threat to public safety. That means that they are opposed to the basic founding principles of this nation. Not that that really comes as a surprise to anyone.
Monday, November 26, 2007
"I'm tired, tired of the FARC, tired of the people, tired of communal living. Tired of never having anything for myself," wrote the author, a 29-year-old Dutch woman.
And just like in the US, Europe has stupid rich kids:
"In certain circles in Europe, there still exists the romantic image of the guerrillas as Robin Hood, or Che Guevara, fighting the bad guys for the benefit of the poor," he said. "Nijmeijer fell into this trap."
I really don't have to much sympathy for whatever is happening to her. She intentionally joined a psychotically violent organization involved in torture, murder, and terror then became disenchanted w/ them when she realized it wasn't all fun and games. "Tired of never having anything for myself"? What does she think communism entails?
Obviously she didn't do a thorough thesis.
Unfortunately this means we have to raise enough money to offset the millions that our elected officials now get from the gun lobby. But politicians listen to their constituents and won't vote the gun interests if they see that people are fed up with the carnage wrought by weak regulation. A strategy that combines advocacy with money can force politicians to stop straddling the fence on gun issues.
We also need to get the message out that sensible gun laws work for all citizens, including those who own guns for hunting or self-protection. These legal gun owners need to join us to insist that the right to own firearms must be countered by sensible ownership protections. Without their support, we will never adequately address this issue, and the killing of our children will continue.
Thomas C. Vanden Berk
Brady Campaign & Brady Chicago Committee
So Mr. Vanden Berk recognizes that the politicians ARE listening to their constituency by voting against gun laws. As SIH pointed out, the recent PA laws were opposed 100:1 .
While citing advocacy and money, he forgets that numbers count. The BC has some very loud advocates but we have more of them. W/o the numbers, unless you have rich sponsors, you don't have the money. The Anti's have rich sponsors but not the numbers and that hurts them.
Basically he admits that they need us. We don't need them.
I just Googled "Uzi rate of fire" and found asset of specifications that say a "Micro Uzi" has a rate of fire of 1700 rounds per minute.
Thinks the FF's, men would could imagine an unprecedented form of Gov't, couldn't imagine any form of technological advances in firearms:
Had they known it would be possible to fire 1700 rounds per minute from a handgun, the Founders might have worded the second amendment more precisely. But they didn't know, and the wording is what it is.
And has to throw in the usual ad hominems, strawmen, and other logical fallacies to make any point whatsoever.
No wonder he's on HuffPo.
The first was a Dec. 22, 2001, Atlanta arrest when authorities said Harris gave the name Douglas Morgan and was carrying a concealed 9 mm pistol. The arrest did not result in a criminal conviction. The other dates were on Nov. 1, 2002, in Henry County and a search of Harris' home in Fulton County on Dec. 18, 2004.Harris' felony record began when he was 17, when he was arrested for selling crack in northwest Atlanta. He was sentenced to seven years' probation, which he violated and was eventually jailed for.
"So the point is, though, we should be able to do that, and we should be able to enforce laws that keep guns off the streets in inner cities because some unscrupulous gun dealer is, you know, letting somebody load up a van with a bunch of cheap handguns or sawed-off shotguns and dumping them and selling them for a profit in the streets."
So basically he's saying is that he has no idea that multiple sales send up red flags at the BATFE or he's flat out lying. What this translates to is support for :
1. One gun a month laws
2. Closing the "gun show loophole"
3. Lawsuits against dealers and manufacturers
All the while trying to get the Fudd vote. I expect him to receive an AHSA endorsement soon.