Saturday, May 12, 2007

One more treacherous politician to keep an eye on

Heard the other day that when the vote in the House came up, Rep. Dan Boren(D-2nd District) voted with Pelosi & Co. to fund the war for three months.

Rep. Boren, I doubt you'll see this, but just in case you do:
Whatever Pelosi & Co. offered you, I hope in the long run it's worth it to you. To sell the troops out like that for an attempt at political gain.

And you better believe this won't be forgotten. I don't live in your district, so I don't have any blame for you sitting in that office; that also means I can't vote against you got get you out of it. But I can make damn sure to bring this up every time you open your mouth about the subject of the war, and do my part to see you can't dodge having done this.

These bastards really don't care about the Constitution at all, do they?

I speak of the assclowns like LA State Rep. Cedric Richmond(Dumbass-New Orleans*). Aside from the usual 'restrict-license-ban' crap, it includes "and allow the State Police to inspect private homes for compliance".

There's another bill somewhere(I want to say VA, but don't have time to look it up right now) plus some federal crap that's been proposed over time that includes the same: basically, "If we allow you to own these evil objects, our minions can search your home/car/business at any time, and we don't have to worry about a warrant". Fancy way of saying "Screw the Fourth and Fifty; we don't care".

It's pretty consistent, they just don't care about the Constitution if it gets in the way of their desires. Screw 'em.

*as if you couldn't figure both parts out

Friday, May 11, 2007

And once again, a 30% chance turns into

thunder and lightning and rain. Dammit. It had dried out just enough I was able to get the front yard mowed, finishing just as it started.

They're now saying a 'slight chance of scattered showers' tonight, which means taking the truck to work(too many times has 'slight chance' become 'drowning trip home on motorcycle').

Gerry, the climate(other than waiting for various volcanoes to blow) may suit you just fine, but places from which people say "my layer of protective mildew is in excellent condition, thankyew" do not really tempt me for some reason.

Back in the Dark Days of Clinton,

when the 'Assault Weapons Ban' was passed, I didn't have much free cash(hell, NO free cash) to do so, or I'd have done what a lot of people did: buy an EEEEEVille Assault Weapon. In the days that mess was being debated every shop in town that carried them, and ammo and magazines, was selling more than before. In the thirty-day period between Clinton signing it and it going into effect, more yet. One local shop said(in a newspaper article about a week before it took effect) they sold more in that period than ever before, and if there'd been a supply they could've sold at least that many more. And one telling note was a comment from one man: "I never wanted one of these, but if the government is going to tell me I can't be trusted with one, then I'll buy one". Lot of other people said the same thing(but in more profane terms) and bought.

At the time I primarily thought of it as a way of saying "Fuck you" to the politicians; over time I started thinking of it as 'putting together stores'. And I started considering a lot of things I'd never really given serious thought to before. I had kids, and the idea of not being able to take them shooting and hunting like my father & grandfather had... it really, really pissed me off.

All of which leads to this piece at RNS leading to this at The War on Guns. Referring to the first paragraph above:
The Law of Unintended Consequences decreed that there would be two unexpected results of this Clintonista constitutional misbehavior. The first was the importation and sale within a few months of several millions of semi-auto rifles (principally SKS and AK-variants) into the U.S. This was in anticipation of, and defiance of, the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban." Indeed, this was more rifles of these types than had been sold in the previous TWENTY YEARS. And it was in a political climate where it was fully expected that the next law would call for the confiscation of such weapons. Why, then, did this massive arming take place? Were we buying these rifles merely to turn them over later? When the Clintonistas realized that we were not buying these rifles to turn them in, but to turn ON THEM if they became even more threatening to our liberties, it gave them considerable pause. I am told the analysts in the bowels of the J. Edgar Hoover building were particularly impressed.

Well, they should have been.

You see, what impressed us gunnies the most was the fact that under what we came to know as "Waco Rules", Catch 22 was in full swing. It was as if the Clintonistas were shouting, "We can do anything you can't stop us from doing." The constitutional militia movement, despised by the administration, caricatured by the media (and professional liars for money like Morris Dees of the Southern "Poverty" Law Center), and unjustly vilified after the Oklahoma City bombing, began to explore the question of just what could be done to stop such unconstitutional conduct on the part of the government. We realized that another way to express Catch 22 is to say, "You can do only what we let you get away with."

I'd been around law enforcement most of my life, and I'd grown up thinking of the men with badges as Good Guys. Time went by, and I discovered that there were some Jerks mixed in, and(this was the real shock to me) some first-class Bad Guys. And that, due to the conditions/pressures of the job, the Good Guys tended to protect the Jerks and Bad Guys from being thrown out/prosecuted. And if you couldn't trust the Good Guys to stand against the Bad Guys, then what the hell DO you do?

I flat detest the idea of civil war with the cops- Good Guys and Bad- on the other side. No, let me rephrase that: I HATE it. You know what makes it less of a detestable idea? Kathryn Johnston. All the victims of SWAT (or Tactical Teams or Special Operations teams or whatever the hell they're called locally) teams being misused and getting away with it, over and over. And all that video from New Orleans of cops and National Guard troops holding people at gunpoint- sometimes after beating hell out of them- so they could steal their firearms.
(side note: the fact that most of the major media flat ignored this garbage didn't help matters, either)
Note to law enforcement types who haven't figured this out: if you do crap like the above, people do not look on you as Officer Friendly anymore; they look on you as Jackass in a Ninja Outfit Who Abuses People. And you're seen- rightly- as thinking yourself above the law and not to be trusted.

Hell, I've said this before in one form or another. Go read at TWOG, it's much worth it.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Tony Blair

announced he's leaving office in June.

I've done some thinking about him the past while, with it being a given he'd be out of office soon. My original opinion was that I gave him full credit for seeing that the islamists are the enemy, and for getting it through Parliament to get troops into action in Afghanistan and Iraq; but that in every other way, he was the kind of nanny-state politician I despised.

I do still give him credit for the first, but my respect for him on the matter has dwindled. When you have troops being sent into combat who have to borrow ammo from allies because they were sent to the front areas without a basic load; when, in the middle of a war for survival, you cut the number of ships in your navy and cut the number of troops in your military forces; when you can't even provide wards for the treatment of wounded where they don't have to worry about being abused by relatives/friends of the enemy, you have failed to honor the threat that you stood up to speak of. And you've failed the people you sent to do the fighting.

It's been kind of amazing to watch this man both insist that the war was absolutely necessary at the same time he and his party was trashing the British military. 'Mind-boggling' as Peter Plunkett would say. And his "abolition of Britain’s liberty" at the same time he was working to trash the idea of being British while simultaneously giving special consideration to people who, bluntly, were the enemy of Britain(while bloody LIVING THERE, yet)...

Remember the Brit cop who was murdered in a raid on a house of suspected terrorists? Sent in with no arms, no armor and apparently orders not to be too mean and nasty, he was stabbed to death. Officers ordered not to launch raids during prayer times or to search where the people being raided objected to so as to not be seen as 'racist' and/or 'insensitive'. Absolute idiocy that cost lives and has allowed the enemy to make serious inroads into Britain, cheered along every step of the way by the upper levels of Blair's government.

But if you're a Subject of the Crown who uses too much force in protecting yourself from an attacker; if you own a firearm that's disapproved of, or more ammo than is approved of; if you say something 'upsetting' to people carrying signs calling for your death, you WILL by God go to jail.

And I cannot agree with Cella that "he disarmed Socialism in Great Britain"; indeed, he worked hard to advance it, a nanny state with cameras everywhere and personal freedom trashed.

Yeah, he did stand with us, and I do appreciate it. I wonder how it would have worked if he'd been more worried about defeating the enemy he recognized than in being friendly with the enemy inside his own house, though.

Sondra, if you sent this down this way,

first, some rain is indeed appreciated. But ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, dammit! Swing some of it into California before that spreads and runs the weenies to surrounding states to mess things up. Send some of it to Florida to knock down the fires there. But stop sending it here!

Yesterday, before I crawled into bed(at four friggin' pm, did I mention my schedule was FUBAR?) I checked the rain gauge: an even five inches in the previous 48 hours. That's not counting the few inches in the few days before that. And now it's bloody raining again. Not just a little sprinkle, oh no, it's raining. Again.

If you didn't send your lousy Oregon/Washington weather down here, then I apologize. But if you did...

Monday, May 07, 2007

One other thing about the Taurus titanium revolvers

Can't speak for the snubnoses, but on the 4" I've fired, that ribbed rubber grip does a very nice job of soaking up recoil. Within reason.

'Within reason' depending on the cartridge. .45acp, no problem, but...

First time I fired one was basically the same pistol in .41 Magnum. Now, I flat love that cartridge, and as previously mentioned I'm on the lookout for a Model 57 I can afford. And I'm not particularly recoil sensitive. But when I touched off a .41 Mag round in that thing, it kicked the crap out of me. I finished the cylinder, and have no desire to repeat the experience. As something with serious power that you'd carry a lot and shoot little, ok, but when something's that painful to practice with, I don't like. A very well-made gun, but way too light for that cartridge.

"It's globalur worner- Climate Change, that's what it is!"

Last year was dry, drought conditions over this state and parts of surrounding states, and we heard lots of "Is global warming causing the drought, and what comes next?" crap from some sources(big surprise, right?).

Well, from dry last year to damn wet this one. Along with the rain and storms of the previous few months, and the snow and sleet and freezing rain in winter, it's not only raining now(well over 2.6 inches in the last six hours) but something like 50% probability over the next few days.

I haven't heard it yet- probably becuase I don't go looking for this crap- but I have no doubt that someone already is talking about 'changing weather patterns due to globalar warmening'. Which is flat amazing, because they apparently cannot be bothered to remember their own life or look at the records. Cycles like this have always happened, long before any human activity could have affected it, and always will. Dry years, wet years, average years, all working their way through with no concern for our notice of them. For us at all.

Oh well, it'll make them so happy to point at it and squeal.

Sunday, May 06, 2007

More on the death of Kathryn Johnston

Demonstrating that the 'say anything to get a warrant, etc.' mess was indeed an ongoing problem, Balko has this:
The 80-year-old Thompson was in her bedroom the afternoon of Sept. 20, when she heard a terrible crash and shouting. Startled and confused, she grabbed a pistol and was immediately confronted by three Atlanta narcotics officers.

"They had masks covering their face. I thought I was being robbed," she recalled. "They pointed those big guns at me."

The two incidents share striking similarities: Two elderly women living alone with guns; police battering in a door; faulty reports from street-level dealers helping narcotics officers; and police parsing the truth, if not outright lying.

And take note of this:
The team did not have a no-knock warrant as they did in the Johnston case. But narcotics agents are allowed to quickly batter in a door if they hear the residents scurrying around, presumably hiding drugs, or if they hear nothing. The team that day heard nothing, the police report said.
Got that? If they hear you 'scurrying around', they can kick in the door; and if they DON'T hear anything, they can kick in the door. Just freakin' unbelievable.

He notes that the judges who've been in the habit of signing these warrants, often under conditions that should have told anyone with three working brain cells that something was wrong, need to be dealt with also. However,
Fulton magistrates don't plan on making any policy changes, said Stefani Searcy, court administrator for Fulton County State and Magistrate courts.

"I'm sure the judges, not just here but across the state, are concerned about whether officers are telling the truth," Searcy said. "It's a problem that has to be handled internally by the police department."

"Because we clowns in black robes have NO responsibility in this, no sir, none at all!"

Of course the Empire In Decline is the U.S.

in this article. I admit that I'm seriously suspicious of anything coming from someone who writes things like "An imperium in its death throes can be a nasty beast; I am by the same token nervous that the American empire may lurch dangerously around for decades to come.", but I will say his idea is interesting. I don't think it'll work, for the simple reason that 'containing' radical islam is just a touch different than the Soviet Union.

Pretty good article on th 2nd Additional

in, of all places, the New York Times.
There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.

Considering it was 'liberal' politicians and law professors who gave us the 'collective right' crap, it only seems fair that some of them realize the truth and speak about it.

I've always been amazed at how, in a document specifically noting individual rights, the rights of free people, that these people could argue with a straight face that the 2nd was only a 'collective' right.

The earlier consensus, the law professors said in interviews, reflected received wisdom and political preferences rather than a serious consideration of the amendment’s text, history and place in the structure of the Constitution. “The standard liberal position,” Professor Levinson said, “is that the Second Amendment is basically just read out of the Constitution.”

No kidding?

But(of course), those 'individual' rights people don't really believe it:Scholars who agree with gun opponents and support the collective rights view say the professors on the other side may have been motivated more by a desire to be provocative than by simple intellectual honesty.
Just like if you don't agree with the 'concensus truth' on globular wormering you're either a Gaia-hating troglodyte or just trying to cause problems. 'Course, though, this is coming from people who on one hand say a criminal caught in the act has more legal protections than you do, but on the 2nd say things like this:
“The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all,” Mr. Burger said in a speech. In a 1991 interview, Mr. Burger called the individual rights view “one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Take careful note of that last; it came from a former Chief Justice of SCOTUS. Considering we've had idiots like this on that Court, it's amazine there's anything left of the Constitution at all other than their approved form of the 'living document'.

And I just love this:
“It’s truly a life-or-death question for us,” she said. “It’s not theoretical. We all remember very well when D.C. had the highest murder rate in the country, and we won’t go back there.” Uh, you might take a moment to consider that one factor in that still horrible crime rate is that idiots like you disarmed honest people.

Found over at Instapundit.

Two pieces noting that it wasn't 'liberal professors' who did all the work on this subject. Not even close. At Volokh and Balkin.