Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise
Sadly, Mama Liberty will be unavailable this week. Imagine the
nerve of her—she was busy making CLOTHES rather than writing
articles for us!! We all look forward to reading her words of wisdom
next week....
I'd like to deal with a topic that some people just refuse to
comprehend. Human rights. For some reason, "Human Rights Activists"
constantly support disarming people. They NEVER think about the
poor, the downtrodden, the victims. They constantly demand someone
"do something" whenever a story about poor villagers being
massacred, or poor blacks dying in Chicago from a gunshot, or
Chinese peasants being killed by their government. Yet they ignore
the most important part—the victims are ALWAYS unarmed by law.
They are forced to be defenseless, BY LAW. So whether it is
government thugs in China, narcotraficantes in Mexico, or gangbanger
blacks in Chicago, the killers have weapons, their victims are
unarmed. BY THE VERY PEOPLE WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THEM. DO
you want to see human rights violations drop? REALLY drop? Start
collecting guns and ammo (I'll donate a few) and ship them to the
people in areas where firearms are prohibited and human rights are
violated. Let's all start with those ladies in Mexico I mention down
below. Remember, as L. Neil Smith says, "Every man, woman, and
responsible child has a human, civil, and Constitutional right to
own and carry, anytime, wherever they choose, any weapon, rifle,
pistol, shotgun, machinegun, WHATEVER, without permission from
anybody" (my paraphrase of The Atlanta Declaration) Let's stop
genocides. Let's protect human rights, everywhere. Arm the poor, the
tired, the huddles masses yearning to breathe free.
Before we get to the "Armed American Citizen" section, we shall
remind people what "Gun Free Zone" means in criminal-speak.
Defenseless victims, even outside the venue.
[Link]
Wake County Superior Court
Judge Donald
Stephens ruled earlier this month that allowing citizens to
carry concealed firearms at the North Carolina State Fair would be
"unwise and imprudent." Gun owners across the state were angered by
the ruling, but the real consequence was felt when three people at
the fair were accosted by robbers, carrying pistols. As we've seen
before, the law-abiding citizens follow gun control laws, but
criminals don't feel bound by the same constraints.
The armed robbers were likely emboldened to act once they knew
citizens would be unarmed. They targeted people leaving the fair,
walking to their cars. It is reported they fled in a beige Lincoln.
* * *
Second Amendment Activists had widely criticized the ruling. The
Washington Times reported:
The same activists are now blaming N.C. officials after three people
were robbed by two men armed with pistols while walking to their
cars Saturday night.
"By announcing to violent predators that people attending the
North Carolina state fair would be unable to protect themselves, the
responsibility for this armed robbery of fair-goers lies squarely
with Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler, who illegally banned
concealed at the fair, and ... Stephens, who willfully
misinterpreted the law to impose his own worldview," Paul Valone,
president of Grass Roots North Carolina, told Guns.com.
Mr. Valone had argued the case in front of Judge Stephens that
the state fair gun ban violated a law passed by the state
legislature that expanded concealed carry rights, The Blaze
reported.
Prior to issuing his ruling, Judge Stephens expressed fear
allowing guns in the Fairgrounds "may chill crime, but may chill
attendance." He added, "This whole area of the law is an absolute
quagmire."
The
State Fair increased the
number of metal detectors at its gates this year, and installed
200 undercover and uniformed law enforcement officers on the
grounds. The robbers, however, did their work outside the gates.
Metal detectors to go to the fair? I guess they lost MY business.
I carry. Because I want to get home alive.
We open the "Armed American Citizen" with a really dumb criminal.
[Link]
What idiot brings a toy gun to a real gunfight??
The entire incident unfolded over the weekend, when the unnamed
suspected
robber
walked into Medicap Pharmacy in Cheyenne, Wyoming at around 9:45 in the morning.
Once inside, the man allegedly demanded that the pharmacist hand
over narcotics while "brandishing" a
toy
gun that looked alarmingly real.
"The pharmacist then pulled out a firearm—a handgun, a
revolver—and shot the suspect once in the chest," said
Cheyenne Police Department Chief Brian Kozak to the Eagle Tribune.
Fortunately for the suspected robber, he survived the bullet and
was taken to receive medical treatment.
Dude! This is WY-freaking-OMING!! Open carry is unlicensed,
concealed carry is easy. It's just a shame the pharmacist missed
anything vital....The history of human growth and development is at
the same time the
And the next part of this week's "Armed American Citizens".
Unfortunately, they both survived.
[Link]
Believe it or not, a neighboring business owner blamed the SHOPOWNER for shooting at
armed criminals!!!!!
The video shows 74-year-old store owner Shirley Cornett drawing her
.38 revolver and shooting one of the suspects in the arm before one
of them shoots back. Cornett was hit but the bullet did not break
the skin because it was deflected by a stack of books. The two then
flee the pawn shop having stolen just a single bracelet.
* * *
Somewhat unbelievably, Kal Gandhi, manager of the nearby Scottish
Inn and Suites, blamed Cornett for the trouble, accusing her of
unnecessarily firing her gun "in heavy traffic" despite the fact
that the incident occurred inside the store. Presumably, Gandhi
thinks that
business
owners in the area should just invite criminals in to
rob
them with zero resistance whatsoever.
"It is not right," said Gandhi, adding that he was "really upset"
about the fact that the owners
shot
back at the criminals.
I have nothing else to say..
AND THIS is why I say that a woman voting for a gun control
agenda is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
[Link]
Had the anti-Constitutionalists not spent years demonizing self defense with
a gun, and fighting to pass laws restricting gun ownership and
carry, she MIGHT be alive today.
Fernald had a restraining order placed on Torres before he killed
her. A search of google news confirms that fact. This was mentioned
as a reason to argue that the killer's sentence was too light. He
obviously had premeditated this attack because he had been
threatening her before.
I think the restraining order shows something else: that every
law and every media and cultural input that made it more difficult
for Amber to acquire and carry a firearm collaborated with her
killer.
What good is a restraining order? Instead of a restraining order,
Amber should have been indefinitely loaned an appropriate sidearm.
If we are supposed to get protection from the police, then they
should have given her some training.
What was the point of giving her an unenforceable piece of paper?
People act like guns are the cause of crime but they aren't
considering the real facts. Every single story of a big man
attacking a woman is a story about how the absence of a gun
victimized a woman. Every single story about a knife-wielding
attacker cutting an unarmed victim is the story of how the absence
of a gun caused harm.
A culture without cheap, readily available firearms is a culture
where the stronger get to attack the weaker with impunity. Every
culture that discourages or discounts gun ownership is a culture
where women are trained to be sacrificed to violent men.
It's a simple fact. No matter what feminists say, a 110 pound
woman has little or no chance against a 220 pound man EVEN IF HE IS
UNARMED. Unless, of course, she has 2 pounds of Hartford steel in
her fist, and a few hours at the range with an instructor under her
belt.
Passed along by Mama Liberty, I find this one Sehr interessant!
[Link]
How dare these women defend themselves and their city from armed criminals!!!
This week, hundreds of women in the Mexican town of Xaltianguis
formed their own community defense organization to protect their
town from organized crime. The women belong to a group called the
Union of Peoples and Organizations of Guerrero State, or UPOEG.
According to local community self-defense force commander Miguel
Angel Jimenez, the women are spread out between various different
teams that patrol the neighborhoods of Xaltianguis, which is a small
town just outside of Acapulco.
Jimenez told reporters that the women are well trained in
firearms, but unfortunately the group only has about 80 guns and
they have to rotate the weapons and share them between members.
"I trust that the people, once they know that the women are
participating, they will provide more weapons", Jimenez
said.
If I knew how to ship them to Mexico, I'd send along a few
myself!!
What's the most common lie we hear from the anti-gunners when
they want us to stop defending our rights? Yup, THAT'S the one! "No
one is trying to take your guns. We just want 'common' sense
controls on them!" Well, THIS reporter tells us what they really
mean—and he should know, he's one of them!
[Link]
One part of the article claims people just don't understand the
true nature of the second amendment.
As the author wrote:
The Second Amendment has been misinterpreted. It says guns are
permitted to a "well-regulated militia." That means trained citizen
soldiers called into action for emergencies—because in colonial
times every able-bodied man was required to be a member of the
militia.
It does not mean everyone with $50 and a driver's license is
entitled to own a gun.
And they even tried to quote a Supreme Court Justice as reason
enough to ban firearms completely.
Supreme Court Chief Justice
Warren Burger said in 1990, when he called claims of Second
Amendment protection of individual gun ownership, "a fraud on the
American public." Earlier this year, retired Supreme Court Justice
John Paul Stevens called the Second Amendment one of the six great
flaws with the U.S. Constitution. He called for it to be amended to
say gun possession was only for state militias, not
individuals.
The author even writes that he's OK with criminals having guns.
He idiotically spews the babbling of a liberal detached from
reality:
Gun freaks say if you take away
their guns only outlaws will have guns. That's a chance worth
taking. Because if we ban guns, eventually the tide will turn. It
might take 10 years or 20 years. Hell, it might take 50 years. But
if we make it illegal to own a handgun, eventually there will be no
handguns.
* * *
At the ever end the article he
practically shouts out what the intentions of liberals truly are
"One of the frequent refrains of gun freaks about President Obama is
'He's coming for our guns,' Obama never said such a thing. But I
will: We're coming for your guns. And someday, we'll take
them."
Yes, they are. And never forget that fact.
Isn't it funny that the Democrat stronghold of Shitcago has made
it a felony to record police, DAs, and judges (with a higher penalty
than doing so to civilians) even after being told by their own
Supreme Court that a similar law was un-Constitutional?
[Link]
Illinois—In March of this year the Illinois Supreme Court struck
down the state's eavesdropping law, and rightfully so, as it was
touted
as the most unconstitutional law of its kind in the country.
But Illinois, being the the corrupt and violent
police
state that it is, couldn't let their police and other government officials be
held
accountable by its citizens.
The bill is back, and with a vengeance.
The
Amendment to Senate Bill 1342 was introduced
on Tuesday, Dec. 2, as an amendment to an existing bill on a
completely different subject. The amendment removed all of the
bill's previous content and replaced it with the new
ban
on recording. The House passed it the following day, and the Senate
passed it the day after that.
This bill passed both the Illinois House and Senate with
overwhelming majority votes; 106-7 in the House on and 46-4-1 in the
Senate. Democrats and Republicans alike slipped this bill by the
citizens as they were debating on whether the General Assembly would
raise the state's minimum wage or make the 67% temporary income tax
hike permanent, neither of which passed.
Of course, THE Supreme Court of the United States says it's our
Constitutional right to do so. Hmmmmm.....
A list of 16 companies that we should not patronize for their
craven caving to the anti-Constitutionalists (or for BEING
anti-Constitutional in and of themselves).
[Link]
Panera Breads
Target
Costco
Toys-R-Us
Chuck E. Cheese
Sonic
Whole Foods
IKEA
Peet's Coffee
AMC Theatres
California Pizza Kitchen
Buffalo Wild Wings
Disney World
Goodyear
TGI Friday's
Waffle House
Or, of course, you can do as I do when I am forced to go
to TGI Friday's for a birthday—I ignore their rules and go armed.
Yeah, they have the right to ban it—and if they catch me, they
can ban ME. But since I have family that holds parties there, I'm
going to be armed there. That's the purpose of concealed carry,
after all—NO ONE KNOWS YOU ARE CARRYING!!!!
Its' amazing how far idiots/"reporters" will go to lie about gun
sales, or to try to twist a surge in gun sales into an increase in
crime rates.
[Link]
Last week, Associated Press reporter Matt Stroud incorrectly
implied
that the recent increase in firearm-related background checks run through the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) frequently
results in violent criminals beating the system and acquiring guns.
Noting that in situations in which NICS cannot complete a check
on a prospective gun buyer within three business days, a firearm
dealer is allowed to transfer a firearm to the person, Stroud
hyperbolically wrote, "More gun sales than ever are slipping through
the federal background check system.... [S]omeone is killed with
a firearm every 16 minutes. Mass shootings are happening every few
weeks.... If three business days pass without a federal response,
buyers can legally get their guns, whether or not the check was
completed."
What Stroud neglected to mention—besides the fact that gun
ownership is at an all-time high and the nation's murder rate has
fallen to at least a 57-year low—is that the FBI continues running
checks after the three-day period has elapsed and reports all
ultimate denials to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (BATFE) on a daily basis. Thereafter, BATFE personnel and
local law enforcement officers can and do take action to separate
prohibited persons from any firearms they may have acquired during
the delay.
Stroud also implied, incorrectly, that every individual who is
delayed is presumptively prohibited and would pose a danger if
successful in obtaining a firearm. That is certainly not the case,
as identities can be confused, arrests don't necessarily lead to
prosecutions or convictions, and later events (like reductions in or
dropping of charges, restoration of rights, or reversals of
convictions) are not always reflected in the records available to
NICS. Indeed, the provisions of the Gun Control Act allowing (but
not requiring) licensed dealers to release firearms to purchasers
three days after a NICS check is initiated without a subsequent
denial recognize that such events are a very real possibility and
that people should not be denied their rights based on
unsubstantiated or incomplete information.
Now, do not take my inclusion of this article as support for the
NICS system, because it is totally un-Constitutional. But it's funny
how people like this lie about the system in order to demand more
laws, when the Justice Department has only prosecuted few hundred of
the 56,000 denials that were not appealed. IF their goal was to keep
criminals from owning guns (it isn't, but let's pretend it is) you'd
THINK they'd be prosecuting every liar who was denied a firearm for
lying on the Form 4473.
And now, the Quotes of the Week. Starting with 2 from Colonel
Cooper.
"Already a couple of the faithful have sent in checks for a
foundation memorial to the innocents who perished at the hands of
the ninja at Waco ... I have been criticized by referring to our
federal masked men as 'ninja' ... Let us reflect upon the fact that
a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is
doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while
concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior
ethic. It has long been my conviction that a masked man with a gun
is a target. I see no reason to change that view."
"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I
did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is
my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to
ensure—and in some cases I have—that any man who offers
violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return
than he can enjoy."
"I don't believe people should to be able to own guns."—Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John
Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)
"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think
it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a
nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I
think you should go to prison."—Rosie O'Donnell (At about the
time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who
applied for a gun permit.)
"Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets. I may
get killed with my own gun, but he's gonna have to beat me to death
with it, cause it's gonna be empty."—Clint Smith
That, my friends, is that for this week.
Previous
Contents
Next
