Author Archives: Uke

Awesome. Almost makes me want to join Twitter to follow him.

Almost.

I can’t be the only one that noticed this. In the aftermath of the Boston Bombing, many on the right were very quick to abandon a whole heap of Constitutional principles.

Though I will note that we here at the Revo reacted in the way I expect and admire: with adherence to said principles (see RD’s thread on the matter, a couple pages back). I only bring this up so you see many of the hot-headed, hypocritical reactions from “our side,” as well.

Video below the fold (may autoplay on some browsers):

More below the fold…

Full credit for this goes to Erin Palette at her blog. Jim22 brought it to our attention, and I feel it worthy of front page publication.

Possibly NSFW due to language, I suppose:

You say “Gun control.” I hear, “We want you to defend yourself against a man who is a foot taller and a hundred pounds heavier with your bare hands.”

You say “Common sense regulations.” I hear, “We don’t like these cosmetic features, like an adjustable stock or a foregrip, that make it easier for a woman to use.”

You say, “If it saves just one life.” I hear “Except yours, you stupid bitch. We’d rather you get raped and murdered while waiting for the police to arrive.”

You say, “Think about the children.” I hear “But not yours. We won’t let you defend them, and if we find out you have a gun in the same house as a child, we’ll take them both away.”

You say, “Compromise.” I say, “Fuck you, you mewling cowards. I will not embrace victimhood. I will not willingly disarm. If you demand I give up my life just to make you feel better, you are selfish on a level that is beyond comprehension.”

Strong, passionate, authoritative, and articulate. This is my first time hearing of this girl, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s already getting marriage proposals for this post.

I’d call this post of hers the rhetorical explanation of the saying, “God created all men, but Sam Colt made ‘em equal.” It’s a vivid reminder how gun control measures disproportionately harm women, minorities and the weakest far more than young, muscular males. History is rife with hordes of such men raping and pillaging their way across various countrysides. They were virtually only ever stopped by an equal or greater force of young, armed men. That’s how it worked when weapons were operated with brute strength; brutes called the shots.

It was only with the advent of the modern firearm that a woman, a cripple, or an octogenarian could reliably fend off such thugs.

Related: “The Gun is Civilization.”

It really is as Orwellian as it sounds. The “Public Safety and Second Amendment Protection Act” is indeed that… if you somehow see gun registration as “protecting” the Second Amendment.

Heritage cites the current law:

No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may–

(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system established under this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof; or

(2) use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons, prohibited by section 922(g) or (n) of title 18, United States Code, or State law, from receiving a firearm.

Then they cite a portion of the new law:

The STM bill fuzzes up the law prohibiting a federal gun registry. First, the legislation says that nothing in the legislation shall be construed to allow establishment of a federal firearms registry. In addition, it says that the Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize records of firearms acquisition and disposition maintained by licensed importers, manufacturers, and dealers, and by buyers and sellers at gun shows (and makes it a crime for him to do so).

But then, the STM bill takes those protections away by using the all-powerful word “notwithstanding”—”notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.” The courts may construe the “notwithstanding” to allow Attorney General Eric Holder to issue regulations that could begin to create a federal registry of firearms, because the law says he can implement the subsection without regard to the protections against a registry elsewhere in the legislation.

So basically, the up front line is “This bill can absolutely not be read as gun registration,” while the deeper, fine print says, “The AG of the US can create a registry, regardless of anything we said earlier. Just kidding.”

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the executive branch–in this case, AG Holder–won’t take power that it’s handed on a silver platter by the legislative branch. If the bill says that he may create a registry, no matter how rudimentary, you can bet it will be created by hook or crook.

I do not know how many of such editions will be published, but I got the feeling that we needed a little more gun love to take root:

Years ago, children would aspire to and compete in shooting sports just the way that today’s football and basketballers compete. I’ll be damned if I don’t see my grandchildren return to that former tradition.

This is just one of the many forms it can take, of course, but voila:

AMHERST, N.Y. (WIVB) – The NYS SAFE Act is billed as a necessary law to protect the public and keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.

But Hamburg attorney Jim Tresmond says his client was notified by letter that his gun permit was suspended upon the recommendation of State Police, who learned the man is on anti-anxiety medication.

“Claiming that he had taken some psychotropic medications, and that he no longer could be eligible for the pistol permit,” Tresmond said.

The permit holder lives in Amherst and Tresmond accompanied the man as he turned in his seven handguns used for target-shooting to Amherst Police.

. . .

Officials confirmed state law permits the suspension of a gun permit before the permit holder even gets a chance to state their case.

Just wait until every damned one of us is deemed unfit for gun ownership. What? Don’t take anti-anxiety medications? Don’t worry. Ve haff other vays.

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.

H/T to Bob Owens.

You heartless bastards brought this upon our fighting men and women! I hope you feel very, very bad about yourselves.

Damn straight.

2016 meets It’s a Wonderful Life, from the sound of it.

While 2016 was based on D’Souza’s book The Roots of Obama’s Rage, the new film will not draw from previously known source material, and the filmmakers say America is not technically a sequel to 2016, though audiences may be inclined to view it as such.

In America, D’Souza intends to recreate some famous moments in American history and ask the question: What would the world be like if the U.S. had not existed? He likened America, in fact, to Frank Capra’s 1946 film It’s a Wonderful Life, in which George Bailey learns what his town would have been like had he never lived.

“President Obama looks at America as an oppressive force,” D’Souza said, “while I and millions of others around the world have a different view – that America has been a great blessing to its own people and to the world.

. . .

We intend to provide both serious answers and have some fun as we take Obama’s dreams for America to their logical conclusions,” D’Souza says.

I would call this a good followup to the last film. I liked 2016 very much, but simply doing another video totally focusing on Obama would be unproductive. The first film laid out quite well all of these things that BHO likely is aspiring toward. This movie explains the “so what?” factor. Why does it matter is there isn’t a country like the US of A in the world? What’s the big deal? Seems America will be trying to lay that out, which is exactly what the American public needs. I’m looking forward to seeing it.

And Dinesh’s momma didn’t raise no dummy:

D’Souza says America should make its way into theaters by the middle of next year, an advantageous time as Americans turn their attention toward politics again due to the midterm elections, when all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are up for grabs, as are 33 seats in the Senate.

Trailer below the fold.

More below the fold…

Jim22 posted a thread examining the concept of needs as it relates to the gun debate. It brought to mind a favorite old commercial of mine:

In reality, what a human being needs to survive is quite minimal. Food, water, air, shelter… and little more.

Want to go out to see a new movie in the theater? Nope, don’t need that.
Buy a new album on iTunes? You certainly don’t need either of those.
The new 2014 Shelby? Certainly don’t need that.
That new pair of Manolo Blahnik heels your wife has wanted to buy? Why does she need that?
Captain Crunch, Chex and Cracklin’ Oat Bran are your family’s favorite cereals? Tough. You will eat lukewarm kasha.

In many ways, that they take this argument in the direction of “needs” is the ultimate sign of desperation. Frightening in its admission, but desperate nonetheless.

Sidenote: One has to ask themselves… If the leftist, utopian vision consistently advocates some grand and egalitarian standard of living for all human beings, why do they ever bother with talking about mere “needs”?

Does it reveal me as a political nerd insider if I get motivated about Senator Rand Paul hitting the filibuster hard? First real filibuster we’ve had in a decade? A filibuster that is actually bipartisan, and unites both left and right?

Don’t care if it does reveal me as such. This may be politics at its most arcane, but it’s also brutally honest… and frighteningly revealing. Played well–as I’d argue Paul is playing this–a filibuster can be a goddamned halogen light on injustices. I am absolutely thrilled he’s stepping up in this manner. And I won’t even dare speak what my hope is going forward after this.

This ain’t new, but… hell, Uncle Ted tells it like it is. Again.

Bless the child that can call this man their actual uncle, as far as I’m concerned.

When was the last time we’ve had a POTUS speak so bluntly and affirmatively on these most fundamental matters? Have we ever?

We are commonly rebuffed with the commentary from the left that we (conservatives and libertarians) are willing to have dozens of our citizens–children even–murdered sporadically based on the whims of madmen. “We must stand by and allow our children to be murdered because of our precious Amendment??” they cry.

The sad truth of the matter is that yes, we must. Because the choice is not between “pain” and “no pain.” The choice is between “pain” and “more pain.” The human condition itself carries with it adversity, strife, struggle, turmoil and pain. Our goal is foolhardy when we seek to eliminate it. We must instead seek to minimize it. Allowing even the weakest of us to repel the ever-present strongmen is the best answer we have. The Second Amendment is the best and surest bulwark that people have against murders on a truly massive and horrific scale.

Food for thought: The 20th century has seen the largest scale mass-murders in the history of mankind. With population continuing to rise, who is to say that without proper care, we won’t see proportionally greater atrocities committed? 60 million to become the new 6 million?

Officially, NH does not have a “Stand Your Ground” law. We do, however, have such a legal structure as it very closely resembles it. We can carry in virtually every location that we are legally allowed to be, only stopping short of courthouses. House Bill 135 would end all that, and contains the following provisions:

1) Eliminates the provision that allows a person to use deadly force anywhere he or she has a legal right to be. This limits an individual’s ability to defend themselves or third party from assault to their own place of residence.

2) Amends the definition of non-deadly force by removing the provision that specifies the act of producing or displaying a weapon is considered non-deadly force. Thus, drawing or exhibiting your firearm to intimidate a perpetrator could be considered deadly force.

3) Repeals the provision granting civil immunity for the use of force in certain circumstances. The elimination of this provision removes legal protections for law abiding citizens acting in self-defense.

So let me get this straight:
We can conceal carry freaking everywhere.
We can open carry everywhere (with a conceal carry license).
But if off home property we encounter a threat–with firearm on person–we must still flee rather than using the defensive tool on our hip?

You know, it’s almost as if “Live Free or Die” doesn’t really carry much weight anymore…

I was even able to look past the whole “Dodge” thing.

BING!! Get your Bill Murray on.

Dear Senator Shaheen,

Unfortunately, it appears as if you were not executing due diligence in responding to my email. I made very clear my strong opposition to knee-jerk regulation/legislation of any kind, yet you responded back to me in a very predictable way: attempting to cajole me into buying what you believe to be “commonsense solutions.” Allow me to explain that what you deem a “commonsense solution” is almost invariably a measure that does little more than annoy, aggravate or even infuriate law-abiding citizens:

The first point that you must realize (if you don’t already know it) is that gun control–broadly stated–does not work. At least, it doesn’t work if one’s aim is to make society safer and less violent; it works just fine if the aim is to subdue a populace, making them thereby more easily controlled by greedy statists and thugs (but I repeat myself). Now of course it’s difficult to put any society in a test tube to isolate it for experimental testing, but at a minimum you can find numerous examples in the US correlating restrictive gun control laws with high rates of gun crime. One only needs to look to Chicago and Detroit to see that stiff gun control laws don’t necessarily equate to a safer society. The Sandy Hook shooting was hardly prevented by Connecticut’s stiff gun control laws, or the school’s “Gun Free Zone,” after all.

Secondly, why target “high capacity magazines” (which are actually very standard 20 and 30 round magazines, by the way)? Do you plan on confiscating said magazines? If not, do you realize that there are untold millions of said magazines in US circulation right now? There are enough of these standard capacity magazines in private hands that they wouldn’t run out for decades. If your goal is confiscation, that’s a whole separate can of worms. I won’t even get into the difficulty of enforcing said law on a reluctant populace that, with the stroke of a pen, becomes criminalized for doing nothing more than what they were doing the day before. Suffice to say that limiting people to 10 round magazines doesn’t preclude a determined and sick individual from doing deadly harm to many innocents. If you have any experience with the handling and operation of such equipment, you would know that such devices are designed to be simple to change out. A mass murder committed using 1 30-round magazine would not be mitigated, let alone prevented, by 3 10-round magazines. To purport that it would be is either uninformed or disingenuous.

More below the fold…

I bet someone didn’t run the language by the Administration before publishing this:

DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.

. . .

The action shall be capable of accepting all standard NATO STANAG 20 and 30 round M16 magazines (NSN 1005-00-921-5004) and Magpul 30 round PMAG (NSN 1005-01-576-5159).

Now that is interesting.

I mean, it’s common sense that they are highly effective weapons in such situations, but the interesting part is that DHS inadvertently admitted such. In a few short sentences, the US Department of Homeland Security has just neatly justified the use of AR15s–with 30 round magazines–for personal defense. And, at least arguably, they also advocated for burst/auto fire on said weapons.

I’m sure it was entirely intentional, and they were simply sticking up for the rights of gun owners.

Hat tip to GregB.

Any minute one of our non-religious Revoistas will show up and lend credibility to the argument that the pro-life position need not have any religious basis at all.

Uke?

Allow me to introduce myself:

My name is Uke, and I am a heathen.

In the most specific terms I can manage: I am an agnostic, with deist leanings (meaning, in lay terms, that while I have a gut feeling there is something bigger than myself, I have never seen proof of it so don’t feel comfortable in banking in it; thus the “I don’t know” of agnosticism suits me). I’m certainly not religious in any way. Don’t attend church, etc. I came to be this way, in part I suppose, because of my heavy self-investment in the sciences. I majored in biology with a minor focus on organic chemistry. In this way, I learned to demand an open mind of myself, and a commitment to only have gut feelings (i.e. intuition) about things until I could scientifically prove them (or see them proven).

I am also a heathen that absolutely abhors abortion, and believes that abortion is criminal. How can this be?

More below the fold…