Monthly Archives: December 2011

A Policy Abetting Murder

To the jerks at Circle K management:

So you fired Eric Henderson for fighting for his life against the lowlifes who tried rob your store AND threatened his life. Only in an alternate universe where good is evil and evil is good would it be possible to justify this indefensible action of firing a man from a job for defending his life, your suicidal corporate policy notwithstanding.

There are Circle K stores in my vicinity. Don’t expect me patronize them until I hear that you have publicly fired the individual or individuals who devised that above referenced policy and eliminated said policy. And readers of my blog will be encouraged to do likewise.

Go here and do likewise if you are so inclined.

h/t: David

Why Is One of My GOP Senator Trying to Help the TSA?

A portion of an legislative update email I received from Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) on December 16, 2011:

In addition, I joined Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (ID – CT), Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-ME), and Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) on Wednesday in introducing legislation to provide employment protections to Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) who are called up for active military duty. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, commonly known as USERRA, guarantees that when employees in both the private and public sector, who are also members of the National Guard, reservists, or veterans, are called to active duty, they can return to their civilian jobs when their service is complete.

There is no reason that TSA should not adhere to the same guidelines under USERRA that virtually all government agencies and businesses have to follow. We owe it to our nation’s National Guard members and Reservists to ensure that their jobs are protected when they sign on to sacrifice in defense of our safety and freedoms, and this bill represents a step in that direction. Click here to learn more about the bill.

Note how he joined Demonrats, an “Independent” (who’s essentially a Demonrat), and a RINO.

Here’s what I just sent him:

Senator Burr,

Please withdraw your support for USERRA protection of the incorrectly named “TSOs”. To begin with, they are not sworn officers and shouldn’t be referred to as officers. They are screeners and they were unjustifiably renamed to officers by the TSA in 2005, regardless of the fact that they receive no law enforcement training.

Based on the fact that TSA is one of many ever expanding overreaches of government, you should instead be advocating making the TSA the most unpleasant place to work in this country. Possibly only second to the ATF.

I understand your efforts to protect veterans, but due to the egregious infringement of human and constitutional rights by this agency, it deserves derision and nothing more. It should be abolished. I’d rather take my chances with the terrorists than the completely incompetent and tyrannical TSA.

You should instead be proposing a Senate version of Marsha Blackburn’s (R-Tenn.) H.R. 3608 which would prohibit TSA screeners from deceiving the public by impersonating law enforcement officers by way of their uniforms and badges.

$40 Should Buy About 160rds, I Believe

Regarding this, here’s my response:

Much like Davd Codrea of the National Gun Rights Examiner, I could buy some 7.62×39 mm FMJ Ammo to go with an AK-type rifle just like the ones your Justice Department allowed to be walked into Mexico.

Yup, it’s no game. And we WILL get to the bottom of it, stonewalling and damn lies from your administration notwithstanding.

Not that $40 matters, though. This is the proverbial finger in the Dike.

Obama and his minions want to put a bandaid on this, while the GOP wants to put a large gauze pad on it. All while what’s needed is a resurrection. Of principles. The current regime has none.

Let Me Get This Straight…

A quick thought.

Had a lively discussion with a friend over last weekend regarding HB822. This is a guy I took shooting for his first time (well, he participated in some reenactments (Revolutionary War or War Between the States, I don’t remember)) several months ago. He is apparently against the bill as he thinks it violates state sovereignty (i.e.: a violation of the 10th Amendment). But he’s from New Jersey, so I can forgive him for not fully grasping what a Constitutional Republic is. After all, being from the Volksrepublik of Massachusetts, it took me a while to really get it. And I’m still learning.

He set up a straw man argument saying that, assuming that a state’s laws are constitutional (a huge and largely incorrect assumption, in this case), then why should states not be able to set up their own rules for carrying a firearm?

My answer to that is that first, any restriction on keeping or bearing arms is unconstitutional, so the argument is moot in this case. However, New Jersey and New York (and really, Maryland, as well, but I don’t hear about them violating FOPA in practice like I do NJ and NY, but they do join NJ and NY in violating my right to bear arms), are also interfering with my right to travel to New Hampshire. His response was “…travel with a weapon.”

Well, I say that even the “weapon” moniker is a distinction without significance. After all, there are a number of things I can use as a weapon. Are you going to allow for states to require that I travel naked, encased in a straight jacket? Heck, even if I acknowledge that the primary purpose of a gun, particularly a handgun, are to repel a threat (i.e.: used as a weapon), is that not the right that the 2nd Amendment acknowledges and guarantees?

So then we went on to discuss the nature of a right. I explained that it is perfectly appropriate for the FedGov to intervene when a state is stomping on individual rights, as it is also appropriate for state or local governments to intervene when the FedGov is harassing the people and eating out their substance. But what it came down to is that we had different opinions on the nature of a human right. He brought up voting rights, but I quickly shot back that that is not a human right, as it is quite irrelevant if there is no government to begin with. The RKBA exists regardless of the existence of any government.

My friend apparently missed the “infringed” part of the 2A. He seemed to believe it was not an infringement for state government to require training or impose other restrictions on a right.

Anyhow, what boggled my mind later, and what I’ll probably ask my friend when I see him next, is this: So you are okay with forcing states to recognize my license to propel a 3000+ lbs. hunk of metal barreling down their highways with up to 15 gallons of liquid explosive? And it kills up to 50% more Americans every year than guns.

All that said, I do agree with the GOA that HB2900 is a much better piece of legislation, partly because it relies on Full Faith and Credit, rather the flawed basis of the Commerce Clause. It also doesn’t leave Vermont in the dust, and if I’m not mistaken, will also allow, for example, MA residents to obtain FL carry permits that allow them to carry in MA.

h/t to Unc for the link to the bamboo weapon article and to Mike for the raw milk article.