July 13th, 2004

Terrorist

Assault Weapons

The assault weapons ban expires this year, on September 13th and I personally am counting the seconds.

*gasp* Remy's not a liberal.

There are a few reasons that I oppose a ban on assault rifles.

First, the principle purpose of the "Right to Bear Arms" is so that a well armed citizenry acts as a safeguard against an oppresive government. The expectation was that private citizens could organize into militas and overthrow a government that failed to ensure personal freedoms. Obviously, an AK-47 doesn't do much against tanks and F-22's, but then again- three man teams armed with RPGs and AK-47's are making handy work of our forces in Iraq.
Collapse )
To my mind, possessing and being familiar in the use of a firearm is not a privlege- it is a civic responsibility.
run the fuck away

News, Rants, and Asses needing Kicking

Before I go all political and haranguey, here's something to snicker at: "Merlin" tried for shopping with sword.

Okay, done with chuckling? Good.

In the category of "news you already knew", an anonymous senior US intelligence official said that the war in Iraq was A gift of epic proportions to Osama Bin Laden". He will be releasing a book on the topic in August, which, in absence of the Senate report, is at least _something_.

When terrorists were an execptional occurance, it made sense not to negotiate with them; however, when the terrorists are in truth, the military wing of a growing multinational cultural movement, you have to realize that while negotiating with the soldiers in this army is not an option, you're going to have to negotiate and deal with the people that they're fighting for. Other wise, as that official said, "we will certainly bleed."

Meanwhile, A declaration from the NukeFreeZone is one that I can get behind. The first paragraph for you:
If a man should stand before his brethren and declare a fellow citizen a danger to the Republic, urging them to do all within their power to damage the ability of this Threat to harm their liberty and limb, it becomes incumbent upon him to list Reasons well-known and irrefutable why such action should be taken. We do thus declare George W. Bush to be in opposition to the principles of our Social Compact, and do thus call upon our Compatriots to struggle toward removing him from his Office, so honoring the principles of the Affair and with respect for our Audience, we present the nigh-undisputed facts for general inspection.


Well written, and truthful.

Finally, you remember that ban that protects about a third of the US forests from logging? Well, our current administration is seriously looking into nixing _that_ one. However, they're turning control over to the states, which I consider a mixed blessing. The states are better able to direct the usage of their land than a distant federal government, but at the same time, states are more easily beholden to coporate interests than the federal government. And the intent is obvious- an administration well known for putting corporate interests above environmental concerns is simply adding to that trend.

Finally, the bookies (more accurate political analysts than any other) are putting our two presidential canidates odds at even. Not great news, but the odds on Bush are getting gradually longer.

If Bush squeaks through, things will be worse than if he wins by a sizeable margin. He will have no legitimacy- the public outcry will be damning, and I believe that we will see violence.
My Hat!

*facepalm*

UPN, you know, the network that makes Fox look highbrow, will be launching a new reality TV series this fall.

Amish in the City. I shit you not.

I have to be honest, I'd love to meet an Amish kid on rumspringa. It'd be like mixing water and sodium- sure, they react great- just be a safe distance from them when it happens.