Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Universal background checks leading to universal registration

I was listening to WLS this evening and Roe Conn had Michael Steele, former RNC chair on the Celebrity Hotline.  Mr. Steele said something that I think showed the hand of the Beltway Insiders.  While talking about universal background checks and that people seem to be in favor of them (no one I know, but then their sample must be looking at gun-control folks only), Mr Steele instead said that people are in favor of universal gun registration--a far different thing.  But it shows how this issue is being pressed incrementally and that it is right to hold the line here because the slippery slope is being wetted even as I type this.


Sunday, January 27, 2013

Gosh darn I love my life....

Had a day yesterday like no-one else's in the world.  Attended the local gun show/fun show, got some furry slippers, new gloves, and two new knives--one a handmade blade from a local vender and one Benchmade folder.  Got to help a couple of friends at their respective booths for a while and then off to lunch at a local breakfast/sandwich shop.

B went to help some folks with some plumbing and construction while I did some work around the house and then off to town.

On the way back, stopped to help a guy with a flat tire whose lug nuts were snapping off like twigs--remember to rotate your tires more than every three years.  He'd contacted his wife, but after dropping off groceries, we went back to make sure he and his daughter had a ride home, paying forward the times in the past when others have stopped for us.

Then a 9:00 call from a friend from out of town so we all met at the local Taco Bell for cultural exchanges and reminiscences.  Met his niece and nephew-in-law (niece had just flown in from a month in India and was craving the Bell). Discussed the various merits of bhut jolokia peppers vs habaneros and my difficulties in getting folks at Thai, Mexican, or Indian restaurants to ignore my Caucasian complexion and make food HOT (niece laughingly suggested shoe polish and dying my hair a darker hue).  Also talked about  the way that Hindu Indians combined with other vegetarian constituencies have affected the fast food industry via the free market and voting with your feet.  A very pleasant evening indeed with humor and sitting with folks who, like us, don't really give a care about the melanin content of skin but just care to make a connection with others.

Life is good.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Illogical logic meets satire.

A brilliant satire of gun grabbers' "logic" by the Locavore Hunter.  Via Chas at Southern Rockies Nature Blog.  Perfectly shows how silly the present memes regarding gun control are.....

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

I called this weeks ago

Biden says that Obama is contemplating an Executive Order or Executive Action regarding gun control.  I think if he does that it's a perfect chance to impeach him for breaking his Oath of Office wherein he swears to uphold the Constitution.

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Constitutional Republic, Not Democracy....

Via Old NFO, a post by Dean Garrison regarding gun control and our responsibility as citizens of this Constitutional Republic (the US is NOT a democracy, regardless of what modern education would have you believe).  Read the whole thing.  Made me think.  Although Mr. B had already said most of it here.

I have said before that we are citizens of a Republic, not a democracy.  We have elected officials, not rulers, we have a president, not a hereditary monarchy.  And the Founding Fathers set it up that way on purpose.  I've had arguments thrown at me about the Constitution as a whole because the Third Amendment doesn't seem relevant (maybe it never became an issue because it was there).  Seriously.  And I've seen the inevitable 'throw out the Constitution' in the liberal media.  Do they realize that then the whole government would have to go as well since they were all elected under that system??  And if they chose not to go, they would be removed because there would then be no rule of law?

I was watching Face the Nation this morning when another representative (from Minnesota, I think) tossed out that 'we're elected to govern' line again.  Do they get that in their training packet??  I saw a guy say that an assault weapons ban was absolutely constitutional.  Only if your reading comprehension is that of my cat (or if you're a product of the modern educational system and graduated from an Ivy League University) is any ban on firearms constitutional.  What do these folks not understand about "shall not be infringed"? 

It's pretty clear, there are no limits regarding ammunition, types of firearm, or anything else in the Second Amendment.  If the Founding Fathers had wanted some variance  to that, they would not have been so clear and bold in their verbiage (they were NOT the result of an Ivy League education and so said what they meant, with no equivocation).   Please note that in the thesaurus.com definition of infringe there is a note:  " to infringe  is to encroach on a right or privilege or to violate."  Therefore any type of limitation on firearms ownership is, by the Constitutional litmus, unconstitutional and therefore invalid since it encroaches on that right of firearms ownership.

As Dean Garrison and Mr B both state, it is our Constitutional duty to preserve our rights.  I will go further in that if our government is made up of oathbreakers who no longer use the Constitution as their litmus, then it is our Constitutional duty to oust them from their seats of perceived power.  If they keep pressing this issue, that is what will happen.  The American people have had their rights and their freedoms suppressed enough.

Saturday, January 5, 2013

No one is irreplaceable....

Holy crap.  After a nice Christmas break, get back to the office and one of my coworkers comes in with a full-blown case of the flu.  After she called in the second day subsequent, I couldn't resist pointing out that all actions have consequences.  I might have obliquely accused her of trying to take the entire office down at one of our busiest times.  The utter ego of some folks thinking that the sun won't rise without them getting up and sharing their frickin' germs with the rest of us.  If I get sick AGAIN since I was down before New Years, I'm going to have to punch her in the head.

One thing I have learned over the years is that no one is irreplaceable.  Depending on the amount of procedures they've been allowed to grab over the course of years, it's more difficult to winkle out exactly what they do, but with time, everything will be running as smoothly, or more smoothly than when they were there.  Now that THAT'S out of my system....   

I do my job, I do it to the best of my ability, but my ego, being, and raison d'etre are definitely not my job.  It's what I do, not who I am.  And some folks just don't get that.

The folks in Washington don't get it.  Even when they leave their position for whatever reason, they are still referred to by their previous title.  I'm not sure when this evolved or why.  I think it's pretty disingenuous, especially if they were voted out.  The title of Representative or Senator or Governor should be dropped once that person is no longer doing that job.  But this "Honorific for Life" I think is symptomatic of the rest of the hubris and keeps the idea of a lordship, rather than a temporary elected official alive.

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Academic mindset--working for the one-offs

Living so close to Chicago, I've heard the phrase "if it would just save one ______" (enter your cause du jour here).  Focusing on the one-offs is endemic in academia as well as the government.  This makes sense due to the homogenous makeup of both Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Executive Office with most of them being educated at Harvard, Yale, or occasionally one of the other Ivy League universities.

In a way, this thought-pattern is the tyranny of the one vs the needs of the many.  Pandering to the one-offs has been used to institute many of the violations of the public's freedoms.  Because a few morons decide to use Sudafed to make meth, my purchases of it are limited and I all but have to give a DNA sample to buy a legal, over-the-counter medication.  Because some idiot decides to drive too fast in a school zone, the government uses it as a reason to put up cameras to both monitor my movements and fine me.  Because a very few people break laws and commit murder in gun-free zones, the ruling class is trying to use their actions as a way to further limit my 2nd Amendment rights as a gun-owner.

These are issues within themselves contained within a mindset that is doomed to fail.  You cannot plan for the one-offs.  You should not limit the freedoms of the many because of the deranged actions of the few.  Reactionary rules and regs (one dude tries to light a bomb in his shoes and now everyone that flies must take off their shoes) are worse than useless and perpetuate the one-off tyranny.  Laws that cannot or do not apply to everyone should never pass--it would sure make the legislators work a lot harder if that was their litmus and would put an end to a lot of pork in legislation.

Many of the laws passed and the rules and regs that fall out of them are perfect examples of trying to work for the one-offs.  Smoking is banned EXCEPT in casinos.  Laws must be passed to encourage employers to hire veterans because of all the other laws that were passed specifically for other groups (essentially the new laws are to level the playing field thrown off by the one-offs).  The one-off mindset is the root of many reactionary laws.

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that we can no longer be ruled by the one-offs.  Instead of looking at what works for 98% of the population, the fixes for the 2% cost inordinate amounts of time, money, and ultimately freedom.


Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Governing vs Serving

Last week on WLS, the  morning show had a guest host- a federal representative from Illinois.  I can' t remember which one but he said something that I thought was quite interesting.  While he seemed like a nice guy and was truly interested in what was being said about the fiscal cliff, he also said "because we are elected to govern" and he wanted to do things right.

Problem being, they are not elected to govern, they are elected to represent their constituencies.  This is where they have lost the plot.  This is the disconnect.  They seek to rule, rather than to serve.  In the Senate especially they have created their own hereditary lordships, with the Kennedys as a prime example.

Obama apparently does not understand this difference either, using "Executive Privilege" to circumvent the Congress-- without hue and cry or without being challenged.

The legislative branch is so busy governing that they are not leading.  The executive branch is creating an impenetrable web of regulations that has turned all citizens into unwitting criminals able to be subjectively arrested at the leisure and will of the new ruling class' whim.  And the judicial branch, instead of using the litmus of the Constitution to guide them, relies on precedent and social values  rather than judging against the baseline of our Founding document.


The entire system of checks and balances is out of whack and needs to be recalibrated.  Unfortunately the only way to do so is to take everything back to zero and start over.  When our government is so broken that all citizens are not seen as equal under the law, there is very little else that can be done.