No Candlelight Vigil here.

Sorry folks. I am not lighting candles for the "victims of gun violence", no matter how well-intentioned the PR campaign-for-relevance is. I have two "victims of gun violence" in my own family and at least one friend too, and I am not playing the game of "blame the tool, not the wielder". The Brady Campaign can suck it.

My son was not mugged by a gun. He was mugged by a mugger who used a gun. My friend was not robbed by a gun, he was robbed by a robber who armed himself with a gun. My uncle died from a gunshot wound, and the gun did not fire itself.

I carry a gun. Daily. Not because I have something to prove, because I don't. I carry a gun daily because it is the most effective tool for self defense that I own. My wife now owns one of her very own, too.

The Brady Campaign would tell you that my wife would be better off in an encounter with a mugger, rapist, or murderer if she just gave them whatever they wanted. Just lie back and think of England, or some-such rot. Nonsense. Why should we acquiesce to the predators in our society? Why should we allow our finest and fairest to be victimized, just so some milquetoast, namby-pamby, progressive policy wonks can feel better about themselves? Screw that. I am done playing their games.

In honor of those who have sacrificed everything, so that we can have our Liberty, here is a tribute. To our Fighting men and women of the military, and to those freedom fighters everywhere in the world striving to keep the flame of Liberty alive, I salute you. I stand ready to join you at the call.

Maybe my wife will even let me borrow her gun... :)

Pax,

Newbius

Yep. What he said

Uncle Jay says it all.

I cannot improve, except to remind people that weird stuff happens whether you are prepared for it or not. Therefore, be prepared for it.

ALWAYS have your gun ready. Always have at least one more within easy reach. I carry at home, all day, every day. There are more guns strategically placed in case I need them. The likelihood of *actually* needing them is pretty small, but it is not non-existent.

When the ride gets rough, will you be ready?

Newbius
|||

H/T Borepatch

The handwriting on the wall

מנא ,מנא, תקל, ופרסין

Have the leaders of Babylon West, the United States of America, seen the finger of G-d yet?

Surely, the priests and priestesses, the courtesans and the minstrels, the money-changers and the charlatans, have all had their day in the sun excusing and promoting the bad behavior of our 'culture'. Our nomenklatura, the mandarins of academia and the apparatchik, have all had their time to destroy what is left of our political will and historical memory. CAIR, and their enablers in Persia, have our media on the run. How long until political correctness destroys our ability to fight for what is right?

Isn't this what the Obamunists are banking on? How much longer will it be? How long until we are weighed (twice), found wanting, and divided? And, what then?

Newbius
|||

Sigh

I had a nice rant going about politics, economics, Liberty, and biased reporting. Then I stopped short and asked myself "why I am doing this?".

The concept was so tidy in my head. The conclusion so obvious, to me at least. I wondered...what for?

My audience consists of basically two groups: like-minded Liberty-oriented individuals; and poo-flingers. The people I care about basically tolerate my rantings because they know it is a way for me to vent. The poo-flingers' likely contribution to my upcoming 1000-plus-word blog post? "TL;DR, but you are wrong".

Screw it.

I am going to go buy more ammo instead.

The Litmus Test

(From Wikipedia):

Litmus is a water-soluble mixture of different dyes extracted from lichens, especially Roccella tinctoria. It is often absorbed onto filter paper to produce one of the oldest forms of pH indicator, used to test materials for acidity...

Forget tax policy, or abortion, or school funding, or any other distraction from the real argument. The real litmus test for Liberty is support for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Statists and Collectivists oppose individual Liberty. They routinely propose laws that restrict freedom. They uniformly look upon RKBA with disdain and derision. If you tell me what a person's core position is on RKBA, I can generally tell you their position on any other issue. (And, yes, this includes Harry Reid.)

Try it for yourselves. Pick an issue. Look at that person's stance on the issue (specifically whether it increases or decreases Liberty), and then look at their stand on RKBA issues. In MOST cases if they are anti-liberty, they will be anti-gun as well.

When the time comes

In the (now becoming more likely) event of civil unrest due to massive Government fraud, intrusiveness, and overreach, the Government would have to disarm the people to prevent their attempt to return to the Founder's Republic.

Fact: The Pentagon 'war-games' this exact scenario.
Fact: Posse Comitatus would be thrown out the window as NORTHCOM cracks down.
Fact: The largest army in the world is still smaller than the number of deer hunters in the United States, all equipped with highly-accurate long-range sniper rifles capable of piercing body armor common hunting rifles.
Fact: The only thing that enables our government's abuses is our willingness to tolerate them.

Do I really need to itemize the scams that are being perpetrated upon the citizens under the banner of fairness and equality? Or, Reparations by another name (Pigford)? Or asset stripping by the Banksters, and enabled by Congress and the Federal Reserve?

When the time comes, are the citizens of the Republic prepared? If not, why not? What are YOU doing to prepare? Got Food, Clothing, Shelter, and the means to defend yourself against those who don't, but who want yours? If not, why not?

Time is short.

Newbius
|||

Why the light blogging?

In short, everything I want to say about politics, and the current people in charge, I have already said at least once. "The current administration is staffed by tyrants who wish to curtail Liberty and replace our current economic system with a command economy and top-down regulatory structures" (even more so than we currently have).

I can say this twenty different ways, but the message remains the same at the core: Liberty is in jeopardy.

I plan to vote, as that is the peaceful expression of the "will of the people". I hope that there are enough votes to counteract the expected Democratic Party voter fraud, and the disenfranchisement of the military, to toss these bums out of office. You lefty statists can whine all you want, but this truth always comes to light every election and it isn't the Right/Republicans who do it.

I look forward to gridlock in Washington, the "District of Criminals". It will be a welcome change. All efficient government ever results in, is death (See Russia, Germany, Laos, Cambodia, China, Turkey).

So, unless I feel the urge to blog about my life's trivialities, or get some range time worth talking about, posting will continue to be light. Sorry...

Pax,

Newbius

Signs of the times

For the believers out there, I present you this. Non-believers may check back in tomorrow.

We are called to be prepared. We are called to be mindful of the "signs of the times". I am not a Pastor, but I can read...

"When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be frightened; those things must take place; but that is not yet the end.

For nation will rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will also be famines. These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.

But be on your guard; for they will deliver you to the courts, and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them." Mark 13:7-9

There will be a time of great civil unrest, wars, earthquakes, and famines. The faithful will be arrested and then tried for their beliefs.

The economies of the world will collapse into hyperinflation, followed by more strife.

"And I heard something like a voice in the center of the four living creatures saying, "A quart of wheat for a denarius [day's wages], and three quarts of barley for a denarius [day's wages]; and do not damage the oil and the wine." Rev 6:6

These are some of the signs of the "end times".

When will that be?

"But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." Mark 13:32

How are your preparations going?

Pax,

Newbius

Statistics

Recently, there has been some media interest in firearms deaths at the hands of Carry Permit holders. The sensational nature of the reports would lead one to believe that people who own firearms are reckless, crazy, and liable to go off at any moment and begin mowing down unsuspecting citizens in a fit of rage.

Since the thread that holds these reports together is purportedly the firearm itself, I delved deep into government statistics on actual firearms-related deaths. Then, I compared these deaths to the total of all deaths in the United States, using 2006 data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) WISQARS database query system, located here. The year 2006 was chosen as it is the most current data available that is searchable in the database.

Without further ado, here are the top 20 Leading Causes of Death in the Unites States:

1. Heart Disease-------------------- 631,636
2. Malignant Neoplasms-(Cancer)--- 559,888
3. Cerebro-vascular-(Stroke)---- 137,119
4. Chronic Low-Respiratory Disease-- 124,584
5. Diabetes Mellitus---------------- 72,449
6. Alzheimer's Disease-------------- 72,432
7. Influenza and Pneumonia---------- 56,326
8. Nephritis---(Kidney Disease)------- 45,344
9. Motor Vehicle Accidents---------- 43,664
10. Septicemia----------------------- 34,234

Pause here to consider that firearms deaths are not even in the top ten leading causes of death in the United States. At 30,316 aggregate (Suicides, Homicides, and Accidents), firearms-related deaths would place 11th overall. However, it is worth noting that the firearms-related deaths are broken down by the CDC into the above 3 categories for a reason. When we think of firearms-related deaths, most people think of Homicides and Accidents. For the sake of clarity, I will break down the remaining 10 categories for you and let you draw your own conclusions. Also, for clarity, I have broken down "Unintentional Injury", "Suicide", and "Homicide" to show where firearms-related deaths fall on the spectrum.

Note- This is where the "liars with statistics" usually enter the following: (Total Suicides - All causes - 33,300 and Total firearms-related deaths - All types - 30,316). See the rest of the table for the real breakdown.

11. Liver Disease--------------------- 27,555
12. Accidental Poisonings------------- 27,531
13. Hypertension---------------------- 23,855
14. Accidental Falls------------------ 20,823
15. Parkinson's Disease--------------- 19,556
16. Pneumonitis----------------------- 16,887
17. Suicide by firearm---------------- 16,883
18. Suicide by other means------------ 16,417
19. Perinatal Period------------------ 14,442
20. Benign Neoplasms------------------ 14,122

So where are Homicides? In the aggregate, they would fall between Parkinson's Disease and Pneumonitis at 18,573. But, like suicides I broke that category down so I could get to the homicides-by-firearm. Here is the rest of the list:

21. Aortic Aneurysm------------------- 13,238
22. Homicide by Firearm -------------- 12,791
23. HIV------------------------------- 12,113
24. Unspecified Accidental Injuries--- 6,345
25. Suffocation-(Accidental)---------- 5,912
26. Homicides non-firearms------------ 5,782

Accidental deaths by firearm totaled 642, or 16th overall on the "Accidental causes of death" statistics. More people died in pedestrian fatalities (1,141) and machinery accidents (740).

Given the hysterical nature of the Media reports relating to "gun violence", "Firearm deaths", and "Shooting Deaths" reported regularly, one could conclude that the proper exercise of your Second Amendment rights places you and those around you at great risk of harm. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, you are placing yourself more at risk by properly eating that plate of Chicken Alfredo, or driving to the range, than you are from properly using that firearm when you get there.

Pax,

Newbius

What if?

What if everything we are seeing in our government, but refusing to acknowledge as possible, is really happening?

What if our representatives refuse to relent, and continue down the path of this most-current power grab?

What if the President really does want to fundamentally transform the United States into a Marxist totalitarian country (Constitution be damned)?

What if the citizens currently being dismissed as right-wing nut-job extremist astroturfers decide that there really IS a line in the sand this time?

What then?

Think about it...

Newbius
|||

This isn't hard...

On 11/28/2007, Paul Helmke wrote a minor diatribe about the phrasing of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. His contention was that the Parker decision went the wrong way, and that the Second Amendment refers only to Militia prerogative for arms ownership; that self-defense was too narrow a view and misses the thrust of the amendment, as written. These remarks were pre-Heller.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State; the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Bon.

If we were to parse it, it would go as follows:

A

well regulated ("in proper and working order")

militia ("the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service")
or, alternately, under 10 USC 311
("-STATUTE-

(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.")

being (conjunction, emphasizing the following word)

necessary ("logically unavoidable, absolutely needed")

for the

security (" the quality or state of being secure: as a: freedom from danger")

of a

free ("1 a: having the legal and political rights of a citizen b: enjoying civil and political liberty c: enjoying political independence or freedom from outside domination d: enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another")

State; (individually - "mode or condition of being", collectively " a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign")

The

right ("something to which one has a just claim")

of the

people ("the body of enfranchised citizens of a state")

to

keep (" to retain in one's possession or power")

and

bear ("to carry or possess arms")

Arms ("a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense ; especially : firearm")

shall ("used to express a command or exhortation")

not ("used as a function word to make negative a group of words or a word")

be (" intransitive verb: to take place") Together "shall not be" means "an absolute prohibition"

infringed. ("to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another")

So, to play Paul Helmke's game, we should look at every word of the Amendment, not leaving anything aside, and also address the Militia clause. To wit:

A properly functioning and in regular working order Militia (those citizens NOT a member of the Armed Forces or of the National Guard), being necessary, logically unavoidable, and absolutely needed for the security of a free state - as defined "a politically organized, sovereign body of the people having the legal and political rights of citizens, enjoying civil and political liberty, independence, and freedom; and not subject to the control and domination of another"; the Right (just claim) of the People (the body of the enfranchised citizens of the above free state) to keep and bear arms (to possess and carry weapons of offense or defense, especially firearms) shall not be infringed (absolutely no encroachments on this right whatsoever).

Mr. Helmke, the people ARE the Militia. The Constitution recognizes this, and 10 USC 311 codifies it in case there is any confusion. The Militia clause argument is self-defeating if you understand the words. Your failure to speak openly and honestly about this indicates that you are either a fraud or a liar, and your intention is perfectly clear to anybody who can read and understand the words. You are attempting to re-write history for your own purpose, to empower a central government who holds you in contempt but will use you for their own purpose, at the expense of free citizens who only wish to be left alone.

According to the Militia clause, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is unconstitutional. According to the Militia clause, the Miller decision was wrongly adjudged. According to the Militia clause, the Brady Assault Weapons Ban was patently unconstitutional, as were the infringements upon civilian purchases of high-capacity magazines, semi-automatic shotguns, and yes even machine guns.

Mr. Helmke's current position on the Heller case is one that presumes Heller to be an invitation to regulation, restriction, and imposition of onerous "common-sense gun laws" for the protection of the people, as the "Slippery Slope" that previously restrained legislators is "now gone".

If the previous position required one to believe that the Second Amendment was solely for Militia purpose, then, logically, the people should not be prohibited in their pursuit of Arms for defense of home and hearth, town, city, county, state, or country. If the current position is that the people really do have the right to self-defense, but that this right is subject to "reasonable restriction"; said restrictions being as many as he can force through the system to achieve the goal of effectively total civilian disarmament, then his previous argument was a smokescreen and a lie. In either case, the two positions are incompatible with each other as rational pieces of the whole. Unless, as mouthpiece of the Brady Campaign, he has no positions of his own and is merely a puppet or a stooge.

In either case: Mr. Helmke, your stated positions are on the side of those people who would gut the Constitution for their own aims. The Supreme Court in the Heller decision got it only half-right. Unfortunately, they limited their scope and dared not tread upon stare decisis and ALSO reverse Miller and declare NFA34 unconstitutional as well. It would have been the greatest blow for freedom that the United States would ever have experienced. Instead, we get to argue banalities about whether your position is one of moral bankruptcy or mental deficiency.

Good day to you.

Pax,

Newbius

|||


(NOTE: Previous version of this posting was removed and replaced by this version to correct a technical inaccuracy and a reference to the wrong court decision in the opening paragraph.)

The Right to Life

No, not the “right-to-life” in the anti-abortion sense.

Your right to life.

Your right to quiet enjoyment of your time and the fruits of your labor. Your right to enjoy a quiet evening with a good book, curled up by a crackling fire with a snoring dog by your feet and a contented cat in your lap. Sipping warm chocolate or cool wine. Your right to LIVE. Peacefully, and without worry.

Do you have the right to defend your life?

If not, then the right to life is illusory and you are merely a slave of whatever master chooses to own you or use you.

If so, should you be limited in what you can use to defend your life?

Logic says no. Logic says that you should use the most effective method at your disposal in defense of your life, until the threat is gone or you have perished.

Logic also indicates that any entity that would restrict the means available to you for defense of your life is, in essence, abetting your attacker. Those restrictions on your means constitute a rigging of the system against you, to the advantage of your attacker. You are now fighting for your life against a direct foe and an indirect one. One aims to deprive you of your life, the other aims to deprive you of your means to defend it. Both are evil in their aims towards you. Both are conspiring to ensure that the odds are stacked against your success in defense of your life.

Why?

I can understand the criminal's goal. It is immediate. It seeks gratification to satisfy some urgent want or need, and does not recognize societal boundaries erected to thwart it.

What is the goal of the entity abetting the criminal?

I can think of a few. More crime means more laws are required to “prevent” crime. More laws requires more lawyers and legislators. More laws means more policemen to enforce them. More policemen, lawyers, and legislators means more requirements for the people to support the system. More requirements means more taxes. More taxes means more power. More power means the need for more power. Ad infinitum.

In a just system, the victim (that's you) would have available to himself/herself the most effective means of defense possible. In a just system, there would be no restrictions on what you could use, because the system would recognize that your life was worth defending. A just system would consider that your quiet evening was disturbed by someone whose aim was to deprive you of your life, or of the fruits of your life.

You did not ask to be attacked.

You shouldn't have to ask for permission to own the proper tools of your defense, nor prove that you are worthy of defending. You should not have to subject yourself to scrutiny for wishing to peaceably obtain effective means of defense.

It is guaranteed that your attacker didn't...

Think about that one.

Law abiding people, by definition, obey the law. Criminals, by definition, do not.

Any law that restricts the actions of the law-abiding will not have any effect on the criminal. This is a logical statement. Enacting laws whose impact affects only the law-abiding is tantamount to abetting a criminal.

Such is the case with gun control laws.

It is too bad that existing case law has effectively granted immunity to the State for the consequences of their bad decisions. One really good wrongful death award to a plaintiff whose loved one was denied the means of defense by the state could have a chilling effect on bad policy choices going forward. Unfortunately, it will never happen...

Consider: No government agency has liability or consequence for the effects of their failed policies when it comes to gun control. They cannot be sued. They have “sovereign immunity”. Take Chicago or New York City, or (recently) DC as examples. Their draconian gun control laws have effectively disarmed the law-abiding. Only the criminals, by definition, are armed. Case law has established that the government has no duty to defend you if you call for help, dial 911, or shout to a passing patrol car. If you get attacked and call 911, shout to the patrol car, whatever, and they fail to stop the attack (and you have no means available to defend yourself), you would think that they would have SOME liability in this because they DID disarm you with their laws (which you followed because you are law-abiding). Not the case. Your heirs have no recourse.

In the United States of America today, unless you are (or are willing to become) a criminal, you have no absolute right to life. You have only the privilege of life, and only to the extent that you can prove yourself worthy of that privilege.

If you think that this stance is harsh, ask yourself what measures you had to endure, what steps had to be taken, in order to procure for yourself the best and most effective means available to defend your life (and assuming that you even can, based on where you live).

Then ask yourself: Is it right?

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.

Pax,

Newbius