U. S. 145, 149, or, as the Court has said in a related context, whether it is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721. Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the SecondAmendment right. 554 U. S., at ___, ___. Explaining that “the needfor defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., the Court found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id., at ___, ___–___. It thus concluded that citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Id., at ___. Heller also clarifies that this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions,” Glucksberg, supra, at 721. Heller explored the right’s origins in English law and noted the esteem with which the right was regarded during the colonial era and at the time of the ratification ofthe Bill of Rights. This is powerful evidence that the right was regarded as fundamental in the sense relevant here. That understanding persisted in the years immediately following the Bill of Rights’ratification and is confirmed by the state constitutions of that era,which protected the right to keep and bear arms.

This pretty much sums it all up. Something we all knew already. As to be expected, the liberal members of the SCOTUS all dissented on this saying the second amendment didn’t apply to states as the fourteenth amendment only contained a watered down filling of the bill of rights. Thankfully the rest shot down that opinion and now the court has spoken.

Of course, Mayor Daley in Chicago is busy with contingency plans and has said he’s ready to respond if they overturn this ban. I fully expect him to do the same BS that D.C. did in the wake of Heller. Make it so impossible to obtain the permits to get a gun, that you effectively ban them anyhow. I guess we’ll just have to see what happens.

Now let’s talk about the latest out of the windy city. An 80 yr old vet (his name hasn’t been released) was at home and asleep with his wife and 12 yr old grandson late one night when 29 yr old Anthony Nelson broke into his house armed with an illegally purchased firearm, and stockings over his hands to prevent leaving prints. In short, Mr. Nelson meant business. Mr. Nelson fired one or two shots at the home owner before the homeowner returned fire with his own illegally purchased firearm. The same firearm he purchased because his house was broken into just 6 months earlier. The situation ended with Mr. Nelson dead, and the occupants of the home safe and sound. The vile piece of scum who is no longer a danger to society has a 13 page rap sheet, and even with all of that, the local courts and law enforcement were unable to keep him off the streets. What is the shocker of this whole story?

Police let the Korean War veteran, who walks with the aid of a cane, go without filing immediate charges because he appeared to act in self-defense, according to police sources.

They let him go… for now? I mean these “Only Ones” are really getting soft. I’m surprised they didn’t call in the SWAT team, shoot his dog, and then throw him down on his own front lawn and shackle him. After all, he’s a criminal in the eyes of the law much is that “vile piece of scum”. Maybe it was the cane, or perhaps the fact HE HAD NO OTHER EFFECTIVE MEANS to defend himself. A person should be allowed to defend themselves in their home with whatever means they see fit with. Whether it’s a katana, handgun, rifle, Scottish claymore (totally bad ass), or even a battle axe (even more bad ass). Now I know some liberals are going to froth at the mouth thinking, “OMG you’re an extremist, you want to allow Warren Buffet and Bill Gates to own nuclear weapons!”. You may not like what I have to say, but you have to agree the law is wrong here and I am right. I just want to nip the exaggerated argument in the bud. Don’t be so afraid that admitting the other side might be right that you alienate and further divide the people around you. The discussion here is firearms, swords, and axes as a means of defense. Nothing else.

So now, with all that being said, is Mayor Daley going to come out and say, “He won’t be prosecuted” and perhaps the law was wrong in the first place? Oh of course not, you guessed it already. This is same Mayor who thinks that shoving a rifle up someone’s butt shows how effective the gun ban in Chicago is.

Mayor Richard Daley refused to say today whether an 80-year-old Army veteran who shot and killed an intruder will be charged under the city’s handgun ban. Asked about the possibility of charges, the mayor ended a news conference he had called about summer curfew in the city.

At this point, I think it’s safe to say, the only thing that should be shoved up anyone’s butt is a sized twelve boot up Mayor Daley’s ass.

Thoughts:

I explained that I *do* write my senators and representatives to speak my mind so I hope he’ll be as responsive as Mr. Gregg was. Mrs. Shaheen has only responded twice and only via email. Even if it’s a staff, it did feel good getting a letter that did directly address my points. I hope this will continue.

Concerns:

According to the CBO, they estimate 31 billion (and change) from a tobacco increase of $0.39 to $1 a pack that’ll continue to increase through 2019 to a value of 79 billion dollars. I have to ask, what crack are they smoking? (no pun intended) I know people who smoke and are paying from between $6.50 a pack now to as much as $8-9 per pack in MA. They are ALREADY at the tipping point when they will no longer be able to afford to smoke and will thus quit. How will they replace that money?

There has been talk about a meals / alcohol tax. Fine, when they do that and people like me enjoy their cigars and liquor less, who are they going to tax next? You cannot tax a behavior. It’s unsustainable. You can’t call smokers on one hand evil doers who are causing lung cancer and must be taxed to pay for health coverage of people who inhale their smoke… and then tax the smokers to quit.

If the above does happen, what additional taxes as a white, middle class, tax payer am I going to see because from where I sit, it’s going to come down my pipe at some point.

Questions:

I think everyone agrees that wall street needs a lot of reform. Mortgages and securities being shuffled around in a shell game until the table fell over was tragic, but taxing private traders to cover reform? I am new to investing, and it’s prohibitive on the costs versus the benefits. If I need to trade 500 shares of stock in order to be profitable because of a tax, I won’t trade. Quick and to the point, you cannot tax an action to such an extent that you make it unattractive to try out. Quite simply put, you won’t see your projected revenues because people won’t do it. So what do you propose as a way to keep AIG and the big players in check without completely screwing me as someone who is starting to do this?

Let me start by saying THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT FOR MR HODES. Just some of my observations. I was kind of excited about this. It was a very interesting way to get people to attend these meetings. I did some very basic research on him and I’m intrigued. I have some homework I need to do on him, but here are the important points for me:

Guns

I agree with him on:

• Maintain and strengthen the current level of enforcement of existing federal restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.
• Allow citizens to carry concealed guns.

I disagree with him on:

• Establish a national database of ballistic “fingerprints” to track guns used in criminal activities.

There are obviously more areas, and I have only begun to stratch the surface, but it’s a start. That is just my first prelim thoughts on the matter. More research is needed, but for now I’ll leave you with this very entertaining note from Penn and Teller on Gun Control.

Back on June 27th 2008, the US Supreme Court held:

…the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private use in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

This ruling was important for several reasons:

1. It ended the miss-conception that the 2nd amendment right was tied to some kind of militia service
2. It affirmed it was an individual right that ever American shares
3. It completely threw out the D.C. handgun ban as being unconstitutional

There are only a very few instances I will consent to being disarmed by anyone. Here are a few of them.

• In a court house
• On an airplane (while no to firearms for what I think is obvious reasons, Tasers and other non-lethal alternatives should be allowed on)
• … and near the president

Let me be very clear about my feelings on “gun bans”. I am 100% against them. They have not been shown to be effective against crime, and if the situation did arise that it was needed, I would prefer to have that option available to me. Let me also emphasize this for anyone out there who took Professor Fong’s statistics and probability class back in college. I don’t care about statistics and that isn’t the purpose of this article. I don’t care what the percentage chance of violence against me is based on what city I’m in. This is about principles and fundamental rights. If you don’t agree with me, then fine. Does that mean I can carry a fully automatic AK-47 down the street on my shoulder? (even though it would be pretty bad ass…) No of course not, but before anyone says, “OMG you want to allow Bill Gates to buy an M1 Abrams tank and Warren Buffet to buy nuclear weapons…”. Putting the absurd nature of that statement aside, I think this sums it up:

Even the NRA concedes that you can’t have mad men running around with weapons of mass destruction. So there are some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines. I am sure, though, that outright bans on handguns like they have in D.C. won’t be permitted. That is not a reasonable restriction under anybody’s characterization. It is not a restriction, it’s a prohibition.

Now post Heller, the Democratic majority (… of the two independents, one was a former Democrat and the other a former Republican) in the D.C. Council quickly rushed to change their laws and regulations and in typical Washington fashion, constructed stupid, and lengthy regulations to “allowed” the lowly people of the city to keep firearms in their house. In an ironic twist, Dick Heller was denied his application for a permit to have a firearm in his home because his 8rnd 1911 didn’t meet their regulations. The whole situation is completely foolish.

… and what does Police Chief Cathy Lanier feel on the topic? I personally loved this one, because it re-enforces the “Only One” mentality that David Codrea coined so aptly.

I think the reasonableness standard of the handgun laws in the District, which are not completely banned, because there is licensed handguns in the District of Columbia for law enforcement, retired law enforcement, federal law enforcement, security agencies. So, there is not a complete ban on handguns.

~ Washington DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier

So what do I want out of all this? I want the gun bans in Chicago, San Francisco, and anywhere else they are outright banned, lifted. I want more uniform requirements and regulations from state to state. Driving a car isn’t in the bill of rights, but they sure did make it easy for my NH license to be valid in MA and other states. It also takes 2 weeks here in NH and about 8 months to get a MA permit. (if you can even get one) I want a nationwide CCW permit system setup that allows me not to worry if I accidentally parked my car in a certain area of the Sears parking lot at the Pheasant Lane Mall in Nashua, at which point I could be arrested for carrying illegally in MA. Do I feel like the laws are setting honest people up to fail? Some yes, and this is wrong.

If you don’t agree with guns, or my feelings on this. That is your right, but also let me say this, you’re feelings on the matter do not trump my rights to carry firearms on my person or have them in my home for whatever reason I deem fit. I do not OC (open carry) very much. I am not one of those people who likes to try and make statements or intimidate people. For the most part, I understand some people are uncomfortable with firearms, and I try to respect that, but if I’m at the hair salon and take my jacket off and someone sees my 1911, then too bad. I don’t care one iota if they feel it’s unnecessary. I will not go out of my way to show off, but if they see it, I’m not going to loose any sleep over it.

Now that I’ve gotten all that background out of the way, let’s talk about Tom Palmer. He’s a D.C. Resident currently suing the city for the right to carry his firearm on his person outside his home. It’s a good article and I definitely think it’s worth reading. You know, it’s a sad state of affairs when something that should be a fairly straight forward right is something we must actually bring legal proceedings and fight to be able to do. Why does Tom want the right to do this? Because it already saved his life once.

“We were what they perceived as a couple of faggots, which was the term they used, walking through their neighborhood,” he said. “And it would have been one of those modestly ironic moments if my colleague might have been murdered in a gay bashing, when he was straight.”

The threats were vivid and believable: “We’re going to kill you. They’ll never find your body.”

Palmer told his colleague to run. The thugs chased Palmer, who stopped under a streetlight and pulled out his gun.

“I did not say anything witty or clever,” he recalls. “In the movies, they say something very clever. I just said, ‘If you come closer, I will kill you.’ Very blunt. And they stopped.”

Amazing how that worked. He leveled the playing field and the aggressors here stops. Would pepper spray has been as effective? Who really cares…? No shots were fired and nobody was harmed. As expected the group at Handgun Control Inc (a.k.a The Brady Campaign against Gun Violence – yes they really were called Handgun Control Inc) have offered up their thoughts on the matter.

“To force the general public to be exposed to the risk of loaded guns when they are out with their family in public areas is outrageous and has absolutely nothing to do with the right to defend the home…”

Please see above statement about, “I don’t care one iota how xyz person feels about something that is not harming them.” I personally enjoyed the response to this argument from HCI.

The idea that the right to bear arms is limited to “walking around your house is silly.”

Molon Labe!

Back on Feb 2nd, The US proceeded with a normally scheduled arms shipment to Taiwan. Per the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, we have supplied defensive arms to Taiwan. This of course has rubbed China the wrong way. Now back when this treaty was signed, China’s economy was strong, but still developing. It made sense for them to agree to this since it limited the arms to a major enemy. Now with the economic pressure they could leverage, you see all sorts of objections over the same arm sales we’ve done for 31 yrs, and for which we have never broken that treaty.

Trade relations between the U.S. and China appear to be hitting a rough patch, with China publicly threatening to impose sanctions on U.S. companies participating in the arms sales to Taiwan, leading some observers to express concern over the growing war of words between Washington and Beijing.

Back in Jan, Google refused to abide by the search engine filtering that the chinesse gov’t was mandating. It looked like for once, a corporate entity was standing up to them. That was until China launched a pre-emptive strike against Google. Let’s not mince words. I don’t think anyone has any doubt about who did the attacks. No they didn’t use missiles, bombs, or aircraft carriers…

Google is releasing some information about these attacks to the public. The company says that a minimal amount of user information was compromised, but has come to the alarming conclusion that the attacks were targeting the information of Chinese human rights activists. Google found that these attacks were not just going after Google’s data, but were also targeting at least twenty other major companies spanning sectors including Internet, finance, chemicals, and more. Google has also discovered that phishing attacks have been used to compromise the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists around the world.

“… There is always a way in!!!” (C&C Generals – Chinese hacker unit)

Now of course, the filtering on google’s engine was turned back on. They rolled over and the “attacks” have stopped. Amazing how that works, eh?

Most recently, this past week, Pr Obama met with the Dalai Lama in a very low key and quiet fashion, which was of course followed with another round of protests from China.

President Barack Obama personally welcomed the Dalai Lama to the White House Thursday and lauded his goals for the Tibetan people, but he kept their get-together off-camera and low-key in an attempt to avoid inflaming tensions with China.

At the risk of angering Beijing, Obama did tell the exiled spiritual leader that he backs the preservation of Tibet’s culture and supports human rights for its people. He also gave encouragement to the Dalai Lama’s request for talks with the Chinese government.

Good to see the president has a pair of balls and would keep to his campaign promise of doing “that which was right” even in the face of opposition. I guess he should have amended that to say, “… as long as it doesn’t piss off China”.

At some point, someone is going to have to draw a line in the sand and say no more. The human rights violations, the oppression, and the downright aggression against anything they disagree with at some point will need to be addressed. I just hope something gets done BEFORE China has the power to throw a switch and collapse our economy because we can’t get our $0.15 widgets from them since we have no cost effective domestic production. Why can’t we get effective domestic production? We have labor unions that help drive up the cost of production. We have higher cost of living over here and higher cost of doing business thanks to taxes and other contributing factors. In short, they have us by the short hairs at this point and without a sec of balls, I doubt we’ll do anything to stop it.

But five months after the robbery, as Mr. Baez was visiting their Manhattan apartment to collect the mail, a police officer stopped him in the lobby and frisked him, he said. Finding nothing, the officer asked him if he had any drugs or weapons on him. Nervous, he decided to confess: “I just got home-invaded in September and I have a weapon for my protection,” Mr. Baez recalled telling the officer.
He was arrested, and despite having no criminal record, he faced up to three and a half years in prison. Prosecutors offered him a deal of one year if he pleaded guilty, and he accepted. He is to be sentenced Jan. 27.

This is why feel so many of the firearm laws in this country are bogus and the politicians don’t care about you or I. After all, why should they? They usually have protection that carries automatic weapons…

Hey I know who we can all call!!!

The NH Legislative Facilities Committee voted today to ban firearms in the NH State House.

This is a Joint Committee, and members are:

Sylvia Larsen (D)
Terie Norelli (D)
Margaret Hassan (D)
Mary Jane Wallner (D)
Peter Bragdon (R)
Sherman Packard (R)
Lou D’Allesandro (D)
Marjorie Smith (D)
Daniel Eaton (D)
Gene Chandler (R)
Martha Fuller Clark (D)
Sheila Roberge (R)

The Joint Facilities committee just passed by an 8-3 vote (party lines)
the following regulation on the State House:

“No person, except for law enforcement personnel in active duty, shall
carry a firearm or other dangerous or deadly weapon or an explosive,
openly or concealed, while inside the State House, the Legislative
Office Building, the Upham Walker House, or any of the underground
tunnels connected to these buildings. Law enforcement personnel, when
requested by State House security staff, must produce sufficient
identification establishing their status as law enforcement personnel.”

Here is what bothers me about this. They tried in scheduled session to do this twice last there and there was an overwhelming protest against it, which promptly instructed them to vote the bill as ITL (In expedient to legislate – Basically kills the bill). Regardless of who the people protesting (yes some of the “free staters” were there, but for the most part it was simply ordinary people) were, there is a large (and yes large is a valid statement considering the number of people who showed up) part of the population that disagrees with this. Now in scheduled session, they can’t get this passed, so what do they do? Do it as an unexpected event and ram it in the back door.

This is the shit that REALLY pissess me off. Letters are going out to ALL parties involved. I am going to print and send them certified. I’ll scan / attach it here when I’m done. Now I’m off to enjoy some of the holidays.

It may sound absurd. But President Obama signed a bill into law Wednesday that requires passengers who carry firearms aboard Amtrak be locked in boxes for their journey.

it was an obvious typo in the bill and I am guessing that if I tried to board an Amtrak train they wouldn’t try to stuff me in a box, but still. Why? Has there been shootings on trains? What reason justifies this action? It has no purpose. Before anyone starts trying to take this to an absurd argument level about liberty and freedom, I am talking strictly about rationale behind this bill. Is it not illegal to harm another human being with a firearm without just cause? I mean, are they trying to make me safer, how?

Earlier this week, Congress sent the president a massive spending bill that funded dozens of federal departments. Tucked into the transportation section of the legislation are safety requirements for Amtrak customers who carry firearms on board the government-backed train system. The bill Congress passed mandates that passengers with firearms declare they have weapons with them in advance and stow them in locked boxes while on the train.

I just have issues when things like this are just tucked away inside of seemly unrelated bills. The provision has no justifiable purpose. The crime they are trying to stop is ALREADY illegal. Why do we need more restrictions? I will also say the Republicans have contributed to my anger. (more often than not lately)

Rep. John Fleming and Sen. Roger Wicker, both Mississippi Republicans, are the primary advocates of the Amtrak gun provision.

I am in no way just anti-Democrats, but right now completely anti-Politicians in general atm. I think it’s about time we flushed this toilet.

During more than two hours of sometimes-heated debate in the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, some lawmakers accused one another of caving to intelligence officials who wanted to expand their powers, while other senators said the renewal was necessary to protect against looming – and classified – terror threats.

But when the hearing was over, the committee approved renewing measures that include allowing broad warrants to be issued by a secretive court for any type of record, from financial to medical, without the government having to declare that the information sought is connected to a terrorism or espionage investigation. A proposal that would put limits on such requests was defeated.

Let us be very clear about this. The patriot act is nothing more than a broad law enforcement tool that enables them to better spy on Americans all in the guise of fighting terrorism. This was something that was rushed through congress in the days following 9/11 all using the pain of those attacks to get it passed with as little debate as possible. It will be one of George Bush’s legacies.

The thought that people will be safer by stripping away their freedoms is handing victory to the Islamic Fascists. You cannot save Rome by burning it, and you cannot protect freedom by eliminating it.

You want to send a clear message of resistance to the terrorists? Rebuild the twin towers exactly as they were built before and light the building up on opening day with the windows lit in shape of a hand giving an obscene gesture.

The bill, which faces steep odds, would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision game as a national championship unless it results from a playoff. The measure passed by voice vote in a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee, with one audible “no,” from Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga.

Why the hell is any congressional committee even debating this? Don’t we have more important things like Terrorism? Health Care? A failing economy? A few have voiced opposition to this thankfully.

In a statement before the vote, BCS executive director Bill Hancock said, “With all the serious matters facing our country, surely Congress has more important issues than spending taxpayer money to dictate how college football is played.”

The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat who co-sponsored the bill, said, “We can walk and chew gum at the same time.”

… and we wonder why the important $h1t never gets done or worse the stuff that is done is all f’d up and bogged down with pork.