Nom de plume: Rivrdog

Holder Lite

Here in Oregon, we have USAG-OR Amanda Marshall, who takes space offered by the anti-gun fishwrap to "make a case" against being able to buy guns privately.

In Marshall's op-ed, she lists a few scary-sounding cases, then jumps right into her preferred fix of mandatory background checks for all gun transactions.

One problem:

Marshall does not claim that any of the "scary" cases she presented is a case of the purported "gun-show loophole" case, and in fact, all the gun possessions mentioned were already illegal by laws already on the books, and a quick look at the perps would show that they were not the types who would have followed any sort of law, anyway.

That's an inferential leap which requires Warp Drive to cross, I'd say.

Then, she ignores the 900# gorilla in the room in writing her op-ed: Holder and the USDOJ simply can't be trusted. In fact, the entire US Government can't be trusted.

Refer to Chris Muir's "Day By Day" 'toon for today. In that first panel, Muir apparently quotes a Miami attorney in summing up the malfeasance of the Obama Administration, very concisely.

Ms. Marshall, should you read this blog, please tell me why any citizen with even a minor education would trust the US Government at this point. Trust is important, since there are Federal Laws prohibiting the Government from maintaining a gun registration list from FFL's records of purchase of guns. If that system of background checks, now in effect only for FFL-purchases, were extended to all purchases, what is to keep the Feds from ignoring the restrictions and making their own list? Bear in mind, for the failed Manchin-Toomey Bill, the feds would have had up to 72 hours to complete a check which is now generally completed in less than a half-hour. What were they planning to do with the extra time if not produce an illegal record of the checks?

If I can't trust your boss, Ms. Marshall, why should I trust you?

Trust is everything, and the Government has exactly none to sell us at the moment.

USAG Holder claims the "Right of Kings" for Feds

This may be the definitive word for this Administration: States have no powers, even within their own borders, and their Laws are ALWAYS inferior to Federal law (and edicts made without benefit of law, it seems).

Couple of observations: first, this is the exact position of the Federal Government which started the Civil War. Note that the "State's Rights" position this time has a tad more MORAL basis. Second, there has been a sea change in the attitude of the Feds which brings on this statement of Holder's: he would NEVER have made this statement seven months ago.

The Imperial Presidency has just been declared.

You can either bow your back like a good imperial subject and put up with the Imperial Presidency and all the corruption which goes with it, or you can grab your ruck and rifle, then leave your home for the last time.

Did I miss any choices?

Gun Control Nazis still at it

...now they're coming after smokeless powder itself, black powder, Tannerite, and etc, etc, etc.

Thanks to JPFO for the news, but I was first, on various blogs in comments several weeks ago, and then in the update to this post.

Of course. These Nazis won't stop until their Gauleiter has control of everything remotely related to keeping and bearing arms.

If we let the Nazis do it to us....

Never again.

The "Second Amendment gets used" clock just ticked off another minute towards Midnight...

 

The First Shot of the Second Revolutionary War

...may have just been fired, by the Obama Administration.

First, go read Joe's excellent explanation of ITAR, the vehicle by which the Administration hopes to kill both the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution.

For the first time, yesterday ITAR was implemented against a "Joe Sixpack", not a firm dealing in arms, or export of computer technology, just a guy with an idea on how to use evolving technology.

The Joe Sixpack in this case is the Printed Gun Guy.

Several things to disregard:

• The Printed Gun Guy is a jerk. Comes across as one, anyway. He's about on a par with the Open Carry folks who DO TRY to intimidate others with the sight of big scary guns. Ever hear of an O/C guy openly carrying a Kel-Tec P3AT?
• Cody Wilson claims to be advancing this 3-D Printer technology for the purpose of spreading Anarchy. Goodness, we all need more of THAT, don't we?
• The "Printed AR" that Wilson developed is a POS. It fell apart in this test after 6 rounds fired, and is a huge danger to the firer. It would be lawyered out of existance if it was sold on the open market.

Given that Cody Wilson and his "WikiGun Project" is apparently in full-failure mode, why couldn't the Feds have just let him fail, or perhaps sued him for making/spreading the use of a dangerous product?

But no, the Feds jumped the shark.

They trot out ITAR, which they claim, (read Joe's blog) gives them the right of control over ANY information or process that offers ANY chance to arm or improve the armaments of an enemy. That position, were it to become tested in court and be the Law of the Land, would negate the First AND Second Amendments to our Constitution, and thereby, make the Federal Government into a prima-facie dictatorship, controlling thought, speech, dissemination of information and of course, all guns.

I repeat, ALL guns. It also means all training with guns, accessories for guns, ammo for guns, etc.

If the Feds can claim a non-battleworthy POS like the WikiGun (or the data set to build it) could possibly be considered of value to an enemy, then ANYTHING is of value to an enemy. For that matter, since the basic society of the USA is superior to the basic society of any of the shitholes we call our enemies these days, you could, by extension, say that US society itself is of aid to the enemy.

If this is an isolated case, just an inept Administration's way of trying to snuff out a concept that has the potential to obsolete the entire National Firearms Act (if properly applied, which it isn't in this case), then fine, it will soon cease to be of importance.

There is, however, a huge danger that this Administration will expand on their use of ITAR as an anti-freedom tool, and in that case, make a note of it, History fans:

May 9th, 2013, the Federal Government fired the first shot in the Second Revolutionary war. That shot hit it's intended target, which the Federal targeting mavens had wrongly guessed would pre-emptively end the fight for freedom.

If we see more of ITAR though, there will be more shots fired, and they likely will NOT be fired from POS plastic guns or lawyer's processes, they will be fired from real rifles, at important targets ON BOTH SIDES.

Do you want real Gun Control, Mister Obama? If you do, just leave us alone. Our guns already ARE under control, and will stay that way. Loss of control for YOU, Mister Obama, will stem from trying to erase our gun freedoms. Only an Idiot fails to see that, and you're supposed to be a smart guy, not an idiot. 

The Benghazi Boogaloo

Yep, it's dancing time again for the Democrats, so they trot out the Boogaloo, and we have been treated to a full day of it on the telly.

I don't want to burst any bubbles here, but if there is a single conservative who doesn't know the truth about Benghazi by now, it's because that right-thinking person just got off the slow intergalactic shuttle from Planet Zargon.

It boils down to this: Since this Administration began, "sensitivity" has taken precedence over Security at every US embassy around the world, and that is obviously by order of President Obama. We pretty much had this embassy security thing covered for the first 225 years of our Nation's existence: put Marines at the embassies, and leave them in charge of Security.

Along comes the "apologize to everyone" crowd, and their first take on it was to end visible security. The USMC is nothing if not visible, so away they go. They were "replaced" (not really) with a bunch of ex-spooks (contractors of the State Department) in plain clothes, with various levels of armaments, usually little to none, plus totally untrustworthy locals hired for the job. This was done in the name of not "offending" anyone in the host nations of our embassies.

Consider the case of Libya: a nation without an effective government, one which had just gone through a violent revolution to depose a dictator. Armed militias roamed the streets, and Jihadi militants were everywhere. Our embassy in Benghazi, Libya last September was a pool of gasoline waiting for someone with a match to come along. And they did. And there was no security. And our people died.

Almost immediately after the 9-11-12 attack on the embassy (interesting, predictable date, yes?), the Administration went into full cover-up mode and has been there ever since. Lie after lie. "Talking Points" ad infinitum. New faces to lie for old faces, but lie, lie, lie.

Today, at the latest Congressional hearings, some of the lies were exposed. 

Huzzah, they exposed some lies. Give Rep. Issa a kewpie doll.

B.F.D.

Is anyone at risk of being indicted for lying to Congress at the earlier hearings?

Doesn't sound that way.

Here's the Rivrdog Solution, take it or leave it. Quit farting around, Issa. You're not going to indict anyone for lying to Congress and you know it, so put the other side on the spot by introducing and passing a Bill that denies funding for all embassy protection EXCEPT a reinforced rifle company of the USMC placed at every embassy in Harm's way.

In other words, put embassy protection back on the footing the previous Administration had it.

Bring real guns and real gunners to the next gun fight at any US Embassy. Bringing Talking Points to a gunfight is fatal, as we know now.

End of discussion.

More bad news for Napolitano

...the Gauleiter can't be happy with this poll, taken by one of her fellow-traveller institutes, the WaPo, and reported in my Newsmax blast-mail this ayem:

"A poll conducted just days after the Boston Marathon bombings shows that despite that tragedy, Americans are more concerned that government will trample constitutional rights than they are about the government failing to prevent terrorist attacks.

The Washington Post survey posed the question this way: “Which worries you more: that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?”

Nearly half — 48 percent — said they are concerned the government will go too far, while 41 percent believe it will not go far enough. The rest said “neither” or had no opinion.

As recently as 2010, a Post poll found that just 27 percent feared government will go too far, compared to 63 percent who said they were more concerned it will not go far enough.

The new poll also disclosed that 66 percent of Americans believe “terrorists will always find a way to launch major attacks,” while 30 percent say the government can eventually prevent all major attacks.

Respondents in a Fox News poll also conducted after the Boston bombings expressed sentiments similar to those in the Post survey.

The Fox poll asked: “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?”

Only 43 percent said “yes,” while 45 percent said “no” — the first time since 9/11 that more respondents said “no” than “yes” in a Fox News survey.

Just 38 percent of respondents under age 35 in the new Fox poll said “yes,” while 51 percent of those 65 and older said “yes.”" 

FWIW: polls tend to be spur-of-the-moment replies to age-old questions.

 

A GOP win? (D)emo defeat? WTF?

The GOPes are crowing that they beat the (D)onks on the Sequester. I have gotten two blast-mails from GOP-HQ already saying "we done good, give us mo' money!"

I don't think so, Festus. Any time you're on the battlefield, and the enemy makes a strong move, and you don't counter that move, but instead, roll with it, the best you can said to have done is survived the enemy's move. You can never be said to have won.

Re: this "sequester": Obama is applying a simple "poison-pill" strategy here, one that's very hard to beat. If the GOPes are going to beat it, they have to beat it by standing their ground, and making it look like HE is the one deliberately applying the hurt with the Sequester, which is true. They didn't stand their ground on the Air Traffic Controllers, they caved by modifying the Sequester so it's not an across-the-board system anymore, but has line-item control by the FAA (read: White House). That's not only NOT a win for the GOP, it's just handed some sort of line-item veto capability to the President which he did not have before, so it's really a major defeat.

The House just gave up their Article 1, Section 8 spending authority to some degree. Of course, once (and if) a budget deal is reached between Congress and the White House, you can count on Obama to start line-item vetoing whatever he wants, claiming that Congress gave him the authority to do so with this FAA sequester variance.

You NEVER give a bully what he wants, NEVER. He'll just take your offer, and punch you out anyway.

The GOP are my Maroons of the Month for this idiocy. They stood their ground on gun control, then decided it was okay to grab their ankles on a budget issue.

Congress wants to exempt itself from Obamacare

Yep, you read the healine correctly. Now read the story behind it.

As usual, Henry Waxman tries to spin it madly. He says, essentially, that we might find that our leges are already exempted from Obamacare's increased costs.

Isn't it about time that the SCOTUS took this matter under the advisement of it's own motion, and looked at all these huge, previously unknown, cost increases? SCOTUS determined that these fees were "taxes" last year, but no tax can automatically increase by itself ad infinitum, so, if they are taxes, only the fees out there at the time of enactment are legal, since Art 1 Sec 7&8 of the Constitution says that Congress gets to have it's say on new taxes, and Congress hasn't had that say.

Boston, a cradle of Liberty?

Yeah, THAT Boston, where the "shot heard 'round the world" was first fired at Concord, to start the Revolutionary War, the winning of which gave us our freedoms.

THAT Boston, where the new catch-phrase "Boston Strong" has just been crafted and is now seen all over the country.

The only thing about Boston that's strong is the smell left over, not from bombs exploding 8 days ago, but from the stench of a crapped-on Constitution lying in the gutter there.

A couple of shit-for-brains Jihadis were enough to cause the various levels of Government there to illegally declare the Constitution suspended?

Oho! You say, "there was no such Declaration, 'Dog."

You're right, the traitors (Governor Patrick and Mayor Menino) who usurped the Constitution for better than two days in Boston didn't bother to make a declaration, because they knew that such a move would only have highlighted the un-Constitutionality of their actions.

But wait! You sniffle, and your dim-bulb glows, "didn't the Mayor and the Governor declare States of Emergency, 'Dog, and don't those declarations cover the Government actions?"

Ah, no, they don't, Tony Macaroni. All they do is permit the City to govern, according to the Constitution, by decree of the Mayor (or Governor), instead of by the processes of the Legislature or City Council, and primarily they are published so as to deny the cops overtime pay, since the declarations suspend wage and hour rules. If that State allows such declarations to deny Constitutional Rights, then it needs to be challenged in Court and have that authority removed from the Governor. Likewise the City of Boston.

The States of Emergency cannot permit police to boot down doors without a warrant or  arrest without probable cause (4th Amendment violations) or totally deny freedom of movement and assembly (First Amendment violations). All those violations of Civil Rights happened. The declarations of Emergency might be stretched to include closing off an area which is actually part of the crime scene, but not the entire City. If the Governor wants to stop commuter trains, and the Mayor subways and busses, fine, that's their perogative: the State and City own them, and they can run them or not.

So we have every liberal in the whole damn deluded Nation slapping the MA and Boston Governments on the back, praising them to the skies for their "efficiency" in capturing/killing the incompetent Jihadis.

Stalin, Hitler and Mao didn't have much trouble capturing criminals, either, did they? Would you have wanted to live under their governance?

Didn't think so.

Aren't you just a bit curious as to what might have happened if the Jihadis had bombed, say, the Boise Marathon, or maybe the Salt Lake City Marathon?

Let's apply a "Second Amendment Filter" to this discussion, shall we? Take any City where the Second Amendment is broadly supported (not begrudgingly supported like my City of Portland, OR), and ask yourself if the Government would have even thought about cancelling the Bill of Rights to catch a couple of Jihadis. Nope, in those cities, citizens would have just slung their rifles, strapped on their sidearms, and gone about their business, and the cops would have used the Constitution to help catch the perpetrators instead of wiping their collective asses with it.

The "blue" States don't support or even use their Constitution anymore, so they are doomed to the predations of Government, whenever that Government gets a whim to act outside of their Constitutional authority. Boston just proved that.

"Boston Strong", WTF?

That should be "Boston Wrong".

Suggestion and request to President Obama on gun policy?

There are several hundred million firearms in existence in this Nation, the vast, vast majority of them legally owned, and registered if required. The guns are inanimate objects, which by themselves, do not cause or represent violence. For a gun to represent violence, it has to be operational (loaded, and in the hands of a person who is capable of firing it), and it's bearer has to have intent to use it for violent purposes. Images of guns, "finger-guns", lyrics about guns etc, are not guns, and they represent nothing but ideas. The last I checked, our First Amendment to our Federal Constitution permits the free exchange of ideas.

I am an honorably retired Law Enforcement Officer, and the only instance which I know of where an image or suggestion of a gun has legal force is when a person committing a crime alleges in some manner to be armed. In those cases, the law may assume that a higher crime has been committed as if the perpetrator actually was armed. That is the ONLY case where it is proper to sanction an individual for presenting an image of a gun in any manner.

Currently, as this article in JPFO brilliantly illustrates, most school districts have what is mistakenly called a "zero-tolerance policy" on images of guns. No one may present an image of a gun in any manner. This is nothing less than thought-control, or the creation of an Orwellian system of "thought crime". All such attempts at creating thought-control violate our First Amendment.

So, I propose that President Obama move towards reconcilliation with the gun-owning citizens he leads by recognizing that his fight to impose a denial of the Second Amendment has failed, and that neither he nor the Democratic Party he purportedly leads will again attempt that close-to-treasonable bit of persuasion again.

Let's assume for a moment that the President sees this peace offering, and recognizes that it has value in moving his Administration forward with properly attainable goals such as repairing the near-collapsed national economy. How would we get this idea to the President?

If I recall correctly, there is some sort of petition arrangement by which citizens' petitions HAVE to be heard and replied to by the White House if they reach a certain number of petitioners.

This blogger proposes to initiate such a petition with the White House, and get sufficient signatures on it that the petition become THE most-widely-signed such White House petition yet.

There are rules to follow: for example, the petition has a relatively short time to get it's signatures in, and would have to be pre-announced through gun blogs and various forums of liberty. Signers have to know that the White House will then register their names as being opposed to a major effort that has been pushed, i.e., gun control and the weakening or elimination of the Second Amendment. Another possibility is, that seeing our success, the gun-control side will mount their OWN uber-petition drive to counter ours, dulling or negating it's effect.

So, based on the above caveats, let's have some discussion on whether this petition is worth pursuing:

"We the undersigned, petition the President of the United States to recognize that firearms themselves do not cause problems, and Federal money should not be used to project the idea that they do. We petition the President of the United States to issue an Executive Order to all institutions of learning that accept Federal support or subsidies, to delete their so-called "zero-tolerance" policies against the per-se idea of firearms. We urge that this Executive Order be given some power, and that such "zero-tolerance" policies remaining after the promulgation of said Executive Order be considered cause for removal of all Federal support or subsidy for those educational institutions which refuse to delete that policy."

What do you think, people? Think this could fly if all the pro-2A groups got behind it?

Spout off in comments.