Using Water As A Weapon Of War

Herschel Smith · 03 Aug 2014 · 12 Comments

Next City: In a war, anything can be a weapon. In a particularly ruthless war, such as the conflict that has been raging in Syria for more than three years, those weapons are often turned against civilians, making any semblance of normal life impossible. Such is the case, experts say, with the way the nation’s water supply is being manipulated to inflict suffering on the population. According to an article posted by Chatham House, a London-based independent policy institute, water…… [read more]

spacer
  • Gentlemen, Prepare To Defend Yourselves!  (20)
    JustDavid, Rob Crawford, Josh, madoradataman, Western Gunowner [...]
  • Notes From HPS  (2)
    Bill Daigle, robertsgunshop
  • Using Water As A Weapon Of War  (11)
    Bill Daigle, Achmed West, Other sand box water guy, ensitue, lg teknik servis [...]
  • University Student Who Had Guns On Campus…  (3)
    Bill Daigle, Samuel Adams, dan
  • Support For Gun Control Drops  (2)
    Bill Daigle, Larry Sheldon
  • Ventura County Sheriff: Coward  (16)
    Herschel Smith, pjb1, chrismalllory, steve2insd, Travis Lee [...]
  • Guns And State Preemption And Nullification  (2)
    Shackleford45, pjb1
  • Lawful Open Carry In Ohio  (6)
    Archer, chrismalllory, FrozenPatriot, Miles, Archer [...]
  • God, Guns And I-594  (3)
    DISQUSted, Herschel Smith, Carolyn Bowers
  • Paul Begala On God, Guns And The Government  (21)
    parks207, liberalloons, David Wright, SamAdams1776, SamAdams1776 [...]

spacer
02 Nov 2014

Support For Gun Control Drops

BY Herschel Smith
spacer 1 day, 23 hours ago

As I’ve discussed before, I have never believed in holding rights hostage to favorable statistics outcomes.  See also Kurt Hofmann on this issue.  However, for the weaker among us who don’t believe in much (i.e., politicians), and for those who reflexively stick their finger in the wind to see which way it’s blowing, public opinion seems to matter.  And thus there is utility in information like this.

Less than half of Americans, 47%, say they favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms, similar to views found last year. But this percentage is significantly below the 58% recorded in 2012 after the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, spurred a nationwide debate about the possibility of more stringent gun control laws. Thirty-eight percent of Americans say these laws should be kept as they are now, and 14% say they should be made less strict.

The percentage favoring stricter gun sale laws in the two years since Newtown occurred has declined despite steady and tragic high-profile shootings in the U.S at schools, malls and businesses. This past week, shootings occurred at a Seattle-area school and of police officers in Sacramento and Placer County, California. Amidst events like these in 2014, and the resulting calls for stricter gun sale laws, the 47% who favor stricter laws is just above the historical low of 43% measured in 2011.

Ten years ago, three in five Americans (60%) said they favored stricter laws regulating the sale of firearms, but support fell to 44% in 2009 and remained at that level in polls conducted in the next two years. Days after the Newtown shooting, support for stricter gun sale laws swelled. Since 2012, however, Americans have retreated from those stronger attitudes about the need for more gun control, and the percentage of Americans who say the laws should be less strict — although still low — has edged up.

These findings come from a new Gallup Poll Social Series survey, conducted Oct. 12-15.

Universal background checks and waiting periods have never been associated with “reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates,” and readers know that I’ve never bought the idea that 90+ percent of the American public wants universal background checks.  It’s was a myth before and it’s a myth now.

So I don’t want to hear another damn word about how 90% of the public wants increased gun control at the point of sale, or trying to plug the mythical “gun show loophole” or “internet loophole” which are fabricated phrases for person-to-person sales.  Not another … damn … word.

spacer 2 Comments
spacer Firearms,Gun Control,Guns Tags: Universal Background Checks —
30 Oct 2014

Guns And State Preemption And Nullification

BY Herschel Smith
spacer 4 days, 23 hours ago

Guns.com:

With the stroke of a pen Tuesday, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) turned a controversial bill into law that will allow third parties to sue municipalities over local gun codes stronger than the state’s.

The measure, added as an amendment to a metal theft bill, had passed the state legislature earlier this month by wide margins. It allows groups such as the National Rifle Association to stand in for local citizens in challenging gun city and county control ordinances stronger than the state’s own laws in court.

With Corbett’s signature, the new law will take effect in 60 days, potentially dozens of strict city and county firearms laws under the gaze of gun rights groups such as the NRA, who called the bill Tuesday, “the strongest firearms preemption statute in the country.”

Now for federal threats:

Members of Congress who want to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms will never give up. Fortunately, through our states we can effectively render any new federal gun laws powerless by using a legal doctrine upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

This is done by depriving the feds of any enforcement assistance by local law enforcement agencies in their state, a doctrine known as “anti-commandeering.”

Essentially, it provides that state legislation can prohibit state law enforcement from aiding the federal agencies attempting to enforce federal gun laws.

In other words, the federal government cannot require a state to carry out federal acts. The federal government can pass a law and try to enforce it, but the state isn’t required to help them.

Is this legal?

It is according to the US Supreme Court. For 150 years it has repeatedly affirmed the constitutionality of anti-commandeering laws.

Relevant court cases include:

* 1842 Prigg v. Pennslvania: The court held that states weren’t required to enforce federal slave rendition laws.

* 1992 New York v. US: The court held that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.

* 1997 Printz v. US: The court held that “the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”

* 2012 Independent Business v. Sebelius: The Court held that the federal government can not compel states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for Medicaid programs already in place.

What do you notice to be common between these articles concerning advocacy for state’s rights?  Answer: turning to the courts for moral and legal justification.

The new law in Pennsylvania would be impressive if only it had prepared the infrastructure to send state law enforcement after local authorities if they didn’t observe our rights.  Nullification of local regulations combined with spending some quality time in the hoosegow for the local politicians would send a strong signal to those who would ignore the law.  Frankly, I cannot imagine a weaker state government than one which passes a law only to have cities and townships ignore it, and then have to turn to the courts to tell the local authorities to obey the state laws.  It’s embarrassing and scandalous.

And turning to the federal courts to tell ourselves that it’s okay to ignore the federal authorities when their edicts violate the covenant upon which they are supposed to labor and lead is equally embarrassing.  More than simply not aiding federal authorities in their totalitarian measures, state law enforcement ought to be sent to arrest said federal authorities, throw them in the state penitentiary, and throw away the key.

spacer 3 Comments
spacer Guns,Second Amendment Tags: State Nullification Of Federal Gun Laws, State Preemption Of Gun Laws —
30 Oct 2014

Notes From HPS

BY Herschel Smith
spacer 4 days, 23 hours ago

Kurt Hofmann:

An interesting new concept in “smart guns” is now reaching technological maturity, according to All Outdoor. This device, made by Yardarm Technology, has a purpose significantly different from previous “smart guns,” and the idea (for now, at least) is to apply it only to cops’ duty weapons … Still, though, if cops can be forced to adopt this technology, laws mandating it for the rest of us are possible, too …

Yea.  Don’t think for a second that the control freaks will stop at law enforcement.  If it actually gives us proof of principle (and I’ll believe it when I see it), they will want to mandate it for all of us.  This I cannot abide.  Besides, the better option for cops that abuse their rights to self defense with people and animals (and even more animal abuse) should have their weapons confiscated, not re-engineered.

David Codrea:

The guy has proven time and again, oath to the Constitution be damned, his true allegiance is to unrestrained government. As presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, BuzzFeed noted, Walton “dramatically expanded the ability of the federal government to use controversial techniques to gather intelligence on Americans both at home and abroad that have outraged civil libertarians.”  Walton was appointed to that position by Chief Justice John Roberts (the guy who betrayed his backers on Obamacare).

I’ve run across this guy in my reading, and he is an enemy of the constitution and thus an enemy of America.  And Chief Justice Roberts is equally a traitor to the country.  But the damage that Walton has done on the FISA court is untold and will have to play out over decades, if not longer.

Also read David’s latest on the political terrain in Connecticut.

Via Uncle, free survival books.

Why are anti-gunners so violent?

Mike Vanderboegh has a sneak picture of a new facility Malloy and Lawlor have built for us.

spacer 2 Comments
spacer Guns Tags: Notes From HPS —
28 Oct 2014

Ventura County Sheriff: Coward

BY Herschel Smith
spacer 6 days, 22 hours ago

Via Uncle, this from Wes Siler.  I’ll leave the background and setup to Wes but copy in the money quotes to this post.

In all of our visits, we’ve never seen any cops. It’s just a small little bar and a campground way out in the middle of nowhere. I’d hazard a guess that they showed up this time to look in on events. While it was a “biker” camp out, these bikers were mostly 20 and 30 something creatives living and working in Los Angeles, Ventura or surrounding areas. The weekend is a chance for them to let their hair down and wear their leather jackets, but it’s not exactly what anyone would consider a rough crowd. The event is advertised online.

The deputies must have seen us leave and followed us back to our tents. No sooner had we sat down and cracked a beer (totally legal), we saw flashlights approaching and, when they were 20 or 30 feet out, heard a man shout, “Who’s dogs are these? Get them under control or I’ll shoot them!”

Both Wiley (85lbs) and Sansho (75lbs) are big dogs and they do sometimes growl, bark or generally act like dogs do when a stranger approaches us in the middle of the night. Neither one is remotely aggressive or dangerous in appearance. Just a couple of fluffy house pets who are good with kids and other dogs and people in general. They did not act in an aggressive manner as the police approached and were not rough housing either; they were exhausted from being the centers of attention in a crowd all night.

Two cops, in uniform, were standing in the center of the campground’s drive, one had his weapon out of its holster, pointed at the dogs. Two other men, who we assumed to be cops were also present. They wore black jackets and were clearly with the police, but did not identify themselves as such. One remained behind the two uniformed deputies, hovering back in the shadows, while the other circled around our little campsite to approach it from the other side. The dogs were taking turns sniffing each oth

gipoco.com is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its contents. This is a safe-cache copy of the original web site.