By Ragnar
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
With these words Justice Antonin Scalia just saved our country.
A few years ago I had the pleasure to work with a gentleman from the south who had the clearest explanation of why the 2nd Amendment was written that I ever heard. He said this: “ The 2nd Amendment ain’t about duck huntin; it is about making sure the nobody takes the pitchforks away from the Serfs so they can’t storm the castle if things get too bad.”
Justice Scalia said the same thing a little more eloquently:
The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
The 2nd Amendment is why we are a free country. It is why we are free men and not subjects. Hitler knew that his first step in establishing his Reich had to be banning individual gun ownership, so he did. The Japanese feared attacking our western coast because they knew there was an armed man behind every bush and tree. Today the United Nations pushes for global disarmament of the World population, and as it has since it was formed, America stands as a beacon of freedom against such repression. And we will continue to do so as one of my heroes said, “until they pry our guns from our cold, dead, fingers.”
A man wrote the words, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” He must have agonized over every sylable to make sure it was perfectly clear, to make sure that it could not be twisted, or misused, or read to mean anything other than exactly what it said.
Could he have ever imagined that 200 years later the highest court would have to issue rulings to explain the meaning of clear English usage, that four ninths of the court would be so lost in a Socialist/Marxist haze that they would argue the words had double meaning and a more subtle intent lost on the common man they were were written to serve? Would he be proud that the country he worked to build from a dream would still exist, or would he be shocked to think the rights he risked his life and family for, that so many men have bled for, would have slipped so close to the precipice? To within one judge’s opinion of being lost forever.
The other thought my Southern friend told me is this, “Once you give up your rights, or let some carpet-bagger take em away, they’s awful hard to get back.”
Labels: 2008, freedom, guns, Ragnar, second amendment
~by RagnarAs a kid Iron Man was my favorite comic book (or the Avengers for whom of course Iron Man was a founding member). I liked Iron Man because Tony Stark was just this guy with no super powers or anything. In fact he was very human. He had a bad heart and was kept alive by a pacemaker, and he had a drinking problem. Of course he was also a billionaire, playboy, mechanical engineering genius. And as we all know, he builds this incredible suit of armor that allows him to go toe to toe with the toughest bad guys in the Marvel universe and hold his own with guys like Thor and Hercules. I liked that he was always tinkering with his armor and creating improvements and refinements.
Sometimes because of his human failings he needed his friends to prop him up, even to the point of his pal Jim Rhodes putting on the armor and assuming the role for a couple of times. Also, the artists hit a homer with the crimson and gold avenger design. His armor just looked so cool.
So to the film. I took the two best critics I know, my wife and daughter. The daughter knew the storyline a little, and the wife not at all.
Bottom line, we were all three blown away and loved the movie. Visually and effects-wise it is amazing. Robert Downey Jr. is fantastic as Tony Stark. His chemistry with his secretary Pepper Potts (Paltrow) is smoking hot. There are lots of funny bits along the way as he designs his armor and works the bugs out of it. My daughter said it was by far the best superhero movie she has seen (and she has seen them all). My wife thought it was great and actually wooo-hooo’d out loud a couple of times. And it is pretty hard to make her go wooo-hoooo.
But by far the best part of the movie, and something that I hope indicates that learning has finally occurred, is the movie stays true to the original story. OK, they modernized it a bit, but they recognized that the original story is great and they told it. Unlike the last X-men movie (what the hell was that) and don’t even get me started on the Hulk. These old Marvel plotlines are so good just tell them and you will have a hit.
So Ragnar says enjoy, two thumbs way freakin' up, 5 stars, two snaps and a shaboom, whatever you want. What they do to the Shelby Cobra is wrong, but funny. And if you haven’t heard it a thousand times by now, stick around for the spoiler after the credits.
Labels: badass(es), comics, Movie Reviews, Ragnar
I had another Guiness-fueled profound thought last night while watching my beloved Illini get their asses handed to them by Dookie. So here it is. Robin Hood. When I was a kid I loved Robin Hood. I loved all of it, the Errol Flynn movie, the Disney movie, the books, and the stories. My cousin and I lurked in the Sherwood Forest of my Grandma’s back yard with home-made bows and arrows. Lucky we didn’t put an eye out.
Anyway, here is the profound thought. What is the basis of the Robin Hood story? It is that the government raised taxes on the serfs and villagers and freemen until the economy stifled and eventually the people revolted. Classic civil disobedience.
Think about that. The government raised taxes, and it hurt the economy. Doesn’t that fly in the face of democratic policy? But Ragnar you say, Robin Hood robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. That is classic democratic platform stuff. The evil corporate monarchs robbing from the downtrodden, violating the land, persecuting the poor working man.
Well yes, but that is not really what was happening. Just like today, where the Democrats are funded by the nobility of our country, the movie stars and George Soros’s of the world, so to were the nobles of Robin Hood’s time raising taxes to fund their pet policies. They knew how to spend the peoples’ money much better than the people did. That part hasn’t changed, it is really the working man trying to make the village prosper who is going to get the tax hike. OK maybe not the guy working at the corner deli, but certainly the engineers, doctors, accountants, and people with the audacity to knock out more than a hundred K a year or so. These are the “rich” the democrats are going to tax today. Going back to Robin Hood times, it would be the masons, the brewmasters, the smithies, and the scribes. They were taxed by Good Prince John until they couldn’t afford their apprentices, they had no profit, could not reinvest in the local economy, and so on until things got so bad everyone starved. Those were the people Robin Hood was giving back to. In his own way Robin Hood was cutting taxes.
Robin Hoods’ people didn’t want government funded medical care, or amnesty for the French sneaking into the country illegally, or the government banning their pitchforks. They wanted government out of their lives so that they could pursue happiness – there’s a concept……………………….And Robin Hood did what he could to facilitate that desire, George Bush tax cuts at the point of a sword.
How could this be, this concept that young children are learning from this tale, that taxation leads to poverty and economic stagnation? That getting some of your taxable income back helps you be happy? What? We can’t tell kids this kind of thing anymore. Think of how much public school programming is required to get that idea out of their heads. Memo to the DNC. A revision to the Robin Hood tale is long overdue. Maybe we could rewrite it to say that Prince John reversed the egregious tax cuts of King Richard to ensure everyone pays their fair share. Robin Hood could rob from those businessmen who tried to hide their profit from the government and he could give their money (excuse me the government’s money) back to Prince John because he would know how to better spend it. Yeah this is getting better, and we could add a gay character, Little John or Maid Marian –scratch that - Will Scarlet, and of course we could portray Friar Tuck as a corrupt pedophile and get a good slam in on religion, especially Catholics……OK I think we can salvage this.
Ragnar
Labels: outlaws, Ragnar, role of government
~ by Ragnar
The other day I had what passes for a profound thought in my neck of the woods. Not the more typical kind of thing that usually comes right before statements like, “Hey ya’ll watch this,” or “Here hold my beer a minute.” No, this was actually a little deeper. I was thinking about all the debate on nationalized health care, or socialized medicine. (Sorry but let’s call a duck a duck). Now, I have some doctors in my family, so I may have a slightly different view than most, and I am lucky enough to have employment with pretty good health care coverage. In fact, let’s broaden this even a little more to socialized anything, or just plain ole socialism.
The last Literature class I had, about 20 years ago, included a short story about a society that sought to equalize its population’s physical capability by penalizing those who were overachievers. I forget the name of the story, but the idea was that if you were too tall, or too strong, too fast, etc. they would hang weights all over you so that your physical capability fell in line with the norm. They strove for mediocrity. I think that is the concept of socialized anything all in a nutshell. You strive for mediocrity because you remove the incentive to excel.
One of my relatives, a rather brilliant surgeon I am led to believe, tells me that every bill he submits to insurance is returned as, “beyond reasonable and customary.” It doesn’t seem to matter that his fees are in line with all the other surgeons in this part of the state.
Imagine if you went to the dealership with your car for a new head gasket, and when presented the bill, you just refuse to pay 70% of it. “Nope, above what my market study shows as reasonable and customary. Sorry, my market study is confidential.”
If you did that, and the dealership let you get away with it, I would imagine the quality of the repair work you received would begin to erode. Maybe the more skilled mechanics would no longer get the pay they now get and would decide to move to more lucrative ventures. Now imagine if the government ran all of the medical industry this way. You just might not get as great a job on your quindoubletriple bypass anymore. The brilliant, genius-level IQ, over-achieving, never-got-anything-but-an-A-in-their-life, people who entered medicine because they wanted to help people AND because they thought it would be cool to get a big return on their 10 years of college studying their arses off, followed by two years working 24 hour shifts as an intern, so that maybe just maybe they could make a butt-ton of money and live the American dream, well these people may decide to go somewhere else, to seek a more lucrative venture. And you know what? Some of them are smart enough to do it. To steal an analogy from the title of one of the greatest books ever written; “What if Atlas Shrugged?”
I think that is the inevitable result of socialized medicine, or socialized anything. The best people will leave because the incentive to stay will disappear, bureaucrats will muddle everything up, and the quality the consumer receives will suffer. The data is so overwhelming that you have to try really hard to ignore it, (kind of like the failure of gun control – sorry, had to work that in somewhere) and yet, my less-favorite political party is making it the center plank of their platform. I don’t get it. I guess the idea just seems so attractive that they cannot stop dreaming of making it work. It seems so perfect, it just has to work. Doesn’t work in the UK, doesn’t work in Canada, Michael Moore thinks it works in Cuba, which is about as likely as planting a horse-apple and expecting to grow a horse apple tree. But it just has to work. The government will provide for everyone, and nobody will be sick, and everyone will be happy, and everyone will be able to run as fast as everyone else, and the world will be a better place…sigh, utopia.
So here is the profound thought: “Socialism is like a perpetual motion machine; It would be the greatest thing ever, except it just doesn’t work. People never stop trying to reinvent it because it would be so great, but it just never works.”
Wow, here gim’me back my beer.
~by Ragnar
I propose that the "sport" of basketball be banned from play at all government-sponsored facilities as being an activity that actively promotes class warfare, hate speech, and blatant discrimination.
Examples: Look at the term "Shoot the Ball." It clearly refers to violent crime as applied to inner city disadvantage youth and minority issues. Worse, the phrase perpetuates the country's irrational love of firearms and the culture of gun violence and racial intolerance. Likewise, with the term "steal the ball."
The allowable number of "fouls" are not adjusted to compensate for different ethnic backgrounds and upbringings. It is discriminatory to allow the same number of fouls to a minority "playa" as his culturally advantaged team member. Classifying two of the participants on each team as "guards" highlights the inequalities of the judicial system and represents a threatening environment of political repression. Further, there is no attempt to level the court with respect to team composition to allow for minority applicants. The socio-progressive advantages of affirmative action are ignored.
Team composition is actually based solely on performance! Further, discussions of a players' ability as a "ball handler" has homophobic implications. Likewise, puritanical insistence that all members of the "team" dress alike in "uniforms" fails to celebrate the diversity of the contestants.
Finally, insisting that each game has a "winner" and a "loser" places a stigma on the "losing" team that highlights the disparities of the two-class system of Neo-Con "Haves" and "Have-Nots." A government agency could better manage the events to ensure fairness and equitable outcomes of all games and ensure that the final scores were reflective of progressive ideals. Possibly each contestant could be awarded "points" at the start of the season which would then be added or deducted based upon the governing agencies analysis of his or her socio-economic status. Instead of "scoring" points the participants would pay points in accordance to his or her ability. Naturally, culturally advantaged individuals would provide a percentage of their points as reparations for past fouls committed by their former players. Until then I will protest!
Labels: death to the PC police, Ragnar, sarcasm
A Remarkable Book: The Matchlock Gun by Walter Edmunds
10 Comments Published by Augur on Friday, September 28 at 2:49 PM.
~by RagnarI read a remarkable book yesterday. It is called “The Matchlock Gun,” and was written by a guy named Walter Edmunds. It was awarded “The American Library Associations’ Most Distinguished Contribution to Children’s Literature,” in 1941. It is an illustrated kids book, written at about the 4th grade level. Imagine, a kids’ book about a GUN.
It gets better.
Mr. Edmunds was a Harvard Grad, and probably his most famous work was “Drums Along the Mohawk.” It was made into a pretty good old black and white movie with Henry Fonda.
Anyway, the story takes place during the French and Indian Wars, and is about a Dutch family who live in upstate New York. The main character is a 10 year old boy named Edward. He lives in a small cabin with his mother, father and younger sister. His father keeps a musket hanging on pegs above their door, and above their fireplace they have an heirloom of his mothers. It is a Spanish Matchlock Gun, that once belonged to her grandfather. Edward is fascinated by it.
A matchlock gun is a very primitive gun that has no ignition device. No hammer or flint. To fire it, you literally touch a match to a hole in the barrel, opposite the business end, just like firing an old pirate cannon. Hence the name “Matchlock”.
The matchlock gun of Edward's Mother is a massive thing, longer than Edward is tall and so heavy that he cannot hold it without one end or the other resting on the ground. It has ornate brass-work and a big blocky wooden stock. The muzzle is bell-shaped like a Blunderbuss. It is really as much of a small cannon as it is a gun.
So the story progresses with Edwards father being called to support the militia because the French and Indians are attacking the settlements. Edwards mother becomes concerned when she sees the smoke of burning settlements in the distance and realizes that the Indians have gotten past the militia and into their valley. She realizes she has to defend her home and children. First she uses an axe and chops a small hole in the wall of the cabin onto the front porch, or stoop. The hole is just big enough to stick a gun barrel through. (do you see where this is going)
She and Edward take the Matchlock gun down from over the fireplace and carry it to the table. They have no idea how to load the gun, but since it is considerably bigger than the father’s musket, they pour a double charge of gunpowder in. They drop in a couple of musket balls, and realizing the gun holds much more, they fill it with nails and brass buttons. They use a piece of writing paper to wad the load down. After tamping the load they prop the gun up on the table with flat irons so that the muzzle sticks out of the hole in the wall and points at the front porch.
She places a lit candle by the gun and then tells Edward that she is going out to look for Indians. She instructs him that if she runs on the porch and shouts his name, he is to touch the candle flame to the matchlock and fire the gun.
She then goes out and watches for Indians, leaving Edward sitting by the table with the candle and the big gun. Sure enough she see five braves approaching the cabin. She runs to the house but misjudges the distance and they almost catch her. One throws a tomahawk and buries it in her shoulder as she flees. (this is all beautifully illustrated by the way). She collapses on the porch with the Indians mere steps behind her and intent on killing her. She yells “Edward!” He grabs the candle and sticks the flame to the barrel, firing the gun. A tremendous explosion results and he is thrown across the cabin and knocked unconscious.
His little sister wakes him and their cabin is aflame, on fire from the discharge of the gun. They go outside to help their mother and four indians are scattered on the ground dead. They remove the tomahawk from their mothers back and try to bandage her. Edward runs back into the burning house to save the matchlock gun. About then their father comes riding in with the militia.
OK, this seems ridiculous by today’s standards. You will never find this book on the shelves of a public school classroom. But again, this won “The American Library Associations’ Most Distinguished Contribution to Children’s Literature,” in 1941!
I think it should be on the shelves of classrooms.
I think this book teaches the mentality that no matter what, be self-sufficient, and most of all, do not allow yourself to be a victim. A generation of Americans grew up reading this book. They were probably the last generation to have instilled in them the mindset of self-reliance and the refusal to be a victim.
Now here is a thought for you. Think how differently the outcome might have been if this book had remained on the shelves of classrooms in New Orleans. Maybe the citizens would not have sat idly by while the sewage rose up to their necks and cried, “Oh me oh my! Where is the government to save me!”
I tell you what I am going to do. I am going to search for my own copy of this book. I am going to buy a box full of copies and give them to my friends in the hope they will read it to their children. In the hope we will breed a new generation of self-sufficient, non-victims to pick up the pieces that today’s generation of worthless, government-tit sucking, liberal, socialist sheep leave behind.
Labels: book review, guns, philosophy, Ragnar, society
~by Ragnar
Did you see on the news about the woman in Minnesota who was being taken to court because her cow Wally mooed too much? Some total moron DA and cop gave her a ticket for her cow mooing excessively and chose to take her to trial. The news got ahold of the story and pretty soon Wally's pasture was ringed with camera crews and the neighbor who filed the complaint was in hiding. After about three weeks of media circus the prosecutor dropped the case. No doubt his boss said "you freakin moron we don't need this kind of publicity in our lives" The guy actually documented that they were dropping the case for lack of evidence. Lets see, he didn't have evidence that "The Cow Goes Moooo" Maybe we should send him one of those pull and play toys. Freakin Barney Fifes of the world. The kicker was Wally absolutely refused to moo on camera. gotta love it.
Labels: Eff the Police, nature, Ragnar
Ragnar's Thoughts on AZ Immigration & Scooter
2 Comments Published by Augur on Tuesday, July 3 at 2:03 PM.
The Arizona Governor just signed a law that says any business caught with an illegal alien in its employ will have its business license suspended. If a second offense should occur, the business license will be PERMANENTLY revoked. Guess what? If every state follows Arizona's lead, the illegal immigration issue is over. You don't even need a fence. It is a classic solution, follow the money, cut off the money supply, and the problem ceases to exist. The end, Fini, so long and thanks for all the fish, goodbye.
This is so much more elegant that chasing and arresting people and turning our boarder into the Berlin Wall (a thing I saw when I was 15 by the way. "Surreal" doesn't even come close). I think she is even a democrat! What's up with that?
It is just that simple folks.
Also, kudos to President Bush for commuting the jail time of Libby. He is probably the only guy in the world ever sentenced to jail time (at least in America) for failing to accurately recall something that didn't happen. I wish the president had pardoned him fully, but it is a lot closer to justice than we were yesterday.
Happy Glorious Fourth - even to you panty-wringing, commie, liberal wienies out there.
Labels: immigration, politics, Ragnar, the decider
Below is a guest post from Ragnar, a friend who is new to Urbanagora. Give 'em hell....
~ by Ragnar
OK, I know that here in our politically correct utopia the concept of a diverse workforce is one of our most dearly held sacraments. No matter what business one finds oneself in, If Mr./Ms. One hires minority candidates from every remote corner of the world, the business will just naturally run better because of the “diverse” collection of ideas/cultures/experiences/ blah blah blahs assembled.
The company that I work for has embraced this philosophy whole hog. In fact, they would rather go to Pakistan to bring in a minority candidate with the English speaking ability of Cousin It than to hire a white boy who grew up down the block from the corporate headquarters and spent his summers playing on the company-sponsored little league team and got his first piece of tail from the foreman’s daughter at the company picnic.
Well guess what we are finding out? Our company is having a hard time keeping employees -especially our diversity candidates. Our pay and benefits are great, people are friendly, and the workplace is extremely safe, and as an integral part of the diversity initiative, they get preference on promotions (although we aren’t allowed to talk about that part). So why is the attrition rate so high?
Well here is what I think. It seems that the people who we hired from far away places develop longings to go back to those places. They get homesick and think that Puerto Rico, or Madagascar, or Timbuktu, or wherever, is just nicer that the great corn desert of central Illinois. As soon as they make a pocket full of dough, they bag ass. Sure, there are exceptions. My buddy grew up in Aruba, and he has built a very happy life here for the last 25 years. But in general, they are bagging ass, leaving our company with all the costs associated with a high turnover rate. (Please note I won’t even dare hint that a different “get-up-to-speed” curve also exists, like when your phone conversations are unintelligible, you fill the office refrigerator with plates of pickled bugs, wear war paint to work, etc.)
Sadly, the local boy who grew up here and who would love nothing better than to stay right here and raise a family rarely gets the chance. We make sure of this by making our upper managers’ bonuses hinge on the number of minority/diversity candidates they hire. Their fondest wet dream is having the resume of a one-legged Palestinian Lesbian hit their desk.
We have mandatory meetings where a diversity speaker explains to us that the diversity hiring initiative is ABSOLUTELY NOT a quota system. Of course we don’t get into the fact that over 60% of our diversity candidates have split within 5 years of their hire date.
But by God (oooh sorry) our company photo looks like a United Way commercial, and if we ever get a customer from Lower Ubangi we can probably find someone with whom they can meaningfully interact. (At least if they are still here) What good business.
Labels: affirmative action, death to the PC police, diversity, race, Ragnar
