Pages

Monday, December 1, 2014

Spoonerisms II

Ol' Backwoods has been reading all the extant volumes of Spooner's "No Treason", and came on this gem:
The practical difficulty with our government has been, that most of those who have administered it, have taken it for granted that the Constitution, as it is written, was a thing of no importance; that it neither said what it meant, nor meant what it said; that it was gotten up by swindlers, (as many of its authors doubtless were,) who said a great many good things, which they did not mean, and meant a great many bad things, which they dared not say; 
that these men, under the false pretense of a government resting on the consent of the whole people, designed to entrap them into a government of a part; who should be powerful and fraudulent enough to cheat the weaker portion out of all the good things that were said, but not meant, and subject them to all the bad things that were meant, but not said. And most of those who have administered the government, have assumed that all these swindling intentions were to be carried into effect, in the place of the written Constitution. 
Of all these swindles, the treason swindle is the most flagitious. It is the most flagitious, because it is equally flagitious, in principle, with any; and it includes all the others. It is the instrumentality by which all the others are mode effective. A government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases.
And so they have, right up until the present day.

(Emphasis mine.)

Saturday, November 29, 2014

Breaking the Gun Culture

The magnificent Oleg Volk is running a series of pictures at his blog encouraging the teaching of shooting skills, from one friend to another, especially among women.

Now a crime in Washington.
(image by Oleg Volk)
I told Oleg that he should make a version of this particular picture, the one with the gal teaching her friend to shoot, with a different caption: “This is now a crime in Washington State.”  Since the I-594 initiative became law, handing the gun to your friend is an illegal transfer.  Her handing it back to you is another illegal transfer.  Oh, and if you left the gun at your friend's house?  Felony.

Criminalizing the touching of guns one doesn't own is the #1 way the Bloomberg ghouls can destroy the right to keep and bear arms in America, and they know it. They are already pushing this in Nevada, and are preparing to do the same in Maine and Arizona. They’ll push this poison state by state as far as they can.

Once it becomes too “difficult” for the average non-wealthy person to own a gun, or learn anything about them except at a state-sanctioned facility ($$$$), most people won’t bother.  Then, most people will be ignorant of guns, and of course the ignorant will vote against the rights of those of us who do. The Bloomghouls are counting on this to break the gun culture.

"Who's going to prosecute such a crime?" you may ask.  Perhaps nobody, but that doesn't matter.  "It's essentially an unenforceable law!" you may say.  It is, but that does not matter.

You see, the modern Euro-American super-state (at the national, "state" and local levels) has so warped the minds of "middle class," threatening them with threat of financial ruin, incarceration, and legal harassment, to where most of them obey laws as a matter of course, no matter how ridiculous and freedom-sapping.  People obey all manner of silly laws just to hold the mantle of "law abiding", and they will obey the laws against touching guns, too.  Some of us will disobey this malum prohibitum nonsense, and the rest will cheer when we are jailed for "breaking the law".  And there is a vast underclass who will never obey these laws, but will never be prosecuted for it because that would be "racist."  

So share your shooting and hunting skills with those around you, while you still can.

UPDATE!  Oleg Volk did a picture regarding the Washington the I-594 "no touching guns" law.  Oleg rocks.

Image by the incomparable Oleg Volk

Monday, November 24, 2014

Officer Wilson NOT Indicted... Enjoy Those "Gun-Free Zones" Tonight!

It's "gettin' real" in St. Louis, LA, NYC, Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, Birmingham, Orlando, and all those other victim-targeting zones.  An innocent man who defended his life with lethal force against a young thug is being freed, and the race-baiters are not happy.

Shots already fired in Ferguson, as of 9:11 PM Central.  Cop cars being overturned!  It's burning!  Shots fired!  Gee, don't you think the feckless residents of those Democrat cities wish they had bought a gun and gotten training now?

h/t Free Republic
Burning police car in Fergidishu!  (H/T KMOV)
This is not  inAfrica, or Paris, or England, though you couldn't tell it by the above.    This is St. Louis, people.  Did you ever think this would happen in AMERICA?

Emperor Obama the 1st speaks, and unwittingly becomes part of the scene, actually looking like he caused it (picture from Free Republic).  Well, didn't he at least help whip it up?

Did I do that?

Those Democrat cities chose their path long ago: citizen disarmament, giving in to mob rule, buying the votes of useless eaters.  And now, their chickens are coming home to roost, right Reverend Wright?

And now, we have a Democrat State Senator in Missouri who said "This is our race war!"  You do NOT want this, woman.  You have no idea what you are unleashing.

My community won't be affected at all.  Know why?  Because the parasitic rioters roused by the Communist front groups don't dare come out here where they know a significant percentage of us are armed, and we WILL fight back with lethal force if they try to block our highways, or surround our cars and rock them.  They don't dare.

Friday, November 7, 2014

Continued Complaints against the AL RKBA Amendment: "Inalienable" v "Fundamental"

I can't believe it, but the Bama Carry organization is still caterwauling on their Facebook page about the passage (72%) of Amendment 3, as they have done since it first was voted by the Legislature to appear on the ballot.

The ballot measure amended the Alabama constitution of 1901 to read:
Every citizen has a fundamental right to bear arms in defense of himself or herself and the state. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.
If you can believe it, the objection now is the wording "fundamental right", which these rubes believe to be somehow less than rights described by the phrase "inalienable right".

There ain't a substantial difference, people.  The two terms are used interchangeably.

Don't believe it? Look, Ol' Backwoods ain't a lawyer, but I can read and reason.  And I trust those attorneys, judges, and justices who have argued and written our pro-RKBA case law. 

How about Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion in landmark  Supreme Court case McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the City was infringing the right of a black man to keep and bear arms?  Justice Thomas
uses the words "inalienable" and "fundamental" interchangeably in this section about the history of rights in America (emphasis from Ol' Backwoods):
Justice Thomas:
Fundamental==Inalienable
After declaring their independence, the newly formed States replaced their colonial charters with constitutions and state bills of rights, almost all of which guaranteed the same fundamental rights that the former colonists previously had claimed by virtue of their English heritage. See, e.g., Pa. Declaration of Rights (1776)... declaring that "all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights," including the “right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences” and the "right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state."
Several years later, the Founders amended the Constitution to expressly protect many of the same fundamental rights against interference by the Federal Government.
Again later in the same opinion, Justice Thomas was discussing the usages of "privileges and immunities" from the 14th Amendment (emphasis from Ol' Backwoods):

...both the States and the Federal Government had long recognized the inalienable rights of their citizens. ... Article IV, §2 of the Constitution
protected traveling citizens against state discrimination  with respect to the fundamental rights of state citizenship.

I guess Justice Thomas is a backwoods rube who doesn't know his fundamental from his inalienable, huh?

Ol' Backwoods will be back later with more on this... 

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

AL Constitution Ballot Measure on RKBA PASSED!

Despite the surprising objections from Bama Carry, and from the usual anti-gun, anti-rights culprits, Alabama is now the third fourth state in the Union to enshrine the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right which must be protected by judges from infringement with the strictest level of judicial review:

From ABC 33 News:
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - Alabama voters have approved a constitutional amendment to make gun ownership a fundamental right. 
The measure called Amendment 3 won easily in statewide balloting Tuesday.
The Republican-backed amendment used language from the National Rifle Association.
The measure would make owning firearms a fundamental right in Alabama. It would also require that measures to control firearms would have to pass the toughest review by state courts.  
Supporters say the amendment was needed to guard against overreaching gun control. Opponents say the proposal could lead to a dismantling of existing limits on gun possession and ownership. 
Louisiana and Missouri have approved similar measures.
I know my wife and I voted for it.  We must have been among many.

WELL DONE, ALABAMA!

--

UPDATE: Prominent RKBA attorney Eugene Volokh quotes the newly-amended Alabama constitution and comments:
"Every citizen has a fundamental right to bear arms in defense of himself or herself and the state. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny."  
[... the]   provision would impose a more demanding test for gun controls, though not an insuperable test (see this case upholding a limited ban on gun possession by felons under strict scrutiny). Similar restrictions have recently been enacted in Louisiana and Missouri.

I can't help thinking about how this would have played in the Washington Post (Volohk's host site) if, as Bama Carry's leadership wanted, the ballot measure would have failed.  The WaPo would have celebrated, and y'all know it.

--
UPDATE: I forgot about Kansas, so that makes Alabama the fourth.  Dean Weingarten at Gun Watch reminds us (and I'll forgive him for calling us Alabamians 'Alabamans'):
Alabama follows on the heels of a Missouri amendment that passed with 61 percent of the vote, which continued the trend of Kansas and Louisiana. The Louisiana measure passed with 74% of the vote; the Kansas amendment passed with 88% . Wisconsin was the last state to add an amendment, instead of strengthening an existing one. The Wisconsin amendment passed in 1998 with 74% of the vote. It is clear that legislators are listening to grassroots support of these efforts.
Alabama follows on the heels of a Missouri amendment that passed with 61 percent of the vote, which continued the trend of Kansas and  Louisiana.   The Louisiana measure passed with 74% of the vote; the Kansas amendment passed with 88% .  Wisconsin was the last state to add an amendment, instead of strengthening an existing one.  The Wisconsin amendment passed in 1998 with 74% of the vote.    It is clear that legislators are listening to grassroots support of these efforts.


Saturday, November 1, 2014

Will Malloy Raid Gun Owners After Losing the Election?

UPDATE 11/5: Malloy won.  CWII soon?

---

Mike Vanderboegh says he has sources in the Connecticut Governor's office and the State Police that believe so.
This week, the water-cooler rumor at the Connecticut State Police barracks around the state is that [Under Secretary for Criminal Justice] Mike Lawlor has promised that if the governor is defeated that the raids will not wait for next year, but ... will "punish the gun nuts" by starting the raids within days of [CT Gov.] Malloy's defeat. ...
On Friday, I heard from another source I trust that they, too, had heard this and believed it to be true. 
Thus, if the rumor IS true and Lawlor has his way, it doesn't matter if Malloy wins or loses -- there will be raids.
If so, will that start a hot civil war?  Or will the people of CT just give up thousands of $$$ worth of rifles, and agree to go to prison over something people in free states like my own Alabama think nothing of owning?

Stay tuned.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Update on Proposed Alabama Amendment 3 (Strict Scrutiny)

UPDATE 11/5: it PASSED!

---

Dave Workman has an interesting article about the controversy in Alabama's gun rights community on ballot measure 3, which proposes an amendment to Alabama's constitution to direct judges to always apply a strict scrutiny level of judicial review to all cases where the right to keep and bear arms is in jeopardy.

Of course, Ol' Backwoods has covered this before, talking about the split between Bama Carry and the Alabama Gun Rights organizations (which include Alabama Open Carry).

The real story in Workman's article is in the comments.  Eddie Maxwell is a honcho in Bama Carry, and I have tried to argue for this amendment with him on the Facebook page, and was told to leave Bama Carry if I believed the Amendment was good for Alabama.  (Full disclosure: Ol' Backwoods is a paying member of Bama Carry.)  George Owens, a big wheel in the Alabama Gun Rights Organizations, is trying to argue for the amendment by showing how limited the right to keep and bear arms already is in Alabama, including the case State v. Reid (1840) which defined the right to bear arms as open carry, not concealed carry.

All I know is that a) 2nd amendment / RKBA lawyers smarter than me are for strict scrutiny, and b) if this goes down in flames here in the Deep South, the Bloombergites and the other anti's will dance up a storm, and claim that they are winning.  And maybe they do win a victory if this ballot measure is defeated.

As David Codrea says, "any chair in a bar fight."  Or, in Latin, "CUM ULLA SELLA IN PUGNO TABERNA".

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?

UPDATE 11/5: Amendment PASSED!  But Bama Carry's gripes continue!

WELCOME Sipsey Street & War on Guns readers!   There's an update to this story here at The Backwoods Engineer.  Also, 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 reined 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.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Complete Societal Reversal

Behold the reversal in our society. From "colored bathrooms" to "no-whites Waffle House" in just 50 years.

Guess what? Both are racist.
WEST POINT, Miss. (TheBlaze/AP) — The police chief in West Point, Mississippi, says he expects an arrest soon in what police are investigating as an aggravated assault that left Ralph Weems IV, a 32-year-old former Marine and Iraq war veteran, hospitalized with a brain injury. (...) 
David Knighten of West Point says he and Weems, who also lives in the city of 12,300, apparently were followed to the Huddle House from a Waffle House where Weems had argued with other patrons. 
Knighten told AP on Sunday that a man had waved him over outside a Waffle House and told him politely that people were upset by the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and it wasn’t a safe place for whites. When he went in, he said, Weems was inside and was arguing with other men. 
They left after an argument that brought police, Knighten said.
That was about 1 a.m., according to police. 
On the way to Weems’ house, Knighten said, they went into a Huddle House restaurant with a nearly vacant parking lot. 
However, he said, they apparently had been followed by more than 20 people.
“From what we have seen from surveillance video and from what other witnesses say, it doesn’t appear it’s going to be nearly that many,” Brinkley said. 
In an updated version of its story, the Associated Press seemingly removed comments from Knighten recalling “racial slurs being yelled from the crowd.” When he got outside, he said Weems was on the ground being kicked by a group of attackers.
Knighten says he has broken bones in his face, a cut over his left eye and a blood clot in his right eye.
(Original, popup-filled source article at The Blaze.)



Friday, August 22, 2014

What to Do about JPFO?

Lots of rancor from people I respect about the possibility of the Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership being taken over by the Second Amendment Foundation.

I'm torn here.  I am a longtime Gentile monetary and emotional supporter of JPFO.  I also have sent money to SAF, and am glad for what they have done for the cause of firearms freedom with the Heller, McDonald, Ezell, and Drake cases.  And I love, love the lady Claire Wolfe.  I have read most of her books on freedom, and try to take her advice to heart.  Her Backwoods Home column is always a good read.  And, I like the work David Codrea's been doing for JPFO.  I think it is in the spirit of Aaron Zelman.

But-- this kind of intramural rancor makes me sad.  You sure won't see gun-grabber organizations fighting it out in public.  They may have their private disagreements, but they will unite for the cause.

Shamefully, we apparently can't, because of a personal dislike of Alan Gottlieb by Aaron Zelman, two men whose work I cheered.  So, what to do?

I did sign the petition to keep JPFO independent.  But forgive me if I don't think this is the end of the world if the merger happens.

UPDATE: Oh dear, a very public food fight ensues (see the comments).  This is not good for the cause, people.

UPDATE 2: A reasonable set of compromises.  Yes, possibly.  JPFO does do 2nd Amendment education very well, SAF does indeed do litigation very well, GOA does do legislative vigilance very well, and NRA is excellent at training.  Maybe people should major in their good at.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

The Federal System and the Scalability of Autocracy

Francis Porretto is among the smartest people Ol' Backwoods knows, even if that acquaintance has been limited to conversations on the 'Net.
" The number of things the federal system attempts to control is simply beyond the power of any central authority to manage or control. Special interests routinely dominate decision making. Perhaps 98% of Washington's demesne should be delegated to smaller systems -- the original point of a federal system. "
Read it all: "Scailures" 

Suspension of Presumption of Innocence?

What's next, suspension of habeas corpus?  This man has not even been indicted, much less given a trial by a jury of his peers.  The Constitutional order in America appears to be ending.

Liberty News: OUTRAGE: MO Governor Ignores “Innocent Until Proven Guilty,” Calls For “Vigorous Prosecution” of Officer Darren Wilson (VIDEO) 

Monday, August 18, 2014

"Not Really All That Smart"

Ol' Backwoods read an interview in a trade magazine with Dr. Stephen Maas, whose book on nonlinear RF circuits is considered to be a foundational text in my field.  I was fascinated by this quote, which I totally identify with.  (Sorry about the pic; Penton does not allow text copying from the PDF version of their magazine.  Stupid.)


It's ironic: a guy whose work I totally "geek out on" thinks he's "really not all that smart", and
"had to learn how to dig into a subject and explain it to myself."  That's how I view myself, too.

Just goes to show: sometimes effort really is more important than intelligence.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

This is America, August 2014

Full-on looting, with the politically-correct and running-scared-from-the-media oath-breaking cops not doing a single thing to stop it.  One more reason to get armed and stay armed, citizens.

RAW Instagram video of looting in Ferguson, MO last night.

The fit appears to be hitting the shan.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Who is 'Maximalist', Mr. President? The Republicans? Or YOU?

If he's complaining about it, he's doing it:

“The president mused, the biggest threat to America — the only force that can really weaken us — is us,” said the interviewer, Thomas Friedman [a commie]. 
“Our politics are dysfunctional… societies don't work if political factions take maximalist positions,” said Obama, who repeatedly claims to be a moderate stymied by the GOP’s supposed obstructionism and radicalism. 
“And the more diverse the country is, the less it can afford to take maximalist positions,” Obama added.
“Increasingly politicians are rewarded for taking the most extreme maximalist positions… and sooner or later, that catches up with you,” Obama warned.
(Emphasis from Ol' Backwoods.)

Notice the repetition of that word.  I believe this is code being sent out to all the Lefties. Here's the definition of 'maximalist':
one who advocates immediate and direct action to secure the whole of a program or set of goals
If Obama is griping about the Republicans being "maximalist", then that is exactly the tack his administration is on.

The Left generally operates incrementally.  Except when they know that their time of maximum power is coming to an end, and they must consolidate their gains to prevent the other party/ideology coming to power and spoiling all their plans.  That is what the throwing open the borders, and campaigning for the immigration of the "children" is all about.  The Left must secure a new constituency, or they will not hold on to power.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

To: Sactimonious Leftist Re: Race

   "I wanted nothing but to be left in peace, to get along with my neighbors as best I can regardless of the color of their skins.  
   You refused to permit it. You've emphasized race at every opportunity. You've harped on racial injustices in the distant past as if they were the doing of contemporary whites. You've taught American blacks and Hispanics to think of themselves as helpless victims of "Whitey."  
   You've agitated ceaselessly for racial preferences in the law, and you've usually gotten them. You've excused non-white criminals, traitors, and other miscreants on the grounds that "they couldn't do otherwise in this oppressive society."  
   You've granted a wholly undeserved degree of respect to racialist hucksters like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Julian Bond, Toure, Melissa Harris-Perry, and hundreds of others. You've used ordinary words and idioms as justifications for destroying decent men's lives and careers.  
   You've used cries of "racism!" to silence anyone who disagrees with you about anything. Worst of all, you've got everyone in the whole damned country seeing race everywhere, and afraid to speak his mind if it might somehow touch on that subject. But now that whites are showing some racial consciousness, voting and relocating and arming to protect our own from the groups you've sheltered and coddled, you find that you dislike what you've wrought?"
Fran Porretto is awesome.    Read it all.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

UN Trucks: The Color Makes a Nice Target

Apparently, the UN has landed in the South.  They have painted their trucks a bright white for our targeting convenience.

Warning, salty language in video.

Ominous, if these are really UN trucks to be used in some domestic action.  But hey, nothing like that would ever happen.  These are likely ambulances to be sent to Africa.  Yeah, that's it.  The UN would never use ambulances for anything seedy.  Nah.

Monday, June 16, 2014

KAGAN Brings Gun Control Home for Obama!

The Supreme Court upheld a blatantly unconstitional Federal law today, in an opinion written by Obama-appointed gun-grabber Elena Kagan. The majority ruled it was illegal for a former police officer, Bruce Abramski to buy a gun in a store, sign Form 4473 stating he was the intended possessor, then later give the gun as a gift to another non-prohibited possessor, in this case, his uncle, knowing he was going to do so all along.  Because the intent to give away something you have a Constitutional right to own is illegal, or something.  What a messed-up country this is.

Oh, the things the Feds will do with this! Abramski is gonna be the excuse for all kinds of tyranny! Trust Ol' Backwoods: this ruling is what the gun grabbers have been waiting for, lusting for. The Bradys are already salivating.

This ruling takes Federal gun laws in a dangerous direction.  Justice Antonin Scalia said in the dissent that this was not a direction intended by Congress:
"The court makes it a federal crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner... Whether or not that is a sensible result, the statutes Congress enacted do not support it."
Maybe.  But that doesn't matter. When has anyone ever stopped the progressive Supreme Court from legislating from the bench?!  To the progressive Left, laws don't exist to punish their protected criminal classes, oh, no, they exist to take freedom from the undesirables. Like, say, peaceable gun owners.

In the majority ruling, Kagan whines that Congress did not do enough to keep Americans from "getting a gun second-hand:"
In so designing the ["straw buyer"] statute, Congress chose not to pursue the goal of “controll[ing] access” to guns to the nth degree; buyers can, as the dissent says, avoid the statute’s background check and record-keeping requirements by getting a gun second-hand. But that possibility provides no justification for limiting the statute’s considered regulation of dealer sales.
The Constitution provides justification for limiting it, but you won't admit that, will you, Kagan? Scalia calls Kagan on her gun-control ambitions:
The majority’s contrary conclusion rests, not on anything  in the text or structure of the Act,but on the majority’s guess about  how far Congress meant to go in pursuit of its crime-prevention
“purpose.”  
 If the American people do not massively rebel (big "if"), this ruling will give Obama everything he wants on guns.

Huh?  Yep.  With this ruling, Obama and the Left now have most of the pieces of an Erector set, from which to construct an unconstitutional machine for registration and confiscation of all legally-owned firearms in the United States.

Here's the bill of materials for The Gun-Grabbing Machine:

  1. All new guns must be sold only through dealers, and recorded on a Form 4473
    (Gun Control Act of 1968). 
  2. Notify FBI before transfer of any gun at a dealer
    (1993 Brady 'instant background check'). 
  3. Increasingly militarized local police that cooperate with the Feds whenever told (coming since Clinton, and now here).
  4. No more gun transfers without a dealer
    (Abramski ruling, today). 
  5. (Still to come) Prohibition of all transfers of guns to non-LEOs,
    like the Hughes Amendment did with machine guns in 1986.

Just assemble and activate. Confiscate and exterminate. Insert Abramski, and turn key to start.

You doubt? Let's break it down.

It is exceedingly difficult for courts and/or LEO's to determine when a possessor "decided" or "intended" to privately transfer a gun to another person.  It's in the person's mind, and the action is identical, whether or not the intent existed.  As of the Abramski ruling today, is a lot easier for courts and LEO's to just assume everyone who transfers a gun to another person outside an FFL intended to do so before signing the Form 4473.  This makes anyone who transfers a gun to another person outside an FFL into a "straw buyer" and an instant felon.  The charge? The ATF's oft-used "Conspiracy to violate Section 922 of the US Code".

Post-Abramski, it is then de facto illegal to give a gun to someone without them taking possession by a transfer through a licensed dealer. The transfer of the gun to another person is half of a private sales transaction. The rest is just money. It is but a tiny, tiny step, measured in millimeters, for some lower court to cite Abramski and rule that all firearms that move in lawful commerce must be transferred via a gun store on a Form 4473.

Even if a court doesn't rule that way, all it would take is for the ATF to write a "determination letter" to that effect, start enforcing it, and it's done. "Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool," as "The Forehead" Paul Begalla said. Obama's ATF has tried similar extralegal maneuvers before, like forcing a CLEO signoff even for a machine gun transfer to a trust.

Without the ability to legally transfer a gun to another person without the intervention of an FFL, all lawfully-owned guns will eventually be registered - a name, an address, the model and a serial number will be on a Form 4473, either at ATF HQ, or in some gun shop somewhere.  I say, "lawfully-owned," but the very definition of what that means at the Federal level will be re-written by the results of the Abramski decision.

Next, the Feds will make the leap, not far from where we are now, that Form 4473's are in the same category of information as cell phone metadata, because Abramski.  Because someone, somewhere, might possibly conspire to give their uncle a gun. Then, the NSA will start hoovering up 4473's, to stop them "terrists" and their uncles.

At that point, they'll have the locations of MILLIONS of 'lawfully'-owned arms.  They can either send LEOs to confiscate them, or use the information for blackmail, either to complete their registry, or for political intimidation.  Or all three.

Want to go work for FedGov? Or, a cooperating state like Kommiefornia? The computer will say: "Checking 4473s for Mr. Backwoods Engineer... Found: 22... FLAGGED!" Turn in all the serial numbers of your guns, you "terrist"!  Tell us what you have now!  Because Abramski! If you don't, you might conspire to give one of them to your uncle!  And by the way, you Tea Partying Threeper sovereign citizen, you're going to get an IRS audit to boot.

But what about the lawfully-owned guns that don't move in commerce anymore? Suppose you buy a few AR-15's, or even just a lower.   Say you want to go out and shoot it.  But the Feds get a ruling or a law, or the ATF demands that all shooting ranges have to log the serial numbers of all arms coming in their door. Because Abramski, and someone might conspire to give a gun to their uncle at the range! Horrors!

Tabulate, correlate, investigate, interrogate, confiscate, and exterminate.

Or, how about the future finding by this tyrannical government that getting a concealed carry license in your state qualifies you for a search of your property for guns not on a Form 4473! Because Abramski, those are contraband, because if those guns aren't registered with the Proper Authorities, you might give one to your uncle!  Horror of horrors!

I believe Abramski will be the justification for prohibiting ALL private transfers, with or without money changing hands. It is inevitable, the next logical step, in their statist minds. And they'll get all the cover they want from the media. "No more straw sales!," the newscrone will screech. "Gun show loophole? Supremes say NO!," the headlines will read.

Private sales of firearms in America: GONE. Because Abramski. Because if we don't, someone might give a gun to their uncle.  Count on it: it WILL happen at some point.

Watch for it. And remember, the worst of it all got started today, with the Abramski ruling.

UPDATES: several opinion writers, and a Constitutional scholar, agree with Ol' Backwoods:

Via David Codrea, attorney Joshua Prince says of the decision:
There is NO law enacted by the Congress regarding straw purchasers! This was made up in whole cloth by the ATF! This is a FAR worse decision than anyone is comprehending. NOW, administrative agencies can enact criminal laws, which have NOT been enacted by the Congress!
From Dave Workman:
Nelson Lund, a constitutional scholar and Second Amendment expert at George Mason School of Law, had this to say: “Five members of the Supreme Court have decided to make it a federal crime for a lawful gun owner to buy a firearm for another lawful gun owner. No federal statute says any such thing. The Justices are once again legislating from the bench, which violates the Constitution, and enacting a retroactive criminal law, which is even worse.” 
Kurt Hoffman at JPFO (Ol' Backwoods is a member):
So either gun laws need not meet strict scrutiny regarding their Constitutionality, or the "compelling government interest" is actually cataloging gun owners, rather than controlling violent crime.
David Codrea has much more on the ruling.   SCrOTUS, LOL.

UPDATE 10/27: A nice attorney, Bruce Provda, emailed to correct the link to the Abramski ruling, which I had linked in the paragraph regarding Justice Scalia's dissent.  The link now goes to the PDF of the ruling on Mr. Provda's site, which does indeed pull up the ruling.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Obama Threatens Australia-style Forced Gun Confiscation, or, I Try to Talk Obama Out of Civil War

Obama did a Tumblr presentation today where he praised Australia’s forced confiscation of all semi-automatic rifles as a model that the United States should follow.

This oathbreaking President said today:
Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not doing, we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since.
Our levels of gun violence are off the charts.
Learn this, Mr. President: we aren't Australia.  And, honestly, millions of us are sick of talk like this.

Hear this: we will not stand for the confiscation of our rifles and handguns.  For the sake of the children, you best understand: many, many more Americans are going to die, Mr. President, if you try this, far more than die every day in the Democrat-occupied cities where citizens, not criminals, are disarmed.

If you don't like 'gun violence', Mr. President, then stop forcing it on the us, the American people.   If you and Valerie Jarrett and Eric Holder and your money men, Bloomberg and Soros push a full-blown confiscation of rifles in this country, then you betcha you will see 'gun violence', sir. An honest study of American history, a country neither you nor your advisers understand, bears that out with deadly certainty.  America was born in blood, resisting the 'gun violence' of the tyrant with our own guns, muskets, and cannon.

You try to take our firearms, sir, and you will start a bloody civil war the likes of which has not been seen here since 1865.

I beg you to understand, Mr. President, and stop this now.

If you relent now, it could save tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives.  If you and/or your agents attempt confiscation and "send hither agents" to take away our arms, you send 'gun violence' against the III% of American citizens who truly care.  And, if you send 'gun violence' against us, American history bears out, you will find it reciprocated.   This is how civil wars start.

You see, some Americans won't cower before the tyranny of gun confiscation like the Aussies did.  The blood of those who resisted British and Yankee tyranny with guns still flows in some Americans' veins.  At a certain point-- the onset of confiscation-- we will not take it anymore.

We will not take it anymore.

Some of us, historically about 3%, perhaps more, perhaps less, will resist this tyranny with reciprocal violence.  If you do this unconstitutional and tyrannical thing, you can take this to the Goldman-Sachs-owned bank near you:  there will be counter-violence against your military, federal agents, and even the local police under your agents' control, against anyone who attempts to take our rightfully-owned arms.   And if Bill Clinton's rules of engagement take hold, against others as well.

Let the record show this isn't a threat; it's a clear-eyed projection from our history, and plea for you to back off before war begins.   And there's still time.

As long as you are just talking, sir, just spewing hot air on Tumblr to rouse the rabble who voted for you and impress your statist friends, we watch and wait.  Oh, we grumble about it, but we do no violence.  That is the kind of people we are. We are not the instigators of violence; that would be your constituency, the inner-city criminals who grew up feeding on the welfare state.

For now, true American patriots only watch and prepare.

We are preparing our families for great privation and loss, because we know your unconstitutional, oathbreaking 'domestic national security force' are preparing to kill us in our homes, as tyrannical, oathbreaking federal standing armies have done to many American citizens before.  We stockpile supplies and yes, gun and ammo, because we known your oathbreaking domestic army is preparing even now to take food and fuel and supplies from American citizens at the point of a gun, and give them to your friends, politicians and key federals.  Sir, you yourself have ordered it so, publicly, with your "pen and your phone."

We prepare, and remain vigilant, but we do no violence, while your tyrannical dangers gather.  We will not start the violence; Bundy Ranch was proof of that.  There will be no more Fort Sumters.

But neither will be any more Wacos, or Ruby Ridges, or Bonus Army massacres.  No more will be tolerated.

No more.  The American people have nearly reached their breaking point.

For the sake of the future of America:  for the unborn and those not yet "punished with a baby", as you might say; for our children and those of your agents, you must understand: if your federal agents come to confiscate our arms, hot civil war will break out, sir, and tens of thousands of Americans will die.

Yes, Americans will die, maybe some you know; if you had ever studied American history, you would know that in the last American civil war, almost everyone knew someone who was killed.  Thousands, millions dead.  You cannot put that kind of horror back in the bottle.

Don't do this, Mr. President.

For the sake of the angels, stop talking about rifle confiscation and gun bans.  Not everyone has the patience some of us are showing.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

LA Times Cheers War on "Radical Right-Wing Zealots" Like Us

The rat-bastard traitor.  Notice how
his head symbolically obscures "Justice".
As David Codrea says, "And so it begins".

Attorney General Eric Holder, head of the putative "Department of Justice" is creating a task force that has the potential to label everyone who stands in the way of his unconstitutional schemes as "self-radicalized" threats to government.  The media is cheering him on, eager to label "right-wing zealots" as "homegrown terrorists", so they can get on with the statist program of registration, confiscation and extermination.

From house organ LA Times:
Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder, Jr. on Monday announced the creation of a task force within the Justice Department to combat an “escalating danger” from “homegrown” terrorists within the United States. 
... [The rat-bastard traitor to the Constitution] cited the Boston Marathon bombings last year and shootings at Fort Hood in 2009 and 2014 as examples of “the danger we face from these homegrown threats. 
... Called the Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee, it is a recreation of a task force formed by former Atty. Gen. Janet Reno after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing... which was little known, focused mainly on right-wing zealots, Holder’s version is aimed at U.S. citizens or visitors radicalized via the Internet. ... 
 “But we also must concern ourselves with a different type of threat. We face an escalating danger from self-radicalized individuals within our own borders,” he said. 
 “Horrific terror incidents like the tragic shootings at Fort Hood and last year’s Boston Marathon bombing demonstrate the danger we face from these homegrown threats,” Holder said in the video posted on the department’s website. 
 “Now -- as the nature of the threat we face evolves to include the possibility of individual radicalization via the Internet -- it is critical that we return our focus to potential extremists here at home,” Holder said.
(Emphasis above and the characterization of the rat-bastard traitor are mine.  Yes, Eric Holder is a traitor to the Constitution, viz., Fast & Furious.)

Y'all read that?  Right-wing zealots.  Who are "individually radical[ized] via the Internet" ?  Get ready for some Internet radicalization.

Oh, I'm "radicalized", all right.  I hold to the radical belief that the United States government has far exceeded its Constitutionally-enumerated powers, which were intentionally limited by the Founding Fathers to prevent the tyranny and bloodshed it and its agents have perpetrated for over a hundred and fifty years, and more, which have accelerated under the control of Eric Holder's boss, whoever that may really be.

I hold to the radical belief that we, the people, are the final check on government tyranny, and that to be an effective check on government powers, the whole people, individually and severally, must be radically ARMED with what the Supreme Court called (in US v Miller) "militia weapons", light arms which include the same fully-automatic, large-caliber, and destructive-device weapons that the police and military have.

My radicalism is so radicalized that I believe there may come a time, when all other attempts at redress of grievances have failed us, when the unorganized militia, the people themselves, must take arms to restore the Constitutional order and to seek justice for the wholesale bloodshed and tyranny perpetrated by people like Eric Holder, who sold out our own government agents to the drug cartels in Mexico.  Why Fast & Furious and other such actions are not considered treason to the Constitution by decent people, I'll never know.

In other words, I'm about as radical as that radical Founding Father Tench Coxe.

Exactly what is the the goal of this "task force" the rat-bastard traitor and his lapdogs at the LA Times are talking about?  It is really to prevent Doogie the Terrorist in Boston (never mind Holder let the little teenage bomber into the US to start with), or Fort Hood, or 9/11?    Is this about preventing 'terrorists' like the children of Waco against whom Janet Reno (mentioned in the article) sent the FBI and ATF, to burn them to death under the false pretense of 'weapons charges'?

No, dear reader, it is not.

This "task force" Holder is blathering about will do nothing to prevent terrorist attacks.  If they really wanted to do that, they would close the borders, and question Muslims at airports, instead of driving illegal aliens to bus stations, and feeling up grandma at check-in.  But they won't do that.  Holder thinks "it is critical that we return our focus to potential extremists here at home" because he doesn't want the government going after his Muslim and illegal alien buddies.  No, that would be raaaaaaacist.

That task force is targeted "here at home," all right.   The LA Times, in its role as propaganda organ for the state, gives us the key clue, when they intimate that the "task force" was originally about "right-wing zealots."

In truth, Holder's task force is targeting us, the armed citizens who stand for the Constitution, who oppose government tyranny.   Because we represent a unique "threat" to the regime.

If Holder and the rest of the regime mean to force their tyrannical, unconstitutional will on We the People, then yep, you betcha we represent a "threat" to the regime.  By God's justice, we ought to!   Indeed, our very existence as an armed citizenry represents a "threat" to them; witness the foaming-at-the-mouth gibbering over the 2nd Amendment by the statists, including ol' Gunwalker Eric Holder himself.  The Founding Fathers knew we represent a "threat", too, and agreed that such a "threat" was a good thing for the "security of a free state".

This is about the next step.  Holder, the rest of the regime, and these media puffs all know that their efforts to disarm the whole of the American people except their enforcers have utterly FAILED.  In fact, there are more guns & ammo in the hands of Americans now than EVER BEFORE.  Holder and the other tyrants know they are going to have to use violence to disarm us, and this "homegrown terrorists" bilge is just the pretext they need!  The LA Times is subtly doing what the statist media has been doing for some time now: goading the government to do something about us, their problem children, and providing them cover to do the dirty deeds.

So, LA Times, and the rest of the traitorous media, are you ready to take us on?  Having sicced the attack dog Eric Holder on us "right-wing zealots" who hold the "radical" belief that the Constitution constrains the powers of government, what will you do when we do not back down?  What will you do when we do not disarm in response to the unconstitutional mandates of the phoney "representatives" bought and paid for with your fiat baby-torture blood money?  What will you do when we don't accept the rubber-stamp decisions of oath-breaking judges who send the SWAT teams to our houses?

I think you will do nothing.  You ninnies are too cowardly to do the dirty deeds yourselves; you will always need the power of the tyrannical state to do violence to force the control over us you so desire.   Hence, Holder breathing threats.  No matter.  Your fate is sealed, in this life or the next.

Newspapermen and media whores, though now you throw in your lot with a tyrant like Eric Holder, there may come a time when he cannot protect you from true justice.  There may come a time when the armed citizenry fights back, and the Constitution is restored.  When and if that day comes, no one will speak for traitors like you.  You will follow Holder to the gallows, and dance the dance of Julius Streicher, and after that, face the Judgement of the Almighty.

That will be a good day.