The Restore the Constitution Rally at Greensboro

The Restore the Constitution (RTC) rally in Greensboro went off without a hitch.  The Leftist counter protesters never showed up.  I had anticipated them trying to provoke trouble.  Also largely absent were the news media, though Channel 14 had a guy scouting out the scene.  The lack of media was in contrast to the Washington (really Virginia) RTC where there were at least as many media as there were attendees.  This rally seemed to be larger than the Washington rally, and I would estimate the crowd at around 200-250 persons.  About three fourths of the attendees were carrying rifles, mostly of the AR-15 and clones variety, though I saw several guys carrying M1 Garands and at least one K98 Mauser (or that is what it looked like from a distance.)

I set up early under some shade along the brick walkway, and this proved to be fortuitous, because most speakers entered and left along the walkway.  One of the speakers was Bubba of the blogWhat Bubba Knows. And what Bubba knows about the BATFE is apparently quite devastating to their egos.  He suggested that they should get real jobs as law enforcement officers.  As it is, they are really just tax collectors, who shouldn't be allowed to carry guns, raid the property of innocent citizens, and generally terrorize the citizenry for exercising rights that "shall not be infringed."  Bubba didn't say this, but the idea of taxing a right is Constitutionally suspect.  After all, weren't poll taxes struck down?  On what basis?  If governments can not impose a poll tax, how can they impose a tax on guns?

B. J. Lawson, running against the infamous David E. Price for Congress from the 4th District, spoke, as did Bill Randall running in the 13th District.  Of the two, I felt Randall to be the more conservative.  But both candidates indicated support for all of our rights, including gun rights.  Bill Randall, however, again stressed the theme that we should all be getting right with God, for without God on our side, our cause is ultimately lost.  With God, all things are possible, without God, nothing is.  November will be interesting.

Mike Vanderboegh and your host, PolyKahr at the Washington RTC Rally

You can see the other speakers at the Restore the Constitution website. Due to time constraints, Daniel Almond's talk was quite limited, and Mike Vanderboegh had to cut his talk altogether. But you can find his talk here. Mike did give a history lesson on the battle of Guilford Court House after the rally was over, but I need to get home, so did not stay for it.

By the way, Mike indicated his feet are healing nicely, and he did seem to be getting around better without a cane.  I will keep praying for him, as I hope others will too.

Update:  Randy Dye has a video of the talk given by Bubba McDowell.  Take a listen.
Sipsey Street Irregulars has a report on the rally from David Codrea and Western Rifle Shooters Association.

Oh Baby Baby!

Ann Coulter has an article dated August 4, 2010 (here linked to the Universal Uclick site) entitled Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies Ann Coulter is a lawyer, who worked in the Reagan administration, and does a solid job of research. Of course, Ms. Coulter also makes a dry subject entertaining, and this article is no different.  Her point, in writing this article is...well...let Ms. Coulter tell it:

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you're 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

One question I have is how are the children of legal aliens treated?  Would a woman staying here on a visa, who had a child while here, suddenly be able to stay because she was the mother of a United States citizen?  I don't think so.  Clearly, at the end of the woman's visa, she would be sent back to her country, baby in her arms, no doubt with good wishes and a hearty bon voyage.

I have spoken about the motivations of politicians on both sides of the aisle here. Neither party is to be trusted on this question.  But it is in their best interests to throw up as much flack as possible in order to get something called "comprehensive immigration reform." But as pointed out in an article in today's American Thinker by Cindy Simpson entitled What A Difference Five Years Makes, Congress held hearings 5 years ago and concluded that:

No Constitutional amendment or new statute is necessary, since "the existing one tracks the language of the Fourteenth Amendment precisely," requiring only a "resolution," "Executive Order," "Solicitor General Opinion," "or other alternatives to underline what Congress' intent is." A review of the transcript of the hearing shows that all present agreed (some reluctantly) that the Constitution did not authorize the present anchor baby practice.

Simply clarifying the original intent of the 14th Amendment here would go far toward eliminating the magnate that currently draws thousands of illegal immigrants across the border, along with countless gang members and other criminals. 

But I guess such little acts are not bold enough for this Congress or this Regime.

Way Up North: Running Out of Boxes

Way Up North: Running Out of Boxes

Go read the whole thing, it is very good. I would only add that in addition, we must all make renewed effort to hold on to our faith that God will not abandon us. As Glenn Beck says, expect miracles. Look for the hand of God in everything, and pray.

The War on Guns: Funny How That Works

The War on Guns: Funny How That Works

The article linked to by David Codrea is excellent. In addition to noting that the introduction of flintlock firearms in the 1600s brought about the largest reduction in the homicide rate in English history, the survey of the relative freedom to own guns in other countries of Europe is stunning. Go and read the whole thing. You may learn a thing or two, as I did.

Fool Me Once, Shame on You, Fool Me Twice...

Lee Cary has an article up at the American Thinker today entitled How A GOP November Victory Could Bring Its Death. The piece says what many Conservatives and Constitutionalists are feeling right now:

Still feeling betrayed by the GOP's failure to live up to its promises going back to soon after the Contract with America, conservative voters are preparing to march to the polls in decisive numbers, but not with wild-eyed enthusiasm for the GOP. As they vote to oust the current Democrat Congress, under their breath, they'll be muttering the warning, "This is your last chance, Republicans."

I am already thinking that if the Republican running for State Representative doesn't look sufficiently conservative, rather than vote for the lesser evil, I will not vote at all in that race. I am tired beyond tears at so called "conservatives" who want to get along with the left. Note to Conservatives and Constitutionalists: you can not get along with Leftists. It's not that these people are bad people in the traditional sense. But as Reagan said, "it's that they know so much that ain't so," and feel a huge need to impose it on the rest of us. While Leftists may be charming and personable, their policies can not be reconciled with ours. It is like oil and water. To continue the analogy, there is no emulsifier to bring them together. Either you are for big government, or for limited government. Either you believe in a fixed Constitution, whose meaning can be changed only through the amendment process, or you believe in a "living document." Either you believe in individual rights, or you believe in positive rights. There is no middle ground.

The other thing that the Republicans will have to realize going in, and steel themselves against.  The Left will whine and cry, and call them the vilest names over even the most innocuous proposals.  They will accuse you of hating children, of being racist, of hating poor people, or whatever.  It isn't true, so just get used to it.

I just hope the Republicans I am supporting get it.

Why We Keep Guns

Courtesy of Keep and Bear Arms, an incredibly useful website with news from all over the place comes Gun Rights from a Different Angle. Naturally you need to read the whole thing, with clenched teeth if need be. The author, who styles himself as a cartoon version of a country hillbilly, includes all the cliches in his "satire" including the "bible and guns" bit and the ever popular sexual innuendo.  But this guy is serious.  He really doesn't see a use for guns, and therefore can't imagine someone else coming to a different conclusion.

Now, read the comments provided by Ryan.  Other than a post I ran in 2008 on Why the Gun is Civilisation, this is one of the best explications of the question "why?"  With due credit to Ryan, and hoping that he would give his permission if I were to ask, I will quote his entire comment here:

Bob,

Overall, not funny or accurate and a bit offensive. I own a few guns, each tailored for a specific purpose, but I'm not an NRA member, nor a member of any other gun rights/gun control organization. I feel that your understanding of those who vigorously support the 2nd Amendment is woefully lacking, and you approach it as a "I see no use for guns, therefore no one else has any use for them" issue. If you haven't been given a "reason," then it's either because you don't accept their reason as being valid or you simply aren't really trying to find an answer--because you already have 'your' answer. Regardless, I'll give you some reasons, since you feel that simply having the right to do something isn't good enough.

As a human, I know better than to place full trust in other humans. When the going gets tough, there are very few people that you can trust not to look out for themselves first, at the expense of those around them. This applies to any situation, be it political or a real survival scenario. Even in the best of times, we still have humans preying on other humans, either for profit or for pleasure. In the worst of times, such as after a natural disaster or in lawless regions, this human behavior of looking out for yourself and "to hell with everyone else" is amplified. In either of these times, those charged with keeping order (law enforcement) are rarely, if ever, there when the chaos starts, and the first minute/hour/day is left solely up to the victims and the perpetrators. In that short window, you can have everything taken from you by people who don't care about you, but for themselves. Your family, your home, your life, gone to satisfy the desires of someone else.

But what if you could do something about it? What if simply by making it known that you will not be a victim, you could avoid all that heartache, pain, and loss? Doesn't your family look to you for protection? Are you not their provider, their caretaker? Isn't it your responsibility, your duty, to protect those that you love and those that depend on you to live? If you don't think so, then you should probably tell you wife and children that you won't try to help them, and that they should just wait for 911 to show up. At least that way, they won't be under the disillusion that their father actually cares enough to protect them, and they should have a backup plan.

If you do want to protect them, then how best to do it? Naturally, you avoid dangerous situations as much as possible, do everything you can to not make yourself a target, but what if it does happen? Do you call the police, hide, and hope for the best? Or will you be a parent and defend that which you hold most precious? Most importantly, HOW will you defend? What could possibly put you on the same level as one, two, three large male attackers, possibly armed? If only you had something that was easily accessible, could be held in the palm of your hand, and could be pointed at the threat to make it go away. You might not even have to use it--just letting the threat know it may sustain significant injury or loss of life by attempting to victimize you could deter it.

Luckily, such things do exist. Handguns level the playing field. It doesn't matter if your young, old, male, female, built, or scrawny, you will still be able to defend yourself with a handgun at a second's notice, so long as you know how to use your firearm and you practice. Simply displaying a handgun often makes would-be attacks decide to find a softer target. It's called a Show of Force, and it's a principle that's used world-wide by every civilization. And if the threat persists, then it does so at its own peril. This isn't to say that handguns aren't abused and used improperly. When people willing to break the law are banned from having them, they will frequently find ways of obtaining them and they will use them as tools to aid their criminal ways. When people who want to stay right with the law are banned, they remain defenseless and become victims. We've seen this everywhere such a ban has been enacted.

It doesn't have to be guns, Bob. The guns are just a means to an end. It could be a device that lets you set people on fire with your mind, or pill that you could take that let you fling people across the room with telekinesis, or a damn board with a nail in it. It doesn't matter, so long as it's the most effective means for me to defend myself and my family, and ensure that they are given the best shot at life that I can provide for them. As it happens, guns are the most effective means ("expressly designed to kill humans as efficiently as possible") that we have today. You know it, I know it, and all of our politicians, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who are packing heat know it. Maybe in 100 years someone will be having this argument over the right to keep and bear photon cannons, but it will still be the same exact principle.

I'm loathe to get into "assault rifles," because first I have to explain to you the difference between that term and the "assault weapons" term that you're confusing it with. Civilian ownership of "assault rifles" is prohibited, unless you get permission and a permit from the federal government, which you have to renew regularly. It's not easy. "Assault weapons," on the other hand, such as the AR-15's most people are familiar with and even the civilian model of the AK-47 are not the same as assault rifles, as they are not "select fire weapons." They fire in semi-automatic, one shot per pull of the trigger, only. Real AK-47's fire in single shot/fully automatic, and M-16's (the military equivalent of the AR-15) can fire in single shot, 3-round burst, or full auto. You can't go down to the gun store and buy any weapon that functions like that. The Assault Weapons category also includes modern handguns that hold over 10 rounds and shotguns that can adjust their butt-stocks to properly fit your arm length. For reference, I own a rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol that, for one reason or another, all classify as an "assault weapon." Now that that's out of the way, we can move on to the reason.

The rifles in question are the most technologically advanced firearms that fulfill nearly every role conceivable. A semi-automatic rifle can be used to do everything a hunting rifle can, plus be useful for any form of tactical situation at any time of day against any type of target, with the correct ammo. With my semi-auto chambered in .308 I can take down a buck to feed my family or protect my land/house/country from any human threat short of an armored vehicle. The semi-automatic rifle such as the AR-10/15 is a versatile firearm that can generally be outfitted with any number of attachments, making it useful in daylight, darkness, poor weather, or harsh terrain. A magazine capacity of 20 or more rounds ensures proper redundancy for any situation, regardless if you need one round to drop a deer at 500 yards, three rounds to drop an intruder at 2.5 yards (ideally I'd be using my shotgun or handgun, however, for my neighbor's sake), or 20 rounds to keep the mob from looting your house and burning it to the ground. Bottom line: it is efficient and useful in any situation. It's BETTER than a handgun, because it's more accurate, holds more ammo, and generally has more power. The only drawback is that it isn't easily accessible like a handgun.

Those are my direct, honest, human answers, Bob. Not nearly as succinct as "because I can," but I also had more time to answer than the people you may have asked. I own these weapons, not because I want to use them, but because I'm prepared use them protect my family, myself, and my fellow man against the realities of this world using the most effective means possible. End of story.

I'm not going to go into all of the reasons our fore fathers felt we needed firearms, most notably of which was to keep our government in check, because that would be my 'political' reasons for owning such weapons, not my "human" reasons. Needless to say, they are just as lengthy.

Ryan

Militia in Action

This is the last one...promise. A great example of militia in action. In this case, it appears a civilian posse helped a sheriff track down a bad guy in Ashtebula Ohio.