Category Archives: GUNS

Change Your Constitution, Says Another British Redcoat

Britain, English, Founding Fathers, GUNS, Homeland Security, Individual Rights, Terrorism

He looks about 12-years old and is already retired. Where could he possible have worked? In the military, of course, where you are put out to pasture decades before individuals in the private sector (read the real economy) can retire. His name is Lt. Col. Michael Kay, formerly an adviser to the British Ministry of Defense. Lt. Col. Kay is here to tell Americans that, because the amorphous terrorist threat against us is “unconventional”—the National Security Agency has to take unconventional means to counter this undefined, unconventional threat.

Magnanimously, Kay concedes his host’s point about the NSA’s trampling of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, in particular. But hey, what do the Brits know about a constitution—they’ve already trashed their ancient, unwritten, venerated freedoms which inspired the fathers of this nation. Kay, of course, makes his living stoking fear.

Piers Morgan is another Briton who, from his perch at CNN, suborns treason against Americans by preaching against their natural right to defend life and property.

The backdrop: The Washington Post’s revelation—a mere formality really—that the president’s protestations to the contrary, “The National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, according to an internal audit and other top-secret documents.”

MORE.

UPDATED: The Affirmative Action Legal Idiocracy (Not Guilty!)

Affirmative Action, Crime, Critique, GUNS, Intelligence, Law, Race

Glenda Hatchett, of the CNN brain trust, is a cretin. She not only appears not to know the law, but has a hard time with analytical and deductive thinking. This has not stopped the woman from becoming a Judge, and the host of the indubitably lucrative “Judge Hatchett.”

It is a shame that the July 12, CNN transcripts cannot convey the look on Judge Alex’s face when Hatchett ventured the following:

HATCHETT: “… I did have an interesting question today. Someone said to me, well, judge, why didn’t George just pull his gun and say, ‘I’m the neighborhood watch, stay where you are until the police gets here.’ I mean, he’s the one who has the gun. Why didn’t he do that?”

Judge Alex Ferrer shot back:

FERRER: “He doesn’t have a right to do that because that would be an aggravated assault. … he would have [no] legal right to pull a gun on somebody who’s not committing a crime.”

[SNIP]

The entire Zimmerman case is about two individuals who were not committing crimes, and had a perfect right to be where they were when their paths intersected. This simple fact Judge Hatchett failed to grasp. Hatchett thinks that holding up an innocent individual with a weapon is a legal crime-preventing option.

The hours with Don Lemon, July 13, were as harrowing intellectually, when yet another black legal analyst suggested perfectly seriously (everyone nodded) that we know the Zimmerman jurors are intelligent, because they are … women. (Don Lemon is a piss-poor primetime reporter for CNN, and a pillar of the Thing Jack Kerwick calls the “Racism Industrial Complex (RIC).”)

UPDATE: The jury followed the law, adhered to the Justice’s instructions, and acquitted George Zimmerman. Not guilty. It is as it should be.

On Breitbart.com,” Read “Guilty Until Proven Innocent: How the Press Prosecuted Zimmerman While Stoking Racial Tensions.”

UPDATE II: DOJ’s Banana-Republic Credentials Bolstered (Coulter Proves The Black Zimmerman Walked)

Crime, Criminal Injustice, Government, GUNS, Justice, Law, Race

Eric Holder’s Department of Justice’s banana-republic bona fides are solid. But if true, a new scandal bolsters these “credentials” considerably.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton alleges that “the little-known [DOJ] agency, the Community Relations Service,” helped to organize “marches, demonstrations and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”

That description could only apply to the Trayvon Martin killing, for which Zimmerman is currently on trial. The heated protests and national media attention helped build the pressure last year for Zimmeran’s arrest — he was not initially charged after claiming self-defense.

DOJ spokesperson Dena Iverson framed her department’s political agitation in Doublespeak:

“The Community Relations Service was in Sanford, Florida fulfilling their mandated mission.”

The Blaze investigates the story (because Big Media won’t).

UPDATE I (7/12): “Not Guilty – Beyond Reasonable Doubt” By Pat Buchanan:

“What we have witnessed in Sanford, Fla., is the prosecution of an innocent man for murder because the politically and socially powerful demanded it.”

George Zimmerman’s defense has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he shot Trayvon Martin not out of malice, rage or hate – but in a desperate act of self-defense.
Zimmerman was being beaten “ground-and-pound,” mixed martial arts style. His head was being banged on the cement. Screaming again and again for help, he pulled out his gun and fired.
Even the prosecution is now conceding Trayvon might have been on top and is now scrambling for a compromise verdict on a lesser charge than second-degree murder, a charge that never should have been brought. Indeed, this trial should never have been held.

UPDATE II: The Black Zimmerman Walked.

Ann Coulter proves, contra the lying media, that were he black and his “victim” white, George Zimmerman would have walked. In fact, the black Zimmerman did walk. “It is only when the victim is black that we must have a show trial, a million-dollar reward paid to the victim’s parents and the threat of riots”:

The only reason it’s hard to imagine the Zimmerman case with the races reversed is that it’s hard to imagine a white teenager living in a mixed-race, middle-class community, mugging a black homeowner. This is not a problem of society’s reactions, but of the facts.
There is, however, at least one case of a black homeowner fatally shooting a white troublemaker. He was not charged with murder.
In 2006, the ironically named John White was sound asleep at his nice Long Island home when his teenage son woke him to say there was a mob of white kids shouting epithets in front of the house. The family was in no imminent danger. They could have called 911 and remained safely behind locked doors.
But White grabbed a loaded Beretta and headed out to the end of the driveway to confront the mob. A scuffle ensued and White ended up shooting one of the kids in the face, killing him.
John White wasn’t jumped, knocked to the ground, repeatedly punched and his skull knocked against the ground. He wasn’t even touched, though he claimed the white teen was lunging at him. Talk about no reason to “follow,” there was no reason for him to leave the safety of his locked home. White’s son knew the kids by name. They could have waited for the cops.

MORE.

Citizens Vs. Criminals (Lawful & Unlawful)

Britain, GUNS, Individual Rights, Islam, Jihad, Rights, The State

There is no doubt that were an American-born Jihadi stupid enough to perform an act of butchery in public, he would not have left the scene alive as Michael Adebolajo, the butcher from Woolwich, did. US police would have arrived on the scene quickly and that would be it.

As was observed in “Disarmed Brits Can Only Shoot Savage … With A Camera,” there is a lot to be said for “an armed citizenry and an unarmed police force.” Although permitted to bear arms, Americans are nevertheless severely limited in how vigorously they can defend their homes and lives without incurring the wrath of the law.

However, since the US police is not unarmed, as it is in the UK, our homegrown Jihadis are a little more circumspect about carving up a countryman in public, a la Adebolajo. They are still perfectly comfortable setting off remote-controlled explosions.

A day after “Disarmed Brits Can Only Shoot Savage … With A Camera” went up on WND, The Daily Caller asked, “Why did British bystanders watch a soldier get hacked to death?

The DC answered its rhetorical question with a list of regulations imposed in the UK which would prohibit any form of self-defense.

According to the United Kingdom government website, the online storehouse of British government regulations, it is illegal to:
sell a knife of any kind (including cutlery and kitchen knives) to anyone under 18
carry a knife in public without good reason – unless it’s a knife with a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62 cm) or less, eg a Swiss Army knife
carry, buy or sell any type of banned knife
use any knife in a threatening way (even a legal knife, such as a Swiss Army knife)
Folding knives, regardless of blade size, with a locking mechanism are illegal in the U.K. for carry in public and are referred to as “lock knives.” According to British law, “The maximum penalty for an adult carrying a knife is 4 years in prison and a fine of £5,000.”
Pepper spray is also illegal under section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968, which prohibits “any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing.”
It is illegal to import pepper spray or a stun gun because British law expressly states that pepper spray and stun guns are classified as firearms. Blow guns are classified as “offensive weapons” and are prohibited to own, except for veterinarians or registered animal handlers.

The DC neglected to mention that the US also has “bewilderingly complex, startlingly severe” “State and local knife-control laws.”

There can be no doubt that an American is better off than a Brit in as much as he can defend himself in public if he abides by strict laws—rules which do not impede criminals (not that this fact would penetrate Piers Morgan’s skull).

An Englishman attempting the same is pretty much doomed. If the criminal does not get the better of the Brit, the long arm of the law surely will.