Armed and Safe notes that the ICPGV and the ICHV have become so unglued about a minor change in Illinois firearm law that they are blatantly lying to their members to try and get some opposition to it.
Who relies on 'fear' again?
Update:House Bill 182 passed the Illinois House today by a vote of 90-28. The bill now heads to the desk of Governor Pat Quinn (D) for his consideration.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Dear Mr. Bravely Anonymous
A few days ago I posted a piece on the American Hunters and Shooters Assoc.'s attempts to revamp its image as a real organization for sportsmen in lieu of an anti-gun group in camo. In response, I got one individual who took offense at me mentioning the fact that the AHSA supported Obama for president regardless of his history of anti-gun activities:
Ok Mr. 'Anonymous', that's fair enough even with the qualifier. However is it due to a lack of desire or is it political expediency? Every single member of his cabinet has a strong history of supporting 'gun control'. Was this a conscious choice by Obama or is this merely representative of the DNC leadership pool that he had to choose from?
Of course that's only ancillary to what's being avoided. Ray Schoenke himself stated opposition to assault weapons at one point but now claims support. Was that the statement of 'consultants' or his opinion? If it was his opinion, what caused it to change?
What is the AHSA going to do fix its image as a gun control group in camoflage?
These are all legitimate questions that deserve an answer if the AHSA wants to even have a chance at being taken seriously as a gun rights group.
Like I said, I'm willing to listen. Instead of being a drive-by troll, come and discuss the issue. The door's open. Are you up to it?
What has Obama, as president done AT ALL to affect gun rights?
ANS: NOTHING
Ok Mr. 'Anonymous', that's fair enough even with the qualifier. However is it due to a lack of desire or is it political expediency? Every single member of his cabinet has a strong history of supporting 'gun control'. Was this a conscious choice by Obama or is this merely representative of the DNC leadership pool that he had to choose from?
Of course that's only ancillary to what's being avoided. Ray Schoenke himself stated opposition to assault weapons at one point but now claims support. Was that the statement of 'consultants' or his opinion? If it was his opinion, what caused it to change?
What is the AHSA going to do fix its image as a gun control group in camoflage?
These are all legitimate questions that deserve an answer if the AHSA wants to even have a chance at being taken seriously as a gun rights group.
Like I said, I'm willing to listen. Instead of being a drive-by troll, come and discuss the issue. The door's open. Are you up to it?
Random Musings
Watching TV the other night, I saw an ad for a new prescription drug to counter Acid Reflux. As I have regular heartburn I paid attention. Then I decided I would never buy this product.
Why?
Because a company that couldn't hire an advertising company that could see the negative implications of the name of their product isn't one I would trust to do quality research.
The name of the product?
Aciphex. Pronounced "Ass Effects".
There was another product a while back for hair removal. Designed in Australia, they obviously used a Australian marketing company. It was called Nads.
I'm sure they were most embarazar when they were told about these little gaffs.
Why?
Because a company that couldn't hire an advertising company that could see the negative implications of the name of their product isn't one I would trust to do quality research.
The name of the product?
Aciphex. Pronounced "Ass Effects".
There was another product a while back for hair removal. Designed in Australia, they obviously used a Australian marketing company. It was called Nads.
I'm sure they were most embarazar when they were told about these little gaffs.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Implications and extrapolations
I’ve seen a lot about the Colosimo case and the cabal that sparked it on the gun blogs I frequent, but I just ran across this nugget which might have slipped under the radar. More likely someone else has scooped this already; I’m just saying it was news to me and I wanted to share.
“Twelve religious activists pulled off a legal miracle yesterday: They convinced a judge - who once worked for the Philadelphia Police Department, of all places - that it's OK to break the law if the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing.”
Read the whole thing…and think about it.
My ponderings?
I should premise the following by saying that just because I raise the question, it in no way serves as to any clue to my beliefs. Don’t try to get inside my head, you’ll just get lost. I’m simply taking the logic from this decision and extrapolating.
Is it OK to bomb an abortion clinic because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
Is it OK to bomb a school which teaches evolution because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
Is it OK to kill gays serving openly in the military because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
Is it OK to kill people who drive an SUV because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
Is it OK to destroy someone else’s SUV because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
Is it OK to hunt down and kill hunters because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
THAT is what this decision gives precedent to. Let’s have some hypothetical fun, shall we. These are not my views, but the apparent views of Municipal Court Judge Karen Yvette Simmons.
It is now OK to kill members of organizations who strive every day to chip away at my Constitutional Rights because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
It is now OK to kill members of the legislative branch who strive every day to chip away at my Constitutional Rights because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
It is now OK to kill members of the judicial branch who strive every day to chip away at my Constitutional Rights because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
It is now OK to kill members of the executive branch who strive every day to chip away at my Constitutional Rights because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
Before I get the predicted response from any wandering posers about the difference between protesting and murder, I would like to remind them that the distinction is not made is this ruling.
All that matters is that one believes “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
If that’s not the most dangerous shit you’ve ever read; if that doesn’t make your bones chill, then I shudder at the thought of you exercising your right to vote, even though I will defend your right to vote with my life.
I’m kinda complicated.
“Twelve religious activists pulled off a legal miracle yesterday: They convinced a judge - who once worked for the Philadelphia Police Department, of all places - that it's OK to break the law if the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing.”
Read the whole thing…and think about it.
My ponderings?
I should premise the following by saying that just because I raise the question, it in no way serves as to any clue to my beliefs. Don’t try to get inside my head, you’ll just get lost. I’m simply taking the logic from this decision and extrapolating.
Is it OK to bomb an abortion clinic because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
Is it OK to bomb a school which teaches evolution because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
Is it OK to kill gays serving openly in the military because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
Is it OK to kill people who drive an SUV because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
Is it OK to destroy someone else’s SUV because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
Is it OK to hunt down and kill hunters because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
THAT is what this decision gives precedent to. Let’s have some hypothetical fun, shall we. These are not my views, but the apparent views of Municipal Court Judge Karen Yvette Simmons.
It is now OK to kill members of organizations who strive every day to chip away at my Constitutional Rights because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
It is now OK to kill members of the legislative branch who strive every day to chip away at my Constitutional Rights because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
It is now OK to kill members of the judicial branch who strive every day to chip away at my Constitutional Rights because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
It is now OK to kill members of the executive branch who strive every day to chip away at my Constitutional Rights because you believe “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
Before I get the predicted response from any wandering posers about the difference between protesting and murder, I would like to remind them that the distinction is not made is this ruling.
All that matters is that one believes “the harm you cause is less than the harm you think you're preventing?”
If that’s not the most dangerous shit you’ve ever read; if that doesn’t make your bones chill, then I shudder at the thought of you exercising your right to vote, even though I will defend your right to vote with my life.
I’m kinda complicated.
It's like a bad TV show script.
Tapes of the Burris/Blago scandal have been released and, unsurprisingly, it digs Burris into a deeper hole regarding his purchased appointment to the US Senate.
What's really bad is the way these two talk. It's literally like the script off of a crappy crime show where the 'bad guys' are trying to be subtle and skirt around directly saying they want bribes:
They're both a couple of morons, you know.
What's really bad is the way these two talk. It's literally like the script off of a crappy crime show where the 'bad guys' are trying to be subtle and skirt around directly saying they want bribes:
"And therefore I can go off to, you know, wherever and do all these great things," Burris adds. He says that he has "been trying to figure out what the heck, you know, I can do."
"We've had a number of conversations about, you know, anything you might be able to do," Robert Blagojevich says a moment later.
They're both a couple of morons, you know.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Brady Bunch book out in June
Here's the prolouge...
Sorry for the dual post, been a while. Let me know what you favorite quote is.
Sorry for the dual post, been a while. Let me know what you favorite quote is.
Tacticool goes mainstream.
Watching "Deadliest Warrior" on Spike, I noticed a new brand of commercials. These are from a company called "OpsGear" marketing the usual array of stuff. Uniforms, gear, boots, t-shirts, etc.
What that means is that these kind of products are becoming so popular, companies can afford to market them on TV instead of just the usual dead-tree catalogs and online ads.
Cool.
What that means is that these kind of products are becoming so popular, companies can afford to market them on TV instead of just the usual dead-tree catalogs and online ads.
Cool.
Unique
Sunday, May 24, 2009
AHSA 2.0: A New Beginning?
Seems the AHSA is trying to revamp its image big-time:
From Ray Schoenke on the AHSA Facebook Page):
If they read this, I'll be frank. It will take a lot of work from them to even make me trust them a hair. It wasn't that long ago that Ray Schoenke stated that he opposed Assault Weapons before condemning Holder for supporting a new AWB. Was that the statement of a 'consultant' or was it his belief? It wasn't that long ago that they endorsed Obama, a politician w/ a long history of anti-gun legislation and statements under his belt yet now they oppose the issues that he has held since the beginning.
OK Ray/AHSA. I'm a fairly easy-going person. Willing to live and let live for the most part. What are you going to do, actions wise not words (we all know what those are worth) to convince me you're sincere?
From Ray Schoenke on the AHSA Facebook Page):
Seems all the work put into showing the true face of their 'consultants' (ie board members like John Rosenthal et al) were successful. Now we get to have fun seeing what direction they take w/ it.
"Harman - AHSA will be updating it's website very soon, and there will be measurable changes. Much of the previous language was consultant based. Those language, and firearm consultants are no longer with us."
If they read this, I'll be frank. It will take a lot of work from them to even make me trust them a hair. It wasn't that long ago that Ray Schoenke stated that he opposed Assault Weapons before condemning Holder for supporting a new AWB. Was that the statement of a 'consultant' or was it his belief? It wasn't that long ago that they endorsed Obama, a politician w/ a long history of anti-gun legislation and statements under his belt yet now they oppose the issues that he has held since the beginning.
OK Ray/AHSA. I'm a fairly easy-going person. Willing to live and let live for the most part. What are you going to do, actions wise not words (we all know what those are worth) to convince me you're sincere?
Poachers and Rednecks and Arsonists! Oh My!
45Superman points to a true piece of shorts filling goodness on that bastion of intelligence, the Daily Koz.
Did you know that allowing Concealed Carry in Nat'l Parks will allow drunken rednecks to shoot up their neighbors, decimate wildlife, and start wildfires without repercussion? Really.
I love how disjointed these nutballs get.
Did you know that allowing Concealed Carry in Nat'l Parks will allow drunken rednecks to shoot up their neighbors, decimate wildlife, and start wildfires without repercussion? Really.
I love how disjointed these nutballs get.
Labels:
PSH
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)