Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 767, April 20, 2014

Anarchists are persons who believe with
all their hearts that governments are
enemies of their own people.

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 4-20-2014
by Neale Osborn

Bookmark and Share

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

From Mama Liberty's own pen, this time. [Link]

Unfortunately, these women are very eager to believe that they can live in the land of unicorns and fairy farts. They don’t want—or cannot even conceive of—personal responsibility for anything. They see oppression on every hand when their choices and actions result in pain and loss (when they can actually see and admit it at all)... it’s someone else’s fault, of course—and their lives would be so wonderful if EVERYONE they don’t like were forced to be mewling newborn kittens. They can’t even begin to see the hypocrisy here.

So true. As has been said so many times, a woman voting for gun control er, Victim Disarmament, is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

I REALLY hope they do! [Link] It appears that at least 9 western states are contemplating taking back control of lands the federal government has claimed for itself, so that valuable oil, timber, and mineral rights will be available for the states to use, rather than being tied up by EPA, BLM, and other ridiculous federal agencies to save a frigging turtle or snail darter.

Officials from nine Western states met in Salt Lake City on Friday to discuss taking control of federal lands within their borders on the heels of a standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management.

The lawmakers and county commissioners discussed ways to wresting oil-, timber- and mineral-rich lands away from the feds. Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart said it was in the works before this month's standoff.

Maybe we can set a precedent for reviving the country, both economically AND Constitutionally.

Kahleefourneeyah is at it again. After a defeat four years ago of a bill to permit the open carry of unloaded firearms (Yeah, you read that right—UNLOADED firearms—less usefull that tits on a boar hog), Gun Owners of California (GOC) is once more pushing for open carry in California. Now, do not get me wrong—I happen to support ANY type of carry, anywhere (other than on private property where the property-owner prohibits weapons), anytime, without permission from ANY government official or bureaucrat. I just wonder why they think they have a chance on the left coast?

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the push comes four years after a group of gun owners in Northern California pushed for open carry of "unloaded handguns," and two years since the state legislature passed a law banning open carry "except for rural counties where a gun owner obtains law enforcement permission."

But now that the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled twice in favor of gun rights regarding concealed carry—once on February 13th and again on March 5th—GOC's Sam Paredes believes the time is right to pursue open carry again.

Can't hurt to try. Dunno why they ask—if you REALLY want to get somewhere, stage an armed rally. 5000 openly armed people peacefully sitting on the law the capitol in Sacramento might do the trick......

Jerkoff Johnny Kerry today spoke about the "solution to the problem between Russia and the Ukraine". In laying out the solution, he said something scary to a 2nd Amendment supporter such as myself. He said that part of the deal was that all "Illegally armed" civilians were to be disarmed. A few questions, Mr. Kerry. Who determines who is "illegally armed"? The government of Ukraine, the government of Russia, or the UN? Let me make this CRYSTAL CLEAR. There are NO illegally armed civilians. Being armed and able to defend yourself against attack is a basic human, civil, and, in America, Constitutional right. Now, taking up arms to aid one country to steal all or part of another country, especially against the will of the majority of the populace of said country, is not being aggression free. I do not claim to know all about the crap going on in Crimea or Ukraine. I do not know (or to be honest, give a damn), but one thing I DO know is that I do not want MY country to aid or abet the forcible disarming of civilians ANYWHERE on the globe.

Nanny Bloomberg attempts to strike again. [Link] He is going to spend 50 million dollars of his own money to finance a new anti-gun lobby. As my good friend, A.X. Perez said in the same missive that contains the Quote of the Week,

He is also donating $50 million to Everytown against Gun Violence, his latest anti-gun front group. I will give him props for using his own money, but i'm sure he and his supporters will find a way to tap into public funds (our tax money) soon enough.

Probably. But on the bright side (IF we can believe anything the lying former mayor says) he will NOT run for president.

The deadline... is past! Dum dum DUM!!!! Ve vill be comink to seize your assault rifles (which are NOT assault rifles, in point of fact) because you haff failed to comply vis our anti-Constitutional NYSafe Act. Midnight, 4-15-2014, was the deadline for rolling over, pissing on your belly, and sucking off the communist asswipe governor, baby-Don Andrew Cuomo. I am proud to say that not one person I know who will admit to having one of these eeeeevillllll weapons or their magazines has has complied. well, except for the owner of ONE local gun shop, who has had to because he owns a Desert Eagle .44mag handgun- which is an assault rifle. No, you did not misread me, and I did not mistype. Any semi-automatic handgun that weighs over 50 ounces, empty, is an assault rifle. Don't ask me why, because I do not know. I'm lucky- currently, I own no pseudo-assault weapons. I wish I did, but the money just isn't around for one right now.

Watch the included video. Clive hasn't won the war, perhaps, but he sure as shot won the battle. [Link] Citizen cowboys on horseback, citizen protesters on foot, and the federales retreat. The bloviating Harry Reid states that "It isn't over, but one has to wonder if he'll win his next bid for the Nevada seat....

Permit me to wander through the current "assault-style" weapons debate. United States V Miller was the case that got sawed-off shotguns declared class three because they "serve no purpose in a militia". Setting the table for all the arguments that a weapon can be banned or restricted severely if it serves no militia purpose. Yet a militia is a group of people, regular or irregular, that uses personally owned weapons for defense of state or country if called by the appropriate people. SO, why is it okay to ban the perfect militia weapons- semi-auto, select-fire, or full auto one-person weapons? I think we have approached this from the wrong direction....

Our Quote of the Week:

I am puzzled how groups that claim to seek to empower women encourage them to embrace the false security of being disarmed and relying on others to defend them. It will be interesting to see if women find packing heat or giving up their right to own the tools of self defense more empowering. A.X.Perez, 4-16-2014

Note that this quote is what triggered Mama Liberty's weekly contribution.

Now, I need to go help my lovely wife with the holiday baking. Easter Pie—YUM!

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)

Flowers and Gifts Starting at $29.99 only at

Big Head Press