Star Parker reckons that the essence of freedom is property and a gun. As she sees it, blacks — of all people — should be on board with the NRA’s guns in schools prescription. And she poses this not-so-rhetorical brain teaser at dailyrepublic.com: “Why is it that liberals find it sensible to expand the reach of government each time a crisis arises, yet solutions that protect our freedoms and our ability to control our own lives they invariably find irrational?” Because it’s about control, Star, not freedom. So while we’re on the subject . . .
Saul Cornell has peered into modern Second Amendment jurisprudence and sees nothing but murky emanations and penumbras. Translation: there is no individual right to own firearms. Just ask conservatives!
At first (the effort to find an individual RKBA) was not well received, even in conservative circles. As late as 1991, former Supreme Court chief justice Warren Burger famously called the idea of an individual right to bear arms “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
Perhaps, but not as fraudulent as trying to pass off Warren Burger as a conservative. [via thedailybeast.com]
Looks like there’s gold in them thar ARs. But you already knew that:
“Let’s Redirect That Anger” Cheaper Than Dirt’s blog says, sending a coded message to its detractors on top of a pro-gun polemic. Who’s buying that?
Connecticut gun-group founder defends mock school shooting, cites ‘bigger picture’ Fox finds someone to bitch about TTAG’s Active School Shooter simulation. Nick and RF’s dedication [above] be damned.
Speaking of which, Brittney Bullock at huffingtonpost.com reckons an active shooter with an AR-15 will waste a good guy with a handgun. So a good guy with a gun is a waste of time. I don’t think our sim data will support that position . . .
At Forbes, Lawrence Hunter’s had it up to here with all the rights-abrogation advocation out there, and says it time for gun-grabbers to put up (i.e., repeal the Second Amendment) or STFU.
Tracking Glock kabooms has become something of an Internet cottage industry. But a .22 kaboom? Yep. They’re rare, but as Elijah Savage documents, excrement happens (via dayattherange.com)
A prepper sighs and groks the Glock. “I hate all things polymer, I just do, but you cannot overlook their simplicity, their durability and the abundance of parts available.
Viral email:
“There were probably many, many times this year when I may have…
Disturbed You,
Troubled You,
Pestered You,
Irritated You,
Bugged You,
Or got on your Nerves!!
So today, I just wanted to tell you:
Suck it Up Cupcake!
Cause there
AIN’T NO CHANGES
Planned for 2013
NY’s Journal News tools-up after publishing the names and addresses of local pistol permit holders.
Good for Star Parker we need good women like here being part of our voice.
Good Lord is she going to be demonized by the Left. Hypocrites.
this woman is a role model right here, way to go star parker.
First off, that Viral Email listed above rocks!
From the Politico article
“According to the Clarkstown Police report, filed today, Journal News editor Caryn McBride had “previously reported a large amount of negative correspondence in response to the media outlet’s publication of local gun permit holders.” McBride shared one email with the police officer from “an unknown subject who wondered what McBride would get in her email now.” The officer told McBride the email did not constitute an offense.
The Rockland County Times, a Journal News competitor, led its exclusive report citing the juxtaposition of targeting gun ownership while hiring armed guards.
“Guns are good for the goose but NOT for the gander,” Dylan Skriloff, the Rockland County Times’ associate publisher & editor-in-chief wrote.
— Just awesome! LOL! I hope she continues to get even more hate mail. We should burn down those email servers with email about our discontent. Apparently, she loves the 1a when she is bashing people but hates the 1a when the hate is directed at her. love it!
I highly urge everyone to read the Forbes piece. Absolutely brilliant.
Thanks for the suggestion but you are wrong as it’s not brilliant but flat out awesome. It should be required reading for everyone.
Star is truly a star!
I have to copy that email and send it out it is to funny!
Cheaper than dirt should see profits continue to fall in my estimation.
The follow up article on Dennis Sant really puts things in perspective. At least somebody is standing up for law abiding citizens!
I recommend reading the entire blog piece she quoted in the article, it really is great:
http://pileusblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/a-word-of-thanks-to-four-black-men-and-a-gun/
It doesn’t appear that CheaperThanDirt is going to allow the comment that I posted in response to their article (linked in the course of this one by Dan) to appear in their comment’s section.
Since that’s the case I’ll repost it here. Apologies as it is somewhat lengthy, however I feel that it is insulting for CheaperThanDirt to withhold their support from their gun-owning customer base and then seek to convince us they’re doing nothing wrong, I likewise feel it’s important that we, as their customers, call them on this:
Having read this post I feel it is incumbent upon me to ask the following question: “Why do you feel the need to redirect “this anger” at all?”
The appropriate response, from both a personal, and more importantly in the case of the people this blog represents, business perspective would be simply to ignore “this anger” altogether. At present it is not illegal to sell firearms so long as the existing laws and regulations which require your website to ship them to an FFL instead of an individual are followed diligently. This is not the route your business has taken, instead you pull all firearms from your catalog depriving your customers the simple ability to see the wares you offer.
The implication of this is clearly that you (cheaperthandirt.com) no longer sell guns.
That’s the message that you’re sending to your customer base and the calls to “please don’t be mad at me… look! What’s that over there!” Of which this present blog entry is representative are insulting to all gun owners and customers past present and prospective.
Even if you were completely relieved of your entire stock of firearms in this latest buying spike, a fact which I sincerely doubt since the public is buying up AR’s, AK’s and rifles after those patterns, not pump action shotguns, not revolvers, not bolt action hunting rifles, the least you could do for your customers would be to list “out of stock” next to those weapons in your catalog. Instead you’ve removed all traces of all firearms, not just the “scary black rifles” from your website. Your message is clear, you might as well shout from the rooftops:
“We here at Cheaperthandirt” love your business, we profit from you and we’re grateful, just not grateful enough to support you (law-abiding citizens) when the going gets even the slightest bit rough.”
Enough about that though, your heinous unwillingness to support the people who keep you in business has, like that of the Freedom Group, been covered thoroughly all over the internet.
Were this the only egregious error propagated by this post I’d feel no need to author a response. Unfortunately it is not.
The characteristics of an “Assault Rifle” as described in this post are simple the result of historical ignorance. The five properties that are enumerated do not represent an “an assault rifle” rather they represent each and every single Main Battle Rifle in service to any nation’s armed forces throughout the world today.
Assault Rifle as terminology arises from the German weapon known as the SturmGeweher 44. Literally translated this means Storm Rifle (19)44. Storm in this instance being conflated by a desire to semantically clarify things on the part of translators with the contextual English equivalent word “assault.”
“Assault Rifle” in the proper context therefore becomes apparent as the equivalent of a brand name. In case I have failed to make this clear enough I’ll offer a logical proposition which should do the trick:
“All Remington Model 700 Rifles are bolt action rifles.”
This is true. The trap the media and pols have fallen into is to elaborate this statement by advancing the reverse of that statement as true, anyone familiar with logical propositions will tell you that outside of few very specific instances is known as a fallacy.
This is what people are asked to believe, erroneously:
“All Remington Model 700 Rifles are bolt action rifles (true.) “Therefore all bolt action rifles are Remington Model 700 Rifles (patently false.)”
When stated as I have the fallacy becomes clear. The SturmGeweher 44 was and remains a rifle. It’s “brand name” translates CONTEXTUALLY to “Assault Rifle.” That does not validate the existence of an entire group of rifles with similar capabilities and function which are classified as serving a separate military function.
Allowing people to continue to erroneously believe in the existence of rifles designed to “assault” or commit violence against or intimidate, whichever legal definition applies more accurately in the circumstances only confuses the gun control debate and prejudices a portion of the so-called “silent majority” against the pro-gun argument.
Going further down the rabbit hole here. You address Diane Feinstein and the state of California along with it’s laws specifically. I have two things to say about this point. First, it is a supporting point of your Assault Rifle topic, not a topic in and of itself. As written at least.
Secondly and I quote: “I can think of a lot of things that we don’t “need” but are not illegal. Senator and Congressmen may top that list…”
Please think before you speak, or type as the case may be. That argument is absurd in the extreme and as such I will say no more about it.
On the issue of High Capacity Magazine bans. I notice that while you cheaperthandirt seems to be entirely out of stock these items are still listed in their online catalog. Followed of course by a tag labeling them as “out of stock” as has been suggested to handle your “process” with regards to firearms.
A person with the inclination to consider the implications of this contradictory method of handling two separate products might conclude that those individuals who run cheaperthandirt agree with anti-gun politicians that guns are a problem which needs to be addressed. Of course this has already been posited elsewhere on the internet for those who cared to look, days before this in fact.
Considering that the products you still do sell serve only to support firearms and those who own them it would be a wise business practice to support your customers when their liberties and the laws which protect same are “assaulted” by men and women with opposing viewpoints.
Mr. Dolbee’s final two points seek to address the shooters themselves and then finally the mechanisms of their crimes. Both topics and all supporting arguments evolving from them are redundant since Mr. Dolbee’s arguments fail to address the simple truism that we are dealing with CRIMINALS in all instances. Criminals by definition do not follow the law. Therefore laws designed to stop “them” will do no such thing. That of course is in my own opinion the relevant point.
What follows from the above is that if infringing upon MY and others’ rights will not prevent crime then according to law, constitutional obviously, then the right to infringe upon my rights does not exist.
Consider this post as it is however, partly chiding, mostly seeking to be informative and representative of the continual disappointment CheaperThanDirt’s refusal to profit off the desire of the American Public to own new rifles over the last two weeks.
Way to go, Joseph! Thank you.
While watching Hot Shots on the Sportsman’s Channel yesterday, I noticed that they are almost exclusively sponsored by CTD. And the one commercial was for ARs, with 22 converters and 25 and 100 round mags. Now I realize this show is taped at an earlier date, but what hypocrites for leaving it in there!
Joseph, my email to CTD was short and sweet. I appreciate your position but they ain’t gonna read all that $hit.
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment II “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.”
http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
For what benefit may be derived, if any, by those seeking understanding of the purpose and intent of the original Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, consider the following statement as excerpted:
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:…”
Further declaratory and restrictive clauses?
Amendment II “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.”
A well regulated militia? Could this phrase possibly have been a statement of common knowledge at the time, gleaned from the painful and often disastrous experiences of pitting untrained, poorly equipped Citizen soldiers against the well regulated, well trained in military tactics and maneuvers, professional soldiers of the British Army during the Great American Revolutionary War for Independence?
Such a militia being considered necessary for the security of a free state?
A state free from what? Further attacks from British Troops? An Army from another Nation seeking to invade the U.S.? Potential overthrow of the newly-formed Civilian controlled Federal government from within? A militia of one state attempting to exert control over another state? Those in the Federal government amassing a standing army and re-imposing tyranny over the several states?
The ‘right’ of whom to keep and bear what? All Freemen at the time? What was the status of ‘Arms’ with regard to the people at the conclusion of the Revolutionary War? Did ‘the people’ not hold ‘every terrible instrument of war’?
Whom, among ‘the people’ were not already well ‘Armed’?
And this ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ which ‘shall not be infringed‘… shall not be infringed by whom?
Could this statement have possibly been directed specifically at those in the newly-formed Federal government? For the purpose of declaring a preexisting ‘right’ of the people, and as a law, written into a legally-binding contract / compact between those in the Federal government and Citizens of the several states, for the stated purpose of preventing misconstruction or abuse of those few and limited powers afforded to the Federal government and only by consent of the people?
Guns = Metal = Material = Price of Labor to extract = Wage = Earnings and keep = Property
Yeah, shes a real genius. Too bad all these work shy geniuses do is create hot air and paper work, just like their nemesis in the white house.
So, wait a gun doesn’t qualify as property by itself? I have a confused.
Indeed it does qualify as property. And a gun itself is not the cause of danger, without fuel the keystone cops cant reach the scene of the crime.
Smart gal (and a good spokesman).
I visited the Cheaper Than Dirt blog post linked above. It is the last time I will visit any site affiliated with them. It’s not enough that they’ve lost my business, but I wish to additionally deprive them of any pageviews they might have gotten from me.
I also left a comment on that post, though I doubt it will ever appear. It reads as follows:
“Perhaps a portion of that anger could be directed of purveyors of $100 used GI aluminum AR magazines and $1/round bulk 5.56.
Passing feel-good legislation in response to fear and public outcry is a bad move. Profiteering for the same reasons is no less repugnant.”
“Brittney Bullock at huffingtonpost.com reckons an active shooter with an AR-15 will waste a good guy with a handgun”. Why do those who know absolutely nothing about firearms except that they’re afraid of them always assume that criminals have special forces training and the law-abiding don’t?
Yep, to the anti’s, a mad man with a gun is an unstoppable killing machine, like a terminator from the future; a regular citizen with the same gun is helpless before such a machine of death.
I think it has to be due mostly to Hollywood and Television garbage that depict criminals as essentially having special forces training. Obviously that’s the most exposure many anti-gun Americans allow themselves to have to firearms and their use.
“‘Let’s Redirect That Anger’ Cheaper Than Dirt’s blog says, sending a coded message to its detractors on top of a pro-gun polemic. Who’s buying that?”
Let me explain how this works. You’re at a bar. You see a guy being a pig towards the women there, making rude comments, etc. He’s a jerk. Then another guy comes along, and he’s making similar comments, but he’s really obnoxious, getting in their faces, getting handsy, grabbing asses and such. Yes, he’s worse than the first guy, but that doesn’t make the first guy “better.” He’s still a jerk. And so is CTD.
Not to be confused with Star Jones, who recently tweeted, “Please Mr. President, when you create the “national mentally ill database”…put #NRA Wayne LaPierre at the top of that list. He’s a nut.”
Genuinely when someone doesn’t kow then its up tto other viewers that they
will help, so here itt happens.