Tuesday, June 29, 2010
I find it hard to be excited about the ruling for no other reason but that many people will choose to own firearms regardless of what any court or law may decree. Of course, criminals will disregard laws simply because they are, by definition, criminals. No penalty will persuade these people from possessing firearms.
There is another, still larger, group of people who will choose to posses firearms, legally or illegally. These people are otherwise law-abiding citizens who, despite what their government orders, value life and its righteous defense. They are made into outlaws by their government because they refuse to submit their sovereignty of their own lives and the lives of their families. They do not, I say again do not, wish to initiate the use of force against anyone. They want to be left alone to live their lives. But when someone else initiates the use of force against them, it is their right and duty to respond in defense with like (and hopefully superior) force. The offender is given the only destruction he has a right to seek - his own.
Most Americans simply do not buy into the gun control argument any longer, regardless of laws. Firearms are used by citizens more than two million times per year to stop criminals. In the large majority of cases, just the presentation of the firearm is enough.
What if 12 to 20 million Americans refused to pay income taxes?
What if 12 to 20 million Americans sent a large portion of their income to a foreign country?
What if 12 to 20 million Americans had no identification, or worse, used stolen identification?
What if 12 to 20 million Americans did not pay their medical bills?
I could go on...
Monday, June 28, 2010
He will be missed by those who loved him most: His fraternity brothers at Kappa Kappa Kappa, rope manufacturers, textile mills which specialize in white sheets, kerosene distributors, and the idiots in the media who like to recall the story of his "dog-eared copy of the Constitution," which he kept in the breast pocket of his suit (right next to his black heart).
"He knew how to spread the graft around."
If you are so inclined, you may read my previous posts on the Kagan nomination here, here, and here.
Elana Kagan is Abe Fortas in drag, politically speaking. Physically, she has more in common with Kevin James:
Monday, June 21, 2010
According to a transcript of an audio recording of the interview conducted June 12, The Daily Progress asked Hurt if he is “going to be willing to debate Jeff Clark and Tom Perriello?” Hurt replied: “We need to work out all of the details, but debates are a very, very important part of elections and obviously we want to make ourselves available to all of the citizens who will be judging us and we’re committed to doing that but obviously we have the details to work out. We haven’t talked with the Perriello campaign — I don’t think — about what they’re interested in.”
The Daily Progress, again, asked: “But would you be willing to?” Hurt replied: “Absolutely.”
On Wednesday, Perriello’s campaign cited The Progress story and said Perriello agrees with his GOP challenger that Clark should be allowed to participate in the upcoming debates.
Hurt is widely regarded as the "establishment republican" candidate, winning the nomination over several hopefuls, some of whom billed themselves as constitutional conservatives. Jeff Clark, the independent, announced before the primary his intent to run as an independent conservative should Hurt win the Republican nomination.
Hurt voted for then-Governor (now U.S. Senator) Warner's $1,400,000,000 tax increase.
In this case, I agree with Congressman Perriello. If Clark is a legally qualified candidate, he should be included in the debate.
Here is a rundown of Missouri's laws:
- English is the Official Language.
- No sanctuary for illegal aliens.
- No state benefits for illegal aliens.
- Proof of citizenship or resident status require for state benefits or driver's license.
- No bail for those believed to be illegal aliens.
- Transport of illegal aliens into Missouri is prohibited.
- Law enforcement officers shall inquire citizenship status of those arrested for other crimes.
- Businesses are prohibited from employing illegal aliens.
- No in-state tuition aid for illegal aliens.
The author contends that Missouri is not a "portal" like Arizona, and the Obama administration is not concerned with protecting rights, as it claims, but with keeping the "portal" open to the locust swarm of illegal aliens crossing into our country on a daily basis. All in the name of votes:
So, why should the Arizona law be unpalatable when Missouri's was never worth challenging? The Department of Homeland Security estimated Arizona's illegal population at 560,000 in 2008, while the Pew Hispanic Center estimates between 400 and 450 thousand back in 2005. Pew's 2005 estimates for Missouri were between 35 and 65, so Arizona's illegal population is larger than Missouri's by about a factor of ten. 560,000 potentially new Democratic Party Voters and union members!
So, last year a quarter of a million people came in through Arizona. Where did they go? Everywhere, and that is why the Obama Administration is desperate to prevent Arizona's law from working.
One leg of Obama's plan to Democratic political hegemony, to a new New Deal, rests on opening the nation wide. What happened in Missouri is small potatoes, because the important thing is to get these people here, not to protect their rights. Unhappy illegals can leave Missouri for Illinois and prosper. PEW's estimate for Illinois in 2005 was anywhere between 375-425 thousand illegals - ten times the number in Missouri - and that before the new laws were enacted. The worry is not about civil rights, but about keeping the flood of invading peoples coming.
Transforming America, one illegal alien at a time. Like everything this fool president and his cabal of evil do and have done, this is designed for one purpose: the cementing of power by creating chaos to necessitate further government expansion and control.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
He witnessed two men stealing several i-phones, drew his weapon, and followed them to their car. He fired two rounds at the vehicle's tire, which was in-line with the bus stop in the distance. No one was injured. The bad guys got away. Police have not recovered the bullets, but have arrested one suspect: the CC permit holder.
I am not certain of the laws regarding the use of deadly force in Oregon, but most statutes allow, in varying degree, force to be used to protect life or property. Since no one was injured in the incident, it will be difficult to convict him of anything beyond reckless endangerment. And he can forget about his CC permit.
The process required to obtain a CC permit is strict in most states. Fingerprints, a criminal background check, affidavits swearing against drug use or mental instability, and proof of competency in firearms handling are all required here in the Old Dominion.
Unfortunately, a person's judgement cannot be measured. The man acted with poor judgement. That being said, CC permit holders are more law-abiding and safety conscious than the general population.
One bad apple...
UPDATE! Here is a story from the UK Telegraph about how gun control laws can work for us!
Hopper always let a little crazy into his many roles. Allegedly, he got his part as "Frank Booth" in Blue Velvet by telling director David Lynch, "I am Frank."
At least he was never boring.