So Long and Thanks for All the Fish


It’s about time Piers Morgan took a hike.

Arrogant Euro-snob Piers Morgan bade a farewell to his American CNN audiences Friday after tanking his show’s ratings for several years with preachy rhetoric, boring harangue and abuse of guests with whom he disagreed.

via So Long and Thanks for All the Fish.

Second Amendment win!


The great Dave Kopel reports that just minutes ago California’s Ninth Circuit Court has affirmed the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.

The Court decided, according to Kopel, that the requirement to show the authorities “good cause” in order to carry one’s tool of self defense in public was in violation of the Second Amendment. Prior to this decision, San Diego County interpreted this phrase to mean that anyone who wishes to exercise their Second Amendment rights in public must face current specific threats and claimed that “one’s personal safety alone is not considered ‘good cause’.”

The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The opinion is here.

The Court specifically says that the Second Amendment secures the right not only to “keep” arm  but also to “bear” them – a verb the meaning of which, according to the 2008 Heller decision means “to carry.” It meant “to carry” at the time of the creation of the Constitution, and it means the same thing now. And no, it doesn’t mean just “to transport,” but to “wear, bear or carry upon the person for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of a conflict with another person. The Court also points out that anyone with half a brain and knowledge of the English language understands that carrying or “bearing” is not limited to the home, and it cites several cases, including Heller, to point out that it’s quite obvious that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to carry their arms outside the home.

The Court made it clear that they’re not saying Heller requires every state to permit concealed carry, but rather it requires that states permit “some form” of carry for self defense outside the home.

Score for the Second Amendment!

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” and San Diego County’s insistence that anyone wishing to carry outside the home show that they’re somehow in immediate danger and present proof that their life is threatened was quite obviously an infringement.

To be sure, my own opinion is that “shall not be infringed” means just that, and while background checks and training requirements are all well and good, they’re certainly not going to stop gang bangers and other thuglets from carrying wherever and whenever they want – without a license or a permit. Meanwhile, those Californians who abide by the law, will be waiting around for their permits to arrive and for the county to perform their background check, making them vulnerable prey for predators wanting to victimize them.

So, do I think the decision in Peruta v. San Diego is optimal?


Do I think the battle is over?

Far from it.

Do I think this is a step in the right direction?

You bet!

Let’s keep fighting!

Time to take on a dumbass


I generally have nothing but respect for people who make the commitment to serve in the military. We sacrifice. We take an oath – a solemn promise to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I still live by that oath. I took it in my civilian life as well, and I am committed to it.

And while, most of us who serve and have served take that oath seriously, there are some fat, arrogant swine who somehow managed to suck enough cock to make the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and use their uniform to help destroy the very Constitution they swore to protect. Such is this… thing… Robert Bateman, who recently published an anti-gun, anti-constitution screed in Esquire advocating the complete evisceration of the Second Amendment. Now, he does state that the vile spew he published does not reflect the views of the Army or the DoD, but he certainly leans on his rank enough, as if it gives him more authority.

So yes, it’s time to talk about guns – as if that hasn’t dominated the national conversation every time some murderous freak decides to grab a firearm and destroy innocent lives.

My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence. There are no two ways around that fact. My job, at the end of the day, is about killing. I orchestrate violence.

You’re doing it wrong, fuckbat. Your job is to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same…” If that goal requires violence, so be it. But your job is to defend this nation, not to orchestrate violence, asshole. GET OUT OF MY ARMY!

I am not proud of that fact. Indeed, I am often torn-up by the realization that not only is this my job, but that I am really good at my job.

Then what the flying hell are you doing in my military, shitbag? Why the festering, putrid fuck are you infecting our proud Army? Oh! Must be the benefits, and the schmucks who have to salute you on a daily basis. Must be the salary, and the fact that you get to live in England… Oh, he lives in England? That would explain much. Once again, if you’re not proud to be defending America’s national interests, America’s Constitution and Americans’ rights, GET OUT OF MY ARMY!

And for that, frankly speaking, I am embarrassed by our Supreme Court.

Yeah, well good news, shitbag. We’re embarrassed to be paying you to defend our rights. GET OUT OF MY ARMY!

The people who sit on a nation’s Supreme Court as supposed to be the wisest among us. They are supposed to be the men and women who understand and speak plainly about the most difficult topics confronting our nation. Our Supreme Court, however, has been failing us, as their actions have been almost the exact opposite of this ideal.

Well, they were until the “wise Latina” was appointed to the bench, while claiming that courts make policy, along with her pal Kagan, who refused to recuse herself from the ObamaCare case, despite documented proof of her bias, but we digress…

Five of the nine members of the Supreme Court agreed that the part in the Second Amendment which talks about “A Well Regulated Militia, Being Necessary To The Security Of A Free State…” did not matter. In other words, they flunked basic high school history.

No, you arrogant, pedantic fucktard. It means they actually speak plain English – a skill which you apparently lack. Ergo, we’re going to turn to the late Professor Roy Copperud, who spoke with J. Neil Schulman more than 20 years ago now.  Who is Roy Copperud? Obviously, someone much more educated than LTC Robert Bateman, who apparently lacks basic English skills, even as he accuses Supreme Court Justices of failing basic high school history. Copperud was a writer on major dailies for more than 30 years before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. He wrote a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, was on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cited him as an expert. Copperud’s fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award.

So yeah. Bateman couldn’t match wits with Copperud on this best day.

So what does the Second Amendment really mean? Roy Copperud explained it pretty clearly.

[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

“In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”

[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

[Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

[Schulman:] “(4) Does the clause ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ grant a right to the government to place conditions on the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?”

[Copperud:] “(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.”

[Schulman:] “(5) Which of the following does the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ mean: ‘well-equipped’, ‘well-organized,’ ‘well-drilled,’ ‘well-educated,’ or ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority’?”

[Copperud:] “(5) The phrase means ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority;’ this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.”

[Schulman:] “(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.”

[Copperud:] “To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.’

[Schulman:] “As a ‘scientific control’ on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’

“My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

“(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and

“(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict ‘the right of the people to keep and read Books’ only to ‘a well-educated electorate’ — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?”

[Copperud:] “(1) Your ‘scientific control’ sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

“(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.”

And yet here was Bateman – a pathetic O-5 – misinterpreting (or lying about) the plain meaning of the language in the Bill of Rights to promote his odious political views. In public. In a national magazine. Using his rank and his job (which he doesn’t understand) as a crutch, because he has no credibility whatsoever.

The lengths to which Justice Scalia had to go in his attempt to rewrite American history and the English language are as stunning as they are egregious. In essence, what he said about the words written by the Founding Fathers was, “Yeah, they didn’t really mean what they said.”

You have got to be fking kidding me. Seriously? You spent nearly 4,000 words to deny the historical reality of thirteen words? That, sir, is an embarrassingly damning indictment not just of you, but of an educational system that failed to teach history.

It certainly sounds like Scalia got it right, according to not just a renowned language expert, but also some of the best legal minds (liberal ones) in the country.

But just so we are all clear on this, let me spell it out for the rest of you. During the American Civil War, a topic about which I know a little bit, we had a system of state militias. They formed the basis of the army that saved the United States. For most of the first year, and well into the second, many of the units raised by the states were created entirely or in part from militia units that predated the war. But even when partially “regulated,” militias are sloppy things. They do not always work well outside their own home states, and in our own history and in our Revolutionary War, it was not uncommon for militia units to refuse to go out of their own state. In the Spanish-American war the way around this limitation was for “interested volunteers” to resign, en masse, from their militia units and then sign up — again en masse — as a “volunteer” unit. It was a cumbersome solution to a 123-year-old problem.

Which is why, in 1903 Congress passed the Militia Act. Friends, if you have not read it I’ll just tell you: As of 1903, the “militia” has been known as the National Guard.

Well, gee, thanks for that little history lesson, professor!

They are “well regulated,” and when called to do so as they have been these past twelve years, they can fight like demons. I am proud of them. And I am ashamed that Justice Scalia thinks that they do not exist.

Apparently, this bag of fuck still doesn’t comprehend the English language. Not only does the militia exist, but it has several compositions and classes, and it is not just the National Guard.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
     (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
     (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Did we forget that little bit?

Or are we so frothing in our zeal to take a large, steaming dump on the very rights and freedoms we swore to defend, that we simply did what we accused Scalia of doing – being ignorant?

Guns are tools. I use these tools in my job. But like all tools one must be trained and educated in their use.

I still remember the overweight, bald Lieutenant Colonel, at my MRX during the Bosnia deployment, who asked me how you lock the bolt to the rear on an M-16 A2 rifle. I also remember another bald, stupid LTC who argued with me about the spelling of “en route” (he claimed it was one word and demanded I change it in a report I was writing). So frankly, the fact that he’s somehow made O-5 doesn’t impress me.  I don’t put too much stock in what this douchenugget claims must happen. I know that the vast majority of gun owners are trained and educated. I know that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible human beings, who understand and respect these tools. And I know that even professionals, who use these tools in their jobs have negligent discharges at unacceptable rates.

Weapons are there for the “well regulated militia.” Their use, therefore, must be in defense of the nation.

In defense of the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic? The same enemies who would relieve the People of their rights? That defense?

Shooting and killing somebody because they were not “upset enough” over the loss of a college football team should not be possible in our great nation. Which is why I am adding the following “Gun Plank” to the Bateman-Pierce platform. Here are some suggestions:

The suggestions are just what you would expect. I’m not even going to quote them here, because they’re so absurd, so unconstitutional and so unlikely to even be introduced in any kind of legislation, that one must wonder what the hell this elderly hippie was inhaling when he came up with this list!

Not only does this cuntlip think that the People whose rights he took a solemn oath to defend should only own firearms no newer than two centuries ago, but he’s too stupid to understand that “a well regulated militia” is NOT ABOUT HUNTING!

This cumcracker doesn’t even understand plain English, but feels himself qualified to somehow advocate the destruction of a basic, constitutional right – a right that he swore a solemn oath to support and defend!

And he’s using his uniform and his rank to give his atrocious lunacy some kind of cred?

The comments are more than instructive in response to this vapid spew. Bateman not only calls anyone who points out his ignorance “deficient,” among other things, but also makes statements that are so blatantly bigoted, one must wonder how this fuckpencil got the rank he did!

GET OUT OF MY ARMY, you puffed up dildoplunger! Just. Get. Out.

A SIDE NOTE: I disagree with Professor Copperud on the meaning of “well regulated” in the context of the Second Amendment. I do agree with his reasoning for defining the phrase in that manner, but writings (particularly by Hamilton in Federalist 29)  indicate, it actually means well-maintained and trained:

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Nanny Bloomberg sticking his nose in the Old Dominion’s business… again.


Readers of this blog are familiar with our opinion of “former Republican” Stalinist yankee lawn gnome and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg (Summary: it ain’t good.) He’s spending close to $2 million trying to defeat Ken Cuccinelli, the pro-liberty, pro-gun, RLCVA-endorsed Republican gubernatorial candidate this year, due to his having the audacity to stand against the Gnome’s plans to eventually disarm us all. That’s bad enough. But to make matters worse, now, he’s pouring in over $1 million to defeat pro-liberty, pro-gun, RLCVA-endorsed Republican attorney general candidate Mark Obenshain, for the same reasons.

I have had more than enough of this clown interfering in Virginia politics. From trying to ban large size sugary beverages to his ceaseless assault on our Second Amendment-guaranteed liberties, the Gnome is wrong on practically every single public policy issue of any consequence. It’s bad enough that he may succeed in making Terry McAuliffe, a contemptible human being if ever there was one, the next governor of the Old Dominion, but he’s now trying to help Mark Herring, a standard issue anti-gun Democrat state senator, come from behind to defeat Obenshain. Folks, I’ve had occasion to meet Mark Obenshain a bunch of times during the campaign. We don’t agree on every single thing, just as I don’t with Ken Cuccinelli, Rand Paul or anyone else. That said, he’s honest, forthright, down to earth, and actually listens when you talk with him. He understands the value of personal liberty, and that it’s actually possible to respect it while simultaneously doing the job of enforcing the law. He knows who he is, what he believes, and why he believes it, and is actually dedicated to public service in the finest traditions of our Commonwealth. He’s also the only statewide candidate of the seven out there to have run a relentlessly positive, upbeat, issues-based campaign. He’s actually focused on why he wants to be Attorney General and what he’ll do with the job when he gets it.

We cannot simply stand by and permit anti-liberty out-of-state influences like the Gnome to have this kind of impact unopposed. To that end, I’ll just share the image from Mark’s campaign that came out earlier today (click on it) and you’ll know what to do:


And get out on Tuesday, November 5th, and VOTE VOTE VOTE for Mark Obenshain… and Ken Cuccinelli. Talk to everyone you know who’s undecided. Convince them, and do what you can to make sure THEY get out to support Ken and Mark.

And as for Michael Bloomberg, he needs to get lost and stay there, permanently. People like him have made places like NYC and most of the Northeast into what it is today. Let’s not allow them to do the same to Virginia.

A mistrial in the Grisham case


As many of you will remember, an acquaintance of mine was arrested by police a few months ago for lawfully carrying his AR-15 rifle on a hike with his son. CJ Grisham was doing nothing illegal. He threatened no one. He was on a peaceful hike with his kid, when some hysterical twit saw the rifle and shat her underpants, leading to a police call.

What ensued was an arrest, recorded by CJ’s son, in which the statist fatass dressed in uniform tells him people don’t care what the law is, admits he knows Grisham was doing nothing illegal and accuses him of “rudely” asserting his rights. He also grabbed the rifle. He didn’t ask CJ to put it down or hand it over. He grabbed it.

Lovely, right?

Well, they attempted to charge CJ with an assorted ton of crap, including disorderly conduct displaying a firearm and interfering with the duties of a “peace officer,” after they figured out they couldn’t charge him with the former. There was also the spurious accusation of walking on the wrong side of the road.

The complaint went through three amendments of the charges, starting with resisting arrest, then changed to a violation of the disorderly conduct statute – rude display of a weapon in a manner calculated to cause alarm – and ended with the charge of interfering with a public official as he was trying to perform his appointed duty, that of disarming a soldier loudly protesting the loss of his weapon to a police officer unwilling to acknowledge that he could legally possess a firearm though he has a concealed carry permit for handguns.

CJ chose to go to trial rather than set a negative precedent of being bullied into admitting a crime he did not commit, and on Friday, the judge declared a mistrial, after a jury of 6 could not agree on a verdict after two days of deliberations.

{Defense Attorney Blue] Rannefeld said the length of time the jury deliberated showed that Grisham committed no crime.

“We went out there to do a 10-mile hike,” Grisham said at a post-verdict news conference. “There wasn’t any law broken.”

Grisham said he has no plans to accept any plea offers in order to avoid a second, third or fourth trial.

“I will go through this as many times as the county wants,” Grisham said. “I will fight for liberty and freedom.”

Rannefeld said he hopes the issue of being able to openly carry a rifle or shotgun, which is not strictly prohibited under Texas law nor explicitly allowed, will be clarified by the Legislature.

The case is scheduled to be retried next month on November 18. I’m having a hard time believing that this prosecutor would continue wasting taxpayer dollars on a case where no crime was committed just to assert his AUTHORITAH! in the matter. But I don’t suppose I should be surprised. A misdemeanor turned into a high profile case such as this would be a nasty little black mark on his record of statist prosecution.

I also find it instructive that the jury was deadlocked 5-1 in favor of CJ Grisham’s innocence. One juror hung the jury. One juror who I believe was so obviously biased and disgustingly anti-Second Amendment that it would vote to convict an innocent man and destroy his military career just to support its political views!

Because having watched the video of the arrest, I cannot believe anyone with half a brain cell would vote to convict CJ Grisham!

Nonetheless, one juror apparently decided this was the case in which it would exert its political muscle, and while I hope that the prosecutor will just give it up, I have a feeling this particular prosecutor is an authoritarian swine that will keep going.

Good luck, CJ! We’re all pulling for you, for your family, for our freedoms and for our system of justice!

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: