Tag: Politics

When Did the Definition of Voluntary Change

I’m a bit confused. Some point between the time I learned the definition of voluntary and yesterday the definition of the word was changed. I say this because Harry Reid has stated that paying taxes is voluntary:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6q0slMhDw8]

Thankfully Google still has my back here as it contained the old definition of voluntary which reads in part:

of your own free will or design; done by choice; not forced or compelled

Voluntary action is action taken by choice and free of any coercion. Paying taxes on the other hand is something we do because the government has threatened us with violence if we do not. If you or I don’t pay our taxes the government will take one or all of several actions which include taking the money from us (garnishing wages), tossing us in prison, taking your property, or having one of their hired thugs beat us should we refuse to comply with either of the two previous retaliatory actions.

So I’m very confused and would like to know this new definition of the word voluntary that Harry is using. It’s not in any dictionary so I’m guessing it’s probably in the newest version of the Newspeak.

Because They’re Better Than You and Me

Getting a permit to carry in California is almost impossible unless you’re rich or politically well connected. I also learned that it’s illegal to carry in their state capitol unless you’re a law enforcement officer or a legislator:

When state lawmakers return to Sacramento this week, a few will carry guns. Four members of the Assembly have been given permission to carry concealed weapons in the Capitol.

Anyone entering the Capitol building in Sacramento passes through a metal detector at a security checkpoint. State law prohibits concealed or deadly weapons in public buildings, including the Capitol.

But law enforcement officers are exempt – and so are legislators under limited circumstances; the Assembly or Senate sergeants-at-arms can give permission for a lawmaker to carry a concealed weapon.

See, they need to be protected from us serfs. If they allowed lowly serfs to carry guns who knows what kind of terrible things could happen. Hell just look at all the shootings that have occurred in the capitol buildings in Texas and Minnesota… you know all zero of them.

You have to love how California legislators can’t carry in the state capitol under “limited circumstances” which basically amounts to asking permission from your fellow legislators. Then again these are the same punks that can also give themselves raises. I believe we should hold legislators to the exact same standards as actual productive people. Thus if you or I can’t carry at the California state capitol neither should those critters who call themselves “representatives.”

I Don’t Think Asking Nicely Will Work

Apparently Pakistan has the audacity to ask the United States to reduce the number of spooks (CIA agents) operating inside of their country and restrict the number of people being blown up with drones:

Pakistan has asked the US to reduce the number of CIA agents in the country and to limit drone strikes along the Afghan border, US media reports say.

The reports quote unnamed officials and come as US and Pakistani spy chiefs met at the CIA’s US headquarters.

An official spokesman described those meetings as “productive”.

By productive he meant he was allowed to leave with his life. I’m sorry but I don’t think asking nicely is going to work in this case.

Washington Legalizes Suppressors

Man, even people living in Washington state can be courteous of their neighbors and use suppressors. House Bill 1016 was officially signed into law which legalized the use of suppressors within the state and put Washington one step ahead of Minnesota in that regard. The following paragraph sums up why suppressors should not only be legal in every state but should also be removed for the list of firearms and firearm accessories that are regulated by the National Firearms Act:

Anyone who has ever fired a gun knows that gunfire is loud. It can cause immediate and permanent hearing loss. While suppressors do not eliminate the sound of a firearm, they do reduce the muzzle report of the gun much in the same way that a muffler reduces exhaust noise from a car or truck. There are many benefits to suppressors: they can increase accuracy, they make shooting more enjoyable by lessening felt recoil and reducing muzzle blast, they protect shooters’ hearing, and they help to reduce noise complaints from neighbors.

If you live near a gun range and find the noise annoying you should be advocating for the legalization of suppressors. I would love to see this happen here but alas I think it may be a while.

Minnesota Anti-Gunners Moving to Potentially Ban Carrying at the State Capitol

I have no actual details on this but the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) is putting out the word that some of Minnesota’s anti-gun politicians might be trying to sneak some carry prohibitions into the light rail finance bill:

On Tuesday, the Minnesota House State Government Finance Committee will be looking at an appropriations bill for improvements to capitol security. The bill funds construction of a tunnel under University Avenue.

The bill, HF1287, is fine as it stands, but some anti-gun house members intend to add new restrictions — or even an outright ban — on permit holders carrying at the capitol.

GOCRA is asking that you contact your “representatives” and tell them to either kill the bill or pass it as-is. Personally I’m all for killing this bill as spending tons of money on a light rail system at a time where our state is massively in debt doesn’t make financial sense to me. What makes even less sense though is attaching a restriction to our right to carry to a fucking finance bill.

Contact your “representatives” and let them know either anti-gun legislation stays out of this bill or they will be staying out of the capitol come next election cycle.

The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act Of 2011

Although those of us residing in the United States are promised a right to keep and bear arms by the very document that created the powerful federal government we now have this right is often ignored. This shouldn’t be too surprising as the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights are always assumed to have a rider attached that says, “With permission of the states.” Our right to keep arms is restricted by specific types of firearms and our right to bear arms is restricted in so many ways I can’t begin to list them.

After McDonald vs. Chicago the second amendment was finally incorporated and thus now applies to the states. Due to this very fact I believe it is now time to pass national carry reciprocity. Truth be told I previously believed we needed to pass such a law but now we have justification for loosening the restrictions on one of our rights. Thankfully there is a bill on the table titled The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act Of 2011:

Dozens of states have passed carry laws over the past 25 years because the right to self-defense does not end when one leaves home. However, interstate recognition of those permits is not uniform and creates great confusion and potential problems for the traveler. While many states have broad reciprocity, others have very restrictive reciprocity laws. Still others deny recognition completely.

H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that lawfully issued carry permits be recognized, while protecting the ability of the various states to determine the areas where carrying is prohibited. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced similar legislation since 1995.

The bill number is H.R. 822 and the text can be read here. As of right now the bill need co-sponsors so the National Rifle Association (NRA) is urging people to contact their “representatives” and urge them to support this bill.

White House Attempting to Bar Communications Privacy Act Reform

For those of you who believe the government requires a warrant in order to obtain your e-mails from an ISP’s server you would be partially correct. As the law sits now any e-mail left on a server for more than six months is considered abandoned and thus can be obtained without the hassle of a search warrant. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been trying to change this law for a while now but the current critters in the White House are urging Congress to prevent such measures from being adopted. James A. Baker, the associated deputy attorney general, stated the following in relation to the subject:

Congress should recognize the collateral consequences to criminal law enforcement and the national security of the United States if ECPA were to provide only one means — a probable cause warrant — for compelling disclosure of all stored content. For example, in order to obtain a search warrant for a particular e-mail account, law enforcement has to establish probable cause to believe that evidence will be found in that particular account. In some cases, this link can be hard to establish. In one recent case, for example, law enforcement officers knew that a child exploitation subject had used one account to send and receive child pornography, and officers discovered that he had another email account, but they lacked evidence about his use of the second account.

First let’s hand Mr. Baker bonus points for using child pornography since we know anything to “protect the children” is good. Second don’t we see having to provide evidence in order to obtain a warrant just gets in the way? Hell we should all support legislation that would allow the government to just walk into our homes whenever the fuck they want. Not supporting such legislation simply means you have something to hide and thus are likely a terrorist.

I also love how law enforcement officers know a target was sending and receiving child pornography via one e-mail account but were upset that they couldn’t access the other e-mail account which they had no evidence against. Guess what? That’s what we call due process and at one time was believed to be the basis of our legal system.

This is probably the best reason to have your own mail server. If you own the mail server it doesn’t matter how old any e-mail stored on the system is as the government requires one of those pesky warrants in order to sieze it.

Government Shutdown and NICS

With the looming government shutdown one interesting question that has been going around the gun community is whether or not the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) will be operational. This is an interesting question to which no answer appears to be in sight. Personally I doubt the NICS systems will be offline as even in a government shutdown law enforcement agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) will continue running (and our soldiers will be expected to continue working even though they won’t be receiving paychecks, how’s that for a stab in the back).

With that said part of me would almost welcome a shutdown of NICS. Why? Because it would open the door for questioning whether or not NICS is at all constitutional. There are two possibilities that could occur if NICS were to shut down; gun stores would be unable to sell firearms or all firearms sales would go through after three days (if NICS doesn’t get back to a dealer in three days the owner can treat it as an automatic approval). In the first case having a non-operational NICS system would effectively bar people their right to keep and bear arms by effectively creating a blanket gun ban for the time of government shutdown. In the second case ineligible people may acquire firearms placing the question as to whether or not the NICS system is worth anything on the table.

I could see grounds for a lawsuit if the NICS system was shutdown preventing somebody who needed a firearm to self-defense from obtaining it.

More Bad News for California Gun Owners

Bad news denizens of the People’s Republic of Kalifornistan, three bad news for guns bills are coming up for a hearing. These seem really stupid and absolutely asinine which means they have a real chance in that state forsaken by the major deities of every religion:

SB 124 would create a broadly expanded and technically flawed definition of handgun ammunition which would encompass virtually all rifle cartridges. It would also ban the possession of many types of rifle cartridges and make it a felony to possess them. SB 124 doesn’t stop there, it could also ban virtually all non-lead ammunition used in California by reclassifying them as “armor piercing.” If passed, this bill could result in a complete ban on hunting in the California condor zone in which the use of lead ammunition is prohibited for hunting.

In an effort to further stifle law-abiding gun owners from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, anti-gun Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-44) has introduced legislation that would change the state’s gun laws and prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying an unloaded handgun openly. It is currently legal to carry an unloaded handgun into most public places within the state, including restaurants and malls, but if approved, AB 144 would make it a misdemeanor to carry an unloaded handgun in public under most circumstances.

AB 809, introduced again by F-rated Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-42), would establish a state registration system, similar to the one currently in place for handguns, for all newly-acquired rifles and shotguns. Under AB809, the make, model and serial number of the firearm as well as the identifying information of the purchaser would be recorded and kept on file by the California Attorney General’s office.

Banning, registration, and removal of a right all in one hearing. Those statist fucks in California’s legislature sure are a busy bunch. Honestly, if you’re a gun owner who lives in California it would be smart to just move. I think the state is completely beyond help at this point and there is not chance of reforming it back to a place where free people may live. Get out of there before they make it illegal to leave the state without papers and direct permission from the state government.

Gun “Buy Back” Equates to Crime Coverup

I have a problem with the term gun “buy back” because buying something back implies it was originally owned by the future purchaser. The police can’t buy back a firearm unless they previously possessed it thus the name of these programs is a complete lie. I propose we rename these events to crime coverup programs. It would be far more accurate as Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry pointed out to his local police department:

Curry said his office didn’t like that the police could be collecting — and destroying — guns that might have been used in crimes.

“On the one hand, we’re completely supportive of any effort to reduce illegal guns on the street,” Curry said Monday. “But nevertheless, we have the responsibility of investigating existing crimes and coordinating with federal agencies to trace how these weapons are ending up on the streets in the first place.”

That’s what these programs accomplish, the destruction of potential crime scene evidence. There has been no evidence brought forth that these programs reduce violent crime yet there is no denying that the possibility of destroying a gun used in a crime is there. Hell that’s something the police even realize by stating no questions will be asked about the firearms.

So why are the police using taxpayer money to purchase firearms only to potentially cover up a crime?