Pages

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Kakistocracy

kak·is·toc·ra·cy noun \ˌkakə̇ˈstäkrəsē\
                 Definition: government by the worst men
                 Origin:  Greek kakistos (superlative of kakos bad) + English -cracy

(First in a series)
From our friend Bob Ownes:  BOO-HOO: Eric Holder Is Really Sad He Was Unable To Disarm You Before Fleeing Office

… the first sitting U.S. Attorney General ever found in criminal contempt of Congress, regrets that he was unable to strip Americans of the firearms that the citizens would find most useful in defending themselves from tyrannical government officials such as himself ... 
Mr. Holder and his allies on the progressive far left have long desired to outlaw this popular firearms because their characteristics make them extremely useful for self defense not just against criminals (most experts regard the AR-15 platform in .223 Remington/5.56 NATO as one of the best home defense weapons made), but also against a bloated federal government that is becoming increasingly lawless, tyrannical and overbearing under his blatantly partisan and possibly criminal leadership.  ...
Curiously, Mr. Holder had very little to say about Operation Fast and Furious, Operation Gangwalker, or any of the other alleged ATF gun-walking plots that sent tens of thousands of weapons to foreign narco-terrorists and domestic gang members in an apparent scheme to manufacture violent crime to justify the gun control laws he so desperately championed.
The targeting of your RKBA does not change just because Eric Holder is leaving one un-elected position and will doubtless enter another powerful but un-elected position in some prog think tank, university, or bank.

You can bet that there are thousands of men and women just as corrupt, just as power-hungry, just as politically-correct, ,just as America-hating, and  just as determined to take your rights as Eric Holder.

And NONE of them are on the ballot in the November elections.  The continuity of the kakistocracy is always maintained.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Interview with an Unrepentant Murderer, 19 Years Old

Via GunFreeZone, on Gun Nuts Media, a YouTube of a harrowing interview with a 19-year-old self-confessed double murderer, whose name I will not even type.  Just think, there are MILLIONS of soulless killer kids just like him in America.

Warning, this kid either has Tourette's sydrome, or in the hood, every other word is the f-word.

I tried to get a partial transcript of the interview [MUST CREDIT BACKWOODS ENGINEER.COM IF YOU USE THIS TRANSCRIPT].  Tell me this doesn't give you the shivers.
"Let's go out there where the rich white folks stay at, rob one of them.. you know what I'm sayin'?" 
(Describes in Ebonics how he and his cousin started talking to two guys in a parking lot of a recording studio in Dallas.) 
"I'm like, 'yeah, you got a cigarette?' He go, 'yeah', and he went to go reach for it, I pulled the pistol, shot him, shot the driver... the one I shot here first, he stumbled back, like dropped, got back up like he was fixed to run, the one of the other side, he raised up like he was fixed to do something, so I shot him in the head, you know what I'm sayin'? 
 Then the other one, shot him twice in the head, just to make sure f*** dead... 
(Interviewer asks, "Do you have any remorse?") (shakes head) "Do it look like it?" 
(Interviewer asks, "What will happen to you now?") "Hopefully the death penalty... because if they give me life, I'm 'll kill somebody else, straight up, I'm tellin' you right now.... F*** his family, too, both of them.

People like this monster is exactly why I carry concealed, every day.

Friday, October 17, 2014

Is Strict Scrutiny Really a Trojan Horse to Defeat the RKBA?

WELCOME Sipsey Street & War on Guns readers!   Please check out my other posts when you're finished with this one.
---
I don't understand the opposition to the ballot measure for Amendment 3 in Alabama, which would direct judges in the state to apply strict scrutiny to cases where the state's compelling interest is opposed to the individual and fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

For example, the Bama Carry organization, both at the state level and local chapters, have had officers tell their members to vote NO on Amendment 3.  Ol' Backwoods heard this personally at the Bama Carry Rivers Region chapter meeting this past Monday in Elmore County.

Why?  Is strict scrutiny really such a Trojan Horse that it will bring the loss of our right to keep and bear arms?

Prominent 2nd Amendment attorneys, who work cases at both the federal and state levels, advocate for strict scrutiny for the RKBA.  For example, Alan Gura (who won Heller v US and McDonald v Chicago) has argued extensively for strict scrutiny (as in Nordyke v King in CA:http://www.saf.org/?p=1656).

I think those who oppose the mandate of strict scrutiny in RKBA cases misunderstand how this works. This is not about the legislature, but about the judiciary.

The judiciary has to decide between two interests in all cases as regard fundamental rights: 1) interest of the individual, and 2) interest of the state, or the people, as perceived by the judge(s). What gun-grabbing judges will do is say that the interest of the people is that nobody should have a gun.  This just happened in North Carolina,  with Judge Stephens ruling no concealed carry at NC state fair, in clear contravention to a law barely a year old, explicitly allowing carry at events requiring admission.

How these things get decided in courts depend on the level of judicial scrutiny: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny. With a strict scrutiny amendment in the AL Constitution, judges receive instruction that all cases involving fundamental rights must apply strict scrutiny to state interests that come in conflict with an individual's fundamental rights (here, the RKBA).

Here is a quote from Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens of NC, who does NOT have to apply strict scrutiny to a case regarding the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. He can tell peaceable gun owners to pound sand, you can't carry at the state fair in NC, in direct contravention to the clear language of the law: "... if there is some way I can interpret these statues to prohibit [carry at the fair], I will."

You bet he will.  And so will other anti-gun judges, unless they are reigned in by the people.  The judges have been inculcated with hatred of the right to keep and bear arms in the law schools, most of which still teach, contra Heller, that the RKBA only applies to the militia, and that is the National Guard.

Look, this isn't a cure-all.  An amendment enjoining strict scrutiny is just a start.  Judges will still rule against fundamental rights.  Those that do should be impeached; but, there first must be a basis in law for them to be impeached.  Which returns us to the need for strict scrutiny in Alabama's Constitution.

Here's a quote from 2nd Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, whose credentials I need not present, in discussing the very important Ezell v. Chicago case at the Supreme Court:
In short, the Second Amendment is part of normal constitutional law. The standard of review is not the absolutist “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand?'” Nor is the standard “reasonableness” as a euphemism for “rational basis so long as all guns are not banned”; nor the weak “undue burden” standard that was invented for one particular un-enumerated right which is an extreme outlier in the weakness of its basis in history, tradition, and other sources for u-nenumerated rights. Intermediate scrutiny does apply sometimes, as with the First Amendment, and, also as with the First Amendment, stricter scrutiny applies at other times. As with much of the rest of 21st century constitutional law, the interpretive methodology includes both originalism and a practical analysis which some persons would call “living constitutionalism.
So why not mandate strict scrutiny then, Alabama?

One objection is "if it is not broke, it does not need to be fixed or changed."  I read this exactly on one of the Alabama gun rights groups's Facebook page.

Well, it's plenty "broke" now!  There are plenty of infringements of the right to keep and bear arms that exist in Alabama law, and have been upheld by courts.  For example, an Alabamian cannot carry in his or her car without a concealed carry permit, which is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.  But no court challenges have been brought to this.  My guess is, the lawyers know the case would never succeed, because the judge would apply rational basis or intermediate scrutiny, and agree with the Alabama Sheriff's Association and "Boss Hogg" Marshall of Montgomery County, and say "You lose!  Get a permit from the county if you want to carry!  NEXT CASE, Bailiff!"

Thus do they infringe our fundamental rights unless told otherwise.

There are other infringements that are just now beginning to be challenged in Alabama.  The Students for Concealed Carry on Campus this year are challenging the total ban on concealed carry on the University of Alabama campus.

Now, under what standard of review would a judge in that case rule in favor of the Alabama students' fundamental right to bear arms?  On a rational basis?  Nope.  That would lead most judges, who are already biased against guns from way back in law school, to say, "Ban upheld, state has a compelling interest of safety.  NEXT case!"  How about an intermediate scrutiny basis?  It's doubtful; few RKBA cases have been won on the basis of that level of judicial scrutiny.  Only strict scrutiny would win the day, and only if the people can compel the judge to apply it.  Amendment 3 would be a good start.

Another so-called argument against Amendment 3 that I've read is this: "Well, the 1901 Constitution says no law or court can infringe the right to keep and bear arms, so what part of that can't you understand!!"  Despite its blustery emotional appeal, this is not actually an argument; it is called "begging the question", since the sufficiency of the language in the 1901 Constitution as regards the RKBA is what is at issue here.  Just blustering over and over, "what we have now is good enough!" does not make it so.

Why don't the opponents of Amendment 3 bring a cogent argument to the table that condemns requiring the judiciary to use strict scrutiny when deciding between an individual's RKBA and the government's interests ?

Because there aren't any good arguments against strict scrutiny, or against Amendment 3.

I maintain that those that oppose the legislation of judicial strict scrutiny to state interests opposing fundamental rights do not understand it.

And here's one of the worst things:  if Amendment 3 goes down in flames, you can bet the enemies of freedom like Bloombers and CGSV will crow about it as if it was their own personal victory.  Bet on it.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Lessons Lost: Project Ebola 1983

UPDATE II: Boy, I've really touched a nerve with this.  I have all kind of people messaging me and trying to shut me up on this.  Let's be clear: the virus injected into the monkeys in Project Ebola in 1983 was from a woman in Africa who ACTUALLY HAD THE DISEASE!  It's in the book!  I guess people won't read, and they don't want to hear scientific research.  Whatever.  I'm done with this subject.

---

UPDATE: Jack Spirko of The Survival Podcast, a man I have met personally, I respect, I have corresponded with, and whose podcasts I have listened for over 5 years, sent me a message on my personal page on Facebook and told me to "quit posting stupid bullshit," as regards this post.

I'm just shaking my read.

Read the book, Jack.  What happened with Colonel Jaxx and the other vet in Project Ebola REALLY happened.  Richard Preston, the author, interviewed her years later.  She is a scientist and a primary source in an investigation to find a cure of the deadliest disease known to man.

Stanford University has interviewed her and her husband about Project Ebola: Interview with Colonel Nancy Jaax, D.V.M., PhD. 

Aereolization of the Ebola virus was proven 31 years ago by the Army.   Why deny it?  What possible gain is there to denying it?

--

Thirty-one years ago, the US Army learned lessons learned about how deadly the Ebola virus is. Those lessons have been forgotten by the feckless Federal administration and its political appointee who oversees the CDC.  I repeat one of the most important lessons here, about Ebola's airborne virulence through aerolization, by quoting a passage from a poor scan of the book "The Hot Zone" by Richard Preston.  The book is now available on Kindle at the link.  Read it.  Educate yourself.

PROJECT EBOLA
US Army Veterinary Corps Level 4 Facility
Thurmont, Maryland
September, 1983
THE [PROJECT] EBOLA EXPERIMENTS were not a success in the sense that the drugs had no effect on the virus. All of Gene Johnson's infected monkeys died no matter what drugs they were given.  
They all died.  
The virus absolutely nuked the monkeys. It was a complete slate wiper.  
The only survivors of the experiment were the two control monkeys-the healthy, uninfected monkeys that lived in cages across the room from the sick monkeys. The control monkeys had not been infected with Ebola, and so, as expected, they had not become sick. 
Then, two weeks after [a near-infection of Nancy Jaax, one of the veterinarians working on the project], something frightening happened in the Ebola rooms. The two healthy monkeys developed red eyes and blood noses, and they crashed and bled out. 
 They had never been deliberately infected with Ebola virus, and they had not come near the sick monkeys. They were separated from the sick monkeys by open floor. 
 If a healthy person were placed on the other side of a room from a person who was sick
with AIDS, the AIDS virus would not be able to drift across the room through the air and
infect the healthy person. But Ebola had drifted across a room. It had moved quickly,
decisively, and by an unknown route. Most likely the control monkeys inhaled it into
their lungs.  
"It got there somehow," Nancy Jaax would say to me as she told me the story some years later. "Monkeys spit and throw stuff. And when the caretakers wash the cages down with water hoses, that can create an aerosol of droplets. It probably traveled through the air in aerosolized secretion. That was when I knew that Ebola can travel through the air."

And now, that virus is in Dallas, Texas.

Emphasis mine.

Stay away from crowds, my friends, and prepare for a long period of isolation from others who aren't in your "tribe".

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

The Nexus of Ebola, Ferguson, and Economic Collapse


Because Matt is so cool about it, Ol' Backwoods posts below a substantial quotation from the piece:
And this begs the question, what happens when 1 or 2% of a city have died: who will go to work? People will self-quarantine at home and the economy will crash. And what about the police, fire fighters, EMTs, and hospital crews? What about the crews down at your local power plant, or food distribution center? Think they will all become Mother Teresas, martyring alongside the lepers for the greater good? Think they will not stay home? 
But even in the resulting economic crash, unfairness will be ferreted out. Is it fair that some people have prepared, and have several months-worth of food on hand? Is that fair, when the supermarkets were all looted in the general panic, and there have been no more food deliveries, and the EBT system is not functioning? Is it fair that some, who have prepared, will be able to simply ride out the Ebola pandemic to boot? 
So the already latently violent among the starving will be very motivated to come out and play. Starving goblins, millions of them. What about the goblins who may think they have already contracted Ebola, and have a week until they die? Or if they believe they will certainly contract the deadly virus soon? And what if they firmly believe by then that Ebola was a CIA/Mossad plot to wipe out Africans and people of African ancestry? 
Many American blacks are already angry. What happens to that anger when the epidemic strikes them? What happens when Ebola comes to Ferguson, USA, across most of the fifty states? Already brainwashed to a near fever-pitch of racial anger by professional agitators, it is my fear that after the plague hits they will then become super-beyond-belief pissed, and eager to share their case of Ebola with any white overlords and oppressors who come in range as their final act. 
If you thought you were going to die in a week, most painfully and horribly, and you already had a giant hate-on for whitey, what might you do as some of your very final acts upon this earth? What will flash mobs of people that angry do? For just one example, home invasions in search of food and perceived retribution, will explode. 
Talk about your perfect social storms? 
No, worse.
Talk about your zombie apocalypse.
I’ll say it again:
Alas, Brave New Babylon.
Indeed.  I think the first Ebola patient that is seriously symptomatic at a major hospital in any given large American city is going to start the exodus of doctors and nurses and orderlies, the likes of which has not been seen since my grandmother was a little girl in 1918.

Would you stay around that?  And risk infecting your own family, and seeing them vomit themselves to death?  Not me!  I'd leave, and I've heard EMTs and nurses say the same thing.

Things are about to get sporty, people.  Let's not panic, let's hide and watch, but get your food and water and medical preps in ship-shape.

UPDATE: here's more evidence that the hospital system cannot withstand even the threat of Ebola:
According to [Dr. Betsy McCaughey], after the CDC outlined its preparation strategy, one hospital administrator responded, “What you’re telling us would bankrupt my hospital!” She said that that administrator represents a Southern California hospital. 
McCaughey noted that there was no word on the call of who would pay for hospitals to get themselves ready for Ebola patients. 
... “Treating one Ebola patient requires, full time, 20 medical staff. Mostly ICU (intensive care unit) people. So that would wipe out an ICU in an average-sized hospital.” 
“The most important thing is the doctors and nurses are not ready for the challenge of using this personal protective equipment. even if you see them with the helmet, the respirator, the full suits, as the CDC said on the call today, even all that equipment is not enough to guarantee the safety of health care workers because it is so perilous to put it on and particularly to remove it once it’s become contaminated.”
“So many people on the call [with the CDC] were daunted by the expectations, the separate laboratory next to the isolated patients, all kinds of — all kinds of adjustments, where to put the waste. many states won’t even let you dispose of this waste from such a toxic disease. 
It’s very troubling. Tom Frieden [Director if the CDC] said again and again in the last three months we may have an isolated case or do two but ebola will not spread widely. That is the weasel word he used again and again, “widely.” What does widely mean? Well, 50 states is pretty wide.
Ebola itself may not be very widespread at the moment, and it might not ever be in the US, but the fear of such a deadly disease has enough power to destroy our economy, our way of life, and even our country's union.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Virginia: How Far Has Thy RKBA Fallen

In the “The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Report,” Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress (as quoted by Herschel Smith's blog), the subcommittee observed that:
In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.
That was then.

This is now: if I, a resident of the State of Alabama and a concealed carry license holder, should travel to Virginia, I am not permitted to go about peaceably armed, because the State of Virginia does not recognize the State of Alabama's CCL.

Apparently, our Alabama concealed carry licences do not infringe the right to keep and bear arms enough to satisfy the hoplophobes and statists in the Virginia legislature.

How far are ye fallen, Virginia.

Monday, September 22, 2014

A&E's 'Longmire' Cancelled; RKBA Advocates Cheer

At least they should.

I recently watched the first episode of the first season with my wife, and I will NOT be watching any more. From what I saw, I'm glad it was cancelled, as it is just another example of typical Hollywood dreck.

The writers' hatred of guns was apparent from the first five minutes of the program. Also ignorance: whoever is advising them knows nothing of guns.

The Sheriff asks his deputy to find out "who has what guns registered." WHO REGISTERS THEIR GUNS IN WYOMING? Maybe the hippies in Laramie do, for all I know. But I spent 20 years in Oklahoma, another Western state, and there is NO registration of guns there.  I suspect there is none in Wyoming, either, but the hoplophobic writers are from Calipornia or Noo Yawk, where everything including kitchen knives have to be registered with the "authorities".

Next, the whole plotline followed a single type of rifle, the Sharps. Katee
Katee Sackhoff:
unemployed actress
Sackhoff's character, the deputy, says, "In a world where you can buy an AK-47 over the Internet", why use a Sharps?  Huh?  I'd like to buy an AK over the Internet, except, as the writers apparently are ignorant of, we have this thing called a Form 4473, that has to be filled out when you pick up the rifle at an FFL. I know, I know, the writers just had to get in a jab at "assault rifles." Hollywood gun-hating bilge.

The author of the books upon which the series is based, and/or the Hollywood scriptwriters are all confused about the Sharps. Their confusion could have been cleared up by a simple Google search.  The sporting Sharps was chambered in .50-70, but in the pilot of 'Longmire', "ballistics tests" (HA!) determined that the killer shot a .45-70 Sharps. You see, "they found a slug" in a sheep pasture that matched that rifle and only that rifle.

Yeah, right.

And according to the show, no other rifle in the history of guns was chambered in .45-70 Govt. Never mind that many classic sporting rifles were chambered in .45-70. Never mind the Navy still uses .45-70.

Also never mind that the type action in a Sharps rifle is called a "falling block" rifle not a "drop block" rifle as in the script.   Worse than all that, there's no inherent requirement that a falling-block rifle takes exactly 5 seconds to load the next cartridge as in the dramatic final scene.

Oh, yes, the dramatic final scene in which THE GUN DEALER is revealed as the murderer! Of course! It used to be the butler that always did it, but in Hollywood, the murderer now can only be THE GUN DEALER, that merchant of death and mayhem!

Either tell me this gets better, or I am not wasting my money on any more episodes.  No wonder it was cancelled.  Self-respecting people with minimal gun knowledge stopped watching this bilge long ago.

Friday, September 19, 2014

Spoonerisms

Lysander Spooner (January 19, 1808 – May 14, 1887) isn't a guy I share a lot of theology with (except we're both theists), but his ideas on liberty are difficult to refute.  In particular, this one:
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
I don't dislike the Constitution.   I wish the Bill of Rights and the enumerated powers were being adhered to, but they aren't. It may be that the Articles of Confederation would have been better than the Constitution, but we may never know.

We have the government that we Americans, collectively, have chosen.  I cannot argue with Mr. Spooner that our federal Constitution has not prevented the tyrannical federal government that now exists from coming into being.   This is perhaps what happens when the people begin to believe that someone or something else can be the guarantor of their liberty.  Even our own Constitution presupposed that the people would be vigilant sentinels of their own liberty.

In fact, Mr. Spooner may be right, but for a reason he did not believe or accept.  Maybe nothing can prevent tyranny except the reign of Jesus Christ in the hearts of men.

UPDATE: The great Francis Porretto commented on the blog, to my surprise and pleasure.  His book, Which Art In Hope (first of a trilogy), posits a future extra-terrestrial non-state civilization based on Spooner's writings.  All of Porretto's books are worth the read, and I have read all of the ones available on Kindle, and a few of the ones on SmashWords.

Saturday, September 6, 2014

Concealed Carry Reciprocity--GRRR!

Why oh why does South Carolina have to infringe my rights to keep and bear arms?  There is NO reciprocity with Alabama, my home state. There is NO possibility of getting an SC concealed carry license unless you own property (!) or are a resident.  There is NO possibility of open carry in SC because that's illegal! What the heck, I thought this was the SOUTH!  What about the 7th Circuit Court decision in Moore v Madigan that said states could not prohibit both open and concealed carry?!

Why is there no "enhanced" AL concealed carry permit with the level of training requirements, butt kissing, etc., that South Carolina and these other states will accept in reciprocity?    I'd pay the fee and get such a permit if it existed, because I need to be able to travel to those states, and I want to take responsibility for my own protection.

I know it would be a unicorn-and-rainbows world if the whole US were a Constitutional carry zone, but that just isn't so.  The other states aren't under Alabama's control. If Alabama citizens want to be able to carry in them, we'll have to meet those states' requirements, even if we consider them stupid and an infringement of our rights. Most Constitutional carry states have a permit system specifically for the purpose of reciprocity, and some like Idaho even have different levels of training, to meet other states' requirements.

The Alabama state government needs to get a clue and realize their citizens have to travel to other states for business and pleasure, and we want take the responsibility to be safe while we are there.

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Phil Robertson: Right Again

Phil Robertson of Duck Commander and Duck Dynasty has made some comments about ISIS and other mainstream Muslims that have caused the commie-progs' brains to explode.

via FreeRepublic, and a Politico story:
"Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson has a prescription for how to handle Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant militants: [...] "You either have to convert them — which I think would be next to impossible. I’m not giving up on them, but I’m just saying, either convert them or kill them," Robertson responded, likening ISIL militants to "street thugs on steroids."
Here is the unedited video of Robertson's comments.

His solution is correct. 

Since mainstream Muslims have always (as Mohammed taught by example) sought to either convert under threat of death, enslave, and/or murder everyone they come in contact with, the only defense is to either a) convert them away from that demonic religion (little hope there for most), or b) kill them in self-defense to stop them from killing you.


But "progressives" (read: Marxists) don't want to believe that there are people who are willing to die to kill you.  

And even if they admit that possibility, Progs would rather see a woman strangled with her own panty hose and raped to death by filthy Allah/devil-worshippers than see her defend herself with a handgun in righteous violence.

Progs think singing "Kumbaya" will solve all the world's problems. It will not. EVER. 

And by the way, yes, these are mainstream Muslims, because they are faithful to the Koran, which instructs Mohammed's minions to "kill the unbeliever where you find him" and other ungodly, murderous nonsense.