via youtube.com
Love this.
Keep calm and carry
01-Apr-11
via whysean.com
Via Sean Hastings.
I hope Rep. Giffords—and everyone wounded yesterday—makes a full recovery. It’s particularly tragic that she was shot while doing exactly what we want elected officials to do—she was making herself available to the people she serves. And of course we should mourn the people senselessly murdered yesterday, government employees and otherwise: U.S. District Judge John Roll, Dorthy Murray, Dorwin Stoddard, nine-year-old Christina Greene, Phyllis Scheck, and Gabe Zimmerman.
That said, I long for the day that our political and media figures get as indignant about innocent Americans killed by their own government—killed in fact, as a direct and foreseeable consequence of official government policy that nearly all of those leaders support—as they are about a government official who was targeted by a clearly sick and deranged young man. What happened this weekend is not, by any means, a reason to shunt anti-government protest, even angry anti-government protest, out of the sphere of acceptable debate. The government still engages in plenty of acts and policies—including one-sided violence against its own citizens—that are well worth our anger, protest, and condemnation.
via reason.com
Weber’s reason for disapproving the application was, “concern from public. Don’t trust him.” The following year Weber also denied Alexander Dorr’s application for a permit and informed Paul Dorr that he would deny any further applications from him.
Weber testified that he had heard people refer to Paul as “a whacko, delusional, a nut job, a spook, and narcissist,” Bennett’s decision noted. “Regardless of the adjective used to describe Paul, however, Sheriff Weber stated that Paul’s ‘lousy’ reputation was due to his political activities of writing letters to the editor and distributing fliers.”
The ruling continued, “Giving Sheriff Weber more deference than is due his elected status, the court finds that Sheriff Weber denied Paul’s application for a concealed weapons permit not because of the content of his First Amendment activity but because it was effective and agitated many members of the local community.”
And, Bennett said, “In denying Paul a concealed weapons permit, Sheriff Weber single-handedly hijacked the First Amendment and nullified its freedoms and protections. Ironically, Sheriff Weber, sworn to uphold the Constitution, in fact retaliated against a citizen of his county who used this important freedom of speech and association precisely in the manner envisioned by the founding members of our nation …
“In doing so, this popularly elected Sheriff, who appears to be a fine man and an excellent law enforcement officer, in all other regards, blatantly caved in to public pressure and opinion and, in doing so, severely trampled the Constitution and Paul’s First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. This is a great reminder that the First Amendment protects the sole individual who may be a gadfly, kook, weirdo, nut job, whacko, and spook, with the same force of protection as folks with more majoritarian and popular views.”
via siouxcityjournal.com
I don’t call an officer who uses his power to punish someone he doesn’t like a “fine man” and an “excellent” officer.
Posted via email from crasch’s posterous
Weber’s reason for disapproving the application was, “concern from public. Don’t trust him.” The following year Weber also denied Alexander Dorr’s application for a permit and informed Paul Dorr that he would deny any further applications from him.
Weber testified that he had heard people refer to Paul as “a whacko, delusional, a nut job, a spook, and narcissist,” Bennett’s decision noted. “Regardless of the adjective used to describe Paul, however, Sheriff Weber stated that Paul’s ‘lousy’ reputation was due to his political activities of writing letters to the editor and distributing fliers.”
The ruling continued, “Giving Sheriff Weber more deference than is due his elected status, the court finds that Sheriff Weber denied Paul’s application for a concealed weapons permit not because of the content of his First Amendment activity but because it was effective and agitated many members of the local community.”
And, Bennett said, “In denying Paul a concealed weapons permit, Sheriff Weber single-handedly hijacked the First Amendment and nullified its freedoms and protections. Ironically, Sheriff Weber, sworn to uphold the Constitution, in fact retaliated against a citizen of his county who used this important freedom of speech and association precisely in the manner envisioned by the founding members of our nation …
“In doing so, this popularly elected Sheriff, who appears to be a fine man and an excellent law enforcement officer, in all other regards, blatantly caved in to public pressure and opinion and, in doing so, severely trampled the Constitution and Paul’s First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. This is a great reminder that the First Amendment protects the sole individual who may be a gadfly, kook, weirdo, nut job, whacko, and spook, with the same force of protection as folks with more majoritarian and popular views.”
via siouxcityjournal.com
I don’t call an officer who uses his power to punish someone he doesn’t like a “fine man” and an “excellent” officer.
Posted via email from crasch’s posterous
All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowd. You can’t threaten to kill the president. You can’t publish someone else’s words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.
But we don’t like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that certain restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth.
We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.
But when it comes further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions.
Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are “reasonable.” The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns — all handguns — is reasonable, even though the Supreme Court has now said otherwise.
via dailykos.com
Posted via email from crasch’s posterous
via waterloolabs.blogspot.com
“Here’s the second episode from Waterloo Labs. This time we are playing Half-Life (well, the flash version at least), with a real gun. Using accelerometers and LabVIEW, we can triangulate the position of where a bullet hits a piece of drywall and use that location to generate a mouse click in the game, which has been projected onto the wall.”
Posted via web from crasch’s posterous
via kevinthomason.blogspot.com
Via Declan McCullagh.
Posted via web from crasch’s posterous
Pro border control folks often bristle when you accuse them of being anti-immigrant.
“I’m not anti-immigration, I’m anti-illegal immigration. I have no problem with immigration, so long as they follow our laws, and don’t try to jump the line.”
You know what–they’re right. It’s not fair to accuse them of being against all immigration.
It’s just like how Obama is often accused of being anti-gun. But Obama isn’t opposed to all gun ownership. He only opposes illegal gun ownership.
Granted, in Obama’s utopia, it takes 10 years and $20,000 to buy a gun. In most cases, you can get a gun only if one of your relatives already owns a gun, or you’re sponsored by a business willing to pay thousands in attorney’s fees. Temporary permits that let you shoot only at certain gun ranges are capped at a few thousand each year, allocated by lottery.
But these are mere common sense restrictions on gun ownership. Just imagine what would happen if we relaxed gun laws. Poor people would buy guns. Uneducated people would buy guns. Many of them would commit crimes. Do you really want poor, uneducated people owning a gun in your neighborhood? Just look at how many of them already buy guns illegally! We can’t allow people who disrespect our laws to own a gun! Only until we’ve secured the existing black market in guns, can we possibly consider increasing legal gun ownership.
You say you’re at risk from a stalker? You own a convenience store in a bad neighborhood? Well, that’s no excuse for disobeying the law. You should stand in line with everyone else. Or hire a security guard. Or maybe you should’ve treated your ex better or spent a little more time cleaning up your neighborhood. If you had, maybe you wouldn’t need a gun in the first place.
And what about all the security guards, police officers, and other people who would lose their jobs if any shmoe on the street could just buy a gun himself? Do you want to put these hardworking Americans out of a job, just so some poor, uneducated slob can own a gun?
And what about the terrorists? Without strict gun laws, what’s to prevent Osama II from just strolling into a gun shop and buying a gun?
No, we must strictly vet every gun owner. Only then can we prevent terrorists from buying guns.
But just because Obama supports such common sense gun laws doesn’t mean he’s anti-gun ownership. That’s a calumny. He fully supports legal gun ownership. He’s merely anti illegal guns.
Just like pro-border control folks are merely anti illegal immigration.