Monday, February 25, 2013

The Pajamahadin: What Rights Would You Sell Out For Security?

Chicago has America’s strictest gun laws and yet remains this nation’s most deadly war zone. For Americans, not even Afghanistan can match Chicago’s body count. 

Roughly 80% of Chicagoland’s shootings are gang related. So it’s no wonder that, for the first time since 1929, the Chicago Crime Commission saw fit to designate a new Public Enemy, especially considering that, compared to Guzman, Capone was a piker.

The only surprise is that the crime commission pointed the finger at an actual criminal. The politically correct choice would have been to name firearms manufacturers or law-abiding gun owners as enemies.
If you give away one bit of liberty for protections that won't work, you'll end up giving it all away for nothing.

Read the entire article here.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

How To Properly Address A Locust Voter

I think I may have coined a new term, as I cannot find "locust voter" by doing a quick online search. Apologies to anyone who has been using the term before me, if any, but as I define it, a "locust voter" is someone who moves out of whatever dysfunctional, leftist hell hole they were living in and into a more free, vibrant locality to enjoy the economic and social benefits there, but who then begins demanding the establishment of the laws and practices of the place they moved from, those things largely being responsible for the miserable conditions of their former home. 

Take this example:

"Get out of here.
That was one Wyoming state representative’s message to a resident who contacted him recently stating her opposition to a bill that would have allowed people with concealed carry permits to carry guns in public schools, colleges and sporting events.
Rev. Audette Fulbright had emailed all state legislators, including Republican Rep. Hans Hunt, earlier this month to say she and her husband had just moved to Wyoming and were “seriously reconsidering” their decision amid the proposed expansion of gun laws...
...“I know of other new-to-Wyoming families in similar contemplation. Your choices matter. It would be sad to see an exodus of educated, childrearing age adults from Wyoming as a result of poor lawmaking,” she wrote.
Hunt’s response? “By all means, leave.”
Typical. As one comment posted in response to the article mentions, if you read between the lines of Fulbright's letter, the implication is "if you don't agree with what I think is right, you're uneducated/backwards/stupid, etc., and if I don't get my way I'll leave and you'll be poor because you're nothing without my amazing presence." Lovely.

In addition to her unsubstantiated firearms hysteria, Fulbright demands that the long-time residents of her new home suffer an economic apartheid: while she clearly had the resources to relocate to Wyoming without needing the economic benefits of fracking, she would gladly leave her new neighbors, many of whom probably have been there long before she ever thought of moving in, poor (Fulbright is a Unitarian Universalist minister, and speaking purely in terms of what clergy members represent to a community economically, she really doesn't contribute jack by being there, so her presence is definitely NOT a replacement for the industrial development she opposes). Just compare the unemployment rate of North Dakota (where energy development is blazing away) and Wyoming with the unemployment rate of her former home, Virginia. Fulbright left a place with greater unemployment, is now apparently comfortable in her own financial situation, and she's in turn comfortable with forcing Wyoming to endure greater unemployment than it needs to.

There are plenty of places Fulbright could have moved to that already feature these policies that she's demanding now in Wyoming. But she didn't move to those places. Why? Because they suck, and they suck because of some of the very things she's demanding. She deliberately chose the greener pastures of a place not blighted and destroyed by those idiotic ideas, and now she wants to consume the benefits while attacking their maintenance and continuance. Fulbright already has hers, so now she wants the liberties of everyone around her restricted (and of course, it's because she knows what's best for you). Just like a locust: swarm in, consume everything, render a location barren, then move on to the next better spot.

There is absolutely no good reason to cater to the whims of people like this or apologize to them for your own beliefs and way of life. The best thing you can do is exactly what Rep. Hunt did: tell the locust voter to go pound sand.

Doing so might convince the locust voter to move on (doubtful, but it's worth a try). It can also attract the opposite of the locust voter: individuals who relocate to places not so they can begin clamping down on the liberties of their neighbors, but so they can enjoy living their own lives and leave others to do the same. These types of people don't come in looking to limit possibilities (opportunity), and in so doing the result is that possibilities flourish. If you can keep those kinds of people coming to a particular location, you stand a chance of repelling the locusts.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Washington House Bill 1588: Walsh Now Says "No"

This email just now hit my inbox, so to be fair to Rep. Maureen Walsh in light of what I've written about her recently on my blog, here's what she has to say:

Dear Friends and Neighbors,
Like you, I am shocked and saddened by the murders that have occurred in our country. The slaughter of innocent children in Newtown, Conn. still continues to haunt me as my heart aches for the families of the victims. People suffering with mental illness are responsible for these horrific deaths, and no legislation will ever be able to prevent all of them.
The state Legislature is carefully considering several approaches to addressing gaps in our current laws that could help prevent some of these mass shootings. School and public safety is the goal, and there are many facets to the cause of these horrific events. Mental health is certainly a component, as well as a lack of enforcing our current laws.
As many of you know, I did sign on to House Bill 1588 with the belief that it simply addressed an inequity (loophole) in the law concerning background checks at some gun shows. Although the bill has been amended to address some of the concerns of gun owners across the state, I have really come to realize that no legislation will ever address the criminal element as far as guns are concerned. Thus the bill only targets (no pun intended) lawful gun owners and the application of the law would not be logical. I will not be supporting the bill and thank everyone who wrote to me with their concerns. Your comments were very helpful to me in discerning this issue. I am honored to serve as your state representative.
Maureen Walsh"
That's better.

Still though, I have to wonder how "careful" the consideration is that Rep. Walsh claims is being given to proposed laws seeking to infringe on our inherent right to self-defense, and its natural, logical expression, the ability to possess the common weapons of the day (to be more direct, being able to possess the same weapons in common use by the government's forces). By her own admission she signed onto a bill that she later realized would only target lawful gun owners, which she describes as "not logical." How careful is that? Further, what principle is involved here? Is it that the natural rights of sovereign citizens were being assaulted, and that this is simply wrong, or is it that this would have cost too many votes for her to be returned to Olympia again in two years?

In any case, it's good to know that the votes for WA HB 1588 just decreased by at least one, hopefully to be followed by many more defections in the days to come. I'll choose to be happy about that for now (I'll be feeling great after it fails). However, I think it prudent to remain skeptical of Rep. Walsh in terms of her worthiness of my vote next time around (and I may still buy something from Onion World between now and then, we'll see). Rep. Walsh has gotten it very right on big matters of individual liberty before, so the disconnect between those principles she acted on then and this present example are puzzling. Whether an action such as this is accidental or intentional, the damage it can do is the same. A move like this on something so fundamental to individual liberty by an elected representative warrants keeping a very close eye on them going forward in order to be sure that they truly are qualified - intellectually, philosophically, and morally - to be entrusted as a steward of our liberties.  

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

WA HB 1588 Survives Committee, Goes To House Floor

An update to what I wrote previously about Washington House Bill 1588, a "universal" background check bill:

The bill made it through committee today, receiving 7 votes for to 6 opposed. The history and text of the bill can be found here.
As I said before, one of my House reps, Maureen Walsh, owner of Onion World, is a cosponsor of the bill. I'll repeat what I've said about her in regard to this bill: she has lost my support in any future campaign for elected office she might undertake, and I will never again patronize her business. Anti-liberty statists like her do not deserve my support in any form.

My other House rep, Terry Nealey, voted against the bill in committee. I wrote to thank him for that and to encourage him to repeat his "no" vote on the House floor.
There are 38 sponsors of this bill. In the House there are 98 representatives. 50 votes on any bill is a majority. If the 38 sponsors of this bill can be counted as "yes" votes, then this vile trash is only 12 votes away from passing the House. 
This is a universal gun registration bill.
I did not type that by mistake. I'll repeat: THIS IS A UNIVERSAL GUN REGISTRATION BILL. The bill is for universal background checks and contains no language calling for universal registration. However, it cannot work without universal registration. Why? It's simple. Thirteen words defeat the whole thing:

"I've owned all of my firearms since before the law was passed, officer."

There is no need for anyone to comply with this law when conducting a private sale/purchase of a firearm simply by not seeking the background check and not reporting the sale. Anyone found to be in possession of a firearm would need only to claim ownership of it since before the passage of this bill, if it does pass. Absent a complete record of who owns what in this state, there isn't a way to prove that you purchased the weapon(s) in question privately after the law was passed.
There is no way that these treasonous legislators who sponsored this monstrosity will allow that to happen. These would-be tyrants are not going to let this kind of control slip through their fingers so easily.

If you care about your 2nd amendment and your Article 1, Section 24 rights (click here if you've never heard of that one before, especially if you live in Washington), start writing your state representatives and your senator NOW. You can find yours here.

Sunday, February 10, 2013

How To Defeat Five Men When You're A 65-Year-Old Woman, Unless WA HB 1588 Stops You, and Goodbye Onion World

It's simple: own and use a firearm.

Meanwhile, in my state, Washington, and despite what our state constitution says on the matter of firearm ownership:

Article I - Section 24 - Right to Bear Arms
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. of my state House reps, Maureen Walsh, is currently an active participant in an attempt to impair our right to bear arms. She is a co-sponsor of Washington House Bill 1588, which seeks to establish a "universal" background check system. This bill would criminalize the transfer of firearms between private parties without the purchaser first undergoing a background check, even including such absurdities as requiring a grandparent to not give a hunting rifle to a grandson or granddaughter unless they get a background check first! Those of us with valid concealed pistol licenses would see our privilege of same-day possession of newly purchased firearms stripped from us, too, as we would have to wait for processing of background checks that we have already passed! And, to add insult to injury, it will cost $20 EVERY TIME to have one of these checks run on us.

In short, if this bill becomes law, it will universally hinder the ability of law abiding citizens of Washington state to exercise our inherent right to self defense, and the natural extension of that, the right to keep and bear arms. Criminals, on the other hand, will universally ignore the law. Anti-liberty politicians, Rep. Walsh included, are attempting to make us pay to exercise a right. Does this remind you of similar terrible policies of the past that were designed to economically disenfranchise people from the exercise of their rights?

Unless Rep. Walsh withdraws her support for this bill, then I am withdrawing my support from her. I will not vote for her again and I will actively support her primary opponents in the next election. Additionally, the last time I purchased a sausage from her business, Onion World, will become the last time I ever do so again, too. I'm not going to hand my hard-earned money over to someone who uses the support my capital provides to launch attacks on my rights, someone who harasses the law abiding to the benefit of criminals. Unless it turns out that they're on the same page as Rep. Walsh, I'll bring my business to her competitors from now on instead.

For those in Washington state who are concerned about these assaults on our liberties, here is some further information on people in our state government that you can contact about this terrible bill. The committee the bill is in front of at present will be holding a hearing on it this Wednesday, February 13th, at 8am. We have between now and then to let the members of the committee know what a horrible thing HB 1588 is.

Sunday, February 03, 2013

White House: Don't Photoshop President's Skeet Shooting Photo

Digital Journal: Surge of edited Obama photos after White House says 'don't edit'

"In order to insure the photo was used for its intended purpose, (to provide proof of the president's skeet shooting) the White House released the following statement along with the photo: "This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photography may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggest approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House."


Friday, February 01, 2013

The Learned Sergeant on the 2nd Amendment

A buddy of mine, Jefferson Ragnar Griffeath, who blogs under the nom de typetype, The Learned Sergeant, put up a two-part post on the true nature of the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
It is telling that those same men that seem to think it’s okay to control and micromanage our lives, in effect, people who think they OWN you are the same people WHO WANT TO TAKE THE VERY FIREARMS YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DEFEND YOURSELF FROM THEM WITH.  Of course your oppressor wants to keep you unarmed.
And, as a bonus, his post highlights an important fact that people with the "red team vs. blue team" mentality about U.S. politics consistently fail to understand: whether republican or democrat, statists gonna state.

Read JR's first piece here.

Read JR's second piece here.

Watch FPSRussia shoot some stuff with a remote-controlled helicopter here:

Search Paul E.

Disclosure Policy - Privacy Policy
jenna jameson chasey lain tera patrick briana banks sunny leone lanny barby stefani morgan savanna samson monique alexander cassidey