Sunday, February 15, 2009
NOW,for something completly different!
I'M stimulused out and taking a break from DOOM+GLOOM, preps,politics,religion,ETC. The people I've met in the last year: Senator Mel Martinez , from the great state of Florida, drummer, Brian(Head)Welsh, from the heavy rock group Korn, Actor Tim Curry, basketball great Shaquille O'Neil , Bounty Hunter Leonard Padilla and yesterday, Paula Abdul, who seems like a real nice lady. Sometimes as much as I dislike my job there are some perks. I'm dedicating this article to Robert(Mr. Spenser for Hire)Urich, who I irritated to tears 20 years ago on a flight from Savanna Ga. and who died awhile back, sorry Bob. Update, and today May 6th 2009 Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong. I saw this short guy in front of me with a black T-Shirt that said in bold letters- MEDICINAL and a pot leaf, I said," nice shirt" he looked over his sun glasses and said," thanks", then I recognized him and asked for his autograph, which he did;right behind was Tommy Chong(who was looking rough) we shook hands and talked for a few minutes and by the way had a nice looking wife.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Slick Willy Again.
And here'ssssss Slick Willy,
No Surprises Here: FormerPresident Clinton Advocates New Gun And Magazine Ban
Friday, February 06, 2009
With President Barack Obama stating that his "urban agenda" includes reimposing the former federal ban on "assault weapons" and "large" magazines, it's out-of-date to refer to that law as it was known at the time--the Clinton Gun Ban.
On second thought, maybe not just yet.
In January, speaking at a meeting of the anti-gun U.S. Conference of Mayors, former president Bill Clinton took credit for the old ban, praised the Brady Campaign for continuing to lobby Congress for a new ban, and suggested that the mood in Washington might be more favorable toward a ban now than it had been during the last eight years.
Here's what Mr. Clinton had to say:
"[W]e will not go forward anymore, I don't think, with the kind of politics of division and destruction that drug us down for too long. That's essentially what is different, and what creates this great moment of opportunity . . . . to have conversations with people, instead of screaming matches, over things like what former Mayor [now Brady Campaign president Paul] Helmke works on so much—over what is the best way to keep the American people safe. Nobody wants to repeal the Second Amendment, and nobody wants to keep you out of the deer woods, but wouldn't it be nice if your children didn't have to worry about being mowed down by an assault weapon when they turn the corner?"
After the mayors' reflexive applause receded, Clinton continued, this time speaking more broadly than in reference to gun control alone. "[W]e're now in a position to begin again," he said. "It's not a leftward movement. It's a forward, communitarian movement." Communitarianism is a movement that considers individualism an impediment to society uniformly adopting values the movement considers appropriate, including authoritarian gun control. For example, the Communitarian Network platform states "there is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament of the kind that exists in practically all democracies."
Mr. Clinton did not treat the mayors to a longwinded explanation of the communitarian ideal, nor did he explain that the Brady Campaign no longer advocates merely the reimposition of the Clinton-era ban. Instead, like the Violence Policy Center and Legal Community Against Violence, Brady advocates a much broader federal ban, such as California's or the one proposed by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), which would ban guns made to comply with the 1994 ban (by omitting one or more attachments, such as a flash suppressor), all semi-automatic shotguns, the Ruger Mini-14, the .30 Carbine, the M1 Garand, and other categories of guns and gun parts not affected by the 1994 ban.
Mr. Clinton also praised President Obama's selection of Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, a position in which Mrs. Clinton could lend support to international efforts to impose gun prohibitions domestically. It's going to be an interesting four years, to say the least.
Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes. Contact Us Privacy & Security Policy
No Surprises Here: FormerPresident Clinton Advocates New Gun And Magazine Ban
Friday, February 06, 2009
With President Barack Obama stating that his "urban agenda" includes reimposing the former federal ban on "assault weapons" and "large" magazines, it's out-of-date to refer to that law as it was known at the time--the Clinton Gun Ban.
On second thought, maybe not just yet.
In January, speaking at a meeting of the anti-gun U.S. Conference of Mayors, former president Bill Clinton took credit for the old ban, praised the Brady Campaign for continuing to lobby Congress for a new ban, and suggested that the mood in Washington might be more favorable toward a ban now than it had been during the last eight years.
Here's what Mr. Clinton had to say:
"[W]e will not go forward anymore, I don't think, with the kind of politics of division and destruction that drug us down for too long. That's essentially what is different, and what creates this great moment of opportunity . . . . to have conversations with people, instead of screaming matches, over things like what former Mayor [now Brady Campaign president Paul] Helmke works on so much—over what is the best way to keep the American people safe. Nobody wants to repeal the Second Amendment, and nobody wants to keep you out of the deer woods, but wouldn't it be nice if your children didn't have to worry about being mowed down by an assault weapon when they turn the corner?"
After the mayors' reflexive applause receded, Clinton continued, this time speaking more broadly than in reference to gun control alone. "[W]e're now in a position to begin again," he said. "It's not a leftward movement. It's a forward, communitarian movement." Communitarianism is a movement that considers individualism an impediment to society uniformly adopting values the movement considers appropriate, including authoritarian gun control. For example, the Communitarian Network platform states "there is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament of the kind that exists in practically all democracies."
Mr. Clinton did not treat the mayors to a longwinded explanation of the communitarian ideal, nor did he explain that the Brady Campaign no longer advocates merely the reimposition of the Clinton-era ban. Instead, like the Violence Policy Center and Legal Community Against Violence, Brady advocates a much broader federal ban, such as California's or the one proposed by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), which would ban guns made to comply with the 1994 ban (by omitting one or more attachments, such as a flash suppressor), all semi-automatic shotguns, the Ruger Mini-14, the .30 Carbine, the M1 Garand, and other categories of guns and gun parts not affected by the 1994 ban.
Mr. Clinton also praised President Obama's selection of Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, a position in which Mrs. Clinton could lend support to international efforts to impose gun prohibitions domestically. It's going to be an interesting four years, to say the least.
Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes. Contact Us Privacy & Security Policy
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
FRIGGIN SCUMBAG CROOKS
We acquired a little place last year; a little small, but the price was right,so I figured to give the motor home(M/H) a rest. Moved our crap into the new place and placed the M/H into the park storage yard being it is just down the street.I check it out 3-4 times a week;we still have batteries, supplies, ETC. This morning I went to do the weekly start up and checks and I noticed my vinyl wheel covers were missing and on further inspection, my rim covers /hub caps whatever their called,were gone.Some frigging SCUMBAG stole my property at the cost of 150.00 apieceand on top of that they got the air valve extensions from the rear dually, thanking the Gods that the SHITHEAD(s) didn't notice my Solar Panels on the roof or knew about what is inside. So the gest of my story is to be very careful of who you tell about your preps and plans or what you have stock piled. I got off fairly cheap this time and am not giving them the second chance. STAY SAFE.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Interpreting the 2nd Amendment.
Interpreting the Second Amendment A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. by Jeff Knox
(February 5, 2009) It has been famously said and often repeated that the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. While this statement is generally true, it is incomplete. Regardless of what the Supreme Court says, the Constitution ultimately means what the People believe it to mean. So far in our history the Supreme Court has refrained from any interpretation of the Constitution that was so flagrantly at odds with the beliefs of the People that a serious, violent uprising ensued. But they may have come perilously close in last year’s decision in DC v. Heller. In that case the Court unanimously agreed that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right to arms, but disagreed in a 5 – 4 split as to whether the District of Columbia’s virtual ban on handguns violated that individual right. Even in the prevailing opinion, the justices expressed positions which are completely at odds with the understanding of those of us in the Second Amendment community. The Second Amendment exists to ensure that the government does not trample the rights of the People under color of law. There are some 90 million gunowners in the U.S. and at least one third of those maintain a relatively purist understanding of the Second Amendment; meaning that at least 30 million citizens would strenuously object to any interpretation of the Second Amendment supporting the banning of any type of commonly held firearm or the mandatory registration of firearms or licensing of firearm owners. That’s 30 million people – with guns – rejecting unconstitutional laws, regardless of what the Supreme Court might approve. That is not to say that 30 million gunowners would rise up in armed revolt at the passage of an “assault weapon” ban or a registration scheme; we would not. A fair number of us would however roundly refuse to comply with such laws and thus, officially become criminals. If even a third of those Second Amendment fundamentalists refused do comply with an unconstitutional ban, the results would be disastrous. Any attempt to apprehend and punish any of those 30 million, otherwise law-abiding citizens, for the crime of disobeying an unconstitutional law would undoubtedly escalate tensions and could lead to some very serious consequences. This is not Great Britain or Australia; American gunowners are not just hunters, collectors, and hobbyists; we are patriots and see our firearms as part of our patriotic duty. We are the heirs of liberty and we see it as a sacred obligation to protect and defend the rights ensconced in the Constitution. We see our firearms, along with our convictions, as the final guarantors of liberty and protections for the Constitution. It matters not one whit what hoplophobic politicians and radical anti-rights activists – or even the majority on the Supreme Court – might think is reasonable and acceptable; there are at least 30 million of us who Know what the Second Amendment means and we are not going to be swayed by hollow arguments about “public safety,” “terrorist threats,” or “the greater good.” We Know that we are the good guys and that we are right. We Know that we are no threat to anyone except, criminals, tyrants, and jack-booted thugs. We Know that attacking our Constitutional Rights – whether by regulation, legislation, or court order – is attacking our nation and our way of life and we will not simply roll over and surrender the Constitution. The American people need to understand that what the hoplophobes and gun prohibitionists are suggesting with their gun bans and licensing schemes is that the government declare me and millions of other patriotic, law-abiding citizens to be criminals. They are advocating that if I do not comply with their unconstitutional orders I should be hunted down, and either incarcerated or killed! Killed because I believe the Constitution means what it says and I choose to safely own firearms which scare them. Perhaps part of gun grabbers’ plan is to push gun control far enough to drive the most extreme of our number to push back with violence and thus justify the need to disarm the rest of us. So the most dedicated of the Second Amendment purists might actually play into the strategies of any of our opponents, but I honestly wouldn’t put it past some of them. That’s why it is so critical that we go on the political offense and remain steadfastly on the civil defense. If the enemies of the Second Amendment can provokd a violent action they can convince a broad majority of Americans that gunowners are a greater threat than unchecked government power; at that point there would be little possibility for peaceful resolution. Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety for non-commercial purposes is hereby granted provided this credit is included. Text is available at FirearmsCoalition.org. To receive The Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 3313, Manassas, VA 20108. ©Copyright 2008 Neal Knox Associates
(February 5, 2009) It has been famously said and often repeated that the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. While this statement is generally true, it is incomplete. Regardless of what the Supreme Court says, the Constitution ultimately means what the People believe it to mean. So far in our history the Supreme Court has refrained from any interpretation of the Constitution that was so flagrantly at odds with the beliefs of the People that a serious, violent uprising ensued. But they may have come perilously close in last year’s decision in DC v. Heller. In that case the Court unanimously agreed that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right to arms, but disagreed in a 5 – 4 split as to whether the District of Columbia’s virtual ban on handguns violated that individual right. Even in the prevailing opinion, the justices expressed positions which are completely at odds with the understanding of those of us in the Second Amendment community. The Second Amendment exists to ensure that the government does not trample the rights of the People under color of law. There are some 90 million gunowners in the U.S. and at least one third of those maintain a relatively purist understanding of the Second Amendment; meaning that at least 30 million citizens would strenuously object to any interpretation of the Second Amendment supporting the banning of any type of commonly held firearm or the mandatory registration of firearms or licensing of firearm owners. That’s 30 million people – with guns – rejecting unconstitutional laws, regardless of what the Supreme Court might approve. That is not to say that 30 million gunowners would rise up in armed revolt at the passage of an “assault weapon” ban or a registration scheme; we would not. A fair number of us would however roundly refuse to comply with such laws and thus, officially become criminals. If even a third of those Second Amendment fundamentalists refused do comply with an unconstitutional ban, the results would be disastrous. Any attempt to apprehend and punish any of those 30 million, otherwise law-abiding citizens, for the crime of disobeying an unconstitutional law would undoubtedly escalate tensions and could lead to some very serious consequences. This is not Great Britain or Australia; American gunowners are not just hunters, collectors, and hobbyists; we are patriots and see our firearms as part of our patriotic duty. We are the heirs of liberty and we see it as a sacred obligation to protect and defend the rights ensconced in the Constitution. We see our firearms, along with our convictions, as the final guarantors of liberty and protections for the Constitution. It matters not one whit what hoplophobic politicians and radical anti-rights activists – or even the majority on the Supreme Court – might think is reasonable and acceptable; there are at least 30 million of us who Know what the Second Amendment means and we are not going to be swayed by hollow arguments about “public safety,” “terrorist threats,” or “the greater good.” We Know that we are the good guys and that we are right. We Know that we are no threat to anyone except, criminals, tyrants, and jack-booted thugs. We Know that attacking our Constitutional Rights – whether by regulation, legislation, or court order – is attacking our nation and our way of life and we will not simply roll over and surrender the Constitution. The American people need to understand that what the hoplophobes and gun prohibitionists are suggesting with their gun bans and licensing schemes is that the government declare me and millions of other patriotic, law-abiding citizens to be criminals. They are advocating that if I do not comply with their unconstitutional orders I should be hunted down, and either incarcerated or killed! Killed because I believe the Constitution means what it says and I choose to safely own firearms which scare them. Perhaps part of gun grabbers’ plan is to push gun control far enough to drive the most extreme of our number to push back with violence and thus justify the need to disarm the rest of us. So the most dedicated of the Second Amendment purists might actually play into the strategies of any of our opponents, but I honestly wouldn’t put it past some of them. That’s why it is so critical that we go on the political offense and remain steadfastly on the civil defense. If the enemies of the Second Amendment can provokd a violent action they can convince a broad majority of Americans that gunowners are a greater threat than unchecked government power; at that point there would be little possibility for peaceful resolution. Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety for non-commercial purposes is hereby granted provided this credit is included. Text is available at FirearmsCoalition.org. To receive The Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 3313, Manassas, VA 20108. ©Copyright 2008 Neal Knox Associates
Friday, February 6, 2009
Gun Control.
Gun Control Law all ready to go:H.R. 45 is ready to start taking away second amendment rights. A friend pointed this out to me. This is a synopsis: * You will have to carry a photo ID firearms license. * A training class is required to be licensed. * Disclosure of your storage method is required for license. * A thumb print is required for license. * Every sale recorded by the federal government. * If you move, and don't tell the Attorney General within 60 days, you are a criminal. * If a firearm is stolen and you don't report it, you are a criminal. * There will be no grandfathered firearms. * If you do not obtain a license and report every firearm you currently own, you are a criminal. * There will be a license fee and a fee for the "services" provided at purchase time. * Licenses must be renewed every 5 years.The Bill, H.R. 45, is dated 6 January, 2009, and the liberals are already on the move. Here is the text of the bill -- from the Government Printing Office: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h45ih.txt.pdf Got this from Bruce over at internet grocer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
