By Nathan Barton

Weapons, weapons, everywhere!  What are we to do?

Best places to carry concealed weapons?   The states, according to Guns and Ammo Magazine, are 1. Arizona, 2. Utah, 3. Alaska, 4. Wyoming, and 5. Florida.  I do not understand why South Dakota is not on this list, as it is simple, easy, inexpensive, and the card is acceptable to most states. Hopefully, South Dakota will join Arizona and Wyoming in ending any need in-state to have a CCW to carry concealed, but I consider the current situation better than either Utah or Florida.  Of course, there is more to our right to defend ourselves than concealed carry: open carry is PREFERABLE and can be done in South Dakota and Wyoming (except possibly on some reservations).  Reducing illegal and immoral (and dangerous) restrictions on where we can carry is essential for the future, while continuing to fight off the attempts of the hoplophobes and hoploclasts to steal more from us.

An Air Force jet collided on Tuesday with a Cessna over South Carolina as reported in the WaPo. Federal authorities are investigating a midair collision over South Carolina involving an Air Force fighter jet and a small civilian plane. The two planes that collided Tuesday morning were an F-16 fighter and a Cessna 150, according to the National Transportation Safety Board, which said it is investigating the collision. The accident occurred about 11 a.m., the Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement.  Clearly, we must immediately ban ALL fighter aircraft within 50 miles of civilian airports, to protect the drivers of Cessnas and all light sports planes.  And to be on the safe side, we should limit both the size and power of military fighter aircraft.  I suggest nothing larger or more powerful than a Sopwith Camel, and limit the size of weapons, as well: nothing bigger than a .22-cal round (or a rocket not larger than what a civilian can buy at a local fireworks shop on the 3^rd of July) within 100 miles of a civilian airport.  These “Fighter-Free Zones” will keep civilians, especially children, safe.

A Chicago neighborhood’s got a record which the Emmanuel regime is no doubt unhappy about: number 23 nationwide for zip codes with concealed carry permit holders, according to an article in JPFO.  Yep: Chicago, Illinois, where shooting deaths on the 4^th of July weekend were ONLY ten, and only 55 wounded: (according to the Chicago Tribune down from 16 dead last year) not much more than a typical weekend in Mosul or Fallujah!  Of course, the neighborhood has a population of about 50,000, or 1/10 that of the whole State of Wyoming, which has dozens of zip-code areas.  Also, the neighborhood is SOUTH of the Southside of Chicago, so that most of the people who need to defend themselves are located in other areas.  And if I am not mistaken, you still can’t actually “legally” buy a gun in Chicago, yet. (I checked, and you can’t.)  But Chicago and Illinois regs can nearly double the price of a cheap handgun (many of which, like ALL HiPoint, are banned in Chicago), by adding $225 to the sale price (not counting tax).  And time … figure at least two months.  And they wonder why the killing continues.

Meanwhile, in California, the Ventura County Star makes it clear that carrying a concealed weapon is still a crime for most people.  A traffic stop does NOT give any authority to thugs to search a vehicle and people illegally and “discover” concealed weapons, unless you are a inhabitant of the People’s Republic of California and don’t have the political clout to cite your status as the protected resident of a sanctuary city.

Do we ever learn?  A political advocacy group which fills my inbox with their appeals to call these people and sign this protest and enlist people in this (mostly conservative, bordering on minarchist-libertarian sometimes) is now promoting a petition to have a “national referendum” on marriage. It has been obvious that “Grassfire.org” (cute name) has a totally naïve view of “We the People” in the preamble of the now-irrelevant Constitution for these united States, but this takes their thickheadedness to new levels.  One, to quote the old adage, “If voting mattered, it would be illegal.”  Two, based on recent national elections (and tens of thousands of local elections), such a vote is certain to be corrupted anyway.  And three, the Nazgul would (and actually HAVE) said, that the people’s vote is irrelevant because they have decreed that homosexual “marriage” is a “constitutional right.”  And you can’t change those by votes: I don’t care if 99.9% of the people of Delaware voted tomorrow to reinstate slavery, the Fedgov goons would be out there the day after tomorrow rounding the people up (and enslaving them, but that’s a different issue).  So even if this referendum got a 90% vote in favor of real marriage (which ain’t gonna happen with the excellent job of propaganda going on for the past two decades plus), it would be a moot point: our lords and masters have decided.

Which is something that many of the opponents of the Nazgul decision on marriage just seem unable to comprehend.  Votes don’t matter: elections are irrelevant to their decisions unless they are in some way involved in amending the Constitution (so that it can be enshrined and ignored; see below).  Civil disobedience intended to get the government to change its policy on this is doomed from the start UNLESS it leads ultimately to open rebellion and resistance, almost certainly to be escalated to violence.

Petitions, “referendums,” “initiatives” and all the other trappings of state and local government are a waste of time except to motivate a segment of the population and find and form a hard core of resistance who are willing to physically fight for a cause.

Constitutional amendments, except as they change “procedure” (like when the president takes office, or how young you can be to vote) are irrelevant, moot points that make for good rhetoric but otherwise are meaningless.  We’ve seen this for decades regarding our explicit “constitutional rights” to speedy trials, to self-incrimination, to forfeiture, and of course, to the right to keep and bear arms.  Now, the Tranzis are expanding that idea.  I missed this story last week, but a commentary pointed me to the comments of Senator Tammy Baldwin on MSNBC after the Nazgul marriage decision announcement, and can be found at Breitbart. Religious freedom, as found in the First Amendment (and obviously, according to her worldview, “granted by government,” is not an INDIVIDUAL right but only a right of “religious institutions.”  Got that?  This is exactly parallel to the belief of many millions, including politicians and bureaucrats, that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies only to GROUPS: militia, national guard, and probably police forces, and is NOT an individual right.  I assume that she, and other Tranzis, will apply that to freedom of speech as well: no individual right, just a right for lobbying organizations and “recognized” institutions (AARP? NEA? Other unions?) to have.

Just as an aside, Baldwin’s reference to “deeply held religious beliefs” echoed the comments of the MC at Milliways (the “Restaurant at the End of the Universe”) in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams.  Unintentionally, I’m sure.