#1
It would seem that there was some "uniting" that occurred. A democratic county clerk who is an evangelical meets with the Pope and that divides the country. C'mon now. A made up issue and story by the MSM.
Some of the worst gun grabbers are veterans and gun owners. Those are people who believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to them alone, and no one else, save for whoever can successfully jump through the hoops they wish to impose on everyone else to obtain and carry a gun.
Via David Codreavia Oathkeepers.
Last week, there was yet another campus shooting. This time, it was at Florida State University. The exhaustingly predictable cycle of mass shooting, recycled talking points from all sides, proposed legislation, insider lobbying, stagnation, and loss of public interest is about to begin and has been repeated far too many times in recent memory. Face it: the gun rights debate in this country is stale.
I looked up that mass shooting. It was back in November of last year, and the shooter was literally certifiable, according to subsequent reports like this one. In fact, the gentleman sought psychiatric treatment and took the prescribed meds, the result of which apparently made him so much worse that his friends pleaded with the local mental health professionals to lock him up until he was stabilized. They didn't, which is a very good argument for reopening the insane asylums, and a terrible one for increasing gun control.
In May, I talked about how both sides are wrong and said that we need to have some common sense. Here we go. The writer wants to claim the "middle' of the debate when in fact he has already staked out his ground with the above statement. That is a dishonest start to a dishonest opinion.
Today, I am calling on lawmakers to have some damn courage. Me, too. Repeal the National Firearms Act of 1933, just for starters.
If you feel, like the fringe gun lobby does, that my six-year-old son's life is less important than your right to own whatever firearm and ammunition you want, then say that.
Given that the odds are that if anyone shoots your son it will either be an insane person who should be in an asylum or an unlicensed gangster who acquired his handgun illegally, going after the sane and law-abiding is counterproductive. If you want to deal in common sense, that is.
Don't hide behind meaningless rhetoric or claim you're ready for action only to back off when the NRA comes knocking. That being said, if you believe--along with a clear majority of Americans of both parties--that modest regulation of weapons designed for the sole purpose of killing humans seems reasonable, that's a pretty easy public position to take. My right to obtain and carry a firearm is more important than your hellspawn's life. If you can't protect yourself, or you refuse to have responsibility to protect yourself through the use of firearms, you can just go unarmed. Don't expect me and 80 million others to go quietly into that good night of government sponsored tyranny without a firearm.
And before you jump to assumptions, know that I'm no hippie. As a former weapons instructor in the U.S. Navy, I own guns myself--and I want to keep them. However, I believe that our society is overflowing with lethal weapons and that we must take action to prevent more dead kids. Mass shootings are on the rise. Children are dying. When will it be enough to actually do something? Who has the courage to do the right thing--money from special interest groups be damned? Fewer dead kids; that's his goal. More dead political opponents goes hand to hand with what he proposes. And using laws and government to prevent crime is the reaction of a tyrant, and support for that reaction is the venue of a serf.
I'll make it easy for lawmakers. Here is the first common sense step for what we need to do, at the state level, to maintain our constitutional right to bear arms while arming ourselves with the tools to be safer in public.
Licensing, to be renewed every five years with full background checks and mental health screenings, is the first step. Adding a checkbox to a driver's license and another form would make this easy to implement. My driver's license tells folks that I am a donor; it could very easily also indicate whether or not I am a gun owner or authorized to carry concealed firearms. I think he's on to something here. A donkey checkbox for Democrat, an elephant for a Republican and a portrait of Che or Castro, or better yet a fasci for someone who hates guns. Then we could have a checkbox for Christians with a cross, a yellow Star of David for Jews, and a crescent for Muslim.
Before you tell me how I am violating your rights by proposing a record of gun owners, note that the constitution does not say that you have the right to bear arms and not tell anyone. We regulate chemicals, elevators, airplanes, and financial transactions--and none of those are specifically designed to kill anyone. The actual act itself of keeping a record of firearms owners, which the government already has, but for the existence of a hostile and well armed government doesn't violate anyone's rights as long as it is completely voluntary. But the government, being the recursive entity it is, will get up to no good with such an activity and will impose such a requirement, and will violate the right to life and liberty with such lists, as it is doing now. Regulations for the purpose of regulating economic activity are not the same thing as recording information on gun owners, and to suggest that it is is so over the top a lie, it is hard to believe it can be considered serious.
The next step is requiring 40 hours of training prior to license approval. I'm here to tell you that there is little value to having a firearm if one is cannot employ it tactically. I'm not saying we need owners to be trained to the level of Navy SEALs or SWAT teams, but if you claim to want these weapons to protect your home, then you should at least have a baseline knowledge. The training hours should jump to 80 hours for a concealed carry permit. This training should be done by the government to ensure consistency and quality control and should be covered by the tax on ammunition. Training required by, and administered by the Gang That Can't Shoot Straight. But I agree: knowing how to use a gun tactically is useful if you expect to find yourself in a tactical situation. Most people, however, use their firearm for point defense. They expect to camp out inside the spaces of their own domicile, and will use a firearm if trouble comes to them. They have little illusion about countering threats with tactical knowledge mostly because most people expect to have a firearm and have a ready-made tactical advantage on any hostile threat. Hard to see how tactical training would improve that. In such cases the tactics are already laid out, already determined: You come into the field of fire of an armed individual defending his own property, if you have ill intent, you will be shot. You can go out and engage bad guys with a firearm, if you wish; you can go all Rambo on a threat, if you wish, but you will better survive an encounter with a hostile threat if the tactics are already in your favor. All the tactical training in the world will not shift the odds away from you. In fact, in my opinion, the only reason you should get tactical training is to counter government goons sent by fascists such as this Navy veteran seeking to take your property and your life.
And finally, to pay for the licensing process and training as well as the background and mental health screenings, we can add a modest tax to ammunition sales (think five to ten cents per round--a manageable amount). This way, the costs are spread amongst those who wish to own guns. No, costs are not "spread". They are concentrated into the hands of a politically disfavored group: gun owners. And the main intention of ammunition tax is to end private reloading. I can see a law in which the government will fund seek and destroy programs intended to seize self loaded ammunition under the paradigm that the detainees are avoiding paying a tax. The government will not tolerate anyone avoiding a tax, and the current courts system will back up any legislation, just as long as more and more money can flow towards government.
My hometown city charter calls out public safety as the number one priority; many politicians around the country say the same thing, and I'd like to see them put their money where their mouths are. The question is pretty simple: do your lawmakers have the courage to protect you? Your hometown lawmakers are a buncha fascists. And government by definition will protect no entity other than government. If lawmakers wanted to "protect" us they would not have passed the 20,000 gun laws already on the books. They just want your money, your guns and your life, in that order.
Call your state senators, your assembly members, your mayors, and your city councils. Tell them that you want to protect your kids. You want to protect your communities. Hell, you want to protect yourself. Tell them that, with the stroke of a pen, they can improve safety for their constituents and side with the clear majority of Americans. Yeah, democracy rules. That's why we have a 2nd Amendment. Gun owners still get a vote when the people become fascists and serfs.
And if they try to run you around or brush you off, remember to ask them if they think the right to own as many firearms as one wants without anyone else knowing about it is more important than the lives of America's children--including yours and theirs.
#1
Licensing, to be renewed every five years with full background checks and mental health screenings, is the first step. Adding a checkbox to a driver's license and another form would make this easy to implement. My driver's license tells folks that I am a donor; it could very easily also indicate whether or not I am a gun owner or authorized to carry concealed firearms.
Licensing [and fees] only apply to honest people. Believe me, criminals don't bother with license applications and registrations. Wrong population being targeted again.
It's not about guns, it's about collecting fees and control. See 'Planned Parenthood' for further details.
#2
As an American who remembers the days before all the clamor for gun control by the left, I recall a country that was much safer. What's different? For one, there was not the gang activity in the country that there now is. Two, the culture was different. What does that mean? There was not the road rage that escalated to shooting. People did not seem to be wound as tight as now. There was not the ubiquitous graphic killing and violence that we now have on TV and in the movies. Moreover, music did not have a violent element in it. Three, there was not the disrespect for law and order that comes from on high down to the street level. Four, people seemed to be much better trained and had a healthy respect for firearms. Schools even had rifle clubs where firearm safety and shooting skills were taught. Five, young men were required to serve in the military. Here, there was a certain amount of socialization, growing up, discipline and respect for authority that came about during this period. Also, young men had an investment in the country and developed a patriotism about the country. They also learned firearm safety and proficiency. Six, respect for life has been diminished in the country for some of the reasons mentions mentioned above. We have thrown the baby out with the bath water with regards to an elementary sense of morality. Abortions are now widespread and have demeaned the value of life. The atheists have removed any mention of God in public life. We no longer say the Lord's prayer in school or the Pledge of Allegiance to the country. I could go on and on, e.g. we have allowed sanctuary cities for illegals, we don't require the single language of English which tends to tribalize us and make the U.S. less "united," and the government has become a weapon to be used against the people of the U.S.
Before the effects of the 'Great Society' and loads of 'free stuff' to attract ballot box stuffers to the urban areas giving cover to outright theft and stealing made legal by having political 'hit' men do the job for you. When you toss aside a few thousand years of societal evolution for hip, urban, modern 'solutions', you end up strip mining and clear cutting the cultural environment. However, it keeps you in power in the short run. Then it becomes an never ending spiral of more control, more power, more authority to keep those hands on the ever diminishing resources, not to mentions one's stock of self importance and grandeur.
#4
When will the NRA admit that the policies and laws they drive are deadly? When can we work together to adopt smart, principled solutions to the gun violence facing our country?
As a life member of the NRA, I can tell you the NRA is not the problem. They support and defend the 2nd Amendment and promote gun safety.
#5
Big GIVERment funds most rights and some made up rights (legal representation, housing, abortion...) but never the right to own a weapon. We require education attendance and vaccines and we should require gun ownership; and if you cannot afford one we should provide one.
#7
Not a single regulation the author proposes would have prevented the cited event. Moreover, the effects of such laws are impossible to quantify. And the "if it saves a single life it's worth it" argument is juvenile logic at best.
#8
I know how America should implement gun control, too.
Sponsor shooting lessons for every law-abiding citizen so they'll be sure to have good control of their guns if they need to use them against NON-law-abiding "citizens" (who don't give a rat's ass about laws).
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/01/2015 13:40 Comments ||
Top||
#9
It's called the Shooting Range. That's where proper gun control is handled.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
10/01/2015 14:22 Comments ||
Top||
[DAWN] BE under no illusion: IS has arrived in Afghanistan. Just as the country is gripped by an economic exodus of people seeking better opportunities elsewhere, the self-styled Islamic State ...formerly ISIS or ISIL, depending on your preference. Before that al-Qaeda in Iraq, as shaped by Abu Musab Zarqawi. They're very devout, committing every atrocity they can find in the Koran and inventing a few more. They fling Allah around with every other sentence, but to hear the pols talk they're not really Moslems.... is spreading its tentacles into Afghanistan's most lawless territories in an attempt to establish influence in a region seen as vital to the group's endgame: a caliphate.
The first whispers of IS activity in Afghanistan emerged exactly one year ago. Initially, it constituted nothing more than media-driven hearsay rather than any actual ground presence; IS in Afghanistan was roundly dismissed as a 'virtual reality' organization.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
10/01/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Islamic State
[Hurriyet Daily News] The term "useful idiots" became popular in The Sick Man of Europe Turkey ...the only place on the face of the earth that misses the Ottoman Empire.... thanks to the Justice and Development Party (AKP). The staunchest opponents of the AKP accused liberals of providing "legitimacy" to a political party that they claimed had a "hidden agenda."
It is indeed true that in the initial years the AKP leadership harbored an excellent relationship with "liberal journalists." But after 2010, when the AKP solidified its position and gained more self-confidence, the liberals and the ruling party went their separate ways.
Hasan Cemal, a prominent liberal journalist who initially supported the AKP, was once addressed as "Hasan abi," ("abi" meaning "older brother") as a sign of respect by Recep Tayyip Erdogan ... Turkey's version of Mohammed Morsi but they voted him back in so they deserve him... . But two years ago he was fired from the newspaper in which he had written for years after Erdogan directly criticized him at a public rally. Yesterday, Cemal had to testify to the prosecutor, charged with "insulting" President Erdogan.
In the eyes of the die-hard Kemalists/secularists who could never properly analyze the popularity of the AKP among the less-advantaged masses, the liberals were the useful idiots that helped the AKP stay in power.
However, there's more than one way to stuff a chicken... the AKP would have remained in power even if the liberals had not supported it. The fact remains that the liberals were also seen as useful idiots by the AKP leadership. The best proof of that is the confession that came in 2013 from Aziz Babuscu, the head of the AKP's Istanbul provisional organization.
''Those who were with us, this way or that, over our 10-year-long administration, will not be with us in the coming years. Although they were not able to digest [accept] us, the liberals had become with us. But the future is now a period of 'construction.' This period of construction will not be to their liking," Babuscu said. Although later he tried to "correct" his words, it is pretty obvious what he meant.
In a previous article, I have written that the Saudi administration remained untouchable thanks to the U.S.-Europe-Israel troika. In the eyes of many AKP opponents, the AKP came to and remained in power also thanks to the Americans and Europeans - mainly thanks to Washington.
The relationship between the AKP administration and the B.O. regime certainly does have similarities with the relationship between the AKP and the liberals. In January 2012, Obama listed Erdogan as being among the five world leaders with whom he has the closest personal ties.
But the divergence of views on - especially over Egypt, Syria, and the Islamic State ...formerly ISIS or ISIL, depending on your preference. Before that al-Qaeda in Iraq, as shaped by Abu Musab Zarqawi. They're very devout, committing every atrocity they can find in the Koran and inventing a few more. They fling Allah around with every other sentence, but to hear the pols talk they're not really Moslems.... in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) - has reached such a point that Washington has made it known to Ankara that Obama will no longer pick up the phone if Erdogan calls.
Relations have taken a new turn (again following a phone conversation between Obama and Erdogan) since Turkey let the U.S. use the Incirlik airbase to fight ISIL. The Turks have become the new useful idiots, as none of their conditions for giving a red light to open the Incirlik airbase were met by Washington: Creating a no-fly/safe zone or getting rid of Bashar al--Assad as a first priority.
But for the AKP, the Americans are useful idiots too.
Although Turkey said it was joining the fight against ISIL, its jets actually started to bomb outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) targets, pushing Turkey into a spiral of violence that puts free and fair elections in jeopardy. What's more, the U.S. has been so idle in the face of the AKP government's many antidemocratic practices that Erdogan continues to enjoy a free ride as he bids to satisfy his ambitions for one-man rule.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/01/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
[DAWN] THE law in Pakistain is sometimes far from safe in the hands of lawyers.
A section of the country's legal fraternity -- notwithstanding a number of courageous and upright individuals within its midst -- has evolved into a formidable pressure group and many of its members have, time and again, thought nothing of flouting even fundamental rights to achieve their objectives.
Their tactics have ranged from threats and coercion to blatant thuggery. Sometimes, aside from regular citizens, their own colleagues are the target of their ire.
At the Lahore High Court on Tuesday, for instance, a group of lawyers protested against Supreme Court advocates Dr Khalid Ranjha and Asma Jahangir for representing the MQM in a case against the media blackout of party chief the increasingly enormousAltaf Hussain ..The head of MQM in Pakistain, who has lived in London and hasn't laid eyes on Pakistain since Caesar made corporal. Judging from the size of him,he may be a Hutt... ordered by the LHC last month.
The protesters, who said that the MQM was behind the murder of several lawyers in 2007 during the movement for the restoration of the judiciary, demanded that the lawyers' licences be cancelled.
Defence by legal representation of one's choice is constitutionally guaranteed and considered an essential pillar of the right to fair trial.
For their part, lawyers should be able to represent whomsoever they wish without fear of repercussions on a personal or professional level. Their right to do so, however, is far from sacrosanct.
When it comes to 'crimes against religion', for example, some lawyers themselves harbour contempt for due process.
Advocate Rashid Rehman was threatened by his own colleagues for defending a blasphemy accused, and was later murdered -- the case remains unsolved.
There is also reportedly an unwritten consensus in some local bar associations that if a lawyer is party to a case, no lawyer from that bar -- at the risk of severe censure -- will represent the opposing side.
In the present instance, Dr Ranjha and Ms Jahangir are defending a basic tenet of democracy -- freedom of speech -- that everyone, including the MQM, is entitled to, regardless of their politics. The two lawyers should be commended for placing principles above narrow, parochial interests.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/01/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
h/t Instapundit
The constitution of the Roman Republic was designed as a corrective to democracy. Specifically, it was hoping to protect against the excesses of Athenian-style direct democracy. About twice a month in Athens, citizens voted into law almost anything they wished. About six to seven thousand citizens would squeeze into a hillside amphitheater known as the Pnyx and were swayed by demagogues ("people leaders") into voting for or against whatever the cause de jour was. Our term "democracy" comes from the Greek dĂŞmos-kratos, which means "people-power."
In furor at a rebellion, for example, Athenians once voted to kill all of the adult male subjects of the island of Lesbos--only to repent the next day and vote again to execute just some, hoping that their second messenger ship rowed fast enough across the Aegean to catch the first bearing the original death sentence. In a fit of pique, the popular court voted to execute the philosopher Socrates, fine the statesman Pericles, and ostracize the general Aristides. Being successful, popular, rich, or controversial always proved to be a career liability in a democracy like the one that ruled Athens.
The Romans knew enough about mercurial ancient Athens to appreciate that they did not want a radical democracy. Instead, they sought to take away absolute power from the people and redistribute it within a "mixed" government. In Rome, power was divided constitutionally between executives (two consuls), legislators (the Senate and assemblies), and judges (Roman magistrates).
The half-millennia success of the stable Roman republican system inspired later French and British Enlightenment thinkers. Their abstract tripartite system of constitutional government stirred the Founding Fathers to concrete action. Americans originally were terrified of what 51 percent of the people in an unchecked democracy might do on any given day--and knew that ancient democracies had always become more not less radical and thus more unstable. For all the squabbles between Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison, they agreed that a republic, not a direct democracy, was a far safer and stable choice of governance.
...Ancient Athens was a wild place--as frenetic, brilliant, and dangerous as it proved ultimately unsustainable. Yet we are becoming more like the Athenian mob than the Roman Senate. American law has become negotiable and subject to revolutionary justice, while technology has developed the power to inflame 300 million individuals in a nanosecond. Without strict adherence to republican government and the protections of the Constitution, the mob will rule--and any American will become subject to its sudden wrath.
#1
Except, it's no longer a republic. We passed that stage a while ago. Now we're in the time of finding our or your mob leader. Until the beast, the concentration of power and money on the Potomac, is destroyed, there is no going back. As the outer world gets darker and closer to margin the first republic had, by the nature of two oceans, to grow and nurture technologically disappears, a repeat is unlikely as well.
The Left lives in a fantasy world that thinks socialism is economically viable.
The Right lives in a fantasy world that thinks this is still a constitutional republic.
Both lie to themselves that it'll all work if they get the 'right' people in charge.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
