Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise
Mama Liberty has a good one this week, even though it's not on guns. [Link] She is an RN, and this is part of a series on pain and healthcare. I found it interesting. You will, too!
Mark Witaschek fights on. As you may remember, we have addressed his problem in earlier rants—he is being charged with possession of unregistered ammunition in our beloved cesspool capitol, Washington DC. [Link] facing his 8th court date over this crap. Mark has bravely refused any plea deals offered, including
Authorities have offered Witaschek a plea deal of a year's probation, $500 fine and make a contribution to a victim's fund if he pleads guilty to a charge of possession of unregistered ammunition. He has refused the plea deal saying that he is innocent and intends to prove it in court.
I hope he stands strong. As the article says,
Americans are guaranteed due process and speedy trial, but Witaschek is being denied a speedy trial of a ridiculous trumped up charge. I wonder if all of the delays on the part of the prosecution has been caused because they know they don't have a case and rather than face the embarrassment of admitting they were wrong and dismiss the charges, they keep hoping that Witaschek will give in and accept the plea deal. Hopefully, Witaschek stands his ground and the charges against him are dropped and that the city is forced to pay for the damages done to his home along with the humiliation his family suffered during the raid.
Take this as a warning to what will be happening more and more across the country if we don't remove the liberal anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment Democrats from office. They will continue to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens and force their socialist policies on us. We all need to pray for our nation, for the elections this November and we need to do whatever we can to defeat the Democrats in our areas.
While I'm not a big fan of praying, whatever works....
The Supreme Court has refused to consider the topic of partial citizenship. [Link] Texas law prohibits "adults" 18, 19, & 20 years of age from carrying handguns. Isn't it funny that "adults" are citizens at 18 for voting and dying for the country, but not "adults" until 21 for owning handguns, drinking, and playing table games in casinos. Of course, since Obama considers you a child for purposes of health insurance until you turn 27, I guess it's no big surprise.
Another reason I don't Facebook. [Link] Liberal Victim Disarmament asswipes strive yet again to curtail individual freedoms. Idiot Mothers Against Guns and Nanny Bloomberg's Mayors Whining Against Gun Rights are teaming up to try to bully Facebook into banning any talk of selling or trading guns from Facebook and Instagram.
Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America has partnered with Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns to put pressure on Facebook to prohibit the private selling or trading of guns on its platforms—a practice that's as widespread as it is unregulated.
"Facebook and Instagram are enabling people to sell weapons, often with no questions asked and no background checks required," said Mayors Against Illegal Guns' spokesperson Erika Soto Lamb.
It SHOULD be unregulated—the government has no right at all to prohibit the sale or possession of firearms of any type!
Good show. Lads! Piers Morgan, the Brit Twit who can't stand the 2nd Amendment, has gotten the (well deserved) axe from the Clinton News Network. [Link] According to the BT, it's all because of his advocacy of gun control. Good reason, in my never humble opinion. Of course, he denies it could possibly have anything with his involvement in the British tabloid phone hacking scandals that have led to the arrest of many of Britain's sleazier tabloid figures, of whom Dear Piers was a leading editor for 10 years. British police have interviewed him over his role, and so far, he has not been arrested. DAMNIT!
Morgan served as editor of The Daily Mirror from 1995 to 2004. He has been questioned in connection with Britain's long-running phone hacking scandal, which has led to numerous arrests, resignations and the closure of the News of the World tabloid.
Earlier this month, Morgan confirmed that he was interviewed in December by British police investigating the illegal interception of telephone voicemails. Morgan, who said he had given a previous witness statement, has consistently denied wrongdoing.
He has also threatened the NRA via Twitter. [Link] Good riddance to bad rubbish—Here's yer coat and here's yer hat—Dinnae be lettin' th' door whack yer bum on th' way out, mate!
Stories like this one make me sick. [Link] This poor lady follows the (unconstitutional) law, and as a result, loses her husband to a man who doesn't follow the law.
In April 2009, my husband was shot six times in front of me in the middle of a busy restaurant by a man who was stalking me. I have a permit to carry a handgun but because of the law at that time in my home state of Tennessee, I had to leave the gun that I normally carried for self defense, locked in my car that night.
My husband Ben and I ran our mobile karaoke business out of a restaurant that served alcohol and my gun was forbidden there. I obeyed the law but my stalker, who was carrying a gun illegally, ignored it.
--------------------------------------------------
I asked the management at the restaurant to remove him.When they approached him and asked him to leave, he pulled out a .45 semi-auto and shot Ben. He then stood over him and continued to fire five more rounds into my husband.
I could only watch in horror and helplessness. Since that terrible night I have learned that gun free zones are a predator's playground. This is where my stalker found us and where we were defenseless.
While I would never advocate breaking the law, one wonders why a person would obey such a law, especially when they are being stalked. I would much prefer a trial by twelve over attending my wife's funeral (or being the star attraction of my own). Thanks to Tony From The Right for another great link.
Connecticut now tries to confiscate guns from people who refused to register their so-called "assault rifles". [Link] As I reported earlier, while 50k sheeple flocked to the police to register their "assault weapons" and magazines in the wake of Connecticut's unConstitutional new gun laws, an estimated 350K guns owned by approximately 100K Connecticuttians were not registered. And now, the state wants to confiscate those guns.
The State of Connecticut is now demanding that gun owners across the state turn in all newly-banned, unregistered firearms and magazines or face felony arrest.
The State Police Special Licensing & Firearms Unit began mailing out notices to gun owners who attempted to register their firearms and accessories with the state but did not do so in time for the Jan. 1 deadline of Connecticut's newly enacted gun control law.
The law bans the sale of magazines holding over 10 rounds and "assault rifles" manufactured after 1994 and requires that residents who possessed either before the ban to register them with the state.
"We are returning your application for [an] assault rifle certificate and/or [a] large capacity magazine declaration because it was not received or postmarked prior to January 1, 2014 as required by law," the notice states.
Go to the article linked and read the copy of the letter received by people who tried to register late. They now have the following options-
Residents in Connecticut have the choice of:
Complying with blatantly unconstitutional law by threat of government force;
Selling their weapon to a government-approved dealer;
Destroying their own guns or magazines;
Letting someone in a more pro-gun state hold them; or
Giving it directly to the police.
what a wonderful situation for American citizens—comply with an unconstitutional law, disarm, or face jail time. And all the gun control Victim Disarmament advocates tell us "No one wants to take away your guns." Fucking liars, every one of them.
I'm going to step away from guns for a minute (sorta). have you heard about our government's latest attempt at being unconstitutional? The FCC decided it was going to put monitors in the newsrooms of radio and TV stations to monitor content "in order to see what they could do to increase minority ownership of local stations". The monitors were to ascertain whether newsv stories were ever "killed", why they were killed, and whether killing them "served the interests of the public." Ummm, what part of the 1st Amendment grants Uncle Shithead that right? Not one single part. To be blunt, the FCC, started during FDR's reign, was unconstitutional from day one. The government has no right at all to "regulate the airwaves". No one owns them, most especially not the government. The government has no right to license the use of them, the content of what is broadcast on them, or determine who owns the stations that use them. What scares me the most is that almost ALL journalists ignored this egregious violation of the 1st Amendment. If not for "right wing" ralk radio, and a very few TEA Party politicians, this assault on the constitution might have succeeded. And why is this here, in a gun-related article? Destroy any part of the Constitution, and all parts suffer the consequences. Exactly as Obama is working towards with his "I've got a pen and a phone. If Congress won't act, I will!" crap. And as Colorado is trying, yet again, with it's violation of the 13th Amendment. In case you're an idiot, the 13th is the Amendment that ended slavery. Colorado has re-instated slavery for business owners with religion. Before I get into this part of the destruction of the Constitution, let me make one thing crystal clear—government has no business at all in defining, licensing, or regulating marriage in any way. Gay people are human beings who can marry, their marriage has no effect on other people's marriages, and Christians have no right to deny gays the right to marry. That being said, forcing a person to sanctify, support, or contribute to an act they feel is sinful is unConstitutional. It makes business owners into slaves. As L. Neil Smith says,
Clearly, baker Phillips has a right, under the First Amendment—a right currently being denied him—to believe whatever he wishes, and to follow the precepts of his religion, as long as he doesn't deny anybody else their rights. He also has a First Amendment right to freedom of speech, which necessarily includes the right not to speak, when that appears more eloquent, or not to employ his artistic insights, intuitions, and skills in support of a cause that he personally finds obnoxious.
Certainly Craig and Mullins have their rights, as well, but they don't include compelling Phillips or anybody else to work for them, or to pretend as if they agreed with their ideas and help trumpet them to the world. The fact is, there are dozens of other bakeries in Denver more than willing to do that. But, as we now know from Obamacare, everybody has to comply. They want to get this guy and get him good.
It is precisely as if some judge tried to force me, a lifelong libertarian, to write essays in support of gun control or Marxism. Or perhaps I could be coerced into authoring a slim volume on animal rights—I write better than any of the ginks in that movement. There's a technical word for that idea: slavery. Together, almost a century and half after we believed it had been abolished, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives, Craig, Mullins, Spencer—and the ACLU—have miraculously brought slavery back to life.
Forced labor IS slavery. Phillips has NOT refused to sell pastries to gay people. He has not refused them admittance to his bakery. What he has done is refuse to make a wedding cake to celebrate an act he finds sinful, and thus against his religious beliefs. He is now, according to this pathetic excuse for a judge, the slave of any homosexual couple that demands he make them a cake for their wedding. Because he CANNOT refuse them. well, the judge says he can't Phillips doesn't care. He won't make a wedding cake for any gay marriages. I wonder who will finally win this one.
How dare this little bitch deny that poor cougar her meal? [Link] I'm sure some whiny gun grabber actually thinks I was serious. Good shooting, young lady. Make your brother clean your room in payment for probably saving him from an attack..
Handicapped people of the world,,,,, BEWARE!!!! Reaching for that cane when near a cop can be deadly to your health. [Link]
A police officer in South Carolina shot a 70-year-old motorist who was reaching for a cane during a traffic stop because he thought the man was grabbing a rifle from the bed of his pickup truck, investigators said. The man was expected to survive.
The York County deputy, Terrence Knox, pulled over Bobby Canipe (kah-NYP') of Lincolnton, N.C., for an expired license tag about 7:30 p.m. Tuesday north of Clover, S.C., York County sheriff's spokesman Trent Faris said.
After stopping, Canipe got out of his pickup truck and reached into the bed, pulling out what Knox thought was a long-barreled rifle, Faris said. It was Canipe's walking cane. The officer fired several times, hitting Canipe once, Faris said.
Faris refused to say where on his body Canipe was hit, but said he was expected to survive. Canipe was taken to Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C., where spokesman Kevin McCarthy said he was listed in fair condition.
But wait... there's more!
"The situation is very unfortunate," Faris said, reading from a statement at a news conference. "It does appear, at this time, that Deputy Knox's actions were an appropriate response to what he reasonably believed to be an imminent threat to his life.
So, let me see if I understand this—if a cop THINKS something MIGHT be a gun, he's justified in mowing down a citizen. Cell phone? Shoot'im. Can of soda? Shoot'im. Grandpa's cane? Kill the bastard. As the article eloquently says,
Essentially Faris is claiming that if any cop thinks he sees something that isn't there he is free to shoot and kill any of us. In such cases our deaths will be ruled as the result of a justified shooting.
If a non-policeman shot at someone because he mistakenly thought he was armed, that person would be in jail right away. No one would even think of declaring the action "an appropriate response." That logic is reserved for the police and only for the police.
I'm sorry for Knox's bad luck, but he shouldn't be able to keep his job after shooting an unarmed man. We should feel even more sorry for those who are wounded or killed. We cannot have law enforcement officers trained to shoot first and ask questions later.
"Nuff said, don'tcha think?
Fighting fire with fire, a Connecticut gun owner posts the names, phone numbers, and addresses of every Connecticut legislator who voted to pass Connecticut's unconstitutional new gun law. [Link] Good Form, Mike Vanderboegh.
Thus endeth this rant.
Previous
Contents
Next