Registration constitutional?


Just received an interesting article from Dan Gifford.  Read carefully, please.  Here’s an excerpt.

Mandatory gun regulation has long been the bête noire of Second
Amendment advocates, who worry that it’s the final step before firearm

The surprise is that, even after last year’s landmark Supreme Court ruling
on gun rights, mandatory registration could be constitutional. It may
not be the wisest public policy. It may not be practical. But after the
D.C. v. Heller decision, it also may not violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

That question is at the heart of a second lawsuit underway against
the city of Washington, D.C. It also arose last week when the U.S.
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago said
that the Second Amendment poses no barrier to mandatory regulation
because it does not “invalidate any and every regulation on gun use.”

Even some pro-gun scholars and advocates reluctantly agree. “I
think under the Heller decision, registration would be constitutional,”
Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Wash., told this week. “It doesn’t make it good public policy.”

This isn’t a mere abstraction: four years ago, after Hurricane
Katrina laid waste to much of New Orleans, local police, the national
guard, and U.S. Marshals began breaking into homes at gunpoint and confiscating lawfully-owned firearms.

“Registration is probably not unconstitutional,” says Don Kilmer, an attorney in San Jose, Calif. who has sued two California counties

Part of this conclusion stems from the approach that the pro-gun
side adopted when suing to overturn the District of Columbia’s handgun
ban. To make their case appealing to as many Supreme Court justices as
possible, the attorneys shouldered the legal equivalent of a rifle
instead of a shotgun, and argued only for Americans’ right to

for denying law-abiding citizens permits to carry concealed weapons.
“There’s a difference between registration as a permissible regulation
and registration as good policy.”
possess firearms for self-defense — not for the right to avoid registering them.


Yeah, it’s all about the race

1 Comment

New York governor David Paterson is a douchebag.  You heard it here first.

Well… OK… the New York Daily News published it first, but I’m calling a spade a spade… Ooops!  That’s got to be racist.  I mean, I’m calling a douchebag a douchebag.

Gov. Paterson
blamed a racist media Friday for trying to push him out of next year’s
election – launching into an angry rant that left even some black
Democrats shaking their heads.

“The whole idea is to get me not
to run in the primary,” Paterson complained on a morning radio show
hosted by Daily News columnist Errol Louis.

He suggested that Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the country’s only other African-American governor, also is under fire because of his race.

“We’re not in the post-racial period,” Paterson said.

It couldn’t be the fact that New York has ballooning budget deficits and the governor can’t seem to spend within his means.  It couldn’t be that this guy can’t manage his own state and has approval ratings lower than Bush’s when he was still in office at the end of his second term.  It wasn’t the fact that this fetid retard tried to push through a bill as state senator that would require cops to shoot to wound, rather than using deadly force.  The guy is a complete blibbering fuckwit, and yet, it’s not his fuckwittery that is making his own party turn away from him, but racism!

Never mind that the two Paterson critics quoted in the above-linked story are actually African American, and even they think he’s a dumbass!

It’s not your skin, Davey.  It’s your complete lack of intellect, skill, ability and leadership.

Unintended Consequences


I’m not a big fan of cowardice or compromise.  I’ve been very critical of the NRA in the past for its gradualist approach to restoring and protecting our gun rights, and anyone who has been reading this blog for any amount of time knows how I feel about infringements on our rights.

But you all also know that I favor common sense.  I favor exhausting all options before starting an all out war with our opponents.  I don’t believe it’s time for the ammo box.

I also believe in using all strategies when fighting for our gun rights.  I believe in fighting smart.  Sometimes that battle does require “in-your-face” tactics, and when that is the case, I’m all for it.  I absolutely support the Second Amendment March. I support the efforts of VCDL when they work to protect those who choose to open carry their firearms and educate the “powers that be” about gun rights.  I support the right of law-abiding citizens to carry firearms in any manner they desire – whether in the open or concealed.

But I don’t believe in creating problems where there are none.  I don’t believe, for example, in provoking police into action like some groups do, where one open carries and a friend calls the cops and acts frantic that there’s someone with a gun in the vicinity, prompting police action against the carrying individual.

Yes, the gay rights movement has had great success with in your face tactics.  They’ve done well with pride parades and other efforts.  But I would also submit that when they specifically target churches, stage boycotts and pressure businesses that oppose them they’re not winning themselves too many supporters.

I spent a good part of my life in Europe.  The first time I saw two women walking down the street hand-in-hand and kiss, I was a bit shocked.  I stared.  I couldn’t believe it.  After a while, it didn’t matter.  I no longer considered it shocking.  It was just something people did when they cared about one another – they sometimes walked while holding hands, and they sometimes kissed.  And it was no big deal.

So it is with gun rights.  I’ve seen some criticism about my blog post about the group in Arizona whose members showed up at an Obama event carrying guns, with one guy sporting an AR (and no, it’s not a friggin’ automatic killing machine sported by racists, MSNBC!).  As I said before, legally I have no problem with what this group did.  They had every right to do so, and the law enforcement authorities in the area knew and understood that.

But was it a smart strategy?

On one hand, the group showed a large crowd of people that they had nothing to fear from protesters, even if they were armed.  They exhibited no overtly threatening or obnoxious behavior.  This was a good thing.

On the other hand, they deliberately stepped into an already volatile situation in an effort to draw attention to themselves.  They succeeded.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) called on the Homeland SecurityDepartment and the U.S. Secret Service on Wednesday to provide tighterrestrictions on citizens carrying weapons, openly or concealed, whilein the vicinity of President Barack Obama.

Norton, who sits on the Homeland Security Committee, made therequest after numerous news reports have shown groups of peoplebrandishing firearms while outside of events held by Obama over thepast several weeks.

Here’s the problem.  Right now, anyone who opposes the liberal agenda is considered a nut, an extremist, a racist, a Nazi and even a terrorist!  They have majorities on the Hill, and one of their own in the White House.  They have the power and authority – if they wanted – to impose further controls. And they need very little excuse to do so. 

They need little reason to bring out the race card or foment panic by implying that there could be assassination attempts on the President’s life by those who oppose his agenda.

Recently, MSNBC host David Shustersimilarly saw protesters at health care town hall meetings as a threatto the President’s life, asking Democratic Congressman Jim Moran: “Isthis putting our president in some sort of danger because of some wackothat will see this stuff and say, ‘oh, yes, it’s fascism and the way wedealt with Adolf Hitler was to try to kill him, so therefore, let’s dothis with our president.'”

Is the media right?  Of course not!  MSNBC has reached new lows with their implications that the group in Arizona had racist motivations and attempting to hide the fact that the man carrying the rifle was actually black.

But will they cover this story with all the implications of assassinations and racism and terrorism they can possibly evoke?  Yes, they will.  They will foment as much anger and panic as possible, and I guarandamntee you that in the end, their attempts at portraying law-abiding gun owners as a threat to the president will result in more restrictions for gun owners who do wish to carry their firearms in or near the President or any of the legisleeches.

Sometimes I carry open, and sometimes I carry concealed, depending on what I’m wearing that day.  I don’t make a big deal out of it.  It’s not a political statement on my part.  It’s just what I do.  People see it.  I’ve never had a problem.  I can see that it bothers no one to see a woman go about her business peaceably, shopping with her kids, going to the movies, etc. while carrying a gun.  It’s just not a problem.  My purpose is not to deliberately shove the fact that I have a right to carry in the faces of others.  My purpose is simply to do it.

It’s a subtle distinction, but it’s an important one.

There’s a time and a place to make your point.

Would I choose to open carry into a situation already fraught with massive amounts of emotion, knowing the media and politicians will exploit any opposition to the liberal agenda as racist, terrorist and dangerous, whether it’s true or not?  No.  I don’t think it’s wise.

While the folks in Arizona were well-spoken and peaceable.  They exercised their rights.  They brought attention to the fact that the citizenry has nothing to fear from armed people.

But on the other hand, they may have caused something that wasn’t a problem, according to the Secret Service, to become a problem.  While Eleanor Holmes Norton’s demand that regulations on carrying firearms be tightened around her Marxists Messiah may be viewed as little to no threat, that demand combined with constant media screeching about possible dangers to the President’s life, the parade of Southern Poverty Law Center “experts” yapping about racism, could lead to tighter restrictions.

I sincerely hope it doesn’t, but there’s a good chance it will.

And the unintended consequence of this group’s tactics could be more restriction not less.

Virgin Mobile problem resolved


When I wrote my last entry about Virgin Mobile, I didn’t figure I’d get a response, let alone a resolution. 

I’m pleasantly surprised and gratified to let you guys know that the issue has been resolved.

As I reported yesterday, I did get an email from a very nice lady at Virgin Mobile who offered to put me in touch with someone at their headquarters.  I did give her my contact information, and another very nice lady actually contacted me today.  I was impressed that she was able to resolve my issue so easily, and I did advise her that maybe they should make it a bit easier to get to a live human on their contact line.

The problem was with the timing of my cancellation of my kids’ accounts.  Not exactly Virgin Mobile’s fault – more like a bank issue than anything.  But had someone explained that to me when I called, I would have been a lot more understanding. I told her that as well.

The good news is that the problem has been resolved, and I’m happy to report that sometimes things DO work out for the best.

Open carry at town halls and other public events


Most of you who know me also know that I’m a 100 percent proponent of gun rights.  No compromise.  The Second Amendment says what it says.  The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution, and no tyrannical government swine has the right to infringe upon that right.

I stood up for the right of Meleanie Hain to open carry her handgun at her kid’s soccer game.

I supported Mark Marchiafava when he was unlawfully detained and abused by Gonzales police while legally open carrying his firearm.

I will absolutely stand up for everyone’s right to carry – whether open or concealed – without harassment from hoplophobic gun grabbers or their government lapdogs.  However, I’m also a fan of judicious behavior, and I really think the judiciousness was lacking here.

About a dozen people carrying guns,
including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters
outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a
speech Monday—the latest incidents in which protesters have openly
displayed firearms near the president.

Gun-rights advocates say
they’re exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest,
while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.

Phoenix police said the gun-toters at
Monday’s event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic
rifle slung over his shoulder, didn’t need permits. No crimes were
committed, and no one was arrested.

There’s a good and bad here.  The good is that these law-abiding citizens demonstrated that people do not cause chaos or commit crimes merely because they’re armed.  They showed the cowardly gun grabbers that peaceable citizens’ nature doesn’t change merely because they happen to be carrying a weapon in the open.

But here’s the thing.  We, gun owners, need to exercise some common sense along with exercising our rights.  Mark and Ms. Hain carried their weapons, because it’s what they always do.  It is their right.  They were exercising it peacefully.  They weren’t trying to make a point or shove their right into others’ faces. 

This is not what the people open carrying at the Obama speech were doing.  They were exhibiting their in-your-face attitude of “It’s my right, and you can’t do shit about it!”  And while I support their right to do it, I do question the judgment that compels someone to intentionally stick their guns and their rights in someone’s face.

Are the people who were freaked out by the guns cowards? Indubitably.

Do I oppose open carry among them?  Absolutely not.

Do I heartily support open carry just for the sake of shoving the fact that we can in their face?  No.

While the people at the event did nothing wrong legally, I do question their decision to do so.  “We’re armed.  Get used to it,” is a courageous and honorable attitude, but it won’t win over those who are on the fence, and it’s a bad public relations strategy (as well as being tactically unwise).

As someone on Alphecca said this morning:

While part of me says “Tough noogies”, another part wants the debate to
occur without the histrionics and high-emotion, without the
name-calling and the shouts of “Nazism” and frankly, without the “I’ve
got a gun and I’m not afraid to use it and this is my opinion — in your

We have a lot of issues to debate in this country, folks.  Many of us don’t like what’s going on.  We need to foster healthy debate, without hysterical nonsense, in your face tactics and partisan attacks.  Tactics such as the ones demonstrated at that event do not help gun owners and they do nothing to promote healthy discussion about gun rights or any other topic.

Let the flaming begin.  I’m sure there will be plenty of disagreement here.

Virgin Mobile are complete and total douchebags (UPDATED)


Normally, I’m not one to complain on a public site about a company that’s merely trying to make a profit.  However, given Virgin Mobile‘s complete lack of regard for their customers, crappy service and tendency to have live advisers whose IQ is roughly equivalent to that of particularly rancid plant life, I’m going to make an exception.

I have to say, when I first told my kids that they could get cell phones, the pay-as-you-go plans Virgin Mobile had offered seemed like a really good idea.  I soon found out just how shitty their service really is.

First of all… let’s start with the fact that their idiot service would randomly deplete their accounts, when they hadn’t even used their phones, forcing me to call and top up their accounts.  I clearly remember topping up Teeny’s account at 1600 hours a few months ago, and having several dollars depleted from that account just a few minutes later when I checked back.  I’ve had to call and deal with their complete incompetent staff more than once, because their stupid website charged my card extra money.  And when you call… OH. MY. GOD.  It’s nearly impossible to actually get a live person on the line!  Absolutely impossible!  Only after literally yelling obscenities at their recorded moron voice activated “service” was I able to get to a live “adviser,” who is likely nothing but a 19 year old kid, barely making minimum wage. 

Shit! No wonder these festering boils on the ass of phone service everywhere don’t want you talking to a live representative!  They’re too amazingly stupid to deal with customers!

So Saturday, I called and finally canceled their accounts.  Their father had gotten them new cell phones, and put them on his account.  It took several minutes to get the dumbass voice activated “service” to connect me to someone who would disconnect my service, but once I did, it was painless…

Or so I thought.

This morning I log into my bank account only to find out that after I had called and canceled the kids’ accounts, the shitslurping morons had accessed my credit card one last time and withdrew nearly $50 out of my bank account!!!

That prompted another call to Virgin Mobile and their incompetent staff – and yet more aggravation on my part.

AUTOMATED VOICE: Hello!  We’re an automated service, and we’re here to help you!  No really!  Don’t laugh!  Para Espagnol, presso some-o stupido numero!  Now tell us what you want to do. To give us more of your money, say, “give you more of my money.” To fix a problem with your phone, say, “Please connect me to a completely unhelpful technician.” To connect your new service, say “connect service.”

AUTOMATED VOICE: Pressing zero is not an option.  Here are your options again…

After five minutes of listening to automated voice repeat worthless options yet again – several times – I finally yelled something to the effect of, “CONNECT ME TO A LIVE PERSON YOU MOTHERFUCKERS!”

At that point the automated voice went into another slew of options, ostensibly to let it know which live adviser I should be connected to – as if they all weren’t incompetent crotchmonkeys!  After yelling yet another obscenity at the automated voice, I was finally connected to a live human, which makes me wonder if they don’t have operators listening in on the calls, ready to immediately connect the customer to a human being the moment they feel like the customer is about ready to drive to their headquarters in Bangladesh somewhere and shove a large cactus up their collective asses.

LIVE (although possibly brain dead) HUMAN NAMED RACHEL: Hello.  My name is Rachel.  How may I help you today?

ME: Hi.  I have a problem.  I closed my kids’ accounts on Saturday, but somehow you people withdrew another $50 from my bank account this morning, and I’d like to have that money back, please.  (Yes, I was initially that polite).

RACHEL: I’m sorry about the inconvenience.  What are the telephone numbers?

ME: Yes, they are…

RACHEL: I’m sorry about the inconvenience. Those accounts are closed.

ME: Yes, I know they are closed, but yet you people still withdrew money from my account this morning via my credit card, even though I closed the accounts on Saturday.

RACHEL: I’m sorry about the inconvenience. The withdrawal was made today?

ME: YES!  I’d like to have that money back please!

RACHEL: You will have to contact your bank and dispute those charges.

ME: I don’t understand.  You people withdrew money from my account.  Why can’t you just put it back?

RACHEL: Because those telephone accounts are closed!  So you will have to call your bank and dispute those charges.

ME: And then what happens?

RACHEL: And then nothing. We cannot retrieve that money, because those phone accounts are closed.  I’m sorry for the inconvenience.

ME (with hair about to catch fire from absolute fury): So you people closed the accounts on Saturday, had the means to access my account this morning and take money out of it, but now you claim you cannot give my money back because the account is closed???

RACHEL: Yes. I’m sorry about the inconvenience.

ME: I want to talk to your manager NOW!

RACHEL: I will connect you to my supervisor.  I’m sorry for the inconvenience.

At this point, I’m about ready to take Rachel’s head and shove it up the ass of a large, smelly mammal such as a rhinoceros or something.  I’m vividly picturing taking her by the hair and beating her face into a wall made entirely out of cheesegraters.  This numbskull proceeds to put me on hold until I thought I would start breaking apart furniture just to quell my uncontrollable rage.  She finally connects me to a supervisor, but not before getting BACK on the line, once AGAIN telling me that she will connect me to a supervisor and leaving things with an obligatory “I’m sorry for the inconvenience.”

If you think I’m joking, I assure you, I’m dead serious.  While the above conversation is not verbatim, it’s pretty damn close.

Oh… but the saga doesn’t end there.

The “supervisor,” who I’m convinced has escaped from a home for lower lifeforms then gets on the line and informs me that their computer systems are down right now, and he cannot access the accounts in question – something that idiot RACHEL claimed couldn’t happen because the accounts were closed!

After yet another apology for the “inconvenience,” this douchebag informs me that I need to call them back – yes, go through the entire voice activated “service” maze to get a live representative on the line and get yet another supervisor on the line!!  And no, this malodorous sweat gland on the ass of a camel didn’t have a direct line.  Nope.  I’d have to call back in a couple of hours when their computers were back up!

It is now three hours after my initial call, and their phone service won’t even pick up.  That’s right.  No service at all.

I still don’t have my money back.

First thing tomorrow morning I’m calling my bank.

Meanwhile, I would urge you folks to tell everyone you know that Virgin Mobile is nothing but a bunch of thieving assholes (the Redhead wants me to use the term “dingleberries on the butt of an elephant”) who do not deserve your money, who have no concept of customer service or respect for those who pay their salaries.

Their service is crap. 
Their staff and their customer support are incompetent.  They are not worth your time.

UPDATE: I got an email this afternoon from a very nice lady who ran across my blog, saw this post and who works for Virgin Mobile.  She offered to get their HQ team to help resolve this issue.  I guess we’ll see what happens.  It would sure be nice.

Looks like we finally found government spending the current administration doesn’t like



President Barack Obama criticized the defense industry and a free-spending Congress during a speech in downtown Phoenix Monday.

a speech to tens of thousands at the National Veterans of Foreign Wars
Convention, the president told veterans our tax dollars were being
wasted like America was still in the Cold War.

So Congress wastes billions on every other type of pork project imaginable, and the Magic Marxist doesn’t bother with critique.  But DEFENSE pork!  That’s bad!  We’re not in the Cold War anymore! 

Well, OK.  I can agree defense strategies are and should be different now that the Cold War has ended.  However, I’m one of those that can plainly see a resurgent Russia that will gain influence in its region gradually… slowly…  Do we need to dismantle our entire system of defense because we don’t view Russia as a threat?

Older Entries Newer Entries

%d bloggers like this: