Of Life and Liberty

Armed and Safe: Well, Biden did say 'buy a shotgun'

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:17:00 +0000

Armed and Safe: Well, Biden did say 'buy a shotgun': oesn't like those, either.

I'd love to see this bad-boy (or is it bad-girl) down at the local trap range.

Ford Model T vs Ford Ranger

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:20:00 +0000

I just read this and thought I'd share it. I'm very interested in where a new hemp industry could take us. But...the FedGov still classifies it as a "drug" and thus it is illegal. Which, I think is completely ridiculous. Read on....

http://eco-chick.com/2008/10/1467/1908-ford-model-t-vs-2008-ford-pick-up/

On October 1st, 2008, the Ford Model-T turned 100-years-old. Back in 1908, the year my grandmother was born, this “universal car” as Henry Ford called it, became the first mass-produced car and the symbol of low-cost reliable transportation. But more important than it’s centennial, the Model T got 13-21 MPG (max speed 45 MPH), and it was the first flexible-fuel vehicle, running on gas, ethanol or both.
According to Model T collector Stu Chaney of the Model T Ford Club of America who appeared on the The CBS Saturday Early Show, “It will run on moonshine, gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel– about anything you can put a match to. And, whatever it runs on, it would pass today’s very strict emission standards, because it burns the complete charge in the combustion.”
Call me crazy but why are we no better off 100 years later? According the the US Department of Energy’s website, FuelEconomy.gov, the 2008 Ford Ranger Pick-Up gets 15 MPG (highway, city combine). I drive a Acura MDX and hardly ever go above 45 MPH and I am only getting about 15 MPH, and neither of these cars are Flex-Fuel vehicles.
Are you kidding me? So the 100 year-old Model-T did better on fuel efficiency than cars made today and it’s a flex-fuel automobile.

Obama - A Scary Dude

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:42:00 +0000

Subject: CHILLING LETTER TO OBAMA
A LETTER FROM A PROCTER AND GAMBLE EXECUTIVE TO THE PRESIDENT

Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America 's true living legends- an
acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest
rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize
him as the foremost leader in change management.. Lou changed the way
America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to
be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to
Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and
Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.

AN OPEN LETTER TO
PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike
any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about
you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive
Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no
visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth
growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus
don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming
others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned
yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to
publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail..

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America '
crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style
country where the government sector dominates instead of the
private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system
with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly
capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose
that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of
living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics
against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from
challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider
opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both
omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything
you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the
Limbaugh's, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing,
conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it.
Big surprise. Since it hit the internet, however, it has had over
500,000 hits. Keep it going. All that is necessary for evil to succeed
is that good men do nothing.. It's happening right now.

Free In Idaho hits the nail on the head.....again.

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:33:00 +0000

Republican. That word doesn’t mean what you think it means. At least not with today’s GOP. For all their backslapping and good ole boy “we’re gonna win in November” giddiness, there really isn’t enough good ones to make the changes this country desperately needs. Michelle points that out in her post about Jim Bunning’s efforts to force the Obama administration and the Democrats to make good on their “pay/go” promises. A valiant but ultimately losing effort, btw.

http://freeinidaho.com/2010/03/03/doesnt-mean-what-you-think/

Us vs Them

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:32:00 +0000

I think that cops USED to be on the side of the people. I think they USED to want people to take their own safety into their own hands and take it very seriously. I had a relative who was an old school cop...say in the 60's. He was a big proponent of an armed citizenry. This document from the Long Beach police department seems to say differently.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ll5chfz1qFU/S3WBCgHV6-I/AAAAAAAAFlA/XhkJVGjSNRc/s1600-h/ScreenHunter_02+Feb.+12+11.25.jpg

I hope I'm wrong... but it sure seems like that's the way the tide is moving.

Wow, read the rest of the memo...most of it is outlining problems with Muslims and Islam.

Jesse Jackson's making things worse....AGAIN!

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:28:00 +0000

It's been a war zone for some time you fool, but you keep taking away police powers, and every single reverend runs to the aide of the offender within seconds of their committing their crimes and NOW, NOW you're requesting a call for a state of emergency!!!!

- Second City Cop

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2009/10/am-amusing-observaton.html

The .gov needs to rethink some things...

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:47:00 +0000

We spend at least $1B a year just to find and jail pot users.... Insane!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/paul_armentano_a_billion_dollars_a_year_for_pot2006-10-18T09_00_00.html

Marijuana isn’t a harmless substance, and those who argue for a change in the drug’s legal status do not claim it to be. However, pot’s relative risks to the user and society are arguably fewer than those of alcohol and tobacco, and they do not warrant the expenses associated with targeting, arresting and prosecuting hundreds of thousands of Americans every year.

According to federal statistics, about 94 million Americans — that’s 40 percent of the U.S. population age 12 or older — self-identify as having used cannabis at some point in their lives, and relatively few acknowledge having suffered significant deleterious health effects due to their use. America’s public policies should reflect this reality, not deny it. It makes no sense to continue to treat nearly half of all Americans as criminals.
Paul Armentano is the senior policy analyst for NORML and the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC.

Hemp: An Industry

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:23:00 +0000

Most people think only about "pot" when they speak/think about cannabis legalization. Hemp would create untold amounts of jobs in the US if it was again legal.

Here's a link to The Hemp Industries Association webpage.

http://thehia.org/

Just think if we had to buy all of our cotton from other countries....and hemp is useful in myriad ways more than cotton.

There's always some truth in jokes...

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:07:00 +0000

From Obama's inner circle, he's from Kenya.

Top Obama adviser jokes that the president was born 'in a village in Kenya'

Mexico decriminalized minor drug use....who knew?

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:02:00 +0000

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-fg-mexico-decriminalize21-2009jun21,0,6336338.story

Reporting from Mexico City -- Could Mexican cities become Latin Amsterdams, flooded by drug users seeking penalty-free tokes and toots?

That is the fear, if somewhat overstated, of some Mexican officials, especially in northern border states that serve as a mecca for underage drinkers from the United States.

* Full coverage of Mexico's drug war
Full coverage of Mexico's drug war

The anxiety stems from the Mexican legislature's quiet vote to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine and other drugs, an effort that in the past proved controversial.

There's been less protest this time, in part because there hasn't been much publicity.

Some critics have suggested that easing the punishment for drug possession sends the wrong message while President Felipe Calderon is waging a bloody war against major narcotics traffickers. The battle between law enforcement authorities and drug suspects has claimed more than 11,000 lives since he took office in late 2006.

And where I found it... http://www.copinthehood.com/2009/06/drug-decriminalization-in-mexico.html

Obama Hates on the Police

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:14:00 +0000

He really really dislikes the police - but we knew that from his time here in Illinois:

* President Barack Obama said Wednesday that police acted "stupidly" in the arrest of prominent black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. and that despite racial progress blacks and Hispanics are still singled out unfairly for arrest.

"This still haunts us," Obama said.

Obama called Gates a friend, and said he doesn't know all the facts of the case. Nonetheless, Obama said, anyone would have been angry if treated the way Gates claims police in Cambridge, Mass., treated him. Gates, a Harvard University professor, claims he was arrested in his home after showing ID to police who responded to a report of a possible burglary.

So Obama admits he doesn't know the facts of the case, yet still calls the police stupid. Police were responding to a call of a break in. Gates forgot his keys, so he jimmied his own door. Police responded and according the story, verified that Gates was in fact the homeowner.

See the rest here

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-hates-on-police.html

545 vs 300 Million - What has gone wrong?

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:45:00 +0000

545 vs 300,000,000
EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them..

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes,
WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates
to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have
no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist
promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault.
They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being
would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president
can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is
the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.
If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present
facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to
those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government,
then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red .

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they
want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to
lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from
whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied
mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it.......... Is up to you.

This might be funny if it weren't so darned true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
Taxes drove me
to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax..
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Ser vice FeeTax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the hell happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'
And I still have to 'press 1' for English!?

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!
GO AHEAD - - - BE AN AMERICAN!!!

A letter response from Diane Harkey about AB962

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Wed, 06 May 2009 14:33:00 +0000

I wrote to her and the other committee members letting them know that I thought this bill was an atrocious piece of garbage. Here is her response.

Dear DJK,

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding our mutual gun rights in California. First, let me be clear - I am an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. I do not support AB 962 and will oppose it in Appropriations Committee.

I believe AB 962 puts more limitations on the rights of legal gun owners. This bill will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or dangerous people living in our communities. Limiting the transfer or sale of ammunition to 50 rounds per month, the equivalent of one box of handgun ammunition, will have a devastating impact on legal firearms retailers. Average sales volumes regularly exceed the proposed limit, which would subject the majority of firearms business owners to a new set of bureaucratic rules and regulations regarding licensure, storage and sale procedures. This would force many small businesses that rely on ammunition sales as their primary revenue to incur additional costs in order to comply with the provisions of AB 962. As one may guess, such costs would definitely be passed along to the consumer. This burdensome and unnecessary regulation would drive a sizable number of retailers out of business altogether.

Further, AB 962 would hinder the ability of law abiding citizens to transfer ownership of ammunition between private parties such as family members by requiring individuals to be licensed by the Department of Justice if the 50-round thresholds are exceeded.

This outrageous proposal adds yet another layer of red tape where appropriate regulation already exists and infringes further upon individual freedoms of every California citizens’ Right to Bear Arms.

I truly appreciate you taking the time to make your voice heard – I stand with you on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff at (949) 347-7301 if I may be of further service.

Sincerely,

DIANE L. HARKEY

Assemblywoman, 73rd District

What is a "Three Percenter"? III

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:36:00 +0000

What is a "Three Percenter"?
During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King's tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came.

Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders' Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine who shall shape the future of our nation.

The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any futher circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders' Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic.

We are the people that the collectivists who now control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to further oppress us at your peril. To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone. Or, if you feel froggy, go ahead AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.

The "Gun Show Loophole"

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:33:00 +0000

Published December 28 2008

Local view: Firearms prohibitionists take their meddling to people’s living rooms

By: Russ Stewart , Duluth News Tribune

A week before Minnesota’s firearm deer season I visited my 86-year-old father. He regaled me with an entertaining stream of tales from his 70 years as a deer hunter in the north woods. He lamented his failing eyesight and then rose from his ancient recliner and went to the closet where he keeps his guns. He took out a battered old case and handed it me. “I want you to have this.”

I knew what was inside. A Savage model 219 single-shot 30-30 rifle. My father bought it in 1944 for $12. It’s well worn after more than 60 years of hard use. It was an honor to be given such an heirloom. Over the past few years my father has passed on most of his modest collection of firearms to his children and grandchildren. It is his way of passing on our family’s heritage.

However, if some people had their way, my father would be a felon the next time he passed on a firearm to a family member. These people complain about a so-called “gun show loophole,” which, if you were to accept the rhetoric of firearm prohibitionists, is responsible for an endless stream of death and carnage.

In truth, attempts to close the “loophole” are really attacks on cherished freedoms that have been quietly enjoyed by millions of Americans since the founding of our nation. With the exception of those unfortunate residents of a few nanny-states, citizens of the U.S. always have been able to gift, buy, sell and trade firearms without the interference of government.

But if people like Duluth’s Joan Peterson, a member of the national board of trustees of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (and the author of the Dec. 9 Local View commentary, “ ‘Gun show loophole,’ still open in Minnesota, must be closed”) are able to enact their legislative agenda, this liberty will be extinguished. The sad part is that if they are successful, crime rates would be unaffected. It is well established that only a tiny fraction of guns used to commit crimes come from gun shows. But that doesn’t stop the prohibitionists from scaring people with exaggerated stories.

Peterson wrote that we need to pass a law to “require unlicensed sellers to perform background checks on buyers at gun shows and other venues.” What she didn’t write was that these “other venues” include my father’s living room. The proposed legislation requires a background check for every private firearm bought, sold or gifted. So when Peterson claimed the proposed law “wouldn’t change anything for law-abiding citizens,” she was simply wrong.

Another thing firearm prohibitionists won’t tell you is that in order for a universal background check system to be effective, every gun would need to be registered with the government.

There are those who would take offense at my use of the term “prohibitionist” to describe members of groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Northland Million Moms, but actions speak louder than words. While speaking of “reasonable gun laws,” they advocate a program of incremental prohibition of private firearm ownership.

Our nation already has more than 20,000 laws relating to firearms, and 99 percent of them are an affront to liberty. As new laws are introduced in response to Brady Campaign scare tactics, I am reminded of the words of Ben Franklin: “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”

I’ve got news for the prohibitionists of the world. My father won’t give up his freedom to pass on his legacy without government interference — and neither will I, nor will my family, nor my friends. Nor will millions of other freedom-loving citizens. The passage of a new set of gun-control laws would simply create a new class of felons out of formerly law-abiding citizens.

And that may have a set of unintended consequences all its own.

RUSS STEWART of Duluth served two terms on the City Council and is a professor at Lake Superior College.

This is RICH!! or In-fu**ing-credible!!

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:19:00 +0000

How much contempt do these TSA agents have for this guy....just because he's got a wad of cash on him. Do they do this to celebrities who often probably have 3-10 grand in cash on them all the time??

Stossel

Fixing California's Ecomomy, Crime, Energy, etc...

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:36:00 +0000

Why not tap into the cashflow that could come from California's marijuana market?? It could mean an estimated $1B per year!

Backpedaling on the new "Assault Weapons" ban...

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:06:00 +0000

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d27-Backpedaling-on-the-new-assault-weapons-ban

Matches and Quarters - What's a Chumbolone?

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:10:00 +0000

Chicago Politics at it's best. One brother starts fires in and the other steals cash from the city they work for.....and they both get treated like royalty. Mayor Daley should really be strung up and starved. I just hope Rod Blagojavich starts talking about these "improprieties" in public. I mean....we can see the stuff happening before our very eyes but nobody will believe it until Blago or some other jagoff like maybe Chris Brown, Ashley Judd, or Jay Z say it on tv..

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-matches-bd-15-feb15,0,6060540.column

Academia = pants shitters and cry babies

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:42:00 +0000

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d11-Children-of-men

The Western Oregon Journal headline was alarming enough:

Mid-morning arrest startles students...Individual brings weapons on campus in violation of state law

My goodness. Did authorities just stop a proto-Cho before he could unleash psychotic mayhem?

Well, uh, no.

It turns out student and United States Marine Corps veteran Jeffrey Maxwell, who fit the description of someone committing the heinous crime of loitering on campus, was sitting at a study table, and:

although Maxwell did have a loaded firearm on his person, he did not use it in a threatening way and was cooperative with the police.

Maxwell had a valid permit for possessing concealed weapons...

Oh, but that doesn't matter, maintained campus police:

"Even if you have a concealed weapons permit, you can't have a weapon concealed on your person if you're going to be in any buildings on campus."

...Western firearm and munition policies are administrative and correspond to Oregon University System policies, which are not necessarily the same as state regulations.

"We go one step further and say, look, no weapons are allowed on campus, period"...

Oh, a "gun free zone." Where haven't we seen that work out for the best?

Still, the thing is, hysterical student newspaper headlines notwithstanding, violating administrative policy is not a crime.

Furthermore, Oregon Firearms Federation tells us, Maxwell "is statutorily exempt." As the facts of the case bear out:

The WOU student who was falsely arrested and charged with possession of a firearm in a public building, had all his criminal charges dropped by the Polk County DA tonight.

End of story, right?

Well, uh, no. The gunhaters must have their pound of flesh. A college tribunal, consisting of "four unnamed students and one staff member of WOU" bent to the will of "prosecutor" Patrick Moser, Acting Coordinator of Campus Judicial Affairs.

Maxwell's request for a public "trial" was denied. The students sitting in judgment couldn't specify a charge. The fact that they lacked legal authority was deemed "not relevant."

The tribunal that tried Marine veteran Jeffery Maxwell laughed after suspending him from Western Oregon University and sentencing him to:

a "psychological evaluation stating he is not a threat to himself of others" and

a mandatory "ten page paper" " with references, "citing, but not limited to:
1) the importance of following the law, even through civil disobedience.
2) the importance of accepting responsibility for one's actions
3) and recognizing the impact possession of weapons on college campuses has on others."

Children sitting in judgment of a man. Their sentence: Prove you're sane for the crime of having the means to defend yourself. Prepare and sign a forced confession.

There's the type of society I want to live in.

Still, I could have fun with that paper. We all can.

How would you address the three required points?

Maybe I'll compile that into a 10-page paper, and send it in to Prosecutor Moser and his little Jugendgericht.

------------

Anti-gun land bill

From Gun Owners of America:

Lost in all the news of the massive bailout bill that just passed the Senate is another enormous bill, one that increases federal control of public and private land.

Of particular concern to gun owners is that the bill, S. 22, will greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National Park Service. NPS land is currently subject to a gun ban.

While President Bush took steps in the waning days of his presidency to reverse the ban, the new regulations apply to persons who carry a concealed firearm with a permit. Non-permit holders and open carry are not explicitly addressed.

Norfolk, VA City Council takes a whoopin from citizens...

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:37:00 +0000

http://likeagun.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/a-big-w-for-a-bmwag/trackback/

Gun Rights Examiner by David Codrea

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:24:00 +0000

Another entry at Examiner from David Codrea - http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d5-A-failing-grade

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/

Cowtown Cop on Open Carry

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:51:00 +0000

http://cowtowncop.blogspot.com/2008/12/open-carry-debate.html

The Open Carry Debate
from Cowtown Cop by Cowtown Cop
What do you think of Open Carry in the State of Texas?

I am hearing more and more attention paid to the open carry debate in the media. By and large the general negative thrust of what the media are saying is this.

1. More people carrying guns will result in an “Old West Mentality” with gun battles erupting from every minor disagreement.

2. Concealed Carry is a deterrent to crime in that the criminals have to guess whether or not you are carrying a gun.

3. Openly carrying a gun will make you a target for criminals.

4. They don’t want stupid people carrying guns.

To confront the first point head on we have the example of many other States in our great Nation that permit open carry of a firearm and we do not see that they have degenerated into a lawless society populated by steely eyed gunmen who are wide in the shoulders and narrow in the hips, who stand six foot tall in their sock feet, when they had socks that is. But I digress into a cheesy western novel, on to the next point.

Your average criminal doesn't even try to “guess” if you have a gun. Your average criminal is looking for someone who is distracted or unaware of their surroundings. If you look like an easy target then you are a target. If you seem somewhat alert and on guard the criminal will pass you by and pick an easier target. Having a concealed weapon does not in itself deter an attack. What deters a criminal is the fact that if you have gone to the trouble of legally carrying a firearm you probably have put some thought into being aware and alert to your surroundings. In effect you no longer look like an easy target.

The third objection gives common criminals a lot of credit they don’t deserve. If carrying a gun made you a target for criminals then there would be some evidence of attacks on person who are known to be armed. This just doesn’t happen. Think of a gun show, lots of people with guns walking to and from their vehicles, yet there are almost no attacks? Police officers work the streets every day but the instances of them being attacked for the purpose of disarming them are relatively rare.

You know, that last one, I don’t really relish stupid people carrying guns either. Unfortunately our society has not yet supported my plan to eradicate stupidity by letting ME choose who gets it. On a more serious note, we cannot legislate against the majority just because of a few idiots. The precedent shows that the vast majority of folks who decide to carry a firearm will act in a responsible manner. Yes, there will be some dummies that do stupid stuff with their guns but we have the means to deal with that. Besides, we let stupid people drive cars don’t we? If you do something stupid with a car we call it an “accident”. If you do something stupid with a gun we call it a crime and we put you in jail.

The last thing I have heard from people who are plainly afraid of guns and don’t want anything to do with them is this. “I live in a “good” area, I don’t go to “bad” places after dark, I lock my doors at home and in my car when I drive, I feel safe, I have an alarm, the police are there to protect me from harm, WE DON’T NEED ANY MORE OF THOSE SCARY GUNS.

These people are not willing to accept that their comfortable lives might not be so safe and secure. The statistics show that you will most likely know the person who commits a violent crime against you. You will most likely be at home or close to it in your “good” neighborhood. You will most likely have family members present or near by when it happens. And when it does happen you will have your mistaken belief in safety and security forcibly torn from you in the face of a brutal and harsh reality.

I have talked to some broken, violated and emotionally destroyed people who could do nothing but hope that their attacker would have mercy on them. They can no longer afford to believe that something else will protect them.

On the other hand I have talked to people who have fought back and won. These people are usually exhilarated to be alive and proud of their success in defending themselves or their family. These people do not suffer the same as the ones who could do nothing.

If the legislature can make it a little easier for good folks to protect themselves from harm I am all for it.

On a day like this 158 years ago....California became a state

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:11:00 +0000

http://passtheammo.com/2008/12/california-still-the-same/

Do you know what happened this week back in 1850, 158 years ago?

California became a state.
The State had no electricity.
The State had no money.
Almost everyone spoke Spanish.
There were gunfights in the streets.

So basically, it was just like California today; except the women had real breasts and the men didn’t hold hands.

Rod Blagojevich - Grade A Asshole....finally gets caught.

noreply@blogger.com (DJK) — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:00:00 +0000

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081209/ts_nm/us_blagojevich_investigation;_ylt=AkwylQzGfRdikL0jtqj3vfh34T0D

FINALLY! Let's just hope that this brings down the other turds in Illinois.

Here's a link to a bunch of reasons that Blagojevich is a scumbag

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/search?q=blago