September 21, 2008

A small pushback against the California Nanny brigades

...yeah, I know there's no way Tom McClintock would have won in the Soviet of California, but a moron can dream, right?  Consider this here, he managed to get an opt-out law for the remote thermostat law onto Schwarzenegger's SuperRINO desk.  Basically this thermostat law allows energy companies to remotely turn up or down the thermostat in a person's home.

So instead of building new power plants or rebuilding the energy grid, they're resorting to this crap.  Can't say California holds monopoly on this sort of nonsense, but they are about the worst in the US when it comes to idiotic Nannyism.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 04:53 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

First They Came For The Naked Women Bartenders, And I Said Nothing...

It appears as though a woman in Dehli, IL wanted to bartend naked. Only problem with that plan? The authorities stepped in and harshed everybody's mellow.

The Jersey County State's Attorney's office says sheriff's deputies were doing a routine check at the Cabin Tavern one afternoon this week when they found something not-so-routine. Authorities allege Janet Brannon of East Alton was naked as she served patrons.

She was arrested, and because no other bar employees were available, the tavern was closed down.

Brannon has been charged with misdemeanor public indecency, and her bond has been set at $8,000.



Actually, judging by the beefy women who reside in East Alton, IL, the police probably did everyone a favor by keeping her nakedness out of view.

Posted by: eddiebear at 12:04 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

September 18, 2008

Nice To See Post-Heller DC Makes It Easy To Own A Handgun

Well, if you consider a process that is longer, more expensive, and more complicated than getting married or divorced, then, yeah, it's a piece of cake.

While the process isn't so difficult to navigate, it's by no means easy or cheap. Throughout the process, there are no options. All applicants MUST make at least thrree trips to police headquarters where parking is to say, in the least hard to find. Yes, it's near a Metro, but do you want to take your new gun for a ride on Metro?

All applicants must make at least two trips to Anacostia, where the only licensed dealer is located. Parking isn't an issue, but it's hardly centrally located [yeah, and it's dangerous as hell.-ed.]. All applicants MUST pay $60 in fees to the city, $125 transfer fee to the dealer as well as the cost of passport photos and a notary.

Applicants should budget an extra $200 on top of the price of the gun.

As for the written test, out of 20 questions, I got one wrong. Most of the questions are taken right out of the Firearms Registration Outline that comes in the application packet. I won't give any of the questions here [the first time a reporter held back on information. But I digress.-ed.], but it was much easier than the written test for a driver's license. (I got four wrong on that test recently.)[yeah, and more morons will drive than ever own a legal handgun. Your point again?-ed.]



Man, am I ever glad I live in a Red State.

As an aside, I did not edit the writer's text to correct spelling or grammar mistakes.

Posted by: eddiebear at 11:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

September 06, 2008

Obama avoids the question, reveals more than he meant to *Update: WSJ misreports

Obama was questioned by a lady in the crowd who was (I hope still is) distrustful of him on Second Amendment issues in PA yesterday.  The exchange was reported by the WSJ has been seeing some circulation,

Bob at Confederate Yankee and Allah both looked at it, Allah doesn't seem to be sure what to make of it.  Bob at CY reacts to Obama's statements this way,

So Obama concedes that he wants to "take them away," but then he claims that he doesn't have the votes to push through a gun ban.


I think Bob is reading this wrong (though I don't think he's distorting, as apparently a reader suggested in his update), let's take a look at what Obama said (underlines are mine) and see why.

"If you've got a gun in your house, I'm not taking it," Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.


Take note of that line I underlined.  The gun is in your house, meaning you own it, Obama says nothing about going out and purchasing a new firearm.  He's not really lying in that statement, he probably won't be sending the authorities to kick down your door and empty your gun cabinet.  Which is all irrelevant, because that isn't what the lady asked.  She asked if Obama was going to support gun bans.  Let's look at the rest of the quote,

So he tried again. "Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress," he said. "This can't be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I'm not going to take away your guns."


Again, Obama didn't answer her question, he's answering a question about confiscation policy, she's asking about bans which would prevent purchase of certain (perhaps all?) firearms.  This is a tricky rhetorical device to avoid answering her question.  He won't answer her question, she won't say if he'll pursue bans.  Now we have to look at one of the quotes again,

"Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress,"


Knowing what we now know, that Obama was answering a question about confiscation policy(despite being asked about bans), we have to consider what this means in that context.  Take this thought from Bob at CY...

Further breaking down Obama's statements, he says, "Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress. This can't be the reason not to vote for me." I read this as an admission that he desires a ban, but that he lacks the means so you should not hold his views against him.


...and replace ban with confiscation.  That ought to send a chill down your spine.  Admittedly, I'd like to see if there's video or a full transcript to make sure I'm not mischaracterizing what he said, but going just on what WSJ reports, the statements Obama made should be of concern to those of us who value liberty.

We still don't technically know what Obama's policy is on gun bans, though I think given the lengths he's trying to go to avoid answering are a pretty good indicator of where his policy is.

I hope someone can make him answer directly to the question of gun bans, or at least make him squirm enough that it lets everyone know Obama isn't to be trusted when it comes to Second Amendment rights.  Someone should ask if he'd pursue registration.  Someone should also press him on the question of whether he supports the right to defend oneself with a firearm as well.  When Obama gets asked about Second Amendment rights, people need to be on their toes to make sure he doesn't get away with dodging questions.

An aside:  Obama's argument that cities should have the leeway to make laws to keep guns out of criminals hands...what kind of laws could possibly control the illegal gun trade in cities?  How are they going to keep guns out of the hands of the same gangs who are working with cartels to traffic tons of illicit drugs across the borders every damn day?  Are you telling me that Obama is going to be able to stop said cartels from shipping guns too?  How about the fact that 12 to 30 million illegal immigrants have managed to cross our borders?  This is such crap.

What this sounds like to me is that he wants to try and make some federal law that would allow cities to override state gun laws and possibly state constitutional gun laws, which are usually more friendly to gun owners than what most major cities would be. 

When I look at this, I'm thinking of places like Philly.  A while back, Philly passed a bunch of gun bans and regulations which were challenged and I think smacked down pretty promptly by the courts because PA's gun owner friendly state Constitution and laws make Philly's gun bans unconstitutional.  I think that's Obama's policy goal here.

UpdateHere be the exchange that the WSJ reported on, link to the video and a transcript written by one of the Moron-in-Chief's commenters.  The WSJ misreported the woman's question.  The WSJ stated she asked about a gun ban,

A woman in the crowd told Obama she had “heard a rumor” that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president.


When in reality, she asked about "taking people's guns away", which is a crude way of asking about confiscation policy, not banning and restriction policy.  So Obama wasn't dodging the question as I previously argued, which means we're told much less in this exchange than previously thought. 

We still know that he probably won't pursue confiscation, he can't get away with it politically, even though he still leaves enough wiggle room to allow people to rightfully question if he at least personally wishes he could confiscate firearms.

We still have no record on whether he'd pursue gun bans, which means we have no idea if he'd ban you from buying a new one.  We have no idea what, if any sort of restrictions, registries or bureaucratic red tape he'd (at least try to) impose on people trying to purchase firearms. 

We have no specifics on what he'd do to keep guns out of criminal hands.  Beyond the confiscation issue, which even Barry recognizes is politically unfeasible, we still have no answers on many Second Amendment issues.  Obama is still being obtuse in order to mask his policies, but not quite as obtuse as I had previously thought.  Stupid WSJ.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 11:44 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 1138 words, total size 8 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
26kb generated in CPU 0.02, elapsed 0.0205 seconds.
60 queries taking 0.0111 seconds, 136 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.