The 1920 Firearms Act repealed the Pistols Act of 1903, but also expanded the licensing requirement to the purchases of all all firearms and ammunition. The license specified not only the weapon the person was eligible to purchase, but also the quantity of ammunition, and in order to procure a license, applicants had to convince their local constables that they had a sufficiently compelling reason for the license, and did not have "intemperate habits" or an "unsound mind".

The 1937 Firearms Act expanded the purchase licensing to include shotguns, effectively banned all fully-automatic firearms from civilian ownership, regulated firearm dealers, allowed constables to add conditions to individual licenses, and mandated that "self-defense" was no longer a sufficient reason for requesting a firearm license.

The 1968 Firearms Act codified all of the previous firearm-related laws into one document, and included licensing for long-barreled shotguns, allowed constables to stop and search anyone who the constable suspects of having a firearm, and allowed constabulatory inspections, at any time, of firearm licenses (and if licenses are not provided, constabulatory confiscation of all firearms and ammunition at the premises).

The Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1988 prohibited all pump-action and semi-automatic rifles other than those chambered in .22, any pump-action or semi-automatic smooth-bore firearm not chambered in .22 but with a barrel less than 24 inches or an overall length less than 40 inches, smooth-bore revolvers that were not muzzle loaders nor chambered for 9mm rimfire ammunition, any firearm "not lawfully on sale in Great Britain in substantial numbers at any time before 1988", and any firearm that meets that date requirement but is "specially dangerous". Additionally, registration and secure storage of otherwise legal shotguns was required, shotguns were required to have fixed magazines capable of holding no more than 2 rounds, and further leeway was granted to constables concerning firearm licenses.

The Firearms (Amendment) and Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Act of 1997, when combined, effectively banned almost all cartridge ammunition handguns, regardless of caliber. The only permitted handguns were antique and muzzle-loading black powder guns, firearms of historical interest, and air pistols. Expanding ammunition was banned, and even more leeway was granted to constables when issuing firearm licenses.

Simultaneous to all of this firearm-related legislation, knives and the carrying of knives have been gradually outlawed, culminating in the Criminal Justice Act of 1988, which banned all pocket knives with blades exceeding three inches. Furthermore, there have been movements to ban any knives with points, including kitchen cutlery.

After all this time, and all this legislation, and all these registrations, regulations, restrictions, bans, and confiscations, there are those in who would proclaim that all of these various and sundry laws should have made England (this is the country we are talking about, after all...) into the safest place in the world. After all, all of the supposedly "dangerous" tools have been outlawed in that country, and the country is, after all, an island - enforcement of these bans should not be difficult.

Unfortunately, the ban has been somewhat difficult to execute and maintain, though most English subjects abided by the word of the law. At any rate, forcibly disarming the law-abiding populace of England may have had some unintended consequences:

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it is revealed today.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

(Emphasis added.)

The article goes on to provide these numbers: The violent crime rate, per 100,000 people, in England is 2,034, while the violent crime rate here in America is 466.

England has banned handguns, banned rifles, restricted the hell out of shotguns, and is starting to ban knives, and yet their violent crime rate is over four times America's. Is there a better indication that banning inanimate objects does not stop criminals?

Potentially worse than the bans, though, is the societal attitude that has accompanied them. England has gradually demonized firearms, firearm ownership, firearm sports, self-defense, and self-reliance over the years, to the point where defending yourself from criminal assaults is almost likely to wind you up in prison. And just as the subjects of England have been trained not to fight back, the criminals know their victims will not resist, which makes them them that much more daring, and their lives that much easier. Hell, even England's own Olympic shooting team has to practice out of the country, on their own dime, because they would be committing a crime if they dared hone their skills inside England.

Unfortunately, the totemists, gun-grabbers, and other hoplophobes in England will only use this unfortunate situation as backing for their endless "do it again, only HARDER" mentaliy, as if continued bans and regulations will stop people who do not care about bans or regulations. Thankfully, we Americans have the opportunity to learn from our once rulers, and not succumb to the idiocy of pointless and ineffective bans that, in reality, only serve to aid and abet criminals in their illegal activities. We, as a country, have no reason to follow in the failed footsteps of once-Great Britain, and I will do my damnest to ensure we never do.

(Courtesy of Say Uncle and Newsalert.)

(And now, I disappear for the weekend. Toodles.)

Granted, the individual in question never stood a chance in the debate to begin with, but when someone resorts to name-calling for the sake of name-calling, they have admitted to the world that they lost.

Color me unsurprised.

Unfortunately, those states' laws make that allowance in a variety of ways... Tennessee, for example, had to pass a law expressly stating that concealed/open carry is now legal in all establishments that serve alcohol. Virginia, on the other hand, mandates that open carry is required for any individual carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol. Texas, Missouri, and other states, on a third hand, only allows for carry into establishments that derive at least 51% of their income from non-alcohol sales. On the fourth hand, Washington only keeps legal firearm carriers out of "age-restricted" sections of establishments that serve alcohol, but licensed concealed carry and unlicensed open carry is legal anywhere else in the establishment. And on the fifth hand, some states (like the may-issue states of Kalifornistan, Hawaii, Alabama, and others) simply do not address the topic of firearms in establishments that serve alcohol, and if something is not prohibited, it is, by definition, legal.

Some states actually use the term "bar"; most (like Tennessee) do not. Some states use a "51% rule"; some (like Tennessee) do not. Some states use age-restrictions as a guiding path; some (like Tennessee) do not. A few mandate open carry; most (like Tennessee) do not.

But no matter how you cut the deck, shuffle the numbers, or squint your eyes, 40 states currently allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms into businesses that serve alcohol for consumption on the premises... just like Tennessee will on the 14th.

In other news, it would be just great if anti-rights activists did not lie so often...

The year is 2020 and the gasoline tax is history. In its place you get a monthly tax bill based on each mile you drove — tracked by a Global Positioning System device in your car and uploaded to a billing center.

What once was science fiction is being field-tested by the University of Iowa to iron out the wrinkles should a by-the-mile road tax ever be enacted.

Basically, some authoritarian nanny-statists... er... sorry... "transportation experts" are getting concerned that increased fuel efficiency in vehicles (you know, something our government has been demanding for about a decade now) might result in a decrease in tax revenues from gas sales (well, duh). Their response to this is not to bump up the tax rate, but rather add a whole new tax that just happens to have the cute little side-effect of installing a government-tracked GPS tracker in your car.

Uh, no.

I completely understand that roads are not free, and their construction and maintenance can be an inordinately expensive undertaking... but there is no way on God's Green Earth (TM) that the federal and/or state governments are going to stick a GPS tracker in my car without a court order or warrant. Bump up the gas tax... institute tolls... but this GPS plan is not going to work.

(And yes, I know that the government does not need a GPS device to track me in this day and age of cell phones... try not to remind me.)

Democratic Party control of the House of Representatives? Check.

Democratic Party control of the Senate? Check.

The only check-and-balance remaining on both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch is the Supreme Court, and it is currently more-or-less split 5-4, right-left. Thankfully, Sotomayor's likely appointment to the Supreme Court will not change that balance, but God help us if one of the right-leaning judges decides s/he has had enough.

Our country was never intended to be run by one political party or ideology; while our Glorious President has always viewed his election as permission for him to rule by fiat, and whether or not he should have that ability, he basically does now.

Does anyone remember what the job of the President was actually supposed to be?

- a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
- showing or characterized by broad-mindedness
- tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
- favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties
- favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression
- free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant

(Emphasis added.)

So how can someone who claims to "protect civil liberties" simultaneously want to strip his fellow citizens of their natural right to self-defense? How can someone who claims to be "broad-minded" simultaneously exploit and perpetuate stereotypes and outright bigotry? How can someone who claims to "not be bound by authoritarianism" simultaneously want more government control over law-abiding citizens' lives? How can someone who claims to want the "maximum individual freedom possible" simultaneously want to deny certain freedoms (such as the freedom for someone to protect himself and his family) to his fellow citizens? How can someone claiming to be "tolerant" simultaneously try to paint anyone who disagrees with them about firearms as a "redneck", "extremist", "whackjob", or worse?

The simple answer is that they cannot.

The basic truth is that someone who is honestly "liberal" cannot be against firearms, a person's ability to own firearms, self-defense, or anything else that the hoplophobic anti-rights community so often fights against. Doing so would directly contradict the individual's claim to being a "liberal", rendering the individual in question ignorant, a liar, a hypocrite, or any combination of those three.

And, in some people's case, all three definitely apply.

Bits and pieces of this story are being pulled from here, here, here, here, here, and here.

So, our story starts not too long ago, when ex-President Manuel Zelaya was, indeed, legally elected at an appropriate and legitmate free election in Honduras. Since then, however, his popularity has been steadily declining, to the point that his approval ratings hover somewhere around 30%. As with all politicians, though, the reason he took the job was not to keep people happy, but rather to secure power for himself, so he called for a referendum to bypass a law in the Honduran constitution that limits him to a single, four-year term. This bypass would effectively allow him to remain President indefinitely.

Small detail: the Honduran constitution specifically states that the Presidential term-limit law is one of eight that can never, ever be amended. Interesting...

Second small detail: according to the Honduran constitution, only their congress can call for a referendum.

Those two details taken into account, basically every governmental agency from the Honduran Electorial Tribunal to the Honduran Supreme Court said, "Uhm, no." Ex-President Zelaya's reaction? "Sunday's referendum will not be stopped." ... and, oh, by the way, I will tell the military to "distribute" the ballots.

The Honduran Supreme Court stepped up to the plate, and declared that the referendum was unconstitutional and unlawful. The military refused to distribute the ballots, so Zelaya fired its boss, General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez (what a name). Their supreme court again stepped up and ordered that the General be re-instated.

Simultaneously, the Honduran Attorney General made a request to their congress to out the then-President, and their congress named a commission to investigate the then-President.

The ex-President apparently got bored with trying to work things through the appropriate channels, so, on Thursday of last week, he lead a mob that broke into the military base where the ballots were stored, and tried to distribute them in defiance of their supreme court. Oddly enough, the Honduran Congress (backed up by their supreme court) ordered the Honduran military to remove then-President Zelaya "for repeated violations to the Constitution". Ambassadors from Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua were also arrested. Ex-President Zelaya was exiled to Costa Rica, the old president of the Honduran Congress, Roberto Micheletti, has replaced him, and elections will be held, as scheduled, in November.

End summation? President wanted to illegally modify the Constitution. Appropriate authorities told him no. President threatened to use military force to illegally modify Constitution. Appropriate authorities told him no again. President actually tried to use miliary force. Appropriate authorities told him no again, military told him to pack sand, and appropriately sent him off to Costa Rica.

Our Glorious President's reaction? He has joined the likes of Hugo Chavez, Fidel and Raul Castro, Daniel Ortega, and Rafael Correa in decrying this so-called "coup" as "not legal". Yes, you heard me right - President Barack Hussein Obama declared that it was "not legal" for a country to try and defend its constitution from someone who was hell-bent on perverting, undermining, and bypassing it in order to secure himself more power. Furthermore, our President has sided with some of the most totalitarian, controlling, oppressing, socialistic, authoritarianistic, and corrupt officials in Central America.

Is anyone seeing a problem with this? Well, anyone aside from the lefties of our country, that is? Ironically, the same people who were absolutely horrified at the mythical and specious threat of "President-for-Life Bush" are now adamant that ex-President Zelaya has every right to be President-for-Life himself. The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds...

The rule of law always has the implied threat of force behind it - it cannot exist any other way. If someone does not obey a law, and if that someone further does not obey the various non-violent sanctions and punishments that are brought to bear against them, then the time for words is over (and probably long-since so). At that point, the rule of law requires the implementation of force, otherwise the someone in question will just go on ignoring the law, and there might as well not be a law. This has always been the case for serfs, subjects, and other "citizens", but it always seems as though the politicians of whatever age we are referring end up being above the laws by which they supposedly govern.

Our Glorious President's condemnation of this legitimate overhthrow of a governmental usurper shows, very clearly, how he feels concerning politicians being held to the constitution and laws of their respective countries, and it must scare the gos-se out of him to see real, live, honest-to-God evidence that politicians are not above the law, and, in fact, are just as accountable to the country's laws and constitution as anyone else is. Given the dim view President Obama has for our particular Constitution, it is no great surprise to anyone who has been paying attention that he is decrying and denouncing the legal, appropriate, and constitutional dethronement of a would-be dictator.

And here I sit, having once taken an oath to do just that, should the situation call for it, wondering if we Americans could ever follow the example laid down by our Honduran bretheren... and I find myself doubtful.

That ruling offers you all the guidance you should need - if you set up a test to determine who should be promoted and who should not, and some people pass the test, promote those people, and do not promote those who did not pass.

How gorramed hard is that? Really?