Chronicling the depravities of the State.
That’s my official stance since Random Nuclear Strikes has reported Florida Representative jackass Alan Grayson has threatened to give fives years of prison time to somebody who dares criticize him.
Well when I see somebody doling out threats to people using the first amendment I like to help by exercising my freedom of speech. Mr. Grayson I provide you with this:
Go fuck yourself with it. Also you’re an asshole.
Via Sharp as a Marble we have a post on Walls of the City. It’s a list of different laws that would be on the books if other rights were shit all over as much as the second amendment. Here are some gems:
Anyone convicted of a felony or convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse or assault is not allowed freedom of speech or religion and must rely on the government to provide speech and religion for them.
(1968 gun control act)
Many people in the gun rights community don’t like to touch this particular law. It’s probably due to the fact that nobody wants to be seen as supporting felons or people who abused their spouse. Personally I’m against either restriction and I’ll tell you why.
If you are worried a person who committed a heinous crime (well not just heinous crimes are felonies anymore, practically everything is becoming one) is going to commit an act of violence why the Hell is he out of prison? A huge majority of crimes are committed by repeat offenders which seems to imply somebody who has already committed a crime is more than willing to break another law (obtaining a gun while being a felon) to assist in a repeat offense.
Than you have those charged with domestic violence. If you’ve ever known somebody accused of domestic abuse you know the situation is probably anything but cut and dry. I have friends who have been accused by their significant other of physical abuse. Personally I refuse to take sides in such an argument but I can say the situation is dicey and the truth is usually impossible to drill down to. The fact that somebody can have their rights ripped away from them without absolute cut and dry evidence is a slippery slope to say the least.
But the bottom line is I’m against stripping anybody of any civil right.
Before engaging in new free speech you must pass an instant background check by a government authorized free speech dealer. Sorry, if your name is like someone else prohibited from speech and religion, it is up to you to prove you’re not that person.
(NICS instant background check and Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993)
Sounds pretty stupid when applied to free speech doesn’t it? How about to a right of trial by jury? Maybe you should be required to go through an instant background check before you have the right to not have your property searched without an issued warrant.
Any religions, peaceable assemblies, camera, computer, telephone or free speech enabling device made before 1986 is available to use by the general public. Any made after 1986 is only available to law enforcement.
(Closing of the NFA machine gun registry in 1986 by Regan with the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act)
Pretty straight forward. Once against sounds rather unreasonable when applied to religion and free speech.
Of course some gun control zealot will spew out a river of bullshit claiming you can’t compare the second amendment to any other amendment. This of course implies that the founding fathers of this country meant what they said with every right listed in the Bill of Rights except the second item posted. Seems odd that they would have made a random exception without noting it anywhere.
An no those aren’t my words. Either way congressman King of New York is a little upset that Wikileaks posted 500,000 intercepted pager messages obtained during 9/11. He’s so upset that he’s launched an investigation into Wikileaks. From his lips to our ears:
“It does raise security issues, and we will look into it in Washington,” King (R-Seaford), the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Homeland Security, said Friday.
Correct me if I’m wrong but in a open and transparent government such as our is supposed to be shouldn’t this information have been provided by the government freely? I’m going to go ahead and write my standard disclaimer that I don’t believe there is any grand conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks. What I do believe is the government has used that event to shit all over our civil rights and allow themselves to play the “classified” card on everything.
But I think I have an idea how those messages were intercepted:
“All pager traffic is non-encrypted,” said Phil Lieberman, president of Lieberman Software Corp. of Los Angeles. “The fact that people are intercepting the traffic is not surprising.”
Poor security, it’s always biting people in the ass. By you might want to pay Lieberman since he found your hole.
There has been a lot of stink from the anti-gun crowd saying we need to close the “terror gap.” It’s funny how everything is a gap to these people. What they really mean is we need to deny constitutional rights to people without do process. I think everybody knows now that the terrorist watch list is a secret list of names that you don’t actually have to do anything to get on.
Well Days of Our Trailers did a great post about the terrorist watch list. From his sourced posted there is a 35% error rate of the names on that list according to a Department of Justice audit. Of course I’m sure the gun control crowd doesn’t really care about that. After all they’re only OK with you having the rights they think you should have.
It looks like China has been running illegal jails where citizens can be kept for months on end. Hmm a government which is based on a system in which control over the people must be maintained as created secret prisons in which to place people who don’t comply? Who would have guessed that would happen?
This is the problem with any system of government where the government has the power over the people. In order for the government to maintain control over its populace they need to scare them into obedience. Little things like secret prisons where citizens can be tossed for an indefinite amount of time while they are tortured works well in scaring people into compliance.
Wow more change from the administration that’s been promising it since their campaign. In a move to reverse the Bush administration’s unconstitutional warrentless wire tapping law the Obama administration is repealing the law.
Oh wait sorry that’s only in the magical land of make believe. Since Mr. Rogers is dead we can’t go there anymore and hence we have to deal with reality. The new administration is sounding incredibly like the old one time and time again. Now Attorney General Eric Holder is saying the San Francisco lawsuit against warrantless wiretapping needs to be stopped in the name of national security. And with logic like this how can we argue:
In making the argument, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration’s position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently. A civil liberties group criticized the move Friday as a retreat from promises President Barack Obama made as a candidate.
Wait Obama isn’t keeping promises he made? By God he must be a, wait for it, politician. Holy crap it’s almost like you can’t trust these guys. I’m just waiting for Obama’s supporters who were against Bush on these very topics to justify what the current administration is doing. After all it’s OK, they came to the conclusion differently.
So provisions in the illegal PATRIOT Act are up for renewal and all of the sudden terrorists are being found left and right here in America. In fact two people in Chicago have been arrested under suspicion of terrorism. It’s almost like law enforcement wants to give our leaders a reason to renew provisions in a law that hasn’t done shit to fight terror but certainly did a great job at shitting on our rights.
But hey when somebody doesn’t fuck up it’s just as important to report it as when they fuck up. I found out that there is one time when the TSA didn’t actually act like jack booted communist check point military personnel.
A while back a women posted a story about how a TSA agent took her baby and ran off with him. She claimed the TSA agent said he needed to search her child and after handing her child over the TSA agent just kind of waltzed off.
Well TSA decided this bullshit story was a little to harming to their reputation. To point out the fact the above mentioned mother lied the TSA posted the surveillance video of that search on the TSA blog (yeah they have a blog and it’s so stupid it’s funny to read).
I hate the TSA as much as anybody else who has flown on a plane but I’m not going to start fabricating lies about them. Seriously that mother should have thought before posting that melodramatic heap of bull shit. Did she honestly think the TSA didn’t video tape those secure areas?
Well it appears as though the anti-gunners have been handed a new weapon. I say that in a rather snarky manner as it’s really a new weapon handed to everybody online, at least in the state of Texas. Texas’s H.B. 2003 law took effect September 1, 2009 and the first arrest under this law has occurred:
The new Texas law criminalizes online harassment on social networking sites and through e-mail or text messaging. H.B. 2003 states a person commits a third degree felony if the person posts one or more messages on a social networking site with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person.
You read that right if you post more than one “harmful, fraudulent, or intimidating” (quotes are donating idiocy not direct quoting) post on a social networking site you are a felon under Texas law.
Why do I say it’s the anti-gunner’s new weapon? Because they are usually whiney assholes who would use such laws as are most people who base arguments on emotions instead of facts. Remember according to anti-gunners just mentioning the word gun can be threatening to them. Anyways if you’re in Texas just beware of this law before you post anything on any social networking site.
Further Research
Says Uncle points out yet another example of England hating everybody’s rights equally. It’s not secret that it’s all but impossible to own a gun in Britain. Well Phillip Luty hosts a webpage called The Home Gunsmith that gives instructions on how to build your own firearms. Even with Britain’s draconian gun laws you would think this site would at least fall under the freedom of speech. Well not in Britain where you’re a subject not a citizen and hence have no rights:
On 22nd May 2009 the Homegunsmith (Philip A. Luty) was, for the fifth time in ten years, attacked by an armed police unit and violently arrested at gunpoint.
In their latest onslaught against freedom of speech, press, personal expression, and dissemination of ideas, the henchmen of the State charged the Homegunsmith with “criminal offences”—namely “Making a record of information likely to be of assistance to terrorists.” (Part of the all-encompassing 2000 Terrorism Act.) That’s right folks, writing books or articles on one of man’s oldest occupations—gunmaking—is now tantamount to an act of terrorism in modern day Britain.
The Homegunsmith.com website has been strategically closed whilst wounds are licked and the troops regrouped.
—Ken Holder
Keeper of the Web Pages
Yup Mr. Luty was arrested yet again for his web page. I can’t believe with all these stories of government abuse people hold them up as an example of what our country should be. There is a reason we broke away from those guys.