Saturday, February 11, 2012

The Definitive Answer to the 2.5 Million DGU Nonsense

The Propaganda Professor put it all together.

All told, these facts shoot a big gaping hole in one of the gun culture’s prime tenets: that guns are used in self-defense more often they are used to commit crimes – some even claim ten times as often or more! In the Phoenix sample, however, the score was 78 to 3 in favor of the Offense. Granted, these were actual shootings and most defenders don’t open fire – but neither do most offenders. While there are only a few hundred confirmed DGUs per year, there are at least 400,000 gun crimes per year.
The rest of the article is wonderful. He even gave us a mention.

At least one blogger out there is making an effort to chronicle the destructive use of firearms, both intentional and accidental – there are thousands of accidental gun deaths and injuries every year, but I’ve yet to hear of a gun accidentally preventing a death or injury. He seems to be waging a war of anecdotes with the gunsters, but it’s not much of a war. Despite their persistent claims of vastly superior firepower, he’s been blowing their asses out of the water.
How do you like that? Please leave a comment.

Captain Beefheart Festival 2011-2012 - The 2nd Night of the Living Van Vliet

Thanks to Microdot for the title of the Festival.

Well I was born in the desert came on up from New Orleans
Came up on a tornado sunlight in the sky
I went around all day with the moon sticking in my eye

Hey hey hey all you young girls wherever you're at
I got a brand new Cadillac I got a Ferrari too
Sure 'nuff baby sure 'nuff 'n yes I do

Got the time to teach ya' now, bet you'll learn some too
Got the time to teach ya' now, bet you'll learn some too
Sure 'nuff baby sure 'nuff 'n yes I do

Hey hey hey all you young girls whatever you do
Hey hey hey all you young girls whatever you do
Well come on by and see me I'll make it worth it to you

.....with me and I'll ..with me and you
Sleep with me and I'll sleep with me and you
Stick with me and I'll stick with me and you

The World Turned Upside Down

Since we are getting into how screwed up things can be when one forgets the lessons of history, or succombs to a more pleasing revised version of history, I present the ballad The World Turned Upside Down.

This was first published on a broadside in 1643 as a protest against the policies of Parliament relating to the celebration of Christmas. Parliament believed the holiday should be a solemn occasion, and outlawed traditional English Christmas celebrations. There are several versions of the lyrics. It is sung to the tune of another ballad, "When the King Enjoys His Own Again".

Listen to me and you shall hear, news hath not been this thousand year:
Since Herod, Caesar, and many more, you never heard the like before.
Holy-dayes are despis'd, new fashions are devis'd.
Old Christmas is kicked out of Tow
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.
The wise men did rejoyce to see our Savior Christs Nativity:
The Angels did good tidings bring, the Sheepheards did rejoyce and sing.
Let all honest men, take example by them.
Why should we from good Laws be bound?
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.
Command is given, we must obey, and quite forget old Christmas day:
Kill a thousand men, or a Town regain, we will give thanks and praise amain.
The wine pot shall clinke, we will feast and drinke.
And then strange motions will abound.
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.
Our Lords and Knights, and Gentry too, doe mean old fashions to forgoe:
They set a porter at the gate, that none must enter in thereat.
They count it a sin, when poor people come in.
Hospitality it selfe is drown'd.
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.
The serving men doe sit and whine, and thinke it long ere dinner time:
The Butler's still out of the way, or else my Lady keeps the key,
The poor old cook, in the larder doth look,
Where is no goodnesse to be found,
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.
To conclude, I'le tell you news that's right, Christmas was kil'd at Naseby fight:
Charity was slain at that same time, Jack Tell troth too, a friend of mine,
Likewise then did die, rost beef and shred pie,
Pig, Goose and Capon no quarter found.
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.
Of course, those who take the term "Conservative", yet are hardly holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, are more than willing to turn the world upside down.

Even more amusing are the ancestors of the Puritans who want to put "Christ back into Christmas" when Christians were trying to ignore the holiday because of its pagan connections.

Prayer Decision Follow Up

The High Court decision regarding the Bideford Council's institutionalised prayer has come under criticism from Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury who said the Christian faith is facing "gradual marginalisation".

Indeed, we have an established Church which has shown openness and welcomed Jews and Muslims over the Centuries. In fact, it has shown great tolerance for Catholics as well, and sometimes even fellow protestants.

Great tolerance was shown for the Jews of Lincoln and York.

And the Tudors demonstrated great tolerance for dissent in matters of faith.

And well,we know about Medieval tolerance for the Muslim faith. Fortunately, most of Britains Muslims have only arrived recently.

The beauty of having government and religion intertwined is shown throughout British (and Scottish) history--as well as most of European History. So much so that the nascent United States was secular nation founded upon religious freedom.

As the Vicar of Bray pointed out:
In good King Charles's golden days,
When loyalty had no harm in't,
A zealous High Churchman I was,
And so I gained preferment.
To teach my flock I never missed:
Kings were by God appointed;
And they are damned who dare resist
Or touch the Lord's anointed.

And this is law I will maintain
Until my dying day, sir,
That whatsoever King shall reign,
I'll be Vicar of Bray, sir.

When Royal James obtained the Throne,
And Popery grew in fashion,
The Penal Law I hooted down,
And read the Declaration;
The Church of Rome I found would fit
Full well my constitution;
And I had been a Jesuit
But for the Revolution.

And this is law I will maintain
Until my dying day, sir,
That whatsoever King shall reign,
I'll be Vicar of Bray, sir.

When William, our deliverer, came
To heal the nation's grievance,
Then I turned cat-in-pan again,
And swore to him allegiance
Old principles I did revoke,
Set conscience at a distance,
Passive obedience was a joke,
A jest was non-resistance.

And this is law I will maintain
Until my dying day, sir,
That whatsoever King shall reign,
I'll be Vicar of Bray, sir.

When glorious Anne became our Queen,
The Church of England's glory,
Another face of things was seen,
And I became a Tory.
Occasional Conformist Face!
I damned such moderation;
And thought the Church in danger was
By such prevarication.

And this is law I will maintain
Until my dying day, sir,
That whatsoever King shall reign,
I'll be Vicar of Bray, sir.

When George in pudding-time came o'er
And moderate men looked big, sir,
My principles I changed once more,
And so became a Whig, sir;
And thus preferment I procured
From our Faith's great Defender;
And almost every day abjured
The Pope and the Pretender.

And this is law I will maintain
Until my dying day, sir,
That whatsoever King shall reign,
I'll be Vicar of Bray, sir.

The illustrious House of Hanover,
And Protestant Succession,
By these I lustily will swear
While they can keep possession
For in my faith and loyalty
I never once will falter,
But George my King shall ever be,
Except the times do alter.

And this is law I will maintain
Until my dying day, sir,
That whatsoever King shall reign,
I'll be Vicar of Bray, sir.
Alas, the US would prefer to follow the path of tolerance as shown by its European Cousins rather than that created by the founders.

Patrick Henry, The Militia, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Henry Mayer, a Patrick Henry scholar, regarding the use of Patrick Henry to support an individual right to own arms outside the militia context:
In this connection, however, I need to say something about a recent popular misconception concerning Patrick Henry’s legacy and the genesis of the Second Amendment, which states, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Despite efforts of a number of misguided scholars to construe this language as justifying individual, unregulated gun ownership, I am firmly convinced that the Second Amendment is concerned with the state’s power to control its own militia as a civilian alternative to a professional standing army. In raising the issue in the Virginia Convention Patrick Henry several times pointed to Art. I, Section 8, Clause 16, as an example of the potentially threatening effect of dual state and congressional jurisdiction over the militia and the possibly dangerous union of the purse and sword vested in Congress. Yet wielding the scholar’s power of the ellipse several partisans of gun ownership have edited Henry’s remarks about how best to regulate the militia into an inflammatory half-truth “The great object is that every man be armed….Every one who is able may have a gun.” The NRA has blown this up into a poster-sized blurb embossed with Patrick Henry’s image.

This is not, I repeat NOT, part of Patrick Henry’s legacy. Clearly speaking of the problem of militia organization, what he actually said is, “The great object is that every man [of the militia] be armed.–But can the people to afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance….”

Not to belabor the argument, but cinch it, I would also remind you that the liberty or death speech itself was in support of a resolution to put the colony in a mode of defense, and the plan proposed by Henry’s committee as a result of its passage included a militia law that described in great detail not only the number of men, but the amount of ammunition to be raised by a collective levy, and a very clear procedure for maintaining county and provincial control over the militia system. If Henry’s remarks were intended to cast doubt upon the adequacy of a hypothetical Congressional militia law, they only affirmed his commitment to the traditional method of state control over a militia that, far from being a privatized collection of gun-toting individuals, was a community temporarily called to arms and always subservient to public authority and law.

Unfortunately, this quotation was once to found on the Patrick Henry homestead website, but it has since vanished. Of course,such censorship if it is not the result of government action is constitutional, but it skews history. That is why I am once again posting this.

I will also post the original quotations made by Henry:

Anyway, if one goes to the primary sources such as Patrick Henry’s comments in regard to the Constitution, one finds a direct reference to the Federal power over the militia in relation to the Second Amendment and the need to preserve state militias from Federal interference.

Patrick Henry, Against the Federal Constitution (June 5, 1788) Argument IV: against the standing army Constitution: Article I Section 8

8.1 You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.
9.1 Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States—reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
9.2 By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither—this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: nor can we ever expect to get this government amended, since I have already shown that a very small minority may prevent it, and that small minority interested in the continuance of the oppression.

or Patrick Henry’s “That every man be armed” speech found at The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (3 Elliot’s Debates 384-7), Virginia, Saturday, June 14, 1788. Page 386-7

As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of “arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.” To the state legislatures is given the power of “appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects…May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavoured to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties, and when you speak of arming the militia by a concurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world for trusting your safety implicitly to implication.

Natural Rights and Freedom

About natural law and freedom, I saw an interesting thing this morning. We had the second snow storm in two weeks last night. 10 inches last week, about 3 last night. These are unprecedented events here. Even the old timers cannot remember anything like this. (I may post something about this for the climate change deniers.)

I was walking this morning and came upon a blocked street. The intersection led to a very severe downhill which would have been icy and dangerous to drive on. The City put up barricades with signs on them that reminded me of Nazi Germany - Verboten.

My right to drive down that street has been removed by the government. The reason, I suppose is because if I did I could hurt myself and others, people live along that street and at the bottom of the hill.

I accept this just as the gun owner should accept the gun control laws which prevent him from hurting yourself and others.

Georgia Man Atibi Thomas - Attempted Murder or Honest Mistake?

Police One reports on a complicated shooting story which we'll need to watch. In Georgia they suffer from two, sometimes conflicting, fallacies. One is that gun rights are sacred and what legitimate gun owners do with their guns gets a lot of leeway. The other is that cops are better and more important then the rest of us. "Cop killer" is one of the lowest forms of murderers. This story has both. And of course there's that other fallacy about race, but let's ignore that one, shall we?

This defendant's case is not typical, but officer says his guilt is obvious.

On a day where almost everything went wrong, Atibi Thomas and Keith Roach were lucky about one thing when they met nearly two years ago: Roach wore his bulletproof vest.

If Roach had removed the vest when he ended his shift as an Atlanta police officer at 3 p.m. on May 29, 2010, he would be dead and Thomas would be facing a life sentence in prison — if not the death penalty — instead of the 25 years he faces this week.

Thomas shot Roach three times when the officer was in full uniform, fracturing Roach's rib, piercing both arms and shattering a cellphone in a pocket above the officer's heart. Why? He said he thought the officer was a crook.

In describing the action which took place immediately before the shooting, Thomas's being a concealed carry guy was confirmed.

Thomas prepared for trouble. He put his Glock .357 semi-automatic pistol, which he was licensed to carry, into his side pocket.
He says he's innocent. What do you think? If not attempted murder, he's bound to be convicted of something, wouldn't you think?

Please leave a comment.

Illinois State Gun Registry

Gov. Pat Quinn

on the Governor's cool response to Mayor Emanuel's proposed state-wide gun registration, an "uphill climb" he called it.

Emanuel, who proposed the idea on Thursday, said the registry would help the Chicago Police Department trace guns that come from outside the city. Chicago has a gun registry, but the state does not.

Sen. Larry Bomke, R-Springfield, said Emanuel is overstepping his bounds.

“I, like most Downstaters, are a little sick of the mayor of Chicago acting like he is the governor of Illinois,” Bomke said, adding the legislation only punishes law-abiding citizens and do not stop criminals from getting weapons.
Now, why do the pro-gun guys keep doing that? They exaggerate the supposed offenses of the gun control folks and then argue against those exaggerated claims.

What Sen. Bomke said is wrong on two counts. 

First, no one is being "punished."  Gun-rights fanatics coined that famous phrase as a way of misleading.  When it serves their purposes they love to play the victim.  Do people feel punished when they have to get a driver's license?  Of course not.  In the same way, law abiding citizens who don't have a gun-rights ax to grind, would not feel punished by even the strictest gun control measures.

Second, proper gun control laws would have an immediate and direct impact on the criminal's ability go get guns. This is so obvious that it becomes tedious arguing over it.  Almost all guns in criminal hands originally were the property of lawful gun owners, either at the level of the gun manufacturer, the FFL gun seller or the individual.  In various ways these guns are slipping into the criminal world, therefore stricter controls would positively impact that lethal mechanism.

Only dishonest and biased gun-rights advocates deny these two obvious things.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Applying Castle Doctrine, this Guy Would Have Been Shot

I don't agree with the laxer Castle Doctrine laws; I agree with Laci that they amount to a license to kill.

Given the circumstances shown in this video, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out this man who intruded was in fact in some way harmlessly and innocently impaired. While it is possible that impairment was from a controlled substance, it is just as possible that he had an unexpected reaction to a prescription drug. In any case, for unintentionally intruding while in a state of impairment and confusion, he certainly doesn't deserve to be shot, killed or injured. Too many of our gun loons make the unwarranted leap that anyone who is present without an invitation is dangerous, intends harm, and deserves gun violence from them for reasons of self defense.

Clearly, that is NOT true, and this is just one example of that. Good for this woman for responding the way she did, and thank god for this man's sake that she wasn't one of our blood lusting violence prone gun lunatics.


Another Gun Owner Didn't Secure His (or Her) Lethal Weapon.
With Disastrous Results

We keep hearing from the gun loons that they don't need to be compelled to keep their weapons safe and secure------ except they don't.  They want us to trust them, but incidents like this are clear proof of why we don't trust their securing their weapons, or their judgment with their weapons.

This shouldn't have happened.  The person whose firearm was used should never, ever, ever be allowed to have possession of a firearm again, for failing to take adequate precautions.  I hope they are deeply troubled and haunted by this event for the rest of their lives.  I'd go so far as to say that negligence will turn out to be a factor in this child getting his hands on a firearm.  Shame, shame, double shame on this firearm owner.

Firearm owners are not safe, not nearly safe enough, in spite of what they tell us.  The proof of that is in how many more firearm homicides, suicides and accidents occur in homes with firearms compared to those households that do NOT have them, and compared to those countries that do not allow them as freely as we do.

But long as they can stroke and carry and for all I know kiss their precious fetish objects at all times or nearly so, they don't mind this sort of thing at all.  It's well worth it to them.  They justify it in all kinds of ways, but the bottom line is, it doesn't matter what happens to anyone else so long as they have their fetish object handy to keep them happy.

That strongly suggests to me that the rest of us don't matter, and don't really have freedom or rights.  That's not 'natural law' that's really ugly selfish bloody-mindedness.
From :
Report: Boy shoots himself in front of 70 students
A New Hampshire elementary school was placed under lockdown Friday after a 14-year-old student shot himself in the face in the cafeteria with about 70 students present, NBC station WPTZ reported.
Cheshire County Attorney Peter Heed said Friday the gunshot was self-inflicted. The shooting happened around 11 a.m. at Walpole Elementary School in Walpole. The boy was hospitalized, but his name and condition were not released. No one else was hurt, according to WPTZ.
"Our hearts go out to the family of this young man and our thoughts go out to all of the students that were in the school at this time," Heed said at a news conference. He did not say what kind of gun the student used or where he might have obtained it. He also did not offer any information on why the student shot himself.
As of Friday afternoon, the student was in serious condition in the intensive care unit.
Ethan Symonds, a seventh-grader who was sitting at a table near the boy in the cafeteria, said he heard something "a little bit louder than a chip bag popping." He said he did a double-take, saw blood, and ran.
Eighth-grader Nick Phillips, who shares homeroom with the student, told WPTZ the boy had been passing notes during the week saying he was depressed. Phillips told the station he didn't know why.
Police allowed parents to retrieve their children.
"The state of New Hampshire is offering whatever assistance it can to the community, along with all of our thoughts and prayers," Gov. John Lynch said in a statement.
About 170 students in fifth through eighth grades attend the school.
Walpole is in southwest New Hampshire, a few miles from the Vermont state line and about 15 miles northwest of Keene.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Bad Dad
Using a Firearm Inappropriately to Punish Daughter

What does this tell us about the gun lunatic mentality? 

It tells us that they see guns as giving them the power to hurt.
It tells us that they see guns as giving them a power to punish, threaten, intimidate, harass and retaliate.

This is an inappropriate firearm discharge. This teaches a bad lesson about firearms, and it goes a long way towards explaining why firearms are so closely involved in domestic abuse cases.  This is the same exact problem with all the murder suicides, differing only in degree but not in kind or in philosophy. 

It is an excellent representation of the mindset that is the problem with the so-called legal gun owners.

This father should not have a gun.  I stop short of saying he shouldn't have a daughter either; he may otherwise be a better parent than this example of his parenting skills.  But at the very least he screwed up here, badly.

What lesson does this example teach his daughter? That if I get a gun, I can hurt you back, I can use it to cause you pain and distress, either hurting you directly or using it to hurt what you care about.

What it does NOT say is that this firearm is here to keep you safe.  It says, in fact, quite the opposite.  It says my firearm can make you my victim.  It says do what I say or I will harm you, directly or indirectly, with my firearm.

Bad Dad. 

I have no problems with a parent objecting to social media participation.  I have no problem with a parent restricting their child's computer use.  But I have a problem with the destruction of that child's property, particularly if the child paid for it. That sends the wrong message.  Destruction of property with a firearm sends the wrong message as well, regardless of the parental relationship.  This appears to be much closer to revenge than good parental discipline.

If this turns out to be a bogus video, then it still represents what is far to common a philosophy among gun owners, that it gives them power over other people, both their own persons, and their property, and that it allows them to intimidate and threaten others to get their way.

From Digital Life Today:

Dad punishes Facebook post with 8 bullets to daughter's laptop

I dedicate this song to the people who responded to "German Occupied Britain"

I can see you totally disagree with the sentiments of this song from Gary Tank Commander:

I'll toss in the complete version by Green Day as well:

Captain Beefheart Festival 2011-2012

In the spirit of the Zappadan Festival, in which we celebrate each year the life and music of Frank Zappa from the date of his death to the date of his birth, I propose we do the same for Don Van Vliet.

January 15, 1941 – December 17, 2010

Fans need no introduction, others can read the extensive Wikipedia entry. My own experience with his genius is this.

Although I was born in 1953, and experienced the music and culture of the 60s and 70s like everybody else of my generation, I somehow never got into Zappa or Beefheart. My friends and I were into other things, Jimi, Janice, The Doors and a little bit later, The Yes Group and Queen. 35 years passed in the blink of an eye and one day in 2009 I discovered the Zappadan Festival.  That prompted a full immersion in the many albums of FZ, which as everyone knows can keep one very busy for a very long time. Naturally this activity led me to Captain Beefheart.  I've never been the same since, music appreciation-wise.

Notice the dates are off, and so it will be this year. The Captain would probably approve, in the same way he couldn't stand pop music with a 4/4 beat, he'd probably like this delayed start. Also, later this year, there will be a slight overlap between the Zappadan Festival, which runs from December 4th through the 21st and the Captain Beefheart Festival which will go from December 17th to January 15th, a slight but appropriate overlap like their lives and careers. Hopefully no Zappadan purists will object, I see it as a smooth and natural transition which could take us into the new year.

Well, here we go, let's say till the end of the month.  Then in December we'll really take off.

Dachau blues those poor jews
Dachau blues those poor jews
Down in Dachau blues, down in Dachau blues
Still cryin' 'bout the burnin' back in world war two's
One mad man six million lose
Down in Dachau blues down in Dachau blues
Dachau blues, Dachau blues those poor jews
The world can't forget that misery
'n the young ones now beggin' the old ones please
t' stop bein' madmen
'fore they have t' tell their children
'bout the burnin' back in World War Three's
War One was balls 'n powder 'n blood 'n snow
War Two rained death 'n showers 'n skeletons
Danced 'n screamin' 'n dyin' in the ovens
Cough 'n smoke 'n dyin' by the dozens
Down in Dachau blues
Down in Dachau blues
Three little children with doves on their shoulders
Their eyes rolled back in ecstasy cryin'
Please old man stop this misery
They're countin' out the devil
With two fingers on their hands
Beggin' the Lord don't let the third one land
On World War Three
On World War Three

German Occupied Britain

In the spirit that no one ever went broke from underestimating the intelligence of the American People, I present you with actual photographs of German Occupied British Territory during World War II.

This is in violation of the Official Secrets Act that I present these photographs and reveal the truth behind them. Yes, they are actual photographs of German Occupied British Territory which are easily found on the internet.

The problem is that the truth behind them has been hidden by the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States since the reason Britain fell during World War II was gun control.

The United Kingdom was the First Country to institute gun control on a large scale, which left them undefended and allowed for German occupation.

The United Kingdom Government in exile on Newfoundland was able to keep this fact hidden all these years. In fact, the reason that the Royal Family made all their broadcasts on radio rather than Television was that they were living on Newfoundland--not Britain.

But, were it not for Churchill's skill in persuading the US to ally itself with the Allies and a false flag attack on Pearl Harbour by the RAF, the US would have allied itself with Germany as this picture shows.

Perhaps it was due to this fact that not even pro-gun apologists have raised the fact that Britain was occupied by the Germans during World War II because of gun control as they don't want to admit that this fact almost led to the US siding with the Nazis.

Anyway, here are pictures of Nazi Occupied Britain which provide the shocking proof of this fact:

The picture below advertises the film: Seig im Westen, or Victory in the West, about the fall of Great Britain:

Of course, these are indeed real pictures, but will the pro-gun side be stupid enough to go about repeating that the Nazis occupied Britain because of gun control?

My answer for LegalEagle

Since you are too lazy to look up and read this: Amendment HIstory

Where I am sure he will find the answers to pretty much all his questions.

I asked him if Justice Douglas, who was on the Court at the Time of Miller also misunderstood Miller when he said in ADAMS v. WILLIAMS, 407 U.S. 143 (1972)?
The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 , upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."

"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be [407 U.S. 143, 151] secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Id., at 178-179.

Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia. But if watering-down is the mood of the day, I would prefer to water down the Second rather than the Fourth Amendment.
I believe that Douglas gives the same opinion as I do.

In his response that Justice Douglas was wrong, LeaglEagle makes the mistake of pointing out that the Miller decision incorporated by reference, the decision of
Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840). Aymette makes the following point.

To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark, that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides, "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive.
I think that quote from Aymette puts paid to any attempt to try to say that Miller related to private uses of firearms.

As for the topic of Desuetude and the Second Amendment, Justice Story points out in his commentaries (Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§ 1890) that:
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
The Second Amendment is related to the Duty of the Citizen to participate in the institution of the Militia, not anythiing to do with private arms as the refgerence in Aymette found Miller points out and makes clear. I think that Story's comment also makes it clear that the right is related to militia duty as well.

Yet it is beyond LegalEagle to read footnotes, or to read as it would seem. I have more than amply given my reasons following the civic right interpretation, not his theory based upon half-truths and fake history.

In Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970) addresses the First Amendment--hardly what one would call a little used aspect of the Constitution, The United States Supreme Court asserted in it that: "It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it."
"It must be a very strong case," says Chief Justice Tilghman, "to justify the court in deciding, that an act standing on the statute book, unrepealed, is obsolete and invalid. I will not say that such case may not exist -- where there has been a non-user for a great number of years; where, from a change of times and manners, an ancient sleeping statute would do great mischief, if suddenly brought into action; where a long, practice inconsistent with it has prevailed, and, specially, where from other and latter statutes it might be inferred that in the apprehension of the legislature, the old one was not in force." 13 Serg. & Rawle, 452; Rutherf. Inst. B. 2, c. 6, s. 19; Merl. Repert. mot Desuetude.
That seems to back up my point about Desuetude--one cannot amend the Constitution by Judicial fiat--there is a Constitutional process for amendment, which Heller violated.

I am going to add a couple of quotes from cases which LegalEagle probably hasn't read since they, back up my assertions (APU):
The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I, § 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution.
Maryland v. United States - 381 U.S. 41 (1965)
The District Court rejected the Governor's challenge, holding that the federal Guard was created pursuant to Congress' Article I, § 8, power to raise and support armies; that the fact that Guard units also have an identity as part of the state militia does not limit Congress' plenary authority to train the units as it sees fit when the Guard is called to active federal service; and that, accordingly, the Constitution neither required the gubernatorial veto nor prohibited its withdrawal. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990).

The Second Amendment relates to the Body created under Article I, Section 8, clause 16.

What are the powers granted to Congress under this clause--LegalEagle?

I think that you are only proving that you have no idea of what you are talking about, LegalEagle.

And LegalEagle repeating lies will not make them true, nor will they persuade me of anything other than you have no idea of what you are talking about.

LegaleEagle, you are intellectually dishonest if not just a plain fool.  You are an ideeologue, not a lawyer.

Additionally, LegalEagle, I won't do your thinking for you, but it is quite obvious that you do prefer to let others do your thinking for you.

I think for myself and fashion my own opinions based upon my own experience--not because someone tells me it is so.

Town council prayer ruling

Despite being a christian Nation and having an official religion, the British Court of Ap has ruled that the Bideford Town Council is violating the law by requiring prayer during a town council meeting!

Mr Justice Ouseley ruled the prayers were not lawful under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972; However, he pointed out that prayers could be said as long as councillors were not formally summoned to attend.

Mr Justice Ouseley ruled the prayers as practised by Bideford Town Council had been unlawful because there was no statutory power permitting them to continue.

The NSS, which said prayers had no place in "a secular environment concerned with civic business", argued the "inappropriate" ritual breached articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect an individual's right to freedom of conscience, and not to face discrimination.

Now, why can't the US get it's act together as a truly secular society?

Lionel on the Drug Laws

Virginia's Improving Gun Rights

Yahoo News reports on how Virginia is improving its gun rights. First it's the attempts to end the one-gun-a-month rule, now this.

Citizens of Virginia could legally use deadly force in self defense against a home intruder under a proposed law approved on Thursday by the state House of Delegates.

The Republican-majority House voted 70-28 in favor of a state law that any physical force, including deadly force, is justified self-defense against an intruder.

The intruder must commit an "overt act" toward the occupant or other person in the dwelling which makes the occupant reasonably believe that they or the other person is in imminent danger of bodily injury.
They've got a ways to go yet. Some states really know what gun rights are.

Some states, such as Delaware, permit deadly force in the defense of property even when an occupant is not at risk of being harmed.
What's your opinion? Do you think these little steps towards greater gun rights in Virginia are going to add to the already significant problems?

Please leave a comment.

Gun Registry in Illinois

The Rev. Michael Pfleger talks with Mayor Rahm Emanuel

The proposal would require anyone who buys a handgun to pay a $65 registration fee. To register a gun, a purchaser would need to provide his name, address and phone number, along with the weapon's manufacturer and serial number and the place and date of purchase. The registry would be in addition to the firearm ownership standards all gun owners must already meet.
Sounds good to me. What do you think?

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Arguing with Some of You is Tedious Instead of Substantive

Thank you Laci for reminding me of this...

"Lawful Gun Owners" Carrying Guns Illegally in Chicago

It became very clear that I've been right all along.

“As I begin to write this, not 20 minutes beforehand, I pulled my gun in self defense. For the second time in 4 months. In the gun free city of Chicago. I already know what you’re thinking, I’m not allowed to carry a gun in Chicago. Let’s get this out of the way, I have made the decision to conceal carry in Chicago. Yes this is stupid, but it has already been beneficial for me. Not once but twice.
I've always suspected that the pro-gun guys were being less than honest when they claim that gun owners and especially concealed carry guys are more responsible and more law-abiding then the average citizen. The reason, they keep telling us, is because they value their right to own and carry guns too much to risk losing it.

Yet, when a post goes up on TTAG in which someone admits he carries illegally in Chicago, little criticism is heard.  This is called the bad-rules-be-damned mentality, by them.  To me it's proof that hidden criminals outnumber even the wildest estimates.

Check out some of the comments:

I am a telecommunications technician by trade, have worked in the gun-free Utopia of the People’s Democratic Republic of Chitcago more times than I care to count, AND HAVE ALWAYS CARRIED there (and elsewhere).

Good for you to do the right thing and still carry without the blessings of the dirty politicians. 

I carry when I have to go into Chicago, too. Hey, concealed is concealed, right? No one knows, and I’m real okay with that.

What's your opinion? Do you think it's all right for gun owners to disregard certain laws and still consider themselves law-abiding?  I mean, the guys who do this are not career criminals. Does my term "hidden criminal" work for describing this large segment of the gun-owning population?

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

North Dakota Man Pulls Gun in Courtroom

The Jamestown Sun reports

The case of Vicente Chacano went to a jury of six men and six women Wednesday afternoon after prosecutor Brian Grosinger called Chacano's testimony a lie and asked the panel to find him guilty on all 14 counts of attempted of murder. Jurors deliberated for about 21/2 hours before going home for the day.

Chacano, a Chilean native who was working in southwest North Dakota as a farmhand, is accused of bringing a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun and 38 bullets into the Adams County Courthouse in Hettinger on Feb. 4, 2011. Prosecutors said Chacano pulled the trigger several times, but the gun never fired. He was subdued by Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Byers, the prosecutor at the time, and Eugene Molbert, the county sheriff.

Chacano's testimony Wednesday morning ranged from animated to rambling. He stood up on several occasions and used hand gestures to try and show how events unfolded in the Hettinger courtroom. At one point, Judge Steven McCullough interrupted the defendant and said, "We need to tighten this up."
I thought North and South Dakota were supposed to be really safe places? They seem to be in the news a lot lately.

Jamaica Destroying Confiscated Guns

Roughly 2,000 firearms were melted down in a blazing furnace Tuesday as part of an effort designed to combat gun trafficking and corruption in Jamaica while reducing violent crime.

Police, government and U.N. officials destroyed pistols and revolvers by pitching them into a kiln glowing bright orange at a cement factory in the capital of Kingston. Most of the guns were decommissioned or seized in police operations over the years.

National Security Minister Peter Bunting, who has been in office for just over a month, said the destruction of the weapons is an important first step toward managing the sizable stockpiles of guns in Jamaica and reducing the risk of theft.

"The removal will help to reduce the risks of these weapons being possibly diverted back into the illicit trade," Bunting said at the Jamaica Constabulary Force armory.
It seems to me like this is attacking the problem for the wrong direction. If we want to make fewer guns available to criminals we need to focus on the gun manufacturers.  They are the ones flooding the marketplace with guns. This effort to confiscate and destroy guns is like blowing up an inflatable raft in the summertime that has a hole in it. The more air you pump in, the more leaks out.

I had the same objection to the police departments who wanted to sell off their confiscated guns. Although they make pains to sell the guns to qualified people, some of them are sure to end up back in the wrong hands, just like they did the first time around.

The gun manufacturers are the problem. The gun lobby that protects them and the gun-rights activists who support them are the problem.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Dallas Transit Shooting - 2 Dead

A shooting suspect and one of three people he shot Tuesday at a Dallas Area Rapid Transit station just north of Dallas have died of their wounds, officials said.

The shootings happened at 3:30 p.m. at the Arapaho station in Richardson, Texas.
It's a pretty exciting story. The female transit officer was hit in the bullet-proof vest. The bad guy died by a bullet to the head, which incredibly they were't sure if it had been self-inflicted or not.

This is what the por-gun crowd get for their efforts. This scene and countless others just like it all over the country are a direct result of the lax gun laws paid for by the gun lobby and supported by the gun-rights fanatics.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Another Nut with a Gun Goes Fatally Off the Rails

Our gun nuts would never deny this ass his firearm fetish object.  Everyone MUST be allowed to have their guns and to engage in public and private gun fights, if they have their way.  Because that's how they define freedom: people shooting each other.

THAT is NOT free.  THAT is not the right we all have to be safe, including to be safe from nuts and people who don't recognize they're nuts, with guns.   Everyone's rights end at the next person's nose, so to speak.  Bullets from guns routinely violate that right, that boundary, that freedom. 

Gun nuts don't have a good comeback for that, so they blatther inane platitudes in place of facts.

This is the reality, this is the kind of fact they have to avoid.  But they cannot distance themselves far enough to separate their connection as pro-shooting pro-gun nuts from events like this, particularly when they so strenously insist that these shootings which frequently COULD be prevented by stricter gun laws and enforcement SHOULD NOT be prevented.  Better to have people put at risk, better to have people killed, than for one of them to be impeded from their obssessive fetish objects.

Shame on the gun nuts; they deserve our contempt and condemnation for obstructing reasonable gun regulation that could help prevent these occurrences.  Thank god no one else was killed, but it is still a tragedy that a member of law enforcement was injured by the gunfire.

From, NBC news and the AP, by way of
Guard kills gunman at NY courthouse

Steve Borland / Times Herald-Record via AP
Police and medical personnel respond to the scene of the shooting in Middletown, N.Y., on Wednesday.
By NBC News and news services
Authorities say a 43-year-old man has died after being wounded by officers during a gunfight at an upstate New York courthouse on Wednesday. A court officer was wounded.
The gunman was identified as Tim Mulqueen, a former Middletown landlord with a grudge against Middletown Mayor Joe DeStefano, reported.
Court records show Mulqueen had a pending case involving menacing and other charges after an encounter with DeStefano's daughter at the mayor's home last August.
The mayor's office did not immediately comment.
One man told that he was arriving at the courthouse just as the shooting began.
"I hear a 'boom, boom, boom,' and I stopped myself," he said. "I'm thinking 'Wow, what's going on?' I saw a bunch of people tripping over each other to get out."
Another witness said "everybody hit the floor" when the gunfire began.
Middletown police say the gunman went to the vestibule at City Court at about 9 a.m. Wednesday and fired at the security officers. They returned fire, hitting him at least once.
The officer's injuries were not life-threatening, police told
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Kangaroo Court beer

I got this from White Rabbit.

I wonder if the US Supreme Court has a bar?

I can imagine five justices who would love this beer.

And Leagle45 can join them for a drink as well (as well as our other gun loon commenters).

Greg once again demonstrates his ignorance knows no bounds.

when he says:

Greg CampFeb 8, 2012 06:36 AM

Laci keeps quoting that saying, but he has yet to show how it is a part of U.S. law. As far as I can tell, it comes from a mediaeval legal theorist, and thus may be interesting, but only as relevant as de Vattel.

My response:

Once again, Greg demonstrates that his ignorance knows no bounds.

All this is mentioned in Blackstone's Commentaries:

The citation from Blackstone regarding the “proeme, or preamble” is part of a larger section that consists of “observations concerning the interpretation of laws.” 1 Blackstone at *58. One of those “observations” was: “BUT, lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the laws itself ought likewise to cease with it.” 1 Blackstone at *61.

Blackstone refers to this “when the reason ceases, the law ought to cease” principle several times in the Commentaries, which would seem to indicate that he considered it a fairly important interpretive principle. 2 Blackstone at *390-91 (discussing property interests in tame and domestic animals and noting “But here the reasons of the general rule cease, and ‘cessante ratione cessat et ipsa lex‘ [The reason of the law ceasing, the law itself also ceases]“), 3 Blackstone at *219 (discussing the law of nuisance, and noting “But, where the reason ceases, the law also ceases with it : therefore it is no nuisance to erect a mill so near mine, as to draw away the custom, unless the miller also intercepts the water.”), 4 Blackstone at *3 (noting that some aspects of Britain’s criminal law “seem to want revision and amendment” and explaining that “These have chiefly arisen from too scrupulous an adherence to some rules of the antient common law, when the resons have ceased upon which those rules were founded . . . “), 4 Blackstone at *81 (discussing the law of treason, and noting that the “plain intention of this law is to guard the blood royal from any suspicion of bastardy, whereby the succession to the crown might be rendered dubious: and therefore, when this reason ceases, the law ceases with it . . .”), 4 Blackstone at *330 (discussing the plea of a former attainder, and noting “But to this general rule however, as to all others, there are some exceptions; wherein, cessante ratione, cessat et ipsa lex.”).

Some of these seem to refer to common-law decision making, but he also applies this principle to statutes.

Which means that if the “cause/reason” for the Second Amendment was the “well-regulated militia”, then it could be argued that when that reason ceased, the law ought likewise to cease with it.

Too bad, Greg is ignorant of the fact that Blackstone is mentioned as being highly influential upon US Jurisprudence.

In fact, since Blackstone commentaries were rather inexpensive and widely published, they were used for legal training in the US.

So, if you want to argue that Blackstone is "only as relevant as de Vattel", you have your work cut out for you, Greg.

I strongly suggest that you keep your ignorance to yourself in future.

Smart Bullets

At 4 inches long and a half-inch in diameter, the bullet directs itself like a tiny guided missile and can hit a target more than a mile away.

It's designed to twist and turn, making up to 30 corrections per second.
This isn't the only nifty and costly little toy they're working on.

Defense department researchers and contractors are already developing flying nano-bots that can stream live video, contact lenses that would allow soldiers to focus simultaneously on virtual digital images and their surroundings, and smartphone apps that help with tactical operations.
What's your opinion? Does a report like this help explain why military spending for development is so high? Or does it highlight the absurdity of its excess?

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Drug Testing Welfare Recipients in Florida

"As always, the answer is in Florida."

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Not Pro-life - Anti-woman

No Guns Allowed in This Church

via TTAG from Ann Althouse
click to make bigger

“This is a place of peace. Weapons are allowed inside only after they have been hammered into plowshares.”

Kooky Wisconsin Politicians

via Microdot

Rep. Joel Kleefisch, the Oconomowoc area Republican who is one of Scott Walker's biggest cheerleaders (he's married to the lieutenant governor, after all), thinks Wisconsin ought to make it legal to start shooting sandhill cranes.
What's your opinion? Does that look like a game bird to you?

Please leave a comment.

Australian School Answering Machine

This is a real answering machine message:

Iran is a Threat

Each star on this map marks the location of a military base of the United States - in Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and into the ...stans. The blue in the center (not well distinguished from the Caspian Sea and other water) is Iran.

[I]magine if the blue in that map were the U.S... and the large red areas were Mexico and Canada... and the stars represented Iranian military bases. Then further imagine that Iranian political leaders and media figures routinely told their population that it was the U.S. that was an aggressive, threatening power that had to be stopped: the mocking condemnations of that level of propaganda would be endless. Yet American political officials and commentators feel free to insist, with a straight face, that Iran is an aggressor nation posing a serious threat to the U.S.: such a serious threat, in fact, that war may be necessary to stop it.

Let me be quite clear here; I'm not saying that the Iranian leadership are good guys. I'm just using the graphic to show that there might be reasons for them to feel threatened.

Pro-gun Superiority

One of the latter entries in a fascinating comment thread on my Facebook page.

Gary Wilson also commented on Mikeb302000's Wall post.

Gary wrote: "inferior? I'm inferior because I don't live in fear? Because i live in peace with my neighbors? Because I don't live in a crime ridden ghetto infested with ghouls? I'd be embarrassed to admit I had a gun in each room. And if I lived in such squaller that I needed a gun in each room, I'd move. I go away for the day and don't even lock my door. No, not a gated community.

Seriously, a gun in each room? You poor pathetic paranoid sample of humanity. How terrible it must be to live in paralyzing fear. How many do you carry with you to church? Just protection? From what? You need serious help! You seem to be exactly the type of person that should not be allowed to have a firearm. I wish you knew the peace I know."

Another Lawful Gun Owner Goes Berserk - South Dakota

An old grudge that spanned more than a half-century may have led a 73-year-old man to fatally shoot his long-ago classmate at his South Dakota home, according to a court affidavit filed Thursday.

Carl V. Ericsson, of Watertown, was denied bond Thursday during his first court appearance on a first-degree murder charge. The former high school sports star is accused of shooting retired Madison High School teacher and track coach Norman Johnson, 72, after Johnson answered the door at his house on Tuesday evening in Madison.
I guess this story could also argue for the PERMANENT loss of gun rights. Some unfit gun owners NEVER stop being a danger to themselves and others.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Josh Horwitz on the Secret Market Segments of the Gun Manufacturers

Josh Horwitz continues to sound the alarm about the lies and deception of the NRA and NSSF. We talked about his last post in this series, in which he showed how NICS background checks do not equal gun sales, in spite of what we keep hearing.

Basically he's asking a question. If the gun lobby and gun manufacturers are going to such great lengths to conceal the exact numbers of sales, what are they up to? Why all the obfuscation?

The smoke and mirrors game the gun lobby plays with bogus "sales data" allows them to promote the infamous "More Guns, Less Crime" mantra of now-discredited "researcher" (and current Fox News commentator) John Lott while cloaking a far darker truth. Namely, that -- faced with a stagnant customer base that has declined precipitously over the past 35 years -- the gun industry has purposely and continuously manufactured firearms for one of its most important market segments: traffickers and prohibited purchasers (i.e., children, criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, domestic abusers, etc.). And all in the name of profit.
Now, I don't want to say I told you so, but I told you so. In meeting rooms from Smith and Wesson's in Massachusetts to Freedom Arms' in Wyoming you've got eager beaver sales managers calculating the number of guns that will end up in the hands of criminals and passing these requirements to the production teams.

That's how it's done in America, all in the name of freedom and profit.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.