Archive for the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” Category
Did you know that the Founding Fathers screwed the pooch when they wrote into the Constitution that we had right to bear arms? Yep. They obviously thought that we would be enemies with Britain forever and forgot to read those tea leaves they dumped into Boston Harbor. Now that we’re allies with the Brits we don’t need those nasty guns anymore.
Thus saith another GFW who is scraping the bottom of his cranium to come up with another half assed reason for banning guns.
It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
87 Comments »
In the wake of yet another stabbing and a bikie shooting, the Australian government has turned to a knee jerk reaction , as always, with more laws, a “crackdown” demonising the legal gun owners. The law abiding are, as always , wearing the idiocy of a government that cannot, will not or refuses to accept that criminals do not obey the law, and that any raft of buybacks, amnesties or other legal mumbo jumbo will result in nothing more than muted laughter and studied ignorance.
The law abiding take care of their weapons and lock them away and obey the raft of rules and regs and make sure than in the case of a home invasion or other crime, their firearm is safely locked away and disassembled, the ammunition stored elsewhere.
God help them if they ever think of using it to defend themselves…the law in this country ensures that any home owner or gun owner that uses said gun for self defence will find themselves in jail for thirty years for attempted murder or murder…that they were using necessary force to defend their homes is, of course, irrelevant.
The rights of the criminal must be respected, says the nanny state. If there is a crime..call the police….and of course, as we all know, the criminal will just sit there and wait for the police to arrive..IF they ever get there.
When seconds count,..the police are only minutes away.
The claim that legal gun owners supply criminals with firearms is a blatant and convenient lie, as the NSW police have openly admitted on at least three occasions that they are singularly unable and incapable of preventing the flow of illegal weapons.
Never mind that more than 85 percent of all illegal gun crime is committed with illegal weapons.
Never mind that there are still at least five high explosive rocket launchers in the hands of criminals, said rocket launchers remain at large and as is the reality, the chances of them being recovered ranges from slim to none.
Never mind that criminals in Sydney have access to all the guns they want, that gun murders occur daily, that despite the pleadings and teary plaints of bleeding heart liberals, the stabbings and assaults and murders will continue unabated.
Laws do not matter to the lawless. Now, then, ever.
More gun laws, more bans , more regulations…and we, like Europe and the UK, walk the same path into the abyss.
The UK has draconian gun bans and knife bans and knife control and laws and “crackdowns”..yet the violence spirals out of control and people are murdered every single day.
A police “sweep” in London netted 100 people for “knife crimes” (said crime being having a paring knife in a bag with which to cut an apple…never mind, sir off to jail you go”. Self defence is not an excuse.).The “sweep ” was trumpeted as a law enforcement victory..what it was, was an exercise in futility and public relations.
The murders continue.
Athens is burning. Belgium is in flames.
Thugs run riot in the street and people barricade themselves in their homes. None of them will be able to reach for a firearm with which to defend themselves and their loved ones, for they too have been disarmed.
From gun control to knife control, bans, laws, laws and more laws…all, in the end, utterly impotent against a well armed and ruthless criminal element who do not care one whit for any law…and who will do whatever they wish, regardless.
As always, the nanny state will only affect the law abiding, whose freedoms and rights are already under threat. Alice Springs now holds a singular distinction, as does its sister city in the US, Washington DC…Washington is the state with some of the most draconian gun bans and laws..and is the murder capital of the US..Alice Springs, with all its gun laws and knife laws…is now the stabbing capital of Australia.
Venture out after 10pm at your imminent peril…and woe betide the citizen who is caught with a defensive weapon on their person, for they shall go to jail. A few days ago a mugger was arrested after six assaults, and had two knives on his person…his targets were, to a man, unarmed and defenceless.
Mumbai will go down as the epitome of the futility of gun laws and gun bans and knife bans and weapon laws….as hundreds were massacred with “illegal weapons”…the citizenry, yet again, becoming nothing more then moving targets for well armed terrorists.
Every single gun rampage, every single massacre, every mass murder…all have had one thing in common.
Give us more, O Emperor! »« AIIIEEEE! My EYES!
63 Comments »
What the ant-gun crowd thinks of you that is.
In case y’all missed it during the Adoration of The One™ the Bush administration just wrote a regulation allowing CCW holders to carry in national parks and wildlife refuges as long as the state the park is in recognizes the permit.
The Bush administration Friday announced a new policy allowing people to carry concealed firearms in nearly every national park and wildlife refuge.
The move changes a nearly 25-year-old policy that only permitted firearms to be carried in areas of parks that are specifically designated for hunting and target practice.
So, some good news at least. The douche-bags at the Brady Campaign were quick to open their cum-dumpsters though.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence blasted the decision, saying it will make national parks more dangerous.
I know of quite a few rape and animal attack victims who would argue with that. A few murder victims also, but they are strangely unavailable for comment.
“The Bush administration’s parting gift for the gun lobby to allow hidden weapons in our parks threatens the safety of these national treasures and those who visit them,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign. “We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry firearms in our parks. (emph. mine- crunch)
Yep, he said it. Law abiding citizens who exercise their 2nd Amendment rights are “dangerous people”. Well, he does have a point. Citizens are far more dangerous to petty tyrants than disarmed subjects are.
We urge proper authorities to use common sense and stop this senseless rule.”
The proper authorities have already spoken ya slimy cuntmold. You on the other hand can go fuck a pogo stick.
84 Comments »
Remember when NASA and NOAA, as well as anyone connected to them, were considered to be among “The Best & Brightest™”? Well, not anymore.
The original title of this post was “When Will The “Tipping Point” Be Reached And Necks Start Stretching?”. But, upon further review and pondering, it occurred to the Imperial
Dungeon Game Room™ staff that it went much deeper than just another post about the on-going scam/fraud/shakedown that is *AGW and when would people realize that they’d duped and react against the scammers, con artists and frauds. (*—That’s “Anthropogenic Global Warming”, for any readers who may have been under a rock for the last 10 years or so.) No, dear readers, it’s a microcosm of what has been taking place right under the noses of every man, woman and child since the days of “The Great Anthropogenic Global Cooling Crisis™” of the mid-70’s and the gun-grabbing agenda of the Socialists really started gaining steam.
With the Socialists/Communists, it’s been a multifaceted attack on the greatest system of government, freedom and free enterprise for the last 50+ years. They came right out and said what they were going to do with their Communist Manifesto and, in less than the span of a single lifetime, they’ve managed to do just about everything that they said they were going to do— Take over the unions, public education institutions and they’ve managed to create a perpetually-dependent underclass through their un-Constitutional confiscatory tax and handout system, otherwise known as “welfare”. Combine these with the recent $3.5 TRILLION-PLUS looting of the nation’s collective wallet, the Socialist/Communist
“cap & trade” Algore Enrichment Scam™ and the Left’s stated intent to eventually outlaw private citizens owning guns and you’ve got all of the ingredients for The Perfect Shitstorm™.
How far will WE THE PEOPLE allow these Communist thieves to go before they are finally dragged out into the street and given their just desserts for destroying our great nation? How many lives and livelihoods will they be allowed to ruin with their Socialist/Communist policies that they implement under the guise of “Saving The Planet”? When will government “scientists”, like James Hansen, be held responsible for their blatant fraud, through data manipulation and the politicization of climate science, and their accompanying cover-ups?
The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they put private gun ownership into the Constitution as the 2nd Amendment— It wasn’t to protect the government. It was to give WE THE PEOPLE the means to protect ourselves FROM the government and to take that government back from the tyrants whom they knew would eventually work their way into power.
So, in closing, the question is: “How far are you willing to let them go?”
67 Comments »
I’ll keep this brief…it’s all been said before anyway.
Gun free zone = shooting gallery.
School = gun free zone = shooting gallery.
Cops had chance to take gun off him, they blew it.
Their fuckup, and ten people died.
No rant today, pray for the families, pray for those who have died….we all know there will be more shootings as time goes on…or until the day someone wakes the fuck up, and allows concealed carry on campus.
These massacres will only stop the day some nutcase finds himself facing the business end of a loaded weapon.
In the name of God the Father, keeper of Heaven and Earth, Lord of all, my Saviour and friend, grant peace to the souls so wrongly taken from this earth, grant healing to their families and loved ones as they try and find a way to cope with the unbearable, shattering and soul tearing loss so cruelly cast upon them this day.
Lay Thy hands upon their hearts O Lord…hear my prayer.
In Thy name and in Thy grace, by Thy will, power and love.
18 Comments »
Sorry for the absence, but there’s a valid reason. I was attending a Glock Armorers Course at NRA headquarters in Virginia and I was there on Tuesday when everyone was waiting for the Heller decision to come down. I had expected a lot of, well if not tension, then anticipation. Surprisingly there was very little of either. Aside from a very hawt jounalijizzer there looking for a story (Her disdain for us cretins was pretty evident), everyone seemed pretty much business as usual. They knew that Heller wasn’t the end of the fight, just one more battle.
This was driven home when I stumbled across this over at Pat Dollards site. That’s right, since they lost Heller, they now just want an outright repeal of the pesky little 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.
How sanctimonious of you, you pathetic excuse for a surviving sperm. The Founders wrote plain, easy to understand English, backed up by volumes of discourse over their intent, and the supposed intelligentsia at the Chicago Tribune can’t understand them. Perhaps some remedial English is in order. Give us more, O Emperor! »« AIIIEEEE! My EYES!
77 Comments »
Why, this of course. (h/T Muscledaddy for the linky love).
The initial investigation indicated that there had been two separate shooters during the incident. One of the alleged shooters, Ernesto Fuentes Villagomez, age 30 of Winnemucca, was among the three men who were dead on arrival. The other was a 48 year old Reno man who was initially taken into custody at the scene as a person of interest.
The subsequent investigation lead detectives to believe that Villagomez entered the bar and at some point began firing multiple rounds. At least two of these rounds struck and killed the other two decedents, Jose Torres age, 20 and his brother Margarito Torres, age 19 both of Winnemucca. At some point during this shooting spree Villagomez allegedly stopped and according to witnesses reloaded his high capacity handgun and began shooting again.
It was at this point that the second shooter, the Reno resident, produced a concealed handgun and proceeded to fire upon Villagomez who succumbed to his wounds. The Reno resident was in possession of a valid Concealed Carry Permit issued through the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office.
This may have been a family vendetta, or just another homicidal maniac bent on his 15 minutes of fame. Either way, it ended the way these things should end, fewer casualties and one dead goblin.
Now, this incident happened in a bar. Apparently Nevada has trusted it’s citizens’ maturity and common sense enough to not restrict their civil liberties in an establishment which serves alcohol. Wish all the states felts the same since in the majority of others it’s illegal.
One of the commenter’s on Dustin’s site said that the local news was referring to it as a “Triple homicide.” I think they need to re-read their dictionary there. Either that or check their bias at the door when they assume the vaunted title of “journalist”.
Well done unknown Reno citizen, well done.
Just. One. Person.
32 Comments »
Note from LC Brendan.
Normally, I would excerpt this, and redirect you elsewhere..today, no. I have divided the post for easier reading, but this is to be read in toto [No, no one you know, Buttercup, go back to sleep, there's a nice doggie...- Ed], here.
This one article is one of the strongest, and most eloquent essays on gun control and the right to keep and bear arms I have ever seen.
In my considered opinion, it is, or should be, required reading. If you are a gun owner, believe in the right to self defence and the inalienable rights of the Second Amendment..then this is for you.
It is long, yes. It is also worth every single moment
Normally, I would not post a long article like this..but on this one occasion, an exception is warranted.
Lastly, for once, can we please dispense with this “FIRST” ritual? If you are going to comment on this matter, then make it count.
I only hope that one of the Supreme Court members has seen this as well.
By request of the writer, a copyright notice is appended. All are free to reproduce this at will, provided that the addendum is included, and that the author is properly credited.
Nation of cowards
Author:Jeffrey R. Snyder
OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture — from fashion magazines to the cinema — positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person’s “self-esteem”; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.
And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really sends shivers down a rapist’s spine, the portable cellular phone.
Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?
The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one’s life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: “I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want.” For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.
Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim’s person and liberty. If the individual’s dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim’s dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.
The Gift of Life
Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when offered violence was to hold God’s gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one’s duty to one’s community. A sermon given in Philadelphia in 1747 unequivocally equated the failure to defend oneself with suicide:
He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself.
“Cowardice” and “self-respect” have largely disappeared from public discourse. In their place we are offered “self-esteem” as the bellwether of success and a proxy for dignity. “Self-respect” implies that one recognizes standards, and judges oneself worthy by the degree to which one lives up to them. “Self-esteem” simply means that one feels good about oneself. “Dignity” used to refer to the self-mastery and fortitude with which a person conducted himself in the face of life’s vicissitudes and the boorish behavior of others. Now, judging by campus speech codes, dignity requires that we never encounter a discouraging word and that others be coerced into acting respectfully, evidently on the assumption that we are powerless to prevent our degradation if exposed to the demeaning behavior of others. These are signposts proclaiming the insubstantiality of our character, the hollowness of our souls.
It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers.
Do You Feel Lucky?
In 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh released the FBI’s annual crime statistics, he noted that it is now more likely that a person will be the victim of a violent crime than that he will be in an auto accident. Despite this, most people readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves. The police, however, are not personal bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime, both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect anyone in particular. You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you from being the victim of a crime.
Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won’t be there at the moment you actually need them.
Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a robbery, or a rape, you will find it very difficult to call the police while the act is in progress, even if you are carrying a portable cellular phone. Nevertheless, you might be interested to know how long it takes them to show up. Department of Justice statistics for 1991 show that, for all crimes of violence, only 28 percent of calls are responded to within five minutes. The idea that protection is a service people can call to have delivered and expect to receive in a timely fashion is often mocked by gun owners, who love to recite the challenge, “Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.”
Many people deal with the problem of crime by convincing themselves that they live, work, and travel only in special “crime-free” zones. Invariably, they react with shock and hurt surprise when they discover that criminals do not play by the rules and do not respect these imaginary boundaries. If, however, you understand that crime can occur anywhere at anytime, and if you understand that you can be maimed or mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider whether you are willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life in the hands of others.
Power And Responsibility
Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police’s, not only are you wrong — since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so — but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?
Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you’re a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?
One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let’s not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence.
Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone — the handgun. Small and light enough to be carried habitually, lethal, but unlike the knife or sword, not demanding great skill or strength, it truly is the “great equalizer.” Requiring only hand-eye coordination and a modicum of ability to remain cool under pressure, it can be used effectively by the old and the weak against the young and the strong, by the one against the many.
The handgun is the only weapon that would give a lone female jogger a chance of prevailing against a gang of thugs intent on rape, a teacher a chance of protecting children at recess from a madman intent on massacring them, a family of tourists waiting at a mid-town subway station the means to protect themselves from a gang of teens armed with razors and knives.
But since we live in a society that by and large outlaws the carrying of arms, we are brought into the fray of the Great American Gun War. Gun control is one of the most prominent battlegrounds in our current culture wars. Yet it is unique in the half-heartedness with which our conservative leaders and pundits — our “conservative elite” — do battle, and have conceded the moral high ground to liberal gun control proponents. It is not a topic often written about, or written about with any great fervor, by William F. Buckley or Patrick Buchanan. As drug czar, William Bennett advised President Bush to ban “assault weapons.” George Will is on record as recommending the repeal of the Second Amendment, and Jack Kemp is on record as favoring a ban on the possession of semiautomatic “assault weapons.” The battle for gun rights is one fought predominantly by the common man. The beliefs of both our liberal and conservative elites are in fact abetting the criminal rampage through our society.
Selling Crime Prevention
By any rational measure, nearly all gun control proposals are hokum. The Brady Bill, for example, would not have prevented John Hinckley from obtaining a gun to shoot President Reagan; Hinckley purchased his weapon five months before the attack, and his medical records could not have served as a basis to deny his purchase of a gun, since medical records are not public documents filed with the police. Similarly, California’s waiting period and background check did not stop Patrick Purdy from purchasing the “assault rifle” and handguns he used to massacre children during recess in a Stockton schoolyard; the felony conviction that would have provided the basis for stopping the sales did not exist, because Mr. Purdy’s previous weapons violations were plea-bargained down from felonies to misdemeanors.
In the mid-sixties there was a public service advertising campaign targeted at car owners about the prevention of car theft. The purpose of the ad was to urge car owners not to leave their keys in their cars. The message was, “Don’t help a good boy go bad.” The implication was that, by leaving his keys in his car, the normal, law-abiding car owner was contributing to the delinquency of minors who, if they just weren’t tempted beyond their limits, would be “good.” Now, in those days people still had a fair sense of just who was responsible for whose behavior. The ad succeeded in enraging a goodly portion of the populace, and was soon dropped.
Give us more, O Emperor! »« AIIIEEEE! My EYES!
44 Comments »