Thursday, January 10, 2013

Because hungry peasants don't count when keeping enviroweenies

and the corn lobby happy:
“We’re farming here because there is no other land, and I have to feed my family,” said Mr. Alvarado, pointing to his sons Alejandro and José, who are 4 and 6 but appear to be much younger, a sign of chronic malnutrition.
Recent laws in the United States and Europe that mandate the increasing use of biofuel in cars have had far-flung ripple effects, economists say, as land once devoted to growing food for humans is now sometimes more profitably used for churning out vehicle fuel.

A little earlier I listened to the governor of New York howling about how "This is not about taking your guns, except the ones you don't need to own!" and "You don't need ten bullets to kill a deer!!"  And when I say 'howling' I'm not kidding.
Gov. Cuomo:
No.  You can't have mine.  And how big the magazine is, is none of your damned business.
If you can't understand that, I can resort to more blunt language.
                                                             Sincerely, etc.
For further response,
Brett, like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it, writing, “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity
While your granddad’s .30-06 is a good deal more powerful than the .223 rifles that give blue-state types the howling fantods, that is not what we have a constitutional provision to protect. Liberals are forever asking: “Why would anybody need a gun like that?” And the answer is: because we are not serfs. We are a free people living under a republic of our own construction. We may consent to be governed, but we will not be ruled.
(red emphasis mine)

One of the reasons the 'driving is a Privilege' crap ticks me off so much feeds right into this:
Authorities in Indonesia’s Aceh province are moving full-steam ahead with yet another implementation of sharia law, this time banning women from straddling motorcycles. According to the law, women are only allowed to ride “side-saddle” and are prohibited from holding onto the driver for support. The reason? Apparently, straddling a motorcycle is not a matter of practicality or safety for the sharia-authorities of Aceh, rather, it is about “showing a woman’s curves.”

[It] is also makes it clear that women are now forbidden from actually driving themselves on motorbikes as well. In other words, the primary mode of transportation for everyday people in cities across Indonesia has now been made unattainable to women, leaving them without the means to function independently.
And every time they make it more difficult to drive, more inconvenient to get on a plane or bus or train, it makes it that much more difficult to live our lives, to get around...

If we observe gun violence as a “disease,” one thing is strikingly clear – this disease never strikes people known to be or potentially armed! It may be true that the recent Connecticut shooter was mentally ill, but he was not so crazy as to take on a police station. Neither he, nor any of the other similar shooters, decide to shoot up gun stores or NRA conventioneers. They may be crazy, but apparently not that crazy.

No, they invariably pick gun-free zones for their mayhem. And when confronted with an armed counterforce, they either surrender or shoot themselves. They do not wage gun battles against other armed people.

So, using the logic of Edward Jenner, the inoculation to prevent the disease of gun violence is putting guns into the hands of potential victims. So thinking like Edward Jenner, lets see what happens when we do just that – arm citizens by permitting concealed carrying of firearms.

Hey, Gawker, payback's a bitch, isn't it?
But when you cause crap like this:
People are gonna be pissed.  So, John Cook, deal with it, you wanker.

Well, would you expect anything else from Biden & Co.?
We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not.

1 comment:

Chalkie said...

"It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity."

You kinda put your finger on it right there. Even if you buy into the "group rights" idea (I don't), it's STILL not about hunting or recreation.