The Brits may be pushing through a law to 'regulate' the media;

when you see something like
“In the House of Lords I hope they are going to agree to a bit of law that says this charter can’t be tampered with by ministers.
“I hope there won’t be a vote in the House of Lords because I hope it will be agreed.”
it actually means "This is such a piece of crap that the only way it'll work is if we don't allow anyone to change anything in it; the deal has to be done before the commoners see it."

Even more:
Something that Mr Cohen doesn’t cover is that, we too, appear about to be regulated. Parliament is not just abridging the freedom of the press, but of the web too. As Guido Fawkes explains regulation looks likely to cover not just Fleet Street (if that were not bad enough), but:

“relevant publisher” means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom: (a) a newspaper or magazine containing news-related material, or (b) a website containing news-related material (whether or not related to a newspaper or magazine)

Title that bill "And your little bloggers, too!"


Ultra-secret national security letters that come with a gag order on the recipient are an unconstitutional impingement on free speech, a federal judge in California ruled in a decision released Friday.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ordered the government to stop issuing so-called NSLs across the board, in a stunning defeat for the Obama administration’s surveillance practices. She also ordered the government to cease enforcing the gag provision in any other cases. However, she stayed her order for 90 days to give the government a chance to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.


From Texas:
Morton’s testimony last week before the Texas Senate helped steer Senate Bill 825, prompted by his case, over a crucial hurdle. The bill aims to hold prosecutors accountable if they hide or suppress evidence from defendants. Morton’s lawyers claim prosecutors failed to turn over key evidence supporting Morton’s claim of innocence. Clearly, current laws are too lenient in punishing such practices, which not only are unethical, but illegal. The Legislature should pass the bill.
Sounds good to me; prosecutors who knowingly violate the law and ethics SHOULD face personal consequences.
Now they need- ALL states need- to extend this to police who knowingly violate the law, or screw someone's life up through careless or deliberate actions(not bothering to make sure you have the right address, right person, use a SWAT team when they shouldn't and such).


BRM's take on the Cypress robbery:
Those who conduct such confiscations - no, let's call them 'thefts', because that's what they are - argue that what they're doing is legal, because they make sure to apply existing laws in new ways, or pass new laws to cover what they're doing.  Well, it may be legal, but that doesn't make it right.  It's like a federal officer conducting an unconstitutional search of someone's property.  He - and the federal 'establishment' - will argue that you have no right to resist him;  you can only sue after the fact to establish that the search was illegal, and obtain what restitution the courts will allow.  If you try to stop an illegal, unconstitutional search before it starts, the 'establishment' will arrest you, or even use lethal force against you for 'obstructing an officer of the law in the execution of his duty' - and then grant so-called 'qualified immunity' to those who've killed you, because they were 'doing their job', irrespective of whether or not their actions were legal.  It's just another example of how the 'establishment' will use the law to protect itself and its minions while screwing you.


The only way in which our cause can prevail is through positing a moral principle that applies to all—including those who choose to own no arms. This is the moral principle: every human being has a right to self-defense, and every human being has a sacred right to be trusted with arms unless he shows otherwise by his actions—a 'presumption of liberty, rather than a presumption that we are all evil and incompetent. 

Most of the Old World (with a few exceptions, such as Russia and Canada, which do have pro-active, self-defense oriented, gun rights movements) has no serious debate on the right to bear arms. A public consensus has emerged, in particular on the European continent, that civilian firearms are an evil to be mitigated, tolerated only for the purpose of sports. In some countries, gun owners now fear bringing up the issue of self-defense in public, for fear their gun license may be taken away (on allegations that they are owning a firearm for purposes other than sport).


A quote to remember:

“How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.” Dr. Suzanne Gratia-Hupp

Fraud by global warmenists?  Whoda thunk it?(put your hand down)


On a personal note, when went to the outdoor range a few days ago the guy with the Mini Sharps showed up, and I got to try it at 100 yards with some handloads he'd put together with Speer 158-grain Deep Curl hollowpoints:

The circled group plus the one high-left was five shots(I think I pulled that one); the hole just below is from a different load(powder and bullet both, rest of that group was low).  That's from a .357 Mag rifle; oh, I want one in .30-30.