Tuesday, November 23, 2010

"Law Creation Officers"

Whenever I badmouth the police, this inevitable argument always surfaces: "How can you hate the police when you are in the military? It's like the same thing." Their intention is to get me flustered, but it never does because I know one thing: the Armed Forces cannot be compared to domestic LEOs. We are very different...

This train of though led to an epiphany. Those who are the law cannot be expected to follow the law. Think about it: if a police officer pulls you over for going 56 in a 55, then they speed limit is clearly 55. If he or she doesn't pull you over until you are going 65, then the speed limit is 64. When a government official like a DA or a police officer chooses to enforce a law, it then becomes a law. Before that, the "law" is just empty words. I know, it's hard to wrap your head around unless you're a lawyer (if a lawyer hadn't spent 75 minutes explaining it to me in class, I might not get it either).

I think, therefore, that this is the reason why cops get special legal treatment such as lighter sentences, dropped charges, or no filed charges at all for serious crimes that a mere peasant would be crucified for. See the "Only Ones Files" for a long, long list of proof, thanks to David Codrea.

So, after all this, I can definitively say that LEOs and Service members are extremely different because of the following: the UCMJ. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is a law code for active duty members of the Armed Forces. It does not replace, but merely adds to the current body of law in the United States. It is quite strict, and really restricts military members from doing a lot of things a regular civilian might enjoy. If a soldier, sailor, or marine is found guilty of something in a military court under the UCMJ, they are still liable for it under common law in a civilian court as well. This doesn't prevent service members from doing bad things, but they sure as Hell don't get special treatment. Generals go to courts martial the same as privates do. This is what is missing from the Law Enforcement Community. There should be a separate set of laws that LEOs are responsible to in addition to those imposed upon "civilians," as they like to call the rest of us. If we're "civilians" then they should have no problem adopting a different, more strict set of laws for their higher level of citizen. Doesn't it seem unusual that the laws they have to enforce are the ones they are liable under? It's a broken system that invites abuse, waste, and dishonesty.

I believe that a federal code that applies only to law enforcement officers is necessary and LONG overdue. Some might say that the federal government has no business getting involved with local LEOs, but then when you ask them about the "Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act" they can't say enough good things about it. I don't understand why this law exists when the Supreme Court held that LEOs do not have a duty to protect the public in any way, but that's not the discussion here. We need a code of law for LEOs that cannot be influenced by the LEOs themselves, or the system will continue to fall apart more and more until the police state becomes even more the norm than it already is.

Friday, July 2, 2010

Responsible Gun Ownership Plan

Daley outlined the gun restriction scheme that Chicago came up with in lieu of their ban being turned on its head. The funny thing is that the 7th circuit hasn't even sent the decision back to the city yet...

Read the story here.

The scheme plan includes:
  • following DC ordinance and registration of no more than one handgun per month,
  • two step process to own and register
  • no ownership for anyone convicted of a violent crime
  • no ownership for anyone with 2 or more DUIs
  • no ownership for anyone convicted on a domestic violence charge
  • bans assault weapons
  • bans gun shops
  • requires firearms safety training
  • requires city firearms permit, state FOI card and registration with the Chicago Police Department
Some problems with this: Where are the details on the "two step process" required to register? The ban on assault weapons...ooooh boy...I shouldn't get started. I'll keep it short with this statement: the gangs are obviously going to register all their weapons...right? Why in the world would they ban gun shops? Gun shops are the ones who follow the laws! In an economy this bad, why would you turn away ANY legal business? And what happens when Chicago wants to call in the National Guard again...do the police come and take all the registered weapons? I bet they do. Or they could take them for any other reason they see fit. What about people who aren't Illinois residents who happen to live in Chicago for, say, school or military service (or both...)? They are still treated like self defense is a privilege. I've got news: it's not; it's a right.

I foresee some people doing this, but most people will just keep doing what they have been doing: keeping a weapon in their homes "illegally" as guaranteed to them by the constitution as an inalienable right. Registering the weapon with the Chicago Police Department should be stricken from the bill, but it won't be. The only things that will come of it are confiscation any time the government wants and first responders refusing to enter homes with registered guns. That's right, I heard from a Chicago cop (who I won't name) that he's thinking that "paramedics and even some cops are going to ignore calls to homes with registered guns, because they're giant pussies with no sense of duty or honor" (I know, big surprise...).

I wish I could go before the city council and represent my position, but none of the liberal drones in the chamber would even listen to a word I had to say; as it is with all big cities, I'm just a faceless subject as viewed from the ivory towers. If I could speak and be heard, then I can guarantee that anything I would say would already have been spoken by some other oppressed Chicagoan.

Friday, May 14, 2010

"Expert" Panels

When the left talks about "Expert" panels, I sure hope they don't think that THIS cuts it. Three anti-RKBA ├╝berliberals and one guy left there to defend a huge margin of the population. I digress, but the point of the previous is this: this is how the liberal democrats always play it. They set it up so that they have the most likely chance for success, regardless of how stupid it makes them look.

This from a "professor":

Dershowitz, however, called the Second Amendement an “anachronism” because if America had the choice today it would not choose to be an “armed society.”
Well...if we would not choose to be an armed society...then why is there even a debate over this? You idiot, obviously we DO want to be an armed society, or your little "expert" panel would have no reason to convene and discuss something that you have no bearing over. Did you think about that with your big, professor brain?

Furthermore, it doesn't matter if America's majority wants to be gun free, because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right. What that means, Mr. Big Fancy Law Professor, is that each person has the right to choose for themselves. That used to be what the United States was all about, you know, individual liberty; but we threw that out the window long ago. I want it back.

And besides, the American majority just believes what the liberal news media tells it to believe. Piss on that; I'll take the facts, please.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Window War

So yes, I've noticed the window war. I couldn't be more proud. They're learning the hard way.

The Congress of the United States knew that a majority of the people didn't want the health care scheme to pass, but they did what they wanted anyway. That's tyranny, folks. Pure tyranny. If you call it anything else, you're wrong. This government is supposed to be run by the people; when it stops being that way, like 2 days ago, then we've got to step up and do something. The time for saying something is over.

Historically, the only way to get rid of a tyrant is for them to die. Historically speaking, of course... The Czars of Russia, Joseph Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Louis XVI...all great examples.

Of course, killing people, even immoral people, is a sticky subject. We can very easily kill Congress without laying a hand on a single person. We will vote them out. We have to; there is no choice. We must kill the beast before more liberty is taken in the name of "general welfare."

Remember, Congress acted without the consent of the majority of the people. There is a line in the sand. This is not a "slippery slope"...it's a cliff, and they jumped off headfirst.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

To "Mayor" Daley...

Shut Up. I'm tired of hearing your ill informed, agenda-driven statements everywhere I go. Just Shut Up.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

About Guns Killing People...

To all those who unflinchingly believe that guns kill people:

In very few cases do guns actually kill people. Most of the time it's bullets. I can't give you a percentage, but I'd say that most of the time, when a gun is used, bullets kill the recipient...not the gun.

If we want to get transitive, then I suppose that guns work together with bullets and people to kill people...but I'm ok with that so long as the person deserved killing.

Furthermore I will say this: if you threaten the safety of me, my wife, or my (future) kids...I'll kill you. I don't care if it's with a gun, a bullet, a hand, a foot, a kitchen knife, a car, or a bowling pin (need I go on?). I don't care who you are. I WILL keep my family safe until I'm dead and gone. And you better believe that I am MORE than capable.

AND...best wishes to those who don't mean any harm to others. I hope you stay safe.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Health Care

I've tried to stay out of this one...but I just can't. I never thought it would pass, but now that it's close, I am just disgusted. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills while I'm watching all this unfold! I just cannot contain myself, so prepare yourself before reading further.

What I'm most disgusted with is the fact that Democrats couldn't sell the plan on merit, so they bribed everyone, and they think it's legal. Read it for yourself.

Direct quote from Harry Reid (almost as big a piece of scum as Pelosi):
"You will find a number of states are treated differently than other states," Reid said Dec. 19. "That's what legislation is all about. It's compromise."
No. It's not. It's about making laws that are good (well written and thought out--unlike the health care scam), just (which means that all the states that are paying equally are treated equally...asshole), and benefit the people (are beneficial to everyone, not just a few people who don't have the discipline to make ends meet). You piece of S***! What the Hell are we doing?!!? Why do we allow these people to eat us alive?!