Friday, July 10, 2009

Unfortunate timing to snap a pic for the presidential archives

Is President Obama checking out what I think he's checking out?



He's probably just looking down for some other reason. If he was looking at that young woman's rear end ... well, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Update: Here's the video. The young woman is a delegate from Brazil named Mayora Tavares. Hopefully the commentary on this pic being spread around won't affect her career negatively for daring to be attractive.

The commentators of this video claim it proves he wasn't stealing a look, but to me it rather did the opposite. But in any case, he quickly shifted away to help the other woman come safely down a step. I'll still be picking up no stones, and am glad I don't live my life in front of a camera.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

An old video ... but a good one

I've just been thinking about how much joy the anti-gun groups are taking in the legal problems of NY Giants Wide Receiver Plaxico Burress, who they call Dumb and Dumber for shooting himself in the leg in a NYC bar, and whom they want to do some jail time. But who will it make safer if he does time for what is definitely a dumb and endangering act, but one that actually hurt no one but himself?

If someone drives drunk and is caught before they hurt anyone, they are in a world of legal problems that will last for years, but they won't do any jail time. If someone drives drunk and kills someone in an accident, they are charged with manslaughter and very well may do some jail time. All of us understand that this is common sense; there is a real world difference between endangering people and actually hurting someone. There are certainly extremists who would like everyone caught driving with even one drink under their belt to do jail time, but the rest of us understand why that is ridiculous and there's no support for that level of extremist legislation.

But the anti-gun extremists could care less about common sense, and take pride in taking away someone's freedom for years for doing a stupid act that hurt only themselves. Not the nicest people on the planet, I'm afraid.

Below is another story they can take pride in, of a man who went to jail for defending his family with a firearm. The video is a a full length feature, and is worth watching in its entirety, but the first story especially is interesting.


Sphere: Related Content

Monday, July 6, 2009

Guns and Religion again ... Oh Sweet Lord!

Anti-gun writers such as Bill Berkowitz continue to go nuts over the idea of Christians believing in gun ownership, with Lynn Joyce Hunter at politicisdaily.com coining the term "NRA Christian". They act as if the convergence of guns and religions is a new phenomenon, but the anti-gun side has been trying to hijack churches to their cause for years. Bryan Miller recently created the "Heeding God's Call" group to shut down gun dealers through criminal acts. The Brady Campaign has long declared the last weekend of September as "God Not Guns Sabbath Weekend," and even has the amazing audacity to provide an order of worship, complete with quotes to include and suggested prayers.

My favorite quote from the Brady's order of worship is:

I will not carry a gun…I’ll carry your books, I’ll carry a torch, I’ll carry a tune, I’ll carry on, carry over, carry forward, Cary Grant, and carry cash, carry me back to Old Virginia, I’ll even hari kari if you show me how, but I will not carry a gun!”
Hawkeye M*A*S*H Officer of the Day


Yes ... this book of Godly Brady quotes for use in church includes a line from a 70's TV comedy, and not from the most godly character. LOL.

As I've said before, I'm against church's getting involved in secular politics, as such involvement only divides people and there is nothing divine about either viewpoint when it comes to gun ownership. The Bible has no admonitions against defense of life and home and therefore no guidance on what types of weapons can/should be owned. A gun is neither Holy nor evil, because such things are matters of God and people's hearts and are vested in no material device.

But while anti-gun groups insult Christians by proclaiming a divine backing for their message by pulling a few Biblical quotes out of context and completely ignoring the rest of the Bible, the Bethel church is highly respectful of the place of this particular event, and clearly proclaims it as cultural and not divine:

This event is to celebrate the birth of our nation. It is open to any and all who cherish 2nd amendment and 1st amendment rights given to us in our constitution. A person does not have to be a member of our church nor even be a believer in God to attend. ...

Our specific objective is to promote responsible gun ownership and firearms safety. At the same time we would like to see more responsible “non-gun ownership.” Firearms education is necessary in order to alleviate unwarranted fears of guns in general. Firearms are inanimate objects incapable of acting independently of human influence. Guns merely carry out the bidding of those who wield them. For a majority of legal firearms owners a gun is a means of recreational enjoyment. In the hands of others they are a means of life and liberty. Providentially we are privileged to be Americans. We as individuals and collectively as a nation are not here by accident or chance but rather by divine appointment. America was founded upon a deep-seated belief in God and the freedom to own and bear firearms without which this country would not be here today. We are not ashamed of this historical fact nor are we ashamed to proclaim it. We see no inherent contradiction between a devout belief in God and a desire to keep and bear arms.
...

If one studies history they will find that not all Christians, or Christian denominations are pacifists. Christian pacifism is an option, not a requirement. In fact there may be times when being non-pacifistic is a Christian duty.

Gun ownership is not part of the gospel message. The gospel message is Jesus Christ, His life, death, burial and resurrection. He came to reconcile sinners unto God. One is saved by faith alone through grace alone by Christ alone. Gun ownership falls under the scope of Christian liberty. One may either choose to own or not own a firearm. But as soon as someone yells “foul” or that this event or activity is not something that one may do as a Christian, the matter now becomes inextricably linked with the gospel. We believe that a person can neither add to nor take away from their justification by Christ. It is a matter of Christian liberty that flows directly from one’s justification in Christ. The gospel makes Christian liberty an issue that must be exercised in the face of legalism.


When someone says, "What would Jesus do?" we reply, "What did Jesus say?" Since we believe the Bible is God’s written Word to us, what Jesus may do must be drawn from the truth of Scripture. Scripture must interpret Scripture in order to remove one’s own subjective thoughts and/or feelings concerning texts. We believe that there is no Scriptural contradiction in this event. We believe there is only one document that has inherent power to change lives, and that document is the Bible. All other documents are just ink on paper and men in power make policy that is carried out by men with guns. So we promote the Bible, which changes men lives. And we promote responsible gun ownership to protect a person’s political freedom and if need be, their very life. We believe that one day Christ will establish His physical kingdom upon this earth at which time, “swords will be beaten into plowshares.” But until that time we also believe that those who only live by the plowshare will always be slaves to those who possess the sword.
...

We recognize that some will disagree with us about this event, and we respect their right to do so. Yet, in the words of one of the greatest theologians ever to come from the Christian faith: "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." --St. Thomas Aquinas.



That's an excellent explanation. Since I'm a pro-gun person I wouldn't really care if my church did a cultural event like this NOT on a Sunday and without significant use of member donations. I could even live with it if my church did an anti-gun rally in the same context, but I would almost certainly show up and hope they would respectfully listen to my views (respectfully stated, of course).

But what's the point of either rally? They do nothing to promote the core effort of the church and will probably draw no new members -- though a rally for either side of this debate may send a few members elsewhere. Hopefully to another church, but perhaps losing them entirely.

A church's place in the world is divine. Guns are mundane. If church is properly guiding the heart's of it's members, whether they choose to own guns or not is no more important as to whether or not they choose to use moisturizers. Sphere: Related Content

Friday, July 3, 2009

Sarah Palin -- an ugly chapter in history

It looks like Sarah Palin has decided, at least temporarily, to drop out of politics. I can't blame her, given the vicious attacks from the left. It never ceases to amaze me at how people who claim to be morally superior can rationalize hating Sarah Palin and attacking her in the misogynistic manner they did. They declared that she wasn't a real woman because she didn't fall into the stereotype that Gloria Steinem demanded, so she must be a shill for the "patriarchal right."

This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need.

I wish Sarah Palin had slapped Joe Biden down in her debate against him, but she let him get away with throwing wild pitches that a better debater would have knocked out of the park (i.e. Hezbollah chased out of Lebanon, no way to get a drop out of new oil fields for 10 year) but for whatever reasons she didn't.

But did the left attack her on her beliefs, or on her looks (slutty flight attendant, anyone)? On her education, or on the fact she supports unborn babies and chose not to abort a child she knew would have downs syndrome? The same people who have very little belief in the sanctity of marriage even attacked her because she stood supportively next to her unwed daughter and the grandchild she had just given birth to. For the answer, just google "Palin" coupled to any degrading, sexist and sexually insulting term you can think of. And see how many sites come up and what their political outlook is.

It reminds me of how Janeane Garofalo, a self righteous white woman, judged all the African Americans at the recent "Tea Parties" to be a confused black people suffering from the "Stockholm Syndrome."



I suppose she was referring to this woman:

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Gun Control Laws in Action -- No wonder California has to issue IOU's!

Some months ago I wrote several posts on the plight of Phil Dominguez, who ran afoul of the ridiculous minefield of gun laws in California created by anti-gun groups. Fortunately Mr. Dominguez, after being arrested at LAX for having properly registered guns in his vehicle (he was on the way to the range and breaking no laws), being disparaged and insulted in the LA media, raided by the LAPD SWAT, and just generally harassed by the police ... has basically beat all the ridiculous felony charges. So he's been put through the legal wringer, at a cost to the recession damaged citizens of California of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and what did the citizens of California for their money? Were any criminals disarmed? Were any guns even removed from a legal gun owner, much less a criminal?

Mr. Dominguez reports:

I plead no contest to the nu chucks and that was a misdemeanor, paid a 120 dollar fine, got three years informal probation( with no weapons restrictions )and 80 hours of comm. service.. they dropped 10 felony counts. There were no charges from the airport, just the nu chucks they took out of my safe. This means I can get all of my weapons back, I was told that it would take about four months due to the fact that they are going to drag me through the process...


So ... end result:
Money recovered: $120
Weapons removed from "streets": 2 pieces of wood with a chain between (nun chukas)

Although these anti-gun laws are expensive to the people of California, both those paying for the persecution and those being persecuted, they are actually working exactly as intended. Because while these laws do nothing to reduce crime, they do make gun ownership more expensive, more difficult, and more threatening to one's liberty and livelihood -- unless one is a lawyer and stays up on every sniggling law on the books.

Fortunately Mr. Dominguez was able to get the support to at least keep his basic liberties intact and will get all of his expensive weapons returned to him -- after as many harassing delays as the LAPD can inflict upon him, of course. And the anti-gun groups can be proud that they have done as they intended -- greatly damaged the life and livelihood of a productive member of society who has chosen to enjoy a right protected by the Constitution -- the right to keep and bear arms.

But when will true common sense return to this country, particularly to states like California? If the gun groups want to fight against gun ownership, fine ... but accomplishing that feat by creating an impossible to follow web of anti-gun laws that do nothing but make life difficult for honest American citizens ... that is, quite frankly, despicable.

Mr. Dominguez did not deserve what happened to him, and it is injustice and unamerican. No law abiding citizen does.

UPDATE: If you would like to ask the TV station that had such a good time calling Mr. Dominguez a "knucklehead" when they are going to post an apology, the contact site for them is here. Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

American Hunters and Shooters Association, AHSA, is shilling for Dems again!

Either Ray Schoenke, president of the American Hunters and Shooters Association, doesn't understand the legal implications of Ms. Sotomayor being installed as a Supreme Court Justice, or he really is a Brady Campaign supporter in plaid. In his recent post, he stated:

“Based on the available case history, it appears that Sotomayor honors precedent. Now that D.C. v Heller is precedent, gun-owners should feel secure that their rights are safe.

It is true that Ms. Sotomayor has said that Heller is settled law. But the important ruling yet to be made is whether or not the 2nd amendment will be "incorporated" via the 14th amendment to restrict state and local governments, and on this point Ms. Sotomayor is clearly against us. In her recent ruling on the 2nd amendment, she accepted United States v. Cruikshank and Presser v. Illinois as established precedent, and stated that the 2nd amendment DID NOT apply to the states (both of these cases happened shortly after the civil war, and are based on antiquated standards of constitutional law that Heller rejected -- if these standards were followed, the 1st amendment would not apply to the states either).

And yet Mr. Schoencke went on to say:

Schoenke noted, “In a recent Second Amendment case, Judge Sotomayor simply followed precedent in cases involving Second Amendment rights as it applies to the states. Other conservative judges in the Seventh Circuit took a similar position. What we should be focusing on is making sure that, Heller, through the 14th Amendment’s process of incorporation guarantees Second Amendment freedoms in all states.”
Wow. So he identifies 2nd Amendment incorporation as being the most significant issue to be resolved, praises Ms. Sotomayor for following the outdated precedent that the 2nd amendment should NOT BE INCORPORATED, and then uses that ruling as a reason to support her because incorporation is important?

Does Mr. Shoenke really not understand that she is against this or does he not understand the issue? If the latter, I hope he quickly withdraws his support of this person who would vote against the issue he finds most important. If the former, he is simply a Democrat shill who assumes gun owners to be so stupid as to accept his twisted logic of supporting Ms. Sotomayor because she has voted AGAINST us in the past.

Without incorporation to the states Heller is still a huge victory, but it doesn't help people in NYC, Chicago, New Jersey, etc.. Incorporation is critical if the 2nd amendment is to apply to anyone except those of us fortunate enough to live in the sane "fly over" states.

Though the fact that the democrats, with gun control still as a plank of their party, require the existence of an AHSA is another proof of how well the NRA and gun owners have done and continue to do. I just hope we haven't peaked yet.

Ms. Sotomayor will probably become a SCOTUS judge. But it is ridiculous that she would be actively supported by any group that is even marginally pro-gun. I put a comment on Mr. Schoenke's post. Any bets as to whether he'll allow it to be published?

UPDATE: Mr. Schoenke, or whomever manages his blog, actually did allow my comment to be posted. Hopefully there will be some actual other response, such as a change in position, forthcoming. Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Hyperbole taken to new limits: Anti-gun groups are now authorities on Religion

Like Diogenes carrying a lantern in search of an honest man, I spend a lot of time reading anti-gun websites in search of rational arguments -- so I'm used to paranoia, hyperbole, and an utter disdain for logic. But sometimes even I have to sit back and shake my head, as in this new piece on the OCAGV website, where the anti-gun writer seems to think he has been chosen to speak for every religion on Earth and define them as "anti-gun." Of course, about everything FSA does (i.e. gunguys.com) seems more like satire than mere hyperbole, but I think they're being serious. Assuming they're not actually a pro-gun site created to trivialize anti-gun positions (rather like the American Hunters and Shooting Association does for the anti-gun side) I think it would be best if they kept to arguing a secular political viewpoint rather than claiming divine support -- and not just from one religion, but all of them!

The headline screams:
Toledo Church Rally To Promote Guns As Part of ‘God’s Will’ Is An Insult To All Faiths and Religions

Yeah. So a belief in weapons ownership is even an insult to Islam (which requires its members to commit violence under certain circumstances), etc. Unbelievable that a writer for a political group could proclaim himself able to judge on behalf of God AND all religions. And from a Christian point of view ... this is about gun ownership, and guns are an object. And the bible is clear that objects are not unclean by themselves, but only become unclean by how people consider them through their own weakness.

I myself have a Quaker heritage, and associated with my family are people who went to jail rather than allow themselves to be drafted into WWII (my father did not do this himself, as my grandfather was taking the family to a Methodist church when he grew up). But even my Quaker forebears, who were pacifists by faith, were not anti-gun; they still hunted for food and ate meat and owned guns. In fact, an old Quaker joke tells of a man who confronts a burglar in his house, and he says, "Friend. I would wish thee no harm. But thee are standing where I am about to shoot."
“Guns allow a person to decide who lives and who dies. It is absolutely immoral to suggest that the Bible supports violence. We need to reduce gun violence, not use fear to divide and distract us to the suffering caused by our gun culture.

“The gun lobby and gun industry like to disguise their radical and extremist agenda by hiding behind the flag, and now the Bible. People’s lives and safety should matter more than a radical and violent ideology purported by the gun lobby.

Interesting logic again ... "Guns allow a person to decide who lives and who dies," so that's a power we should only allow to non-believers. I agree it is immoral to suggest that the Bible supports violence that is not defensive in nature ... but to say that the bible demands people be unarmed is just as immoral. They are writing things into the bible that simply aren't there, and from a faith perspective there is little that is more immoral than that!

And file this as the ultimate "Pot calling the kettle black" situation, where they admonish the "gun lobby" for hiding behind the bible -- while they are trying to do the same thing by proclaiming the bible supports their cause (and not just the Bible, but apparently every Holy book every written). The fact is the bible openly supports neither position, as much as people on either side would like it to. If they would read it, they would find that out.

I don't like Churches campaigning for or against guns, or any other secular political matter, but in the end it's the decision of the congregation and their leadership -- and people can find another church if they desire. Laws on firearms and self defense are mundane matters of existence, and when practicing my faith I generally neither know nor care about the 2nd amendment views of my fellow worshipers. And it should be that way. Church is a place to talk about matters of the divine, salvation and eternal life, not the mundane reality of the best way to live in a world that can turn unexpectedly violent.

Violence is the reality of the world, not the message of the church. Guns are an object, neither good nor evil on their own. Only people can be good nor evil, and people of faith understand that very well. Which is why many of us choose to own guns for self defense.

Only in the anti-gun utopia are all people good, made evil only by the proximity of a gun. It's a ridiculous concept, but one they never get tired of pushing -- even at the expense of whatever faith they may follow.

Video Here.

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Why we're wasting our time arguing logic with anti-gunners

An article over at the whacky gunguys.com site is titled:
Despite 36 Public School Students Killed By Gun Violence, and Days After 9-Year-Old Girl Gunned Down Outside Her Home, the Illinois Gun Lobby Holds Rally To End Chicago’s Handgun Ban
Do you see the inherent illogic of that? Now if they could honestly post a headline:
Despite 36 Months with NO Public School Students Killed By Gun Violence, and Years since any 9-Year-Old Girls were Gunned Down Outside their Homes, the Illinois Gun Lobby Holds Rally To End Chicago’s Handgun Ban
That would make sense. That would get traction even with me and force me to consider the logic further.

This is rather the same logic we're getting from the groups trying to keep CCW off of college campuses: 32 people died at VT, therefore we can't change any existing laws. Let's hold rallies to honor them and use their deaths to support laws that did nothing to defend them.

If it weren't all so deadly serious, it would be funny. Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Anti-Gun groups equate America's founding fathers to two-bit murderers

The 2008 Heller ruling made clear that the 2nd amendment is a political right, an empowerment of the people, for personal defense and as the ultimate balance to the government's power. Anti-gun writers, particularly Josh Horwitz, try to turn this simple historical fact around, and pontificate that anyone who believes in a right of revolution supports cop killers, crazies who shoot up city council sessions, and the murderer who attacked the holocaust museum. But if this is valid it must go both ways; if the 2nd amendment was written to protect the right of the people to rebel against government, and rightfully protects the vicious murderers they have listed, then it puts our own national founding fathers, who wrote this amendment to defend the right of future generations to armed "insurrection," in the same category as these murderers.

But the way the anti-gun groups try to twist the political intention of the RKBA takes them to about as low of a depth of rationality as it's possible to descend to without physical brain damage.
The Declaration of Independence, still a legal founding document of the US used in court cases, quite clearly states that the founding fathers considered the right to revolution a natural right:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
But just as important is the fact that the "right of revolution" is not a step to be taken lightly or at the first offense:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
That is the context of the "right of revolution" that the 2nd amendment supports. Not a right to shoot police officers because you're afraid there might be a restrictive gun ban, not even a right to shoot government agents serving improperly obtained warrants (though of course those shootings didn't make right the events that happened afterward). But the right of the general populace, when all other means have been exhausted, to use violence against violence when the government has turned tyrannical. Or, as Thomas Jefferson so poetically stated it, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

The cycle of the revolutionary war was, in essence:
1. The government (England) began implementing policies the people felt offensive.
2. The people complained about the policies.
3. When the government refused to respond, massive protests began.
4. When the government began cracking down and seizing weapons, limited violence began, mostly notably at Lexington/Concord (NOTE: This is why people who study history are afraid of gun bans -- they often precede organized violence/persecution).
5. The colonials again made an appeal, this time directly to the King, while only limited violence continued.
6. The appeal to the king rejected, the colonials declared war and wrote the aforementioned declaration of independence - one of the greatest documents of human liberty and history.

The above did not begin and start with:
1. Man gets angry about parking tickets, shoots up city council meeting, murders several people.

Some anti-gun writers twist this logic to even more outrageous lengths:

This view allows the Second Amendment to trump the First, Fifth and Fourteenth; after all, I may have to shoot you because you are protecting some speech that offends me, or because I don't agree with the procedural due process you have granted someone else, or I don't believe in equality and integration. And in each case, the soothing Second Amendment stands in the wings, crooning that I did the right thing.
Wow. So this person believes that if a RKBA exists, it inherently means you can shoot first for any reason. But the RKBA is about the defense of one's own life and taking responsibility for one's own future, the not right to kill to supress other people's rights. Duh.

Thankfully this madness about the 2nd amendment is limited to anti-gun people and a few other crazies, who would be crazy and dangerous with or without a 2nd amendment. The real protection of the 2nd amendment is for the rest of us, who know that while an American government turned into a tyranical, repressive dictatorship is unthinkable and virtually impossible ... when it comes to humans and positions of power, NOTHING is completely impossible. Sphere: Related Content

Monday, June 22, 2009

Long time no posty

To those people who look here everyday, if there are any left now ... I'm sorry I haven't posted for better than 2 weeks. I've been dealing with family health issues (my parents) and just haven't felt inspired or empowered to post at all.

I'll be posting in the next day or two again, though. Sphere: Related Content