Limiting Impact of Speech

While most libertarians would agree that SCOTUS properly ruled in favor of the Westboro Batnuts earlier this year, I for one believe that we can limit the impact of their antics.  (Since the press seems to give them limitless attention that they don't deserve).  

Now, Carol County (and maybe even the whole state) is poised to limit the ability of the Batnuts to protest at funerals by increasing the "buffer zone" distance for permitted speech.

I know that in this posting, there is a bit of contradictions and irony, but that is a fraud I am willing to commit.  If SCOTUS says we have no right to sue for monetary damages based upon the brash and indigent speech that is spewed forth by that of Westboro, then the families of fallen soldiers, popular celebs, or anyone that dies tragically with enough media attention should have the ability to not be subjected to speech they don't wish to see or hear.  In that, we are not limiting the ability of the turds to drone their message, but the state can and should restrict their ability with which to use public lands (road right of ways and sidewalks, ect) to protest.

This is truly a compelling interest in its purist form, and one that is fully supported by a majority of the people.  The scope of such a limit does not impact the ability of the attention whores to whore before the cameras for the depraved press, but it does make sure that police officers don't have to stop any vigilante justice seekers from Molotov Cocktail-ing the rejects all the way back to their "pearly gates."  While as we hear the likes of the anti-gun movement shout for common sense restrictions, this prime example of restrictions which are temporary and benign towards enumerated civil rights does protect the rights of both classes of individuals; something that anti-gunners don't seem to be bothered with.

No matter what Carol County and the State of Maryland do, I'm sure these Westboro Batnuts will be back through the state, trying to seek attention.  Should they attempt to breach any buffer zone intended to prevent their harm towards a fellow man, then I certainly wish God to strike them down through some fine lighting bolts of furry from above (and not through the vigilante justice implied could happen above).  After all, irony is a dish best served cold.

Stark Reminder of USA Gun Rights

Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws are something that most of us here in the USA take for granted.  We are very fortunate to have not only the law on our side, but also legal precedent to enforce and codify the civil right enumerated in both our Constitution and our history.  

Unfortunately for our northern neighbors, the Canucks aren't as lucky.  As can be read about here, the legal precedent and enumerated protections are both not part of the Canadian legal system.  Further, and what is worse, even though historical right to self defense exists for the citizens of Canada, the doctrine isn't necessarily recognized or held with such convictions for their government overlords.  These believes are evidenced by the over zealous, anti-gun, anti-freedom prosecutors to our North who arrange deals with criminals by trading reduced sentences for testimony against gun owners who use arms in self defense.

I would not only call this a failure of justice, but more appropriately the persecution of the lawful.  (After all, no criminal would ever have reason to lie to avoid more jail time when sanctioned by a prosecutor, right)? 

Take note of two things from this article: 1) That a citizenry that doesn't exercise or stand up for their rights looses them on a prima facia scale, and 2) For as much fighting against our enemies and infighting that our various supporters and groups have, we are still have the best laws and the best lobbying, education, legal, and training groups in the world (save for maybe Switzerland or Israel).  The point being, that as Canada lurches more left on the individual freedom afford by arms and the defense they provide, We The People, continue to move forward.  Let this remind us (along with the events of the last several weeks) that progress is not a constant.  Nor is progress easy, but as long as you aren't moving severely backwards, the end goal of advancing freedom can remain in our sights.  (Gun pun intended). 

High Cap Mag Legislation & News

No doubt, the whole gun blogosphere is going crazy over Rep McCarthy's draft bill (of course, it's completely asinine, but that's beside the point).

As Sebastian noted, seems that even the Mayor Against Illegal Guns leader, Bloomberg, agrees with us.  Though, that means only police should be allowed to have high cap mags.  Of course, from the unpossible realm of thinking, the police will NEVER over react and over shoot.  Nope, that never happens!  All told, the police fired 41 shots at a fellow officer, some of which were fired after the man was on the ground.  Maybe that means that we should turn this around, and exempt law abiding citizens who use rational and controlled shoot/no shoot analysis and ban the police from having high cap mags.  After all, we don't have liability insurance, a badge, a union, and the law to hide behind.  Funny how the individual is always more responsible than the collective. 

Capital Hill Switchboard = 202-224-3121

F1 Boss Recovers from Attack

It appears that even the famous are not inoculated against the thieves and thugs in England, as the F1 Boss Bernie Ecclestone found out the hard way. 

Seems that the 80 year old gentleman of Formula 1 racing and his girlfriend were assaulted this week in London for their $300,000+ worth of jewelry.  As Ecclestone pointed out, this isn't a rare occurrence in the city either.

"Normally like in America or anywhere you go, there are people getting mugged," Ecclestone said. "In London, it's a funny thing you know. It's surprising in Oxford Street the number of people that get mugged there hourly.

"We should have more police guns there."

There is a very apparent lack of opportunity cost for the muggers in Britain.  Police are not numerous to deter the crime and it has long been noted that the judicial punishment system won't bother to deter it either.  It seems like the government of England has stolen the dignity of the humans to defend themselves, even those who happen to be in their 80s and are no match for four young thugs, hell bent on destruction and thievery.  Considering they are punishing the wrong people for the wrong crimes, and it's no wonder our mother county has gone to hell in a hand basket. 

UPDATE 2: FLASH! Senate Judiciary Hearing on "Firearms in Commerce?"

NRA Confirmation!  I still don't understand the motives behind Chairman Leahy for bringing this hearing to the forefront during an election year while Dems are about to get slaughtered.  It seems dumbfounding to me.  However, get on those horns and talk it up with your Senators and Congressman.  Make it an issue for them to have to deal with. 

Arguing With Idiots Made Easier: Gun Control "un"facts

I need to be a lot faster moving on news, but work lately has been a drag limiting my ability to get it up as fast as I would like.  Hey, unlike the US Government, I need to pay my bills.

Several other bloggers had this posted last week, but to those who only follow me (hopefully friends and family), here's how you make arguing with idiots simpler and dispel the lies they have been told by the controllers in regards to concealed carry.  As usual, John R. Lott knocks it out of the box with his statisical and economic take upon the real world data that the Brady's just can't seem to wrap their little pea brains around.  The professor looks at the "stories" the Brady Bunch tells pertaining to permit holders having their permits revoked or the crimes they commit with guns (either with or more conveniently without a permit).

To those of us in Maryland, this should be a great article to us against those who oppose Shall Issue going into upcoming election especially with the recent SAF court case.  Considering most of the dolts in this state are dims with no sense of self respect and self reliance, I'm sure the reality of how law abiding citizens act with powerful weapons will completely confuse them.  So go get to confusing! 

When Politicians Can't Understand Satire

Yesterday, I quickly wrote this blog post as to how the Second Amendment Foundation has sued the State of Maryland in an effort to do away with the discretionary gun permitting process that allows the exercise of the "bear" part of the 2A.

Today, the WaPo has picked up on the story, and so too has an anti-gun state Delegate (who shall, for this purpose will remain nameless).  My former Facebook friend and I had this little doozey back and forth prior to lunch time.

Delegate's Status:  The same gun-rights advocates who gutted Washington DC's gun-control laws are trying to do the same now in MD.  Here's wishing Attorney General Doug Ganslwer best of luck in his effort to keep guns off our streets.  I'm optimistic he will prevail in this court case:

FightinBluHen51 Reply:  And, tell me why the state should discriminate against a fundamental right?

I have to ask Delegate, several questions: Do you personally have a carry permit in this state (that you will openly admit to)? Additionally, with strained budgets, of which we have balanced through budget cuts and debt issuance, can the state afford the legal costs to fight a loosing battle?

The state already issues permits to those who can show "good reason", of which includes business owners, those who carry large amounts of cash, those connected, those who have documented threats, famous people, and rumored hypocritical politicians replete with their double standards. What makes any class of people above another? Why is the life of the average citizen in Maryland placed beneath the currency assets of others? Let me remind you, DC's loosing case meant the 2A is a fundamental and individual right and Chicago's loosing case meant that it applies to the states; looks like a pattern to me.

The fact that police are not obligated legally to protect the average citizen and that they have shown the inability to do so on a social level, means that I should not have to live in fear that a thug who has no regard for the average human being will attempt to murder me like the poor chap at Johns Hopkins. You think, Delegate, that I should just be the victim of pure random chance? I deserve, the natural right, to make the choice to defend myself against harm.

It is frustrating that the states surrounding me, literally, afford me the protections of the 2A but my privileges and immunities are abridged by the "righteous" in this state. In plain English, I can and I do carry in DE, WV, VA, and PA, legally, without the "blood" on the street that you claim happens.

 Delegates Reply: We will have to agree to disagree. I think that more guns in circulation will not make our society safer and will lead to even more deaths due to criminal abuse. I have heaerd too many stories of gruesome gun deaths in Baltimore and DC to be convinced by those who claim self defense. As far as I can tell far more people die from excessive guns than are saved by defensive gun use.

In any case, I'm happy to debate people who have honest disagreements with me and are willing to discuss. But I won't tolerate people misquoting me and simply fabricating statements as you have done (you quoted me as using the word "blood" which I didn't). I think when people have to resort to false statements to bolster their arguments, they have already lost. Goodbye.

Not shockingly, after that, he un-friended me.  I'm heart broken as I'm sure you can imagine, but let us look into this typical anti-civil right supporter's reply.  First, everyone is entitled to an opinion.  I said in my initial reply that the 2A is a choice.  It is not something to be forced on people if they don't want it, yet that's how this anti-gun Delegate acts in his forcing to disarm the country class.  Next, he makes a statement that is completely refuted by every FBI crime report in the last ten years, and in the data sets correlated and explained in both of John R. Lott's Books (More Guns Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns).  The anti even contradicts himself when he says "criminal abuse" admitting that criminals abuse the law, which includes firearms laws.

Obviously, my response was two fold.  I wanted to make a passionate statement that drew out exactly how this Delegate feels, in an election year.  Also, please note how he absolutely refused to answer whether or not he himself has a carry permit.  It is Quite ironic that he got so touchy with a hard hitting series of questions when he claims to want "honest disagreements" with me and is willing to "discuss."  I suppose the use of satirical dialect and dramatics to prove a point, and resorting to hitting the proverbial "ban" switch was how this elected representative chooses to deal with the "opposition."  It's such a shame when we're able to expose them for the sideways thinkers that they are, especially when there are online records to go back through and call them out on.

While at times my writing and line of questioning with the opposition has a flare for the dramatic, it certainly is entertaining to see the other side crack under pressure.  If one wants to call what I posted to this Delegate's page a "fabrication of statements", well then, your fabrication that the NRA is a bunch of "death peddlers" who want a "wild-west style free-for-all for every kind of gun imaginable," is equally and actually more, reprehensible.

No matter what, I'm sure it is extremely hard for them to be on the loosing side of the only issue that could really cost them their absolute power.  I'm sure they are quaking in their panties for the mere fact that an armed society who is ready for trouble when it comes to them, is a more independent society, which is precisely the thing these anti-gun, ruling elites despise.