Western Rifle Shooters Association

Do not give in to Evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Volk On Freedom

(click to enlarge)

Oleg gives all a lesson in unintended consequences.


Anonymous Defender said...

Damn right. Sheep/lamb.

Obama in Tucson said something like "We will not be passive in seeking solutions to keep this from happening again."
He mentioned "gun SAFETY laws." Not gun CONTROL laws. The spin is in.

January 13, 2011 at 2:22 AM  
Anonymous anhourofwolves said...

Or they'll look like this

January 13, 2011 at 3:01 AM  
Blogger Pat H. said...

Additional gun confiscation laws, all gun control laws are confiscatory, will not be accepted or tolerated.

We're done with backing up.

January 13, 2011 at 3:50 AM  
Anonymous Defender said...

Wolves' diagram reminds me of the German worker in the baby buggy factory who made one part. He decided to collect all the different parts, and when he put them together he had a submachine gun. True story or not, it's a good one.

You may know how Steven Spielberg decided to leave out of "Schindler's List" the part about Oskar Schindler procuring guns for his rescued workers in case the Nazis ever came for them.
I recently read that Spielberg is a consultant on the rebranding of some socialist program or candidate. I'll look up details.
Patterns. They're there.

January 13, 2011 at 4:23 AM  
Anonymous Defender said...

Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party. Of course. American national socialists are nothing like German national socialists...


January 13, 2011 at 4:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This morning on cspan Helmke stated the 2nd is irrelevant in light of Scalia's (weasel) wording in Heller. Lott's flat presentation could not overcome the leering, smirking idiot Helmke. Helmke did utter on truthful sentence; that 'if someone is intent on doing harm it's almost impossible to stop'.

January 13, 2011 at 8:45 PM  
Blogger Concerned American said...

Helmke is NOT all wet.

Read this section of Scalia's fabrications in Heller again:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts rou- tinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For exam- ple, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws impos- ing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 55 Opinion of the Court
arms.26 We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradi- tion of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indict- able Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

554 S.Ct. ____ at p. 58 of slip opinion

January 13, 2011 at 10:30 PM  
Anonymous Kerodin said...

The only people in America who believe the Second Amendment means what it says are folks like us.

Heller and McDonald come nowhere close to proper interpretation. I think an argument can be made that both decisions pave the way for eventual near elimination of effective self defense.

No Patriot can expect recourse in the Courts if you choose to exercise 2A as written. You may only exercise as they permit, or they will imprison or kill you. It is the same for 1A & 4A.

The Government we have today will never stop denying Liberty to you or me. If you wish to live free, you will have to do it, and defend it...probably sooner than you would like, and not in any Court.


January 13, 2011 at 11:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

3 other oldies but goodies that're likely to come in handy for field expedient weapons procurement are the Welrod/'Sleevegun', Welgun, & DeLisle Carbine. Something along the lines of the KGB's umbrella injector but re-designed for use as a suppressed single shot short rifle would also be useful for the aforementioned purpose.

The mind reels @ all of the possibilities......

Cassandra (of Troy)

January 14, 2011 at 12:10 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home