Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 44 Next »

357blackhawk

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jan 11, 2017, 02:07 PM
Number of posts: 3,668

Journal Archives

The Rightand Dutyto Be At All Times Armed.

During the Viking Age, there was a man called Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker. The Lawspeaker’s office made him spokesmen for Swedes who owned their own farms—while not ‘citizens’ in our sense, they were a class of ordinary free people whose interests sometimes differed from those of their kings and lords. One such king, for reasons of pride, tried to draw Þorgnýr’s people into an unwanted war. This resulted in an outcry, and the king held a public meeting to persuade the people to go along. Þorgnýr spoke at this meeting, and reminded the King that seven previous kings had been drowned in a nearby well when they proved resistant to the advice of the people, and should reconsider his war.

And so he did.

Paradoxically, the right to revolution, rather than engendering turmoil, actually fosters internal stability. Of course, in the face of insistent kings, violent revolution is not out of the question. But by asserting a right to revolt, Þorgnýr stopped a king from launching a ruinous war.The right of revolution offers a counterbalance against those who wield the power of the state. It allows ordinary people to resist criminal cartels and similar groups. Revolutions sometimes come, but by far the greater effect is peace.

Politicians do not like to feel threatened, but the power of the people to overthrow them is philosophically legitimate and has historically been an important mechanism for both advancing liberty and ensuring stability.
Paradoxically, the right to revolution, rather than engendering turmoil, actually fosters internal stability. Of course, in the face of insistent kings, violent revolution is not out of the question. But by asserting a right to revolt, Þorgnýr stopped a king from launching a ruinous war.The right of revolution offers a counterbalance against those who wield the power of the state. It allows ordinary people to resist criminal cartels and similar groups. Revolutions sometimes come, but by far the greater effect is peace.

Politicians do not like to feel threatened, but the power of the people to overthrow them is philosophically legitimate and has historically been an important mechanism for both advancing liberty and ensuring stability.

https://humanevents.com/2019/09/23/the-right-and-duty-to-be-at-all-times-armed/
Posted by 357blackhawk | Sat Oct 5, 2019, 04:29 PM (4 replies)

New York Times Newsroom Infested With Bed Bugs

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/08/new-york-times-newsroom-infested-with-bed-bugs/#more-293461

I know President Donald Trump was joking when he said that he was “The Chosen One.” However, I am not so confident he can’t call down plagues upon the enemies of the American people.

The problem of bed bug infestation has been growing in this country. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the report is that these insects are found where people sleep, which could explain a lot of the New York Times recent editorial decisions.

If you dont understand Hebron and Safed 1929, you dont understand the conflict.

Ninety years ago, in 1929, Arabs went on a murderous anti-Jewish rampage in the British Mandate for Palestine, ransacking ancient Jewish communities in Hebron and Safed (Tzefat). In the course of the week, a total of 130 Jews were dead.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/08/90th-anniversary-of-arab-massacre-of-jews-in-hebron-and-safed/

Why nobody remembers Julio Gonzlez

even though he murdered 87 people with a gas can.

Some mass murders matter more than others. When a legally obtained firearm is used, authoritarians, grandstanding/fund raising politicians, and virtue signaling celebrities come out of the wood work. Murder a bunch of people with a gallon of gas or stolen police gun, nobody cares.

Of the 391 U.S. massacres of four or more victims since 2006 contained in the AP/USAT/NU database, 85 (or 22%) involved weapons other than a gun. Of course, none led to calls for banning gasoline and other accelerants or proposals to limit the size of knives. It is the politics and controversy surrounding gun control that highlight mass shootings above the rest.

Lack of attention is lack of respect
Whatever the reason, the lesser attention given to mass killings that do not invoke guns is disrespectful to the victims whose lives are tragically cut short. Is the crime any less serious if there were no gunshots? Are the victims any less dead? In fact, victims of burns, suffocation or stabbing often suffer a much slower and painful death than gunshot victims.

It is surely fruitless to assess the relative severity of mass killings on the basis of weaponry. Our sense of outrage and concern for the victims should be the same whether they died from a firearm or fire.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/07/23/kyoto-anime-mass-killing-highlights-media-preference-gun-violence-column/1795785001/

Lets Call The Liberals Second Amendment Militia Bluff

The Second Amendment is so clear and simple that only liberals, aided by a half-wit liberal law school professor-tariat that is to real lawyering as Jerry Nadler is to Chippendales, could pretend to be confused about its meaning with a straight face.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The whole “shall not be infringed” part is a real problem for the left, since collectivist Castro-channelers prefer that we Americans be defenseless serfs existing at the government’s (i.e., their) mercy when we should be armed, freedom-loving citizens with the personal firepower to veto their pinko utopian schemes. So, they fixate on the 2A’s passing reference to the militia, spinning a prefatory statement that recognizes that a militia is a good thing into a directive to cancel out the whole “citizens having guns” part of the Second Amendment.

In other words, to defeat its very purpose.

It’s a silly interpretation, and one that’s not even remotely asserted in good faith, but why not put aside all the constitutional arguments supporting our right to pack heat and just call their militia bluff? Maybe we should reinvigorate the concept of a militia in our great nation, if only to annoy liberals.

The Cowardice of Carlos Maza

Posted by 357blackhawk | Wed Jun 5, 2019, 09:16 PM (2 replies)

Are Pre-Crime Measures Absolutely Unethical?

Both political parties have placed their feet on this slippery slope in the past. The essence of pre-crime is punishing a citizen for what he or she is, rather than for what he or she has done, on the theory that what an individual is makes that person “dangerous,” in the words of Mrs. More, for what they might do. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (and the Supreme Court that backed him) was responsible for probably the worst example of pre-crime in our history, when the United States, in full panic mode after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, imprisoned loyal Japanese-American citizens as a precautionary measure. Another panic, also not entirely groundless, led to a pre-crime mentality during the Red Scare and McCarthy episodes, seeking to punish Americans who belonged to the dreaded Communist Party, a nonetheless legal organization.

To be abundantly clear, I will define pre-crime as when the government removes a civil right, a Constitutional right, from a citizen, not as punishment for breaking a law, but based on what that individual believes, says, is or is understood to be. The fate of registered sex offenders comes perilously close to pre-crime. Civil libertarians persuaded the courts in the Seventies that open-ended civil commitment to asylums based on diagnoses of insanity was pre-crime: they were being institutionalized to prevent incidents that had not occurred yet. (I had a great uncle who was institutionalized in his teens and spent his entire life in an asylum. When he was about 50, the staff determined that he had been misdiagnosed.) Provisions of the Patriot Act, which have led to the prosecution of Americans for “terroristic threats,” are forms of pre-crime .

Tragically, the Democratic Party, since FDR’s abuse of Japanese-Americans the nation’s traditional watch-dog against encroaching pre-crime, has of late embraced the concept in its mania to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights. Memorably, Democratic House members even staged a sit-in to demand that Americans placed on a terrorism watch list absent due process be prohibited from owning guns. Many of the gun regulations proposals regarding Americans with mental or emotional illnesses are pre-crime, some going so far as to declare citizens who are under the treatment of a psychiatrist must forfeit the right to bear arms. Such proposals punish people for what they are, rather than for what they have done, or are even likely to do.

Once the pre-crime barrier is decisively breached, totalitarianism becomes an existential threat to democracy. Such regimes maintain control by intimidating and punishing dissidents and members of opposition groups on the theory that such measures protect the public, meaning, of course, that they protect the entrenched power of the a nation’s rulers. This is why any hint of pre-crime in our laws and justice system must be viewed with extreme skepticism, and subjected to the most stringent civil rights analysis, and with extreme prejudice.

https://ethicsalarms.com/2019/06/03/are-pre-crime-measures-absolutely-unethical/
Posted by 357blackhawk | Wed Jun 5, 2019, 09:15 PM (7 replies)

abortion, guns, and PETA.

Conservatives want to be more like Europe when it comes to abortion, while liberals want to be more like Europe when it comes to guns. Meanwhile, PETA members are OK with New York and Virginia dragging us back to the Bronze Age. That I don't get.

Everybody wants to be Europe

Liberals want to be more like Europe when it comes to guns, and conservatives want to be more like Europe when it comes to abortion.

Gun Control: Is It Really About The Children?

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 44 Next »