Referendum

Can someone please explain to me why I can vote for a referendum to raise property taxes in my school district when I don't actually own a home or pay property taxes?

It seems ridiculous to me that those who don't own property can vote to increase taxes on those who do. Sure the schools may need more money, but shouldn't those households in the district with school-aged children be the ones who take on the burden to fund the schools? Why should a single young male or a retired couple have to pay increased taxes for something they don't need / want / use simply because the majority votes to increase property taxes? Aren't they essentially subsidizing the education of others?

It'd be entirely different if we were discussing increased tax on a service that everyone in the community uses or depends on, for example funding local firefighters & police.

Maybe I'm way off base here, but that's just how I see it.

This sums things up nicely

Professor John Lott has posted a good pro-gun article from John Stossel.

Read it here

Stossel is right on point as usual. I think he sums up the entire pro-gun argument succinctly with the following.

"But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense...."

Freedom, Choice, Self-Responsibility - I think that covers the 3 big points of the pro-gun / pro-rights crowd.

Quote of the Day

"When a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law—men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims—then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket."

- Ayn Rand - For The New Intellectual (another Rand book I really should buy)

This has me speechless...

A well thought out idea from one of our institutions of "higher learning"

Mock Gunman Terrifies Students

This is quite possibly the stupidest "drill" I've ever heard of. The moron cop with the fake gun is lucky no one in the class was carrying against school rules or he'd be dead right now. What do they expect students to learn from such a drill? How to be good victims?

Keep Your Stinkin' Government Outta My Soul!

Linked from Michelle Malkin. This is from a somewhat recent (few weeks ago) speech by Michelle Obama. She's definitely a better speaker than her husband, but she's also not shy about pouring on the socialist rhetoric.

"We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another — that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."

I'm not even sure where to start with statements like this. I'd think such statements, and others she's made would scare the hell out of people. Instead they love it. It's socialism / communism reincarnated, yet it's apparently popular. It sure as hell scares me. Oh, and for the love of god, we do not live in a Democracy. I think if you polled Americans, most wouldn't know what form of government we have. (I wonder how many would pick "parliamentary" if given the choice....)

This notion that Obama has some cure-all that's going to "fix" my soul is insane. Unless he really is the "Messiah." He can go about fixing his own soul but don't presume to tell me what needs fixing in my own life. It's my responsibility to figure out what my problems are and deal with them. It's NOT the governments job to diagnose a one-size-fits-all "problem" (or set of problems) for all individuals and then enact policy to try and "fix" the problem collectively. We've seen that approach in action before, and it's a dismal failure time after time.

I have absolutely no moral or mutual obligation to anyone else. I have an obligation to myself. If I had kids I'd have an obligation to them, but beyond that I have no "mutual obligation" to any other American. This doesn't mean I don't have morals, or that I don't genuinely try to be a good, kind person. The idea that I somehow, under an Obama presidency, have a government mandated "obligation" to my fellow citizen is quite simply unamerican.

If Obama decides he wants to institutionally coerce me to fulfil that obligation (defined by government) then he's advocating a form of socialism. Remember, the only real difference between this and communism is how the government seeks to coerce, and how much force they're willing to use to ensure cooperation.

Quote of the Day.....

Or maybe I should do them each week? I never actually post these daily

"At the core of modern liberalism is the spoiled child -- miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."

-P.J. O'Rourke

Good quote posted elsewhere

"When the government controls your paycheck, your housing, and your ration card, it doesn't need to put you in jail; you are in jail."
-Megan McArdle

If you read Ayn Rand's 1st novel "We the Living" the story epitomizes the above quote. We the Living isn't biographical per se, although it is somewhat based upon what Rand went through in communist Russia

H/T to Joe Huffman for the link.

mmmmm

I think I just had THE BEST Fish & Chips I've ever had outside of London.

Lots of artery clogging goodness washed down with a beer.

I probably should mention that I love food. I have no clue whatsoever how I only weigh ~140 pounds because I can eat. Seriously, I'm like a bottomless pit.

In other news, my dad is still opening mail that doesn't belong to him, and then complaining because I bought an arsenal (yes he used that word) of OMGIMSCURRED 1000 bullets! He actually said "all it takes is one to kill somebody." I live with an irrational and hardcore anti-gun father and I still don't truly understand their mentality.

Unc Says "We're Not Winning"

I'll have more to say on this later tonight.

In this post ("we" as in small government, leave me the hell alone libertarian types)

I can't help but agree. I wish I could have the optimism I see from from Kim & Sebastian's quotes, but I don't. Chalk that up to being a realist, or better yet to genetics and upbringing. I'd rather not admit it, but I agree with Tam on this one guys. It echoes my post from just a few days ago.

Here's Tam's take on things.

"I think the big difference between our points of view is that you haven’t given up the fight, while I have. I just don’t see even a tiny plurality of human beings that give a crap about freedom. They want to be led. They want free stuff. They want to tell other people what to do. They’d rather watch American Idol than read a book. And they outnumber me by a thousand to one. And I’ve come to the dawning realization over the past years that I’m the abnormal one."

I agree, we're vastly outnumbered. We're also seriously screwed, since our education system, politicians, and the media teach obviously anti-libertarian viewpoints. Education is the key, and we're losing on that front. The problem is that the media is in large part in bed with government. Most major media outlets (save foxnews, who are just as bad on the other end) will parrot big government, liberal talking points without even an attempt at fact checking or objectivity. (just look at most gun control pieces)

I remember reading Sensing's quote over at Kevin's It's sad, but the cynic in me thinks it's likely accurate. It may not happen in my generation, but I see the U.S.A. going the way of the UK and other Socialist Democracies in the future. That's downright scary, but it's useless trying to tell the masses that what they're clamoring towards just ain't what it seems. I'll keep writing my thoughts here, and try to educate those I care about. As far as everyone else, well you can't educate the happily and willfully ignorant.

Quote of the Day

"About twenty percent of the American population, those who live in the Ninth Circuit, have lost one of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. And, the methodology used to take away the right threatens the rest of the Constitution. The most extraordinary step taken by the panel opinion is to read the frequently used Constitutional phrase, "the people," as conferring rights only upon collectives, not individuals. There is no logical boundary to this misreading, so it threatens all the rights the Constitution guarantees to "the people," including those having nothing to do with guns. I cannot imagine the judges on the panel similarly repealing the Fourth Amendment’s protection of the right of "the people" to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the right of "the people" to freedom of assembly, but times and personnel change, so that this right and all the other rights of "the people" are jeopardized by planting this weed in our Constitutional garden.

-Justice Andrew Kleinfeld - dissenting in Silviera v. Lockyer

I really feel like this country is, for lack of a more eloquent word, fucked. I can hardly stomach any more Presidential politics. Everything I hear from Obama and Hillary I find abhorrent and revolting. On the other side the Republican's trot out their usual brand of crap because they know they can get away with it. (especially with the gun vote)

It's depressing to watch imbecilic, ignorant people clamor excitedly to be lead around with ever more burdensome chains by a fresh new face eager to promise them innumerable platitudes disguised vaguely and purposely as "change." They're all chomping at the bit to disregard the one thing that matters. Liberty.

I discussed with my dad my displeasure with the idiocy of the average voter recently and he really drove home a good point. He said, "you have to remember that you're an educated man who thinks for himself. You're the minority."

Education is the key, so why is it that we don't have required reading by Rand, Locke, Bastiat, Mencken, etc. and The Federalist Papers in school? (instead we discuss "The Feminine Mystique" in American Political Thought) Why don't they teach a class called "Philosophy and Ideas of The founding fathers" instead of some boring history class in high schools?

Of course if you allow emotion to mask rational thought then all the "education" in the world will do you no good. If you rush towards the promise of hope & change without stopping to think rationally and consider "unintended consequences" then I think you deserve your shackles. Unfortunately those emotional, ignorant masses are capable of burdening me with those very same chains and that's what truly scares me.

Here's What I Want for the AR

Spikes Tactical .22LR

+ Flash hider & carbine rail options & 2 mags and you're up to $630 + Shipping. Sure I have a couple grand in savings, but that's for moving out of my parents house after I graduate, not for gun stuff.

If I had the money I'd buy it right now. .223 /5.56 is seriously cost-prohibitive. It's ~$350 / case now. Plus this way I can have two rifles in one.

And since it's on topic, a pic of my evil poodle-shooter AR-15

Sportsmans Guide = Poop

so I ordered 1000 rds of the Fiocchi 9mm I linked to earlier for $149.97. With coupon & shipping my total came to $155.96. If you click that link the price has now jumped substantially.

Well Sportsmansguide has now charged my credit card for more expensive Fiocchi per their "updated" advertisement totalling $224.96, a $69 difference. The $149.97 is no longer shown on the site.

Lets hope they're good about this and refund me the difference. If you put up an advertized price and people buy at that price they don't expect to be charged more.

I just hope this goes more smoothly than disputes I've had with banks in the past. Maybe merchants are better. If not I can always file a CC dispute.

Fighting Back and the Culture of Sheep

Squeaky and Breda's posts have aroused this post of mine.

In light of recent school shootings and the inevitable reactions that follow I think it's necessary to tie a discussion of human nature into such events.

At the most basic, purely instinctual level human beings are animals. We ALL have basic animal instincts. If we had no inhibitions placed upon us by socially constructed norms and morals we would act on instinct, not much differently than most animals. When we refer to violent criminals as "animals" I don't think we're far off. Such people have not / are incapable of developing the same sense of societal norms which 99% of the population abide by. Those people are social deviants and are more commonly called "criminals."

To be honest, a society with no such ingrained (or more accurately "learned") inhibitions would be one of chaos. Consent wouldn't be required for sexual relations. Men could force themselves upon women and it would be entirely acceptable. The strong could pillage the weak at will and could kill and steal with impunity etc. etc. We would act entirely on instinct.

Such chaos is exactly why a civilized society has laws. In order to create order from chaos the members of a society seek to determine what is generally considered "acceptable" behavior, particularly with concern to how social interactions are conducted among individuals. Laws exist because the members of a community, in seeking to establish norms, have an intrinsic understanding that a subset of the community will deviate from that norm. Were this not the case (if no one was a social deviant) then laws (and requisite punishment) would be wholly unnecessary. Everyone could simply hold hands & sing kumbaya in perfect social harmony forever.

Most people understand the need for, and purpose of laws in our society. Unfortunately many lack a deeper understanding. They choose to remain blind to the fact that laws alone will not and cannot make them safe. Not even the most effective enforcement of laws can ensure safety. The ostracizing that occurs if one breaks from societal norms, and the punishment one knows they will face as a lawbreaker keep most of the population within socially constructed behavioral boundaries. There are others however, for whom the law is superfluous. It does not constrain their actions because they are totally unconcerned with the possible negative consequences of their actions. If this is not the case, then they have engaged in risk/reward analysis and concluded that the rewards of criminal behavior outweigh any punishment the law might meter out. (and the chances of being caught)

Once you have come to this important realization, you can begin to deduce the simple reasoning behind the fundamental right of self-defense. If some people are, for the most part, unconstrained by our legal system then it's logical to conclude that the law-abiding are thus at a disadvantage. Egalitarian in nature, personal firearms swing the force pendulum back in favor of the law-abiding.

Criminals understand laws. More importantly, they understand that the majority of us follow them. Such knowledge gives the criminal an advantage. And what is a violent criminal? As I explained earlier, he is an animal. He is instinctual and he is a predator. He preys upon the law-abiding and from them picks out the meek, the weak, disabled, distracted etc. like any other predatory animal.

As a predator he chooses his victim based on the ease of the catch. Easier prey means he must expend less energy to achieve gratification and he can do so with minimal risk. The best thing victims can do is introduce risk into his decision-making process. Risk acts as a stopgap in his criminal process. It acts as an obvious impediment. Potential victims should be dangerous, fierce, and should respond with abject rage to the predator's assault. The risk that I discuss is extremely important because if differs from risk under the law. It is a risk that predatory humans can comprehend due to consciousness. It is the risk that they may be killed or seriously injured by their intended victim. It is an "Oh Shit!" risk. The immediacy and permanency of such a risk make it universally understood by human predators, who will then change behavior to reflect the natural tendency of all beings towards self-preservation.

Criminals may not play by the rules of society, but they do possess an understanding of the rules of nature. They are cowards, unwilling to work honestly to get what they want. They choose crime because it's easy and it pays. They choose crime because to them "the juice is worth the squeeze." Crime is an economic decision. By introducing armed potential victims into the situation one can automatically lower crime by making it both more dangerous and less profitable for the perpetrators.

The risk of being killed by an armed victim is the most serious risk a criminal can face. It should be of no surprise then, that the criminal element will thrive in areas where they are least likely to face such a risk. Take away mortal risk and you give criminals free reign to terrorize the law-abiding. The end result presents itself in cities like Philly, D.C. and Baltimore where good people live in fear and blood really does run in the streets.

Laws that forbid or make difficult the carrying of arms, laws that require retreat and "proportionality of force" only act to unduly constrain victims at the worst possible time. Such laws require us to act against natural instincts during the very moment life hangs in the balance.

"Duty to Retreat" requires one to choose a particular "legal" option rather than whichever instinctual option best ensures survival. At times retreating may be the best course of action, while at other times perhaps it's wiser to pump your attacker full of lead. The law should never act to burden the victim in such situations, particularly since it is not going to burden the criminal.

"Proportionality of force" is onerous because it requires the victim to be a mind reader. It requires an assessment of the force level and intent of the criminal. And how is "proportional" defined? If he has a knife and I have a gun can I not shoot him? What if he is unarmed but outweighs me by 75 pounds? Such an attacker could certainly cause "death or serious bodily injury." Why exactly should the level of force I can employ be restrained by the law? I am the victim and so shouldn't the aggressor, the criminal, be responsible for any violence that comes his way?

Defensive violence is NEVER a bad thing. It ensures survival. What could be more fundamental, more natural, instinctual, and just plain right than the will to survive. Any social conditioning that seeks to indoctrinate ideas contradictory to that will should always be resisted. Anything contradictory to basic fight or flight instincts should be ignored, because ideas that run counter to such instincts end up getting people killed.

boy, I let this sit for a few days and it really fizzled out.....

Chris Matthews is still a clueless liberal...

Here he asks the astoundingly ridiculous question "why do you think Cubans on the Island still support the Castro Brothers?"

Anyone with so much as a rudimentary understanding of history and government wouldn't even need to ask that question. I mean hey, it's not like anything bad might happen to someone who says they don't like Castro.

Hell, liberals are even going so far as to praise Castro's "social accomplishments"
Right. That's the kind of "progress" liberals think we need in this country....

I have more to say about this, but it will come later since I'm at work. And I swear, the handful of posts that I started and never got around to will be finished sometime, including this one and the earlier mentioned long post.

Quote of the Day

Via Bruce

"Gun Control: Because the right of a convicted/registered sex offender to rape a couple women, after breaking in their home at 3:00 in the morning and tying them up, is more sacred that the right of their next-door neighbor to prevent him from doing so."

- Bruce @ Massbackwards

Professor Lott Makes a Good Point

Should 18-22 year old college students be allowed to vote?

The article he links to discusses how the brains of people in my age group aren't fully developed, we're not able to think rationally etc. etc. Of course they're using this "research" to explain their support for a bill that would prohibit students from carrying guns on college campuses.

Mr. Lott brings up a good point. If we're not "developed" enough to make sound judgments regarding carrying a weapon of self-defense are we also not able to make informed decisions at the ballot box?

If our brains aren't developed enough to make sound judgment calls then why even bother having "institutions of higher learning." I find what they're saying about my age group highly insulting.

Hell, if what they're saying is the case I suppose I'll see Democrats introducing bills raising the age for driving, voting, drinking, smoking, enlisting in the military etc.... you know, since we're all so incapable of making good decisions. Maybe they can even amend the law so that we're not even legally considered "adults" untill age 23.

The police will protect you part 283805823....

If your life is in danger just call the police and they'll come to the rescue with their "evil guns"..........

Or maybe they'll ignore your pleas for help and threaten to arrest you if you keep calling. Calling the cops certainly worked out well for this young woman. According to anti-gun folks, calling 911 is always the answer to the problem and having a gun only creates a more dangerous situation for the intended victim. Right. Tell that to the families of the dead.

My take on "Rape Whistles"

Via Breda

A 19 year old college student is raped & killed on a Reno, Nevada campus and the University's response is to hand out whistles. Amazing! A whistle is not a weapon and does you no good unless a stranger (unarmed) is willing to come to your aid. If your attacker is armed in any way the stranger who comes to your aid likely won't be of much help. On a large campus like U of D many students would be totally oblivious to someone blowing a whistle.

At the University of Delaware we've had at least 2 serial rapists, a high-profile gruesome murder of a 19 year old girl, and plenty of attempted abductions. The University installed "blue light phones," which are basically emergency call boxes under a bright blue lamppost. It should be obvious that even if you can get to one, there's no way your going to be able to use the phones and have someone respond in time to save you if you're being raped, beaten, robbed etc. They are a 100% feel-good measure. Not to mention our campus police and public safety officers are all unarmed anyway. (not enough crime to justify allowing UDPD officers to carry, says our Administration)

The school does give Rape Aggression Defense classes at times on campus. This is good, but unarmed, most women are frankly no match for a man intent on harming them. As a woman, even if you're an expert in hand-to-hand combat you're still likely to be at a serious disadvantage against someone who outweighs you by 50-100 pounds.

Colleges don't make self-defense easy for students. Here's UD's "Weapons Policy" as of last year. Note that it specifically exempts pocketknives even though #2 is a blanket statement that could ban anything one could think to employ as a weapon. My knives would certainly violate #2, yet #4 allows them.

A student shall not possess, use, or threaten to use any of the following items:

1. Any firearm (including any weapon or instrument from which a shot, projectile, or other object may be discharged by force, whether operable or inoperable, loaded or unloaded);

2. Any deadly weapon, defined as any instrument, item, or material readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury;

3. Any BB gun, pellet gun, air rifle, paint gun, sword (whether decorative or not), or other martial arts weapon;

4. Any bomb, knife (other than an ordinary pocketknife carried in a closed position, with a blade of three inches or less), switchblade, billy club, blackjack, bludgeon, metal knuckles, slingshot, razor, bicycle chain, or ice pick; or

5. Any explosive chemical or device including a substance or a combination of substances possessed or prepared for the purpose of producing a visible or audible effect by combustion, explosion, deflagration, or detonation, including fireworks and illegal or potentially dangerous chemicals

My suggestion for women on college campuses? (and men too) Carry whatever weapon(s) you can carry legally under state law and keep them hidden. Don't listen to police and administrators who tell you to "submit and give up whatever the attacker wants." That approach has terrible track-record of stopping violent assaults. I'd say you should at least carry anything that could be used as a weapon that's not explicitly banned by your campus weapons policy. A Carabiner or Kubotan won't look like "scary" weapons and are at least more effective than fists.

It's a well known fact that rape isn't about sex, it's about physical domination. Submission is only going to encourage a rapist. Submission encourages all criminals, since difficult and dangerous victims are the last thing they want to encounter.




I'll get done that other post I started eventually. It may be a few days.

New blogroll Addition

I just noticed one of my fellow Opencarry.org Delawareans has a blog called Delawarestuff

And for those who don't think one person can make a difference. Read this

Crime in Israel

maybe Doubletapper can answer this for me.

Absent the constant threat of suicide bombers coming into the country and blowing themselves up for Allah and those 72 virgins what are the violent crime rates?

I have a feeling that Israeli-on-Israeli crime is extremely low.

Thanks to Breda and Squeaky I have a long post in the works. I can't guarantee it'll be great but I'll try.

shooting...... and some weird rules

I actually got my ass to the range this morning for a change. Surprisingly I was the only one on the pistol /rifle range for the entire hour.

I've also learned of a few interesting rules they have at Ommelanden Range. One (which didn't apply to me with the P6) is that if you have a high-cap pistol you can't load it with more than 10 rounds. I don't get this at all. I mean I just don't see any valid reason for such a rule since there's a rule against rapid-fire anyway.

The other thing had to do with targets. I brought blue silhouette targets to shoot and was told I'd have to fold down the heads before putting them up because "we don't want you shooting at people." That's an absurd rule in my opinion, but OK.

This is my 4th range trip and I'm finally starting to shoot better. It's somewhat pitiful that I've only been to the range 4 times in my couple months of gun-ownership. I need to start going on a weekly or bi-weekly basis because it's just so damn fun! I'm still a bit high, but it seems I'm no longer pushing everything to the right. It was ~35 and windy today and the range is outdoors. I was in shortsleeves and freezing. I'm starting to think maybe shooting gloves wouldn't be a bad in this kind of weather.

Anyway, here are my targets. As you can see I had to fold down the heads.

Target # 1

Target # 2

Good price on 9mm

For those looking for decent ammo prices without shooting Wolf.

$149.97 / 1000 Fiocchi 115Gr. 9mm

and here's a $10 off coupon code SG554. It's backordered till April but I just bought a case. Also make sure it's stock # E708E-99438 NOT WX2-99438 as the latter is alot more money.

Defensive Gun Use in the 1st State

Liquor Store Owner Shoots Robbers

EDIT - Here's the Article I was looking for

And it has the usual "you should just give them the goods rather than defend yourself BS." I'm surprised that quote came from Mr. Martin, the store-owner who shot the bad guys. I personally disagree with him regarding complying with the demands of a violent, irrational criminal.

A print version was on the front page of today's paper. It has some really good quotes. This online story omits some pertinent information, including the fact that the store owner was carrying his weapon, a S&W M&P9, openly holstered on his hip.

This would have turned out much differently in Illinois or Maryland.....

Something Marko once said came to mind while I was reading this.

"I've said it before, but it bears repeating: the only thing that will stop an armed attacker on the spot is a person with a gun of their own....... The number of casualties at the site of an attempted mass shooting is usually determined by whether the gun used to stop the killer is already at the site, or whether it must be carried there in the holster of a police officer."

As usual, a gun in the holster of the intended victim worked out infinitely better than relying on the cops to come to the rescue. In that moment, when you are faced with the very real possibility of death, YOU are the only one capable of ensuring your safety.

And the best thing? He didn't need permission from the state in order to carry a tool of self-defense. He made the decision, assumed the responsibility, and acted without government permission. This is something all free men in a free State should be able to do. The right to self-defense is a fundamental and natural right. It should never require that citizens ass-kiss in hopes that the government will allow them the means of self-defense.

I have a few things from the actual article I'll be adding later. Stay tuned.



From the 2nd link at the top of the page
"

Martin went back into his store as the gunman started backing away.
But when Martin looked out the doorway, he said the gunman yelled “what are you looking at” and fired his rifle.

That’s when Martin said he reached for his Smith & Wesson M&P 9 mm pistol, which he holsters to his hip -- Delaware law allows people to carry an exposed weapon without a permit.

After pulling the gun, Martin fired seven times.

One of the shots wounded the gunman in the right thigh and sent his three alleged accomplices banging on doors crying for help, police said."

Yup, no loopholes to jump through if you want to carry for self-defense here. Just strap your sidearm on your hip and go about your business. It's legal and constitutional, except in Dover. If the bliss-ninnies and soccer mom's don't like it, so be it. Their irrational fears don't trump your rights.

Hopefully these kids will decide to forgo a life of crime now that they've been shot at. If they don't learn their lesson then I can only hope that their next violent crime ends in their being removed from this earth by the intended victim. Call me a callous asshole if you wish, but I have no remorse for violent criminals, regardless of their age.

As I've said before, if your chosen occupation is armed robbery you might just encounter some "occupational hazards," and that's a good thing!

City of Newark trying to ban Open Carry?

link to council meeting

Yet they also acknowledge that it's legal. It looks to me like they want to change the statute because it's redundant (CCDW without a license is already illegal per State law) but they're including in the change a ban on open carry.

The opening few paragraphs make it apparent I think that they realize they can't actually pass such an ordinance due to conflict with state law. Good, at least they seem to understand this unlike some localities in other states. The part I've put in bold below confuses me, since there is no license required for the "open carrying and display of weapons" in Delaware. (other than Dover)

"We have identified a potential impediment in the above ordinance which is on your agenda for second reading, hearing and adoption at your November 27, 2007 meeting.

The legal issue pertains to the provision in the ordinance which would prohibit the open carrying and display of deadly weapons by persons not licensed to do so nor required to do so by virtue of their employment. Since the ordinance has moved to second reading, we would strongly recommend that it be defeated or, alternatively not receive a "second"a t the table on Monday night. We will continue our legal review and prepare a new ordinance for first and second reading if we conclude that current provisions in state law preclude our adoption of the bill as drafted."

This is how the Newark weapons ordinance currently reads. It's somewhat ambiguous

"No person shall, within the city, carry, wear under his clothes, conceal about his person, or display in a threatening manner any dangerous or deadly weapons including but not by way of limitation any pistol, revolver, dagger, razor, sling shot, knuckles of lead or brass or other metal, any bowie knife or any knife resembling a bowie knife, or any knife with a switch blade or device whereby the blade or blades can be opened by a flick of a button,pressure on the handle or other mechanical contrivance."

I read that to mean that open carry is LEGAL in the city of Newark because OC'ing is not "displaying in a threatening manner."

Anyway, they want to substitute the following

(a) No person shall, within the city, carry, wear, or otherwise openly display any dangerous or deadly weapon, including but not by way of limitation, any pistol, revolver, or other firearm, unless such person is acting within the scope of his employment and such employment requires that the person carry, wear, or otherwise display such a dangerous or deadly weapon.

(b) In all cases in which a person is found within the city to be carrying a concealed dangerous or deadly weapon, such act shall be governed by relevant provisions under state law, including, but not limited to, statutes pertaining to carrying concealed weapons and statutes permitting such activity pursuant only to a valid state permit."

Those 4 words would ban Open Carry in Newark, however Delaware has state Preemption as of July 1985, so this new city ordinance would be illegal, as it conflicts with preemption and state law.

OC in Newark is very very confusing, since although it appears to be legal under local & State law, we have the University of Delaware intertwined with the City and I can't figure out whether it's legal to Open Carry within the "University Perimeter" or not. There's plenty of places & sidewalks that aren't University property but are within the campus perimeter.

Quote of the Day

"Where the Constitution establishes a right of the people, no organ of the government, including the courts, can legitimately take that right away from the people, ..... "All of our rights, every one of them, may become impediments to the efficient functioning of our government and our society from time to time, but fortunately they are locked in by the Constitution against permanent loss because of temporary impediments."

-9th Circuit Judge Andrew Kleinfeld

my knowledge is "scary"

So apparently my parents find it "scary" that I am knowledgeable about guns / gun-laws. They act like it's a bad thing that I make a point to know the major gun laws of Delaware and other States.

We were discussing the NIU shootings and I was pointing out the differences between IL's super strict laws and our middle-of-the-road laws. When pressed my mom couldn't offer any real explanation of why my being knowledgeable about something that interests me would be "scary."

*sigh* ...

Another shooting in a "gun-free zone." Actually it's a "gun-free zone" within a gun-free zone, since you can't legally carry firearms in public anywhere in Illinois. Only criminals and school shooters are allowed to do that. Is it sad that I'm no longer surprised by these events, and that I can immediately assume they've occurred in a gun-free zone? It seems I'm almost always proven right.

I discussed this briefly with my dad and said that in such a situation you really have no good options. You either run to an exit, or lay down and hope he doesn't shoot you. I said I thought that the best thing to do in a 200+ person lecture hall would be to stampede towards the shooter and then out the exit.

He said he'd lay down and play dead if he were in such a situation and disagreed with my argument that running is a better option because it's much harder to hit a moving target. I suppose I just don't understand the whole play dead / stand still / crouch in the corner or under a desk mindset. All that does is make you an easy, attractive target.

I carry my Benchmade with me pretty much everywhere. Obviously if there's ever a shooter while I'm in class I'm running immediately. If however, my only choices are to kneel and wait for a bullet or fight back then a 3" knife is certainly better than nothing. I think I'd rather die trying to do something.

The new "Patriot Act"

Patriot Employers Act - Our "hope & change" buddy Obama co-sponsored this gem.

S1945

The next step will be to use the MSM to demonize those corporations that wouldn't play by your rules and that aren't "Patriot Corporations." I'll be the next step would involve "punishing" unpatriotic corporations.

More on this later. Thanks to Sebastian for bringing it to my attention.

some info & links

Signs on Buses in Wilmington

I wish I had a picture. The DART buses here in Wilmington have big ads on the side that read "F.E.D.U.P. - Felon + Illegal Gun = Federal Time"

F.E.D.U.P. stands for Federal Enforcement Division Urban Policing. Why is the city of Wilmington wasting money on these ridiculous signs? I guess in their infinite wisdom they think a felon is going to read the sign and think "DAMN, I might get federal time for having this gun on me. I should bring it to the next gun buyback."

That sign is about as effective as the "drug free zone" sign that's about 100 feet from where I park. I mean hell, no one sells drugs near that sign, and the needles I see laying around in the gravel are from diabetics not heroin users. The obvious drug-dealers that sometimes park right next to me in the parking lot don't really exist. People park in the middle of the street, honk, then someone comes out of a house, goes to the car window, and then runs back inside. This happens at any time of the day, but what do I know, maybe they're just selling fresh-baked cookies?

Oh, and the sign itself makes no sense. A gun in an inanimate object. It cannot be "illegal." Why not just say "Felon + Gun = Illegal? Maybe because felons already know that their having a gun is a felony and they don't care about that little law because..... wait for it....... they're already felons!

Sometimes I wish I could spend time living in la-la-land so I could actually understand the mindset of the people who've created "gun free zones" & "Drug-Free zones and gun laws in general. Where did the idea that signs were magical talismans capable of warding off crime originate? What half-breed monkey came up with that one?

( I apologize for offending any monkey's who read this. Feel free to throw poop in my general direction if you're so inclined.)

Not gun-related, but worthy of a post.

Is dildo use / possession Constitutional?

Read the comments. Some of them are hilarious.

How much do you want to bet that liberals will argue that the right to own and use dildos within ones home is constitutionally protected, yet the right to own a gun, which y'know, is actually written in the 2nd Amendment, is afforded no such protection? On the other side I can see Conservatives arguing that dildos are scary, icky, evil things and well they're just banning them "for the children." Sound familiar?

As far as I'm concerned what you do sexually in your own home is entirely your business so long as it involves consenting parties or a party and the property of that party. Have sex with a goat, horse, or a warm apple pie for all I care. Whatever works for you.

Random Factoid

I'm normally not a very jumpy person, but there are certain times where I' m very easily startled. For example, if i'm sitting in front of the computer working on something and fully engrossed in that task I just don't pay attention to anything around me.

It's perfectly quiet as it is everyday in my office here at work and there's a partition separating 2 cubicles (but I'm the only one in this office) Most people either say "hi" as they walk in or they knock on the door (doors must be kept open at all times) but some people like to come in as quietly as possible and then pop their head around the partition to talk to me.

I don't like being startled, so i'd be great if people would just knock. Maybe it's just me but I don't walk into anyones office until they've acknowledged my presence because I feel rude just barging in even though doors are open.

Who knows, maybe I'm just weird?

Uncle Explains the Collapse of the GOP

He's right on the money with this post

"....The Big Tent decided that the small government types; small l libertarians; big L Libertarian types who were realistic; South Park Republicans; socially liberal but economically conservative types; and people who just don’t like Democrats; people who dig federalism; could collectively go fuck themselves. They dropped us faster than Brittney can drop a dime on therapy bills...."

I agree, the Republican Party has completely abandoned me. 3rd Party isn't a viable option, nor are big-government socialists. Given the choice I'll vote for big-government authoritarians over Socialists, but both sides lead to the same thing, that is, an America that has lost it's founding principles and has become like the rest of the world.

I should also point out that by "liberal" I'm sure Uncle is referring to the "classical liberal" rather than the "socialist liberal"

Quote of the Day

"The makers of our constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness... They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of the rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

- Judge Louis Brandeis - Olmstead v. U.S.



The "right to be left alone" is probably the one right that will forever remain unrealized.

Found via Squeaky, the 10 random facts about me meme

1. I can eat ridiculous amounts for someone my size, yet for some reason I cannot gain weight.
2. For as outspoken as I am on my blog/LJ I'm shy and quiet in person
3. I have Cerebral Palsy
4. I've had bunionectomy surgery (women, I don't know why you'd voluntarily wear high heels, resulting in your having to go through this later in life. Trust me, it never really "fixes" the problem.)
5. I've had 2 concussions, so if I ever seem out of it I'll probably blame it on that
6. I can crack my knuckles just by making a fist
7. I'm pretty easy to get along with - If I'm noticably angry you must have really pissed me off.
8. I am a terrible procrastinator
9. I've probably injured myself without breaking a bone/tearing something etc. than anyone alive. This includes falling down concrete steps last year.
10. I love Irish Carbombs, but haven't had one in almost a year

Congress Supporting RKBA

It looks like 305 members of Congress have signed onto the Congressional Amicus Brief in Support of Heller. That's nearly 2/3rds of Congress.

My state rep Mike Castle (R) - R for RINO as well as Tom Carper and Joe Biden (both Democrats) have not signed onto the brief. I suppose I need to send out some letters this week. I doubt it'll matter much, as they all have anti-gun voting records. Hell, we all remember what Biden said in the debates.

Senator Carper supported closing the "gun-show loophole" and extending the AWB among other things.

Castle sponsored H.R. 96 the Gun-Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007

I'm not exactly sure what to write, but I'll try to get something sent out by the end of the week and make it short, sweet and to the point.

Hottie from House

I just now realized who the hottie from the TV show House is. Damn she has a beautiful face




She's Olivia Wilde, the lesbian girl from The O.C.

Now if only someone would cast Kate Beckinsale in an interesting TV series instead of half-ass movies that'd be awesome.

Quote of the Day

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities."

-Bill Clinton - April 19, 1994 on MTV's "enough is enough"

and yet there are plenty of people who think Slick Willy was a great President. Yeah, personal freedoms and rights are "radical"..... And the point he makes about public housing and weapon sweeps is an important one. When you're enrolled in a government entitlement program you are bound by that program. Those pesky rights and freedoms? Oh well the .Gov is doing you a favor and giving you "free" housing, so as a reward you get to forfeit your rights.

Gun-Free Zones

I could write a long post about the most recent shooting in an obviously not-so-gun-free zone, but I think it'd be a bit redundant at this point. How many have we had just this month?

WAKE UP PEOPLE! Gun-Free Zones simply aren't. How many more people have to die before someone steps up and says "Hey, maybe we need to rethink our cunning plan?" Nothing could be worse than sitting in a corner and waiting for your turn to die. If you want to do that fine, it's your choice, but don't make it the default choice for the rest of us.

I am going to comment on the video w/ that counselwomen over at Bruce's, but It'll have to wait till later.

Hillary Finally Admits What Anyone with a Functioning Brain Already Knew

She's going to ensure that everyone can have "affordable healthcare" but had always skirted around exactly how she'd do that.

Not anymore

I love how the article headline states that her plan "may mean tapping pay." MAY?! boy, I'm just shocked that a socialist might actually want to take more money away from citizens to pay for yet more unworkable bureacratic mess. Why not save Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare as well?

"I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it.

If I don't want Clinton's sorry ass government run healthcare I'm not going to buy it.

So I voted yesterday

Delaware polls closed at 8PM, so I drove my mom to our polling place at ~7:56. I got to vote, she didn't.

We had to walk around to the other side of the building and she had the wonderful idea to walk through the mud rather than go the long way around on the pavement. I did say "you might not want to go that way" but you know, parents always know best. She got stuck in ankle deep mud, lost her socks, ruined her shoes and then ran into the polling place with bare feet.

She does these kinds of things, where you just go "wow, what were you thinking?"

Anyway, I voted for Barack Obama.

Obama says he "Believes in the 2nd Amendment..."

Obama Mentions God & Guns in Idaho

"And then there are people who say, `Well, he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment,' even though I come from a state - we've got a lot of hunters in downstate Illinois. And I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.''

Barack comes from a state that tries as hard as it can to eviscerate the right to bear arms. His state requires people to apply for a FOID card so that they may have the "privilege" to own a gun. They can't carry a gun in public, either openly or concealed, even though the 2nd Amendment says "keep and BEAR arms." Illinois is one of the top 7 most restrictive states regarding gun laws in the country. Of course criminals still get guns, carry them illegally and kill unarmed, defenseless citizens.

I went to see Obama speak in Wilmington on Sunday and one of the things he talked about was "straight-talk" and how he was going to change politics as usual and be honest with the American people. Saying you believe in the 2nd Amendment when you come from a state (and a city) that ignores it is a LIE. The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, it's about keeping your sorry, sleazy, lying ass in line. He talked about his education / experience as a lawyer to bolster his claim that he understands and respects the Constitution, yet he supports a federal law banning CCW. I guess he wasn't paying attention during classes on the 2nd and 10th Amendments and the concept of federalism.

Here's some of what he's said in the past, and it's pure anti-gun PSH.

"You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities."

Connecting the VT shootings with "unscrupulous gun dealers" when Cho's purchase was legal. The dealer did not commit a crime. "loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities." Pure propaganda. That simply doesn't happen.

He believes gun manufacturers should be liable for criminal misuse of their products. Can I sue Benchmade if someone used one of their pocketknives to stab me? Can I sue gas or oil companies if someone buys a gallon of gas and burns my house down? Can I sue the liquor industry or the auto industry for drunk driving related injuries and/or deaths?

He was quoted in the Baltimore sun saying,

"I believe we need to renew--not roll back--this common sense gun law" - In reference to the 94' AWB.

He believes retired cops & military personnel should be allowed to CCW, but the rest of us lowly commoners aren't worthy. He's worthy of 24/7 armed security but his constituents, like those gunned down in Chicago a few days ago, deserve to be defenseless.

Just after the VT shooting he says this

"(Cho) had a semiautomatic weapon with a clip that allowed him to take 19 shots in a row," Obama said. "I don't know any self-respecting hunter that needs 19 rounds of anything. The only reason you have 19 rounds is potentially to do physical harm to people. You don't shoot 19 rounds at a deer. And if you do, you shouldn't be hunting."

How many times do we have to say it!? The 2nd amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting. Have you ever seen that word mentioned along with "arms" in any document written by our founders? I don't hunt, and if I was I seriously doubt I'd ever want to use a 9mm handgun. If I need to defend myself I can think of plenty of reasons why I might want more than 8 rounds. And why the hell is he talking about hunting in regards to handguns and VT anyways?

Just recently he said the following while commenting on the Heller case. He also said he thought the D.C. ban was "Constitutional."

"we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives.”

Uh huh, and the gun bans in Chicago and D.C. are Obama's idea of "common-sense."

Anyone who believes a ban on functional long arms and a complete ban on handguns is "Constitutional" clearly "doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment."

Quote of the Day

Yeah, I know I haven't been posting them daily. Today's is from the Heller case

"The rights secured by the first eight amendments were not conjured at random, but in reaction to specific outrages of the King’s rule. The Second Amendment is no exception. While Petitioners and their amici may not believe that English law secured an individual right to arms for self-defense, colonial Americans certainly did, and it was the repeated, wanton violation of that right that led them to demand and ratify he Second Amendment."

-Alan Gura

I'll have a post about the most recent once I get to read it.

Back to School, Back to School, to Prove to Daddy I'm not a Fool...

So I'm going back to finish school in 6 days, and I'm freaking out, man. I haven't been taken classes since May and this'll be the 1st time I've had to commute. Between home, Newark & work in Wilmington I'm going to be doing alot of driving.

I hope this time the Snazberries actually taste like Snazberries, rather than celebrating graduation and then finding out I didn't actually graduate.

Teen Murders his Family in Cockeysville, MD

Courtesy of Squeaky

Teen shoots family in MD

I don't think I even need to point out that Maryland scores very high (top 3) in the Brady Campaign's new ranking system for determining which states have the most "common sense gun control." Interesting, we have two shootings in 3 days in two of their highest ranked states, MD and IL. Higher (more points) is better and safer, according to The Brady Campaign. As usual reality seems to be against them and the rankings serve as an inverse relationship one can use to determine which states have the most violent crime. People certainly FEEL safe in Illinois and Maryland right now don't they?

I've already commented over at Squeaky's but I have more I'd like to say once I get off work. Incidents like this are very rare and truly sad.

I don't understand resolving a dispute with your father by killing him. Then again this kid obviously had some sociopathical / mental issues going on that no one picked up on. Normal kids don't do things like this regardless of whether they had an argument with dad or not. I've had many heated arguments with my father over the years but never did I consider resorting to physical violence against him. Why? because normal, decent people don't react that way. Most people NEVER use violence unless in self-defense, but there is that small violent subset of the population that differs from the rest of us. This kid was part of that subset.

It's unpossible. Another gun-free zone that wasn't

Another shooting in a Gun-Free Zone in Chicago.

How is this possible? I mean the shopping mall is a gun-free zone. I thought gun-free zones were supposed to make people feel safer? And wait, aren't guns banned in Chicago anyway? So this should have a been an extra-special gun-free zone. I guess the shooter didn't get the message that it's illegal to own or carry a gun in Chicago.

If a gun-free zone and a gun-free city won't keep innocent people from being shot then what will?

Surrender

Barack Obama said the following in the latest debate.

"I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably."

Is it possible to surrender honorably? Maybe I'm just strange, but I fail to see how surrender can be construed as "honorable." I don't like the idea of a President who supports "honorable surrender." Is that how Obama plans to deal with terrorists? by surrendering honorably? What do you think would happen to Israel if their mindset was one of "honorable surrender?"

Oh, and as far as Iraq is concerned. I'm so sick of people saying we had no authority to go in, or that GWB dragged us into the war. Saddam acted like he had WMD's, both our own intelligence and foreign intel(whether faulty or not) said he had them. Were we supposed to just ignore the threat like Clinton did for years with Al-Qaeda? We use military force all the time without "declaring war." Hell we haven't declared war since WWII, and Congress (democrats included) DID vote to give GWB the go-ahead to use military force. When Hillary says "I voted for the Resolution, but not to go to war." The resolution was the war.

Bush said things that turned out to be false. He did not "lie" to the American people. Clinton on the other hand told a bold-faced lie to the American people on National Television, and more importantly, he perjured himself under oath. I don't care what he lied about, committing perjury is serious, especially when it's done by the President. Funny how liberals wanted Bush impeached when he didn't actually do anything illegal. It's also funny how I find myself sometimes standing up for Bush even though I really don't like the guy.

And hell, Saddam may have actually had weapons and gotten rid of them right before we went in. (it's not like we weren't talking about it ahead of time.) We'll never know, and it doesn't really matter at this point anyway. When you refuse to allow weapons inspectors access to sites it makes it look like you're hiding something y'know?

Also, what good are "UN Resolutions" if they are never enforced? Saddam violated them 13 times over many years and no one did a damn thing, including Clinton. All we ever did was say "You're a bad man! and then lobbed over a few cruise missiles. Saddam said himself that he thought we'd do the same again, and was therefore surprised when GWB sent in troops. Wasn't Saddam's defiance of International law reason enough to go in?

Someone has to enforce UN resolutions and mandates, since they mean nothing if not backed up by force. Why bother having the UN if they're not going to actually DO anything?

Self-Defense laws

One of my fellow Delaware Opencarry.org members is taking a criminal law class and has posted all the relevant Delaware self-defense statutes along with all the annotated case law.

Some of it I'd like to discuss here. I'll have a post up sometime tomorrow after I get back from the range. (assuming I wake up early)