Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Tuesday, 28 June 2016

Random Shots for Tuesday, 28 June 2016

Filed under: Random Shots — mikewb1971 @ 11:59 PM (23:59)

Today in history

Comments I’ve posted

  1. Posted to Facebook

    It’s already been developed. My problem is restricting it to law enforcement use. Any tech they have access to, the rest of us should be able to have it, too.

  2. Posted to Facebook

    Loretta Lynch said she has the _option_ on whether or not to actually charge Hillary with anything. If anyone else had done what Hillary is accused of, they would have already been tried, convicted and sent to the slammer.

  3. Posted to Facebook

    I’m thinking of getting some Hillary bumper stickers for _after_ the election for camouflage purposes. Every so often I’ll read a story about someone with a Ron Paul sticker (or Gadsden flag sticker, etc.) getting pulled over, and when the cop sees the sticker, the cop immediately draws his weapon on the driver, because that particular sticker is an indicator of “terrorist sympathies” or whatever.

  4. Posted to Facebook

    Was this really a mistake, or are they hedging their bets?

  5. Posted to Facebook

    The big red circle with the arrow doesn’t help a bit, as it covers up the signage behind the vehicle.

  6. Re: Dems finally pick fight over guns but lose sight of people’s rights

    “Our last Republican president, George W. Bush, prioritized security over our rights. Obama has ramped up those efforts. What’s next? Will our government seek the authority to take other constitutional rights too?”

    That’s been the general pattern of history, hasn’t it? How many regulations over our rights have been rolled back at the insistence of either Republicans or Democrats?

    “We need to address mass shootings and other homicides. We should fight for sensible gun-regulation proposals like requiring background checks for purchases at gun shows.”

    The problem with background checks is that they’re a form of prior restraint — you’re insisting that someone prove their innocence before exercising their liberty, which overturns the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

    The shooter in Orlando passed a background check. So did the shooters in San Bernardino (sp?). Funny how the shooter in Garland, Texas only injured one person and didn’t get past the parking lot.

    What do We The Gun Owners get in exchange for these background checks? We’ve always been told that we need to be willing to “compromise.” The word “compromise” means that for everything I give up, I get something back that I want. So what do I get back? Repeal of the burdensome regulations against my owning a suppressor, or repeal of the regulations restricting my ownership of rifles with barrel lengths of less than 16 inches? Repeal of the 1986 Hughes Amendment? How about George H. W. Bush’s requirement that imported sport utility rifles (some call them “assault weapons”) are put together with over 50 percent domestically-manufactured parts?

    Instead, when those inclined toward supporting further victim disarmament schemes use the word “compromise,” most often what they really mean should be called surrender — their role in this “debate” is to dictate, my role as a gun owner is to shut up and do as I’m told. Sometimes they’ll offer the unenforceable (and often reneged upon) promise of “this is all we want — we won’t be back for more.”

    Copied to Facebook here, here, and here

  7. Posted to Facebook

    When have I *EVER* advocated outlawing abortion?

Listening / Reading / Watching

  1. — Dems finally pick fight over guns but lose sight of people’s rights by Heath Haussamen

Copyright © 2016 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with medit and Notepad++.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: