Archive for the The Most Fundamental Right Category

Pragmatism…

Posted in The Most Fundamental Right on February 1, 2010 by Darkman

…and an utter lack of principles.

The NRA elbows its way into the McDonald Case

One wonders if NRA members should be proud of their organization’s apparent newfound fiduciary conservatism. The so-called “premier” gun rights organization has now managed to finagle its way into the spotlight after someone else’s sweat and money rented the hall, built the stage, and set up the sound system.

NRA lawyers are now second guessing pro-gun lawyer Alan Gura’s expertise. And this, after Gura masterminded and navigated the vitally crucial landmark Heller case to a victorious decision in favor of the Second Amendment.

The NRA’s leadership must have looked at each other and realized that (coming so close on the coat tails of Heller) McDonald actually had a good chance at victory. I can just hear them clinking their drinks in toast and chuckling: “Gura will likely win this one too. Let’s get on board now!”

All that might not be so bad, but look who the NRA has hired as their head counsel in this wedge into McDonald: Paul Clement, the very attorney who advocated against our gun rights in Heller!

That’s right, Clement led the federal government’s charge to protect the Washington D.C. ban on handgun ownership!

JPFO gives us the scoop.

eTrace = National Gun Registry

Posted in Police State, The Most Fundamental Right on October 27, 2009 by Darkman

In regard to this JPFO alert comes this response:

Are you aware that the BATFE has for several years been aggressively offering eTrace to local law enforcement agencies? They have the agency sign a memorandum of agreement and then the agency can run traces on any firearm they wish. The catch is that the agency has to agree to run a trace on ALL CRIME GUNS. The MOU defines a CRIME GUN as:

“The parties agree that a ‘crime gun’ is defined as “any firearm that is illegally possessed, used in a crime, taken into police custody, or suspected by law enforcement officials of having been used in a crime.”

The key word in this definition is “taken into police custody.” I have been a law enforcement officer for over thirty years and held positions up to the rank of Detective Commander. Only a very small portion of firearms that are taken into custody could possibly be considered a “crime gun.” TV and movies aside, we run into very few “smoking gun” cases where we have a firearm left at the scene a crime, and it is a rare instance that knowing who was the first lawful purchaser of a firearm would serve any investigatory purpose. We take hundreds of firearms into custody as found property, safe-keeping, recovered-stolen or in possession of individuals who have been arrested. In all those cases, including arrests, it is of very little consequence who bought the gun from Acme Sporting Goods ten years ago.

Please follow the link and read the whole thing.

Reasoned Discourse breaks out at the 2A Blog Bash

Posted in The Most Fundamental Right on April 30, 2009 by Darkman

Read about it at The War on Guns.

Key word: lawful

Posted in The Most Fundamental Right on December 8, 2008 by Darkman

Obama: Don’t stock up on guns:

“I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment,” Obama said at a news conference. “Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven’t indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word.”

“Lawful” becomes “unlawful” at the stroke of pen, now doesn’t it, BHO?

Sins of a distant relative

Posted in Police State, The Most Fundamental Right on November 25, 2008 by Darkman

Tracing a crime suspect through a relative – Los Angeles Times:

Police have determined through DNA and other evidence that the killings were the work of a single person. But the DNA does not match any of the millions of genetic profiles of convicted criminals in law enforcement databases, and detectives have few other clues.

Now Los Angeles Police Department investigators want to search the state’s DNA database again — not for exact matches but for any profiles similar enough to belong to a parent or sibling.

The hope is that one of those family members might lead detectives to the killer.

This strategy, pioneered in Britain, is poised to become an important crime-fighting tool in the United States. The Los Angeles case will mark the first major use of California’s newly approved familial searching policy, the most far-reaching in the nation.

But the idea of scrutinizing families based exclusively on their possible genetic relationship to an unknown suspect makes privacy advocates and legal experts nervous. They argue that it effectively expands criminal databases to include every offender’s relatives, a potentially unconstitutional intrusion.

“There is kind of a queasiness about having the sins of your father come back to haunt you,” said Stanford University law professor Hank Greely, who supports familial searching despite those concerns. “It feels like we’re holding people responsible for the crimes of their family.”

Because the technology isn’t perfect, families with no connection to the perpetrator inevitably will be investigated, some scientists and legal experts say.

If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.

This is their mantra.

Meanwhile, they do everything in their power to prevent us from exercising our most fundamental right in order to defend ourselves from the rapists and murderers.

But fear not, the “authorities” will be coming right along to wipe up the mess and follow trails of incomplete DNA until they wreck several innocent lives before they (might) find the real perpetrator.  Not that it will do you any good.  You’ll still be dead.  Or raped.

Ask this:  How have they accumulated a database of DNA profiles for those who have never committed a crime?  Such information must already exist, if they are pursuing leads through relatives via partial DNA matches.  This is an inescapable conclusion.

Bill Schneider is wrong

Posted in The Most Fundamental Right on November 15, 2008 by Darkman

What I’ve Learned from Gun Nuts | Travel & Outdoors | New West Network:

I consider my right to bear arms one of my basic freedoms, but not the only one, so buckle up, gun nuts. I happen to think other amendments to our constitution such as Number 1 (freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition), 13 (abolishing slavery), 14 (equal protection under the law), 19 and 26 (right to vote for women and all citizens over 18) and others might actually be more important than Number 2.

Then you would be wrong.

If the vast majority of the population does not own guns because of government intervention, and said government decides to re-institute slavery, what are you going to do about it?  Protest?  But then the government brings its full muscle to bear in order to censor you, to prohibit your meeting with like-minded individuals, to invade your house for no reason other than to find anti-slavery literature, and finally, it removes your right to vote because you have been arrested for transgressing its own “laws”…what are you going to do about it?  You have no arms.

The right to keep and bear arms protects all other rights.  There is no other way to defend basic freedoms if a governing authority decides to abolish them.  That is what makes it the most fundamental right.

via Ride Fast & Shoot Straight

The Brady Death Cult

Posted in Getting It Straight, The Most Fundamental Right on October 9, 2008 by Darkman

The Brady Blog has created a new category called “gun cleaning accidents” to better enable them to take their pleasure in the deaths of innocents.

How is the accidental death of a 3-year-old child an example of “gun violence?”  There was no act of violence committed here.  Would you take such perverted glee if this boy had been accidentally killed by a car?  If he had accidentally fallen from a window?  This was a stupid, tragic accident that resulted in the death of a young, innocent boy, but it was not an act of violence.

And what does this one mean:  “This man probably never broke a law in his life, yet somehow he still managed to shoot himself.”  There is no logic in this statement.  It makes as much sense as saying, “This man probably never broke a law in his life, yet somehow he still managed to inattentively step in front of a bus.”

If you people were actually committed to eradicating accidental gun deaths, you would be focused on educating people how to properly use (and clean) guns.  This shows that you’re just another death cult.

And you, Helmke.  You sign your name to this blog.  You are a disgusting, perverted, vile excuse for a human being, and I feel sullied just to be of the same species.

via the Sensible Progressive