Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Monday, July 12, 2010

Blatantly Reposted from Ed Rasimus...

Because I could not say it better


We've all seen the cowboy movies with the outnumbered, but staunchly courageous sheriff standing up to the lynch mob. Justice will be served by a trial before a jury of peers in a court of law therefore we don't respond to mob justice. Those days of lynch mobs are gone, relegated to our distant and more violent past...except maybe in Kalifornia:No Hanging? We're Gonna Break Some Windows!

There was going to be a riot regardless of the verdict. Guilt of murder, guilty of manslaughter, not-guilty...it wouldn't make a difference in the activity on the street. A black man got shot by a white man. The black man had been involved in activities which resulted in a police intervention. The black man resisted the law enforcement officer at least to the extent that he was going to get Tazed.

The white policeman, however, was apparently not adequately trained for his position. He drew his pistol rather than his Taser and without discerning the difference in size, weight, configuration, position on his belt, etc he employed the pistol, killing the alleged criminal. Apparently basics like sight acquistion were not ingrained either or he might have noted the difference in equipment visually if not by feel.

The trial, with a change of venue, examined the evidence. It is unlikely that the rioters did the same. The judge explained the elements of the law which apply to murder in the first degree. There is no way that there could have been pre-meditation or malicious intent. There was manifest incompetence. The verdict reflected that conclusion.

So, quite predictably the culture of victimization rampant in the minority neighborhoods of America responded by complaining to the state. They did so by taking to the streets and victimizing innocent property owners who are totally unrelated to the events in question.

How's your justice thing working out?

And, along the way there is no sheriff in Alameda Country or Oakland California who was prepared to stand up to the crowd until after the damage was done. Who is surprised by this?

US v. AZ (2)

Alleged AG Eric Holder has field against the Arizona immigration law that seeks to enforce existing US immigration law, by saying that the commerce clause of the Constiution somehow protects the illegal movement of illegal felons across alleged borders, or some such twaddle.

I knew it was bad business the moment that the Odd Man-Child chose the man who granted Marc Rich pardon and defended terrosrists.

He won’t prosecute a blatant case of race-based voter intimidation in Philadelphia, but he’ll search high and low for non-existent racial profiling immigration incidents in Arizona.

Note: There is something so fundamentally wrong with this administration that it cannot be described under the normal courzse of business.

It is not incomeptence or inexperience. It is deliberate. And that raises questions that very few people have the guts to ask.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

A Different Independence Day

Why does one end his own life? I have fond memories of playing guitar with Bill Ed, leading a retreat or two, and I always thought of him as a good friend. My prayers and sympathies to his family, parents, and friends. This loss is tragic.

RIP old friend.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

US v. AZ

The Feral Gummint of the US sued Arizona today for passing a state law requiring enfocement of the feral laws on immigration. You know, the ones Barack, Nancy, Harry, and the rest of that lot of reprobates and fools refuse to enforce.

Has there ever been a clearer demonstration that the Feral Gummint of the US is at war with its citizenry?

I dare you to research the AZ border issue and see what is happening down there.

You know what to do in November.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Qoute of the Year

In sum total, what you people did was drive someplace where there wasn't a problem, complain about something you don't fully understand, get in the way of people who may actually be performing a function, and then do nothing, en masse, except hope that someone else notices your little snit and makes it all better.My god, if there's a more perfect metaphor for the modern progressive movement, I've never seen it. -- Tam, And joining hands, they made a metaphor...

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

McDonald v. Chicago Summarized

Here are the basics of the decision:

The right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is recognized as a "fundamental right," which places it on par with freedom of speech and freedom of religion, among others. This categorization warrants "strict scrutiny" in appurtenant cases.

Strict scrutiny won't necessarily void gun registration schemes, but it will void outright bans, discretionary licensing requirements (see Scalia's discussion of "arbitrary and capricious" licensing requirements in Heller), and prohibitive taxes or licensing fees.

It should also void the Lautenberg Amendment, which extend the class of prohibited persons to those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes.

The court's recognition of the Second Amendment as protecting the RKBA especially as it relates to the right of self defense should also negate the "sporting purposes" requirement in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922.2.

McDonald did NOT strike down Chicago's handgun ban. Rather, it remanded the case to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had previously upheld the trial court's dismissal of the case.

It's quite possible that Chicago will revise the law to bring it into what it feels is compliance with the constitution, but this fight isn't over by a long shot.

Aside from the Chicago law, others are now ripe for being challenged, including the draconian and arbitrary pistol ownership licensing schemes in places like NYC, CA, and NJ. Additionally, the assault weapons bans in NY, NJ and CA are in jeopardy.

With the Second Amendment now recognized as protecting a fundamental right, discretionary carry license laws such as those in NY, NJ, MD, and CA may also eventually be replaced with shall-issue laws.