Archive for the ‘Second amendment’ Category
This place is the bomb.
Thank you for reading this blog.
It has been reported that there are a high number of people on no fly lists trying to get into the US and it also has been reported that OBL has indicated that there is a coming attack.
On it’s face value, one might say that we get these warning all the time. It’s posturing to keep us off balance, a feint in an effort to make us too comfortable in hearing these warnings.
On the other hand, coupled with the revelation that lots of people on no fly lists makes it more serious. Looking back at the days of the IRA, they threatened Queen Elizabeth with the taunt, “you have to be good every day, we have to be good only once.”
We ate not dealing with a high tech enemy here. In many ways it’s simplicity makes it virtually impossible to deal with, like a virus. Flooding the TSA screeners with people that are on the no fly list is much like a denial of service attack that some viruses use to bring down a server. In this case, the TSA will become so overwhelmed that someone could get through. Will get through.
Obviously the enemy here has been good four times with us: The Twin Towers, The Pentagon, Fight 93 and Hasan. They were almost good with Abdulmutallab and Reid. This is not a problem that can be solved with increasing force (against what) or taking away rights of Americans. We must, and I declare this emphatically, we must use the same processes and principles that El Al uses to protect it’s passengers. On either side, nothing succeeds like success, and the Israelis have been successful in keeping the bad guys out. I would also propose on any domestic flight, that people that are legally licensed to carry concealed weapons be allowed to carry on domestic flights. The Second Amendment is the original homeland security. Let it work.
Instead, Obama will throw more McDonald’s rejects at the problem in the guise of TSA, and pay lip service to increased security. Of course it could be worse. In england they police are using military drones to spy on their own people (and they have the highest per capita camera surveillance). Of course the farm animals their will feel much safer. How safe are we? We better be good. Real good.
Thank you for reading this blog.
This is a real simple post.
Answer: Because it is the only defense they have.
Chicago, one of the most corrupt cities in the nation, has proven feckless and impotent in protecting it’s citizens. It lets the riff raff run the show, while the police play grab ankles with each other.
Why you ask? I have one supposition, no, make that two, may be, as to why. I am sure that John Lott could give a better account, but here goes.
Chicago, like other cities, has gangs. A lot of gangs in fact. What makes Chicago special is that these gangs are used to motivate and produce the vote, a lot like union thugs. Politicians use “community organizers” to liaise with gangs in order to get the people in a particular district to vote for a particular candidate. It’s the only way corrupt politicians in the 2nd most corrupt city in America can keep their jobs.
When you have such ties to gangs, which are basically organized criminals, it basically both legitimizes them and emboldens them. The politicians would rather sacrifice a few citizens and BS them later, than tackle the the real problems of crime, which is getting rid of criminals while removing their breeding grounds.
The second issues revolves around incorrect thinking. Call it liberalism if you like. Chicago is full of liberals that think all sorts of incorrect thoughts, like citizens are not allowed to protect themselves from criminals, and that criminals have more rights than free citizens. Such is the liberal dementia.
How is this manifested? The people of Chicago, and Illinois are not allowed to carry concealed weapons legally. Just like Washington DC, that other paradigm of a safe community, you just can’t do it. The criminals of course, don’t really care, as they and the local politicians are in each other’s pockets and hey, it’s business.
My advice is to allow the people, the law abiding people of Chicago and Illinois to be able to arm themselves and protect themselves. It’s a fundamental right and one that will be taken up by the Supreme Court. Until then, I have no advise for Chicagoans that is legal, except do what you have to do to protect yourself.
Until the SCOTUS decides this case, protect youself, and thank you for reading this blog.
Here is something I expect to be under attack soon by BHO. H/T to TooMuchTime for turning me on to this after I regaled him with the story of my 13 year old son’s social studies teacher using the Simpsons to explain the second amendment.
The NRA has posted the proposed changes in government’s position on guns and gun rights. During the campaign, Obama facilely agreed that people have a right to bear arms. I guess it changed after he got elected.
|“Yes We Can . . . Ban Guns”–Obama Announces Gun Ban Agenda Before The Final Vote Count Is In|
|Friday, November 07, 2008|
Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign slogan, “the audacity of hope,” should have instead been “the audacity of deceit.” After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby–four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business:
“Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent.” Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists. Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban’s expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation’s murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime. Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime-about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with “assault weapons.” Obama says that “assault weapons” are machine guns that “belong on foreign battlefields,” but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet.
“Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment.” The amendment–endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police–prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation. Anti-gun activists oppose the restriction, because it prevents them from obtaining tracing information and using it in frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearm manufacturers. Their lawsuits seek to obtain huge financial judgments against firearm manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun to inflict harm, even though the manufacturers have complied with all applicable laws.
“Closing the gun show loophole.” There is no “loophole.” Under federal law, a firearm dealer must conduct a background check on anyone to whom he sells a gun, regardless of where the sale takes place. A person who is not a dealer may sell a gun from his personal collection without conducting a check. Gun prohibitionists claim that many criminals obtain guns from gun shows, though the most recent federal survey of convicted felons put the figure at only 0.7 percent. They also claim that non-dealers should be required to conduct checks when selling guns at shows, but the legislation they support goes far beyond imposing that lone requirement. In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure, holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business.
“Making guns in this country childproof.” “Childproof” is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems. While no one opposes keeping children safe, the fact is thataccidental firearm-related deaths among children have decreased 86 percent since 1975, even as the numbers of children and guns have risen dramatically. Today, the chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident are less than one in a million.