Thursday, April 19, 2007


In the neverending saga that is the Middle East, we have yet another terrorist orginization that says it will NOT stop attacks on Israel, not unless they 'get something in return'.

Israel has been giving since the return of the Jews in 1948 and nothing has changed. Nothing will change today if Israel gives again. The Palestinian people will ultimately be the ones that (if ever) achieve peace. They will do this by renoucing terrorism and by finally not harboring the like any longer.

As long as Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad and other 'political' groups are in play, the Middle East and specifically Israel will not know a moments peace. There will be pundits and arm-chair quaterbacks alike who will ask why? (The favorite question of a lefty) As, why do the palestinians hate Israel so much, why do they kill the innocent, why will Israel not talk, etc. The terrorists (just like the terrorists in Iraq, Africa, SE Asia and around the world) keep trying to tell everyone why they do things, what they are going to do and how, yet the left simply does not hear them and continues on their liberal agenda of mothering the world to death. The terrorists state explicitly that Israel must be wiped out, not that Israel must make peace, and that the Jews must be killed. Just as Al-Qaeda and others state that everyone will become a muslim or die, these messages are loud and clear, yet the left still does not hear.

What will it take for the left (and most of the international community) to finally wake up and hear the message? No one knows, it took World War II before people of that era finally realized that Hitler was serious when he talked of world domination. Maybe this time (of course history shows us that it won't happen) the left will wake up before the world goes off the precipe. For all the screams about the 'failed' Iraqi war; these pale in comparison to the silence on Dafur, Thailand, Europe and other 'hotspots' in the world where these animals have free reign with passive (if not active) help from the 'intelligent' peoples of the world.

Islamic Jihad denied reports Wednesday that it had agreed to halt rocket attacks on Israel.

Reports in some Arab newspapers claimed earlier that the Islamist organization had reached an agreement with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to stop the Kassam attacks.

This story is a small story to the world, but it tells many what they need to know about the intents and purposes of the terrorists of that area and not ONE prominent leftist will make a note of this (unless it is to call Israel to listen, as if they have not been listening to the Muslims since the 700's).

Sooner or later all the terrorist problems will indeed go away. But will it be because we (the free people of the world) have carried the day, or will it be because the left and the cowards of the world have finally had enough and caused the capitilation of civilization as we know it.

I can only hope for me and my family that when the time comes to surrender, we are no longer are part of this world. With the current crop of leaders and high-ranking dignitaries in the world, global warming will soon come to mean a new thing if they don't finally get their heads out of the sand and start asking Why? As in why aren't we doing something about this.
Reason to question

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Gun Control - Where We're Headed !!! and ... Second Amendment Second Reading !!!

Ok - so our friends from across the ponds seem to think us Americans would do better to engage in more gun control (read: gun confiscation).

So I thought I'd post these gems that I saved many years ago.

The first one is from Robert Waters and it is called
"Gun Control - Where We're Headed!!"

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven." The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened. (link)

Go read the whole thing...

You can then draw your own conclusions as to which society you'd rather live in.

The second article is by Daniel Polsby who argues that we should treat the Second Amendment as normal Constitutional Law and not as some bastard child that isn't deserving of sitting at the same table as the others...

Normal constitutional argument begins with text.

The first question to consider, then, is:

What does the Constitution say about the right to keep and bear arms? There seem to be two main theories of what sense is conveyed by the language of the Second Amendment. The theory that is most often encountered by the intelligent lay public reads the words to say something like:

"In order to make themselves secure, states have a right to have a well regulated militia, and Congress may not restrict state regulation of militia members' weapons."

This is approximately the interpretation favored by most major newspapers' editorial writers, by gun control groups, and by a broad swath of conventional public opinion, running the partisan gamut from left (e.g., Rep. Charles Schumer of New York) to right (e.g., President Nixon) and most political shades in between.

But in places where close attention is paid to what words actually say, the states'-rights reading of the Second Amendment has attracted surprisingly little support. After all, the Second Amendment does not say;

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed."

Nor do the words of the amendment assert that;

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

is conditional upon membership in some sort of organized soldiery like the National Guard. Indeed, if there is conditional language in the Second Amendment at all, evidently the contingency runs the other way:

"Because the people have a right to keep and bear arms, states will be assured of the well regulated militias that are necessary for their security."

Some version of this reading is supported by almost all of the constitutional historians and lawyers who have published research on the subject. Indeed, this view is so dominant in the academy that Garry Wills, the lone dissenter among historians on the proper reading of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," has dubbed it the Standard Model of the Second Amendment. (link)
Go read the whole thing...

I think Polsby's argument is pretty much rock-solid.

Gun Control

Here's a gun post that I'll gladly let speak for itself:

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Politics as Usual

Mrs. du Toit

After receiving a quick email from my sister about the events unfolding at Virginia Tech, Kim and I turned on Fox News, just in time to hear a reporter at the White House Press Conference ask “Is the President reconsidering his opinions on gun control NOW?”

And, as usual, the Press Secretary responded calmly and politely.

That is not how I would have responded (which is why I’m not the White House Press Secretary).

Here is how I would have responded:

Listen, you heartless cow, you’re turning this into politics before the bodies have been identified and the next of kin notified. What kind of human being ARE YOU? Do you have ANY sense of compassion AT ALL? Can you turn off your agitate-for-all-things-stupid-machine EVER?

OK, you want to talk the politics of gun control? We’ll talk about it then.

No, the President is not reconsidering his stance on gun control because Virginia Tech is yet another reminder of how counterproductive and counterintuitive gun control is. Over 30 human beings have been added to the death toll, caused by gun control, and your side’s continued efforts to turn America into a nation of victims, instead of a nation of responsible adults. On the contrary, anyone who watched the events in Virginia and thinks that one more law would have made a difference is delusional. (link)

Please read it all. That's what I'd like to hear in response to reporters questions :)

Kirked (update)

A resolution in the kirk'd case:
Attorneys for JL Kirk & Assocs. contacted Media Bloggers Association attorney Ronald Coleman shortly after receiving his letter stating that the MBA was representing me in this dispute on Thursday afternoon. Both sides expressed their wish to avoid litigation or further aggravation of the situation. JL Kirk’s main concern at the outset was that we communicate their position - which is different from the information originally told to me by a JL Kirk employee - that JL Kirk is not a continuation of the defunct Bernard Haldane company, either in terms of corporate identity or stock ownership, and that JL Kirk’s principal, Kirk Leipzig, is only a former Bernard Haldane employee but did not buy any assets or stock of Bernard Haldane. I can’t vouch for the truth of that statement because I have no first-hand knowledge of the facts, but evidently anyone who wants more information can obtain it from JL Kirk. (link)

Head on over and read the rest (and the comments).

Monday, April 16, 2007


Nothing like a good gun ban to keep the violence down. According to StoptheACLU, bill HB1572 which would allow students at Virginia Tech to carry handguns was shot (no pun intended) down in subcommittee back in January. Why is that important?

Virginia Tech Campus Reels From Shooting That Leaves at Least 33 Dead

Virginia Tech police and administrators struggled to explain late Monday why the campus was not locked down after a deadly shooting earlier in the day, and why students were in classrooms two hours later when a lone gunman entered a campus building and slaughtered 30 people, before turning a gun on himself.

The man responsible for murdering 32 people — the worst mass-murder shooting in American history — who carried no ID, remained unidentified late Monday, police said.

Students complained that there were no public-address announcements or other warnings on campus after the first burst of gunfire that left two dead. They said the first word they received from the university was an e-mail more than two hours into the rampage — around the time it is believed that the gunman struck again. (link)

Yes, there's no definite way to prove that passing the gun law would have kept the body count down, but giving people the right to protect themselves will surely have to come to the left one day. Of course, that day should have come long ago, so I wouldn't hold my breath on it.
Reason amongst the dhimmikrauts

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Defending the Blogosphere

Seems that James has talked me into joining this blogroll. I'll have to watch what I post now that I a member of this august board :)

Some good people in this, you can see a link to each site in my readables section at the bottom of the links, or you can click the banner to goto the Defending website.

Also, I've added JR to the readable section as well as updated some bad links and whatnot. I've fixed the problems with the donate button, it now works correctly (just in case, heh) and generally I've tried to fix the blog so it will load faster for the people that do me the honor of a visit.
Reason to take up arms