A Geek With Guns

I must say if Ron Paul actually chooses Judge Napolitano as his running mate it would be the first presidential ticket in history that I could get entirely behind. From Paul’s statement it sounds as though Napolitano is a possibility:

“One time somebody asked me who I would consider and the name Judge Napolitano jumps right out at me,” Paul said to raucous cheers of approval.

All I can say is, yes please.

Virginia isn’t the only locality refusing to enforce the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a town in Massachusetts is also nullifying the clause:

A small town in Massachusetts says it is “opting out” of a federal law that allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial.

The city of Northampton on Thursday passed a strongly worded resolution (PDF) to protest provisions of the federal government’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which even President Barack Obama said he had “serious reservations” about signing.

“WHEREAS, the indefinite detention of any person without trial violates the 5th and 6th amendments of the Constitution of the United States, Article III of the Constitution of the United States, and the Posse Comitatus Act,” the resolution stated.

The document went to request that public agencies “uphold the Constitution… when requested or authorized to infringe upon those Constitutionally guaranteed rights by federal agencies acting under detention powers granted by the NDAA.”

This is the kind of spine more localities in the United States of America need to grow. Instead of bowing obediently to the demands of the tyrannical federal government, local bodies need to stop up and loudly say, “NO!” I sincerely hope that every town, county, and state tell the federal government where to shove it’s indefinite detainment clause. The Bill of Rights was written in an attempt to protect the American people from an overreaching federal government. While many give the Bill of Rights magical powers the truth is those amendments added to the Constitution that supposedly protect our rights are merely words, words that must be backed up with the courage to oppose any violation of them.

Most people express a desire to support the military personell of the United States. Driving down any busy highway will likely lead to seeing at least one bumper sticker that reads, “I Support Our Troops.” If you really want to support our troops then you should stand behind the presidential candidate they stand behind:

The number of civilians walking behind the veterans and active duty marching to show that “Ron Paul is the Choice of the Troops” was reported to be over 1,000 family members and supporters. The official march by the troops and veterans themselves is believed to have been an additional 900 people. It is unclear at this time, how many members of the public may have been in the crowd to observe this historic public statement by our veterans in support of Ron Paul for President of the United States.

I will also point out the fact that members of the United States Army, Navy, and Air Force are Paul’s biggest financial contributors.

Support the troops and vote for the candidate who will bring them home. When it comes to sending supplies to the troops most Americans are all for it but when it comes to preserving those troops’ lives from being needlessly wasted most people seem unwilling to do what is necessary and work to get Paul into office.

Via Gun Free Zone we get a lesson in fighting with the elderly, and that lesson is don’t fight with the elderly or they’ll outlive you:

When a residential burglar fired a gun at Jay Leone last month, he was initially too angry to realize he had been shot in the head, he testified Friday.

“To tell you the truth, I never felt a thing,” said Leone, 90, of Greenbrae. “I said, ‘F—- you, you son of a bitch, now it’s my turn.’”

Getting shot in the head won’t stop a pissed off old man. Some punks forget that these people didn’t get old by being total pushovers, they got old by being bad asses. So if you’re cruising around looking for easy marks to rob just remember that the 90 year-old man walking down the street is 90 years old and has probably dealt with far worse than you’re little punk ass.

I’ve talked about jury nullification several times on this blog but I don’t believe I’m talked about the ability of states of nullify federal laws. Through state legislation federal laws can be rendered unenforceable, or nullified. This has been done numerous times throughout American history with my favorite example of Wisconsin’s nullification of the Fugitive Slaves Act. Various states also nullified the REAL ID Act by passing legislation prohibiting the act from being implemented in those states.

The passed of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was not a happy moment in American history as it granted the United States government the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial. While Ron Paul introduced legislation to repeal the erroneous provision Virginia has decided to simply nullify the provision:

On Tuesday, February 14th, the Virginia House of Delegates voted in favor of House Bill 1160 (HB1160). The final vote was 96-4.

The legislative goal of HB1160 is to codify in Virginia law noncompliance with what many are referring to as the “kidnapping provisions” of section 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). The official summary of 1160:

“A BILL to prevent any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”

I hope other states will follow Virginia’s fine example.

What happens when the police fail in their duty to protect the populace? The populace gets armed for their own defense:

Justifiable homicide in the city shot up 79 percent in 2011 from the previous year, as citizens in the long-suffering city armed themselves and took matters into their own hands. The local rate of self-defense killings now stands 2,200 percent above the national average. Residents, unable to rely on a dwindling police force to keep them safe, are fighting back against the criminal scourge on their own. And they’re offering no apologies.

I say good on the people of Detroit for defending themselves. Detroit suffered from massive economic collapse due to their over reliance on the automobile industry and when the economy goes bad crime rises. When the crime rises the police are usually the first to run and hide in the safer parts of town leaving those living in the poorer parts of down in a position where they must defend themselves. The anti-gunners would rather these people be dead than have a means of defending themselves against criminals.

The family of the murdered Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry, are finally moving forward with a lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF):

The family of murdered Border Patrol agent Brian Terry has filed a $25 million wrongful death claim against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives claiming Terry was killed with AK-47s that were knowingly sold under the Fast and Furious gunrunning probe to a straw purchaser for drug cartels.

I’m sure the ATF will be working hard to squirm their way out of taking responsibility for Terry’s death.

What do you do when the state ruling over your area refuses to protect you and even goes so far as to make it illegal to protect yourself? You give them the middle finger, which is what many Mexican citizens are doing to protect themselves against the drug cartels:

In Mexico, where criminals are armed to the teeth with high-powered weapons smuggled from the United States, it may come as a surprise that the country has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world.

Smuggled in by our government as part of Operation Fast and Furious.

But on July 7, 2009, close to 20 men showed up at Benjamin LeBaron’s house, according to his older brother, Julian LeBaron.

“They wanted to terrorize everyone into never opposing them,” Julian LeBaron says. “They dragged Benjamin out of his house, and [his brother-in-law Luis Widmar] came to help him.”

Then, he says, the criminals took the two men a couple of miles down the road and shot them.

The cold-blooded murders of Benjamin LeBaron and Luis Widmar galvanized the community, Julian LeBaron says. It prompted them to take a stance that is familiar to Second Amendment advocates in the U.S., but one that is taboo in Mexico.

“I think there would be less violence if there were more guns, in the sense that I could barge in here and do whatever I want, knowing that this guy doesn’t have a gun,” says Jose Widmar, the brother of slain Luis.

Today, if the gangsters return, the LeBaron colony is locked and loaded.

The average person in the United States and most European nations are fortunate that they can live a life relatively free of violence. Unfortunately relatively safe lives lead people to forget the necessity of self-defense and thus lose pasion for their right to keep and bear arms.

These lessons are quickly being learned in Mexico though, where armed drug cartels all but run the country and view human life as being without value. The Mexican government has been unable to protect the people yet demand the people be unarmed. Now people living in Mexico are going to the really free market (often incorrectly called the black market) to obtain the means of personal defense. I commend these people and demand those advocating for the disarmament of the citizenry explain what alternative these people have.

The Republican Party has been running an ungodly number of debate this election season but they’ve all been mindless fluff. What really matters this election season isn’t the economy, the wars, or civil liberties, it’s whether you want a free pony or low rent:

This may be the most important debate in our lifetimes.

The Supreme Court finally ruled on whether or not government agencies can use GPS tracking devices to track suspects without first getting a warrant. According to a unanimous ruling they can’t:

The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously restricted the police’s ability to use a GPS device to track criminal suspects in a first test of how privacy rights will be protected in the digital age.

The court rejected the government’s view that long-term surveillance of a suspect by GPS tracking is no different than traditional, low-tech forms of monitoring. But its decision was nuanced and incremental, leaving open the larger questions of how government may use the information generated by modern technology for surveillance purposes.

This ruling is one of those few speed bumps being encountered by the government as it speeds down the road to tyranny and I’m glad for it. Anybody with a couple of brain cells to rub together would be able to determine attaching a GPS tracking device to a suspect’s car without so much as a warrant is a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The complete Supreme Court writeup can be found here [PDF].