A Preview of things to come

Posted on by
Reply

Be sure to tune in Friday, when I take on Religion, it’s place in (Or out of) government, and of course Marriage Equality opponents. I might even have time for an update on the 2nd Amendment battle and Rand Paul and Company’s coming filibuster.This post is bound to be epic.

Firearm Background Checks and your Rights

Posted on by
Reply

A friend just asked me about my stance on background checks in relation to firearm ownership. The following was my response.

It’s a right, so therefore in theory it should not be decided who is and isn’t applicable for said right. That’s my Uber Libertarian side. But then again, I also think all able bodied citizens of age should be required to carry at all times. Crime would drop and after a period of adjustment peace would prevail. Not very Libertarian, but it’s how I feel. An armed society is a polite society. This all comes down to responsibility. Personal responsibility and responsibility for those around you. After 9/11 we threw around the word United We Stand without ever really thinking about what those words meant. But that is a rant for a different day.

I do not believe non-violent felons and those with non-violent crimes on their record should be prohibited from possessing a firearm. Honestly i feel that if we treated violent criminals with swift summary justice of a bullet to the head then our society would be A LOT safer and it would save a ton of money. So, no, if you committed a violent crime you’re out of luck. You proved you can’t play nicely with the other children so no more sandbox time for you. And if we let you back in the sandbox you’re sure as hell not getting a pail and shovel. If you were put in time out for playing with grass when it was time for schoolwork, yes, you get a shovel and pail. Okay I took that analogy way too far, but you get my point.

As for background checks regarding mental health, not only would HIPA prohibit any kind of national database, but once again we go back to being able to choose who has rights and who doesn’t. Once they do this with any right it’s only a matter of time before the same happens to other rights. Imagine our society if our People in Charge (PiC) got to pick and choose who had freedom of speech, religion and so forth. I do not want to live in such a place. When you can limit a right it ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege. Privileges can easily be taken away. Just look at all of the stupid things they can take your drivers license away for.

Also, with a Mental Health checklist of who can and cannot own a firearm, who is the one making that list? What are their biases. Chances are it will be anti-gun people. Biases are a bitch, and the PiC have plenty of them.

For years there have been elements in our government that have pushed for a law stating that if you are on a watch list you cannot own a gun. Sounds rational, right? One problem. We have absolutely NO criteria deciding who can and cannot be put on a watch list. Therefore anybody could be put on one and anybody could have their 2nd amendment rights taken away with a pen stroke. I am probably on several minor ones last I checked. I honestly do not give a rats ass. This blog will probably put me on another. Whoppity doo. I have nothing to hide and if they’re that concerned they probably have A LOT to hide.

It’s not just about guns for me. I honestly don’t give a damned what the law says. When guns are outlawed only outlaws will blah blah blah. You get the idea. I’ll never hand over a single thing, short of lead.

No, for me it’s not about guns. It’s about my Rights, your Rights, and the Over all Rights of an entire nation. History shows that when people stop being concerned about their rights, stop speaking up and turn a blind eye, THAT is when the greatest injustices happen. And I sure as hell am not going to let that happen on my watch.

I am begging you, for the good of us all, stand with me. As The Clash said, ‘Know Your Rights’! Don’t just know them. Stand up for them. And NEVER, EVER take them for granted.

(This post taken from my other blog at The Falling Toilet Seat )

Rand Paul Speaks for Nearly 13 Hours, White House Does Not Care

Posted on by
Reply

On Wednesday, March 7th,  Senator Rand Paul, of Kentucky held a Filibuster to hold up the nomination of John Brennan as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Paul spoke for just short of thirteen hours. The reported time, as of this posting, was 12 hours and 52 minutes. His subject matter?  The Obama administration’s belief that it can kill American civilians with drone strikes.

While previously known, the issue really only gained public attention in recent weeks after NBC released a leaked Department of Justice memo entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operation Leader of al Qaeda or An Associated Force”. Bear in mind, this is not the first memo to be leaked in conjunction with the use of drones targeting American civilians.

The most high profile case of this was the September 30th, 2011 death of American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have heavily influenced multiple attacks on American interests, including the Fort Hood massacre and the attempted bombing of Times Square. There is, of course, the fact that there was never a court proceeding charging and convicting him of anything in relation to these crimes. While an active member of an anti-american terrorist organization, al-Awlaki was also an American citizen, born to Yemenese parents in New Mexico in 1971.

What is more distrubing, however, is what followed.  Several weeks later Anwar al-Awlaki’s sixteen year old son and fellow American citizen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki , was killed by a follow-up drone strike. When interviewed, Obama Campaign Senior Adviser Robert Gibbs was asked why. His response of  “should have [had] a far more responsible father” was more than lacking in explanation. The boy was not a combatant and was only guilty of having Anwar al-Awlaki as a father. Yet, this was all the explanation they would give. The response drew fire from many groups, but as usual, the issue was quickly forgotten. As a friend of this mine once put it, we no longer live in a world of fifteen minute fame, but one of five second sound bytes.

When asked in March of 2012 about the constitutionality of such an action, Attorney General Eric Holder explained that, at least in the administration’s eyes, the “Due Process ” clause in the Constitution is not the same as “judicial process”. I, for one, would love to hear the Supreme Court’s opinion on this, and suspect that we eventually will.

Further clouding the issue is the Obama administration’s refusal to clarify whether these targeted killings are confined to overseas or if these killings might one day occur within the borders of the American homeland. In response to such concerns, Attorney General Holder has stated “It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States”.

Many, including this writer, are greatly concerned by the prospect of the United States government taking upon itself the right to end the lives of it’s citizens if they are deemed an Imminent Threat. Even the guidelines mentioned within the sixteen page memo are loosely worded so as to afford room for interpretation.

Senator Paul was joined last night by many of his colleagues who expressed the same concerns. These colleagues included Florida Governor Marco Rubio, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. From the other side of the political Aisle came further support by some Democrats including Oregon Senator Ron Wyden.

But not all members of Senator Paul’s party feel the same. Today, Thursday March 7th, 2013, Arizona Senator John McCain and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham called Senator Paul’s filibuster a “disservice to Americans.” How bringing an alarming issue to the attention of the American people is a disservice, I do not know.

The White House has indeed issued a response. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a brief letter to Senator Paul stating “It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil.’ The answer to that question is no.”

Paul seemed elated at the response and said “Under duress and under public humiliation the White House will respond and do the right thing.”

Not all of us feel his elation, however. While Paul feels this guarantees us ‘Basic human rights’, This writer feels that the White House does not have the ability to hand out such rights. Different men did that well over two hundred years ago.

On an interesting historical side note; While just under thirteen hours, Senator Rand Paul did not set the record for longest winded politician to speak on the Senate floor. That record falls to Senator Strom Thurmond. In 1957 Thurmond held up proceedings for Twenty Four Hours hours and eighteen minutes. Why? To oppose the Civil Rights Act, of course. In 1964 this wonderful display of bigotry was followed up by Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, for the same cause.

Senator Paul’s cause was far more civil in nature.

Hollywood Hypocrisy

Posted on by
Reply

Anytime gun control is brought up you have your usual string of stars opening their mouths and making barely understandable noise about the evil that is firearms. We are all used to this. This is not just the case in regards to guns, but may so-called leftist agendas.

I am not out to paint Hollywood as a secret propaganda machine, as many of my cohorts oft do. No, having been to an Arts University I am comfortable with the idea that actors and other artists often lean left on political issues. It’s just the way it is.

Now what does bother me is the hypocrisy, in any form. Unfortunately, this is one case where Hollywood is guilty as sin. Yes, we all know how much money Hollywood makes portraying gun violence every year. That isn’t what I am talking about.

I am speaking of some of the biggest names in the Action Movie genre. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who used to claim to be pro gun, now claims to want gun control. That’s right folks. The Terminator wants a ban on so-called Assault Weapons.

But at least Arnie is quieter about the issue. Unlike Sylvester Stallone. What’s that, you say? Stallone just came out with a movie entitled Bullet to the Head? That’s funny, considering he is all for confiscation of your firearms.

Back in 1999, after the awful shooting death of comedic genius Phil Hartman, Stallone stated, and I cannot make this stuff up; ““Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you’re gonna have. It’s pathetic. It really is pathetic. It’s sad. We’re living in the Dark Ages over there.”

I love it, don’t you?

Now, one action hero who is actually standing by the devices which made his career (and his bank account) soar, is Bruce WIllis. Bruce Willis is reportedly at odds with business partner Sylvester Stallone over the 2nd Amendment. When asked about President Obama’s gun control initiative, WIllis responded with “I think that you can’t start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it’s all going to become undone. If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn’t they take all your rights away from you?”.

So, think of this next time you go to your local theater to see some shoot em up, body piling flick. Did the actors you just watched on screen feel so ashamed after making that movie that they refused payment?

I doubt it.