PDA

View Full Version : Lol


NousDefionsDoc
02-25-2004, 16:47
February 16, 2004
Dear Mayor Newsom (gavin.newsom@sfgov.org), Judge Warren (wsuperiorct@sftc.org) and Acting Chief Fong (sfpdpbaf@pacbell.net),

Mayor, I see you are authorizing city employees to perform homosexual marriages, Judge Warren, you are allowing them to proceed, and Chief Fong, you are allowing California law, as enacted by a vote of the people, to be publicly and repeatedly broken without making any arrests.

I'm not commenting on that issue, per se, so much as observing that you are all three instigating and abetting the violation of that law.

Judge Warren, you went so far as to state that you couldn't issue a restraining order to halt the marriages because, as Reuters reported, "there was not enough evidence presented showing that immediate damage would be done by allowing them."

Which leaves me with an interesting dilemma.

You see, I also belong to a group that is forced by social prejudices to keep a low profile—often times to hide my choices and practices lest I suffer disapproval and ultimately, life-threatening persecution by the state.

I am a gun owner and I live a gun owner life style.

I don't know if I was born with a tendency to be this way, or if it was an acquired disposition. All I know is, I don't see why I should be forced to change. Truth be known, I like owning guns, and am happy with who I am. I hope I suffer no repercussions by "coming out of the safe," but I just can't hide the truth any longer.

We gun owners have been living and working among you. Our kids go to school with yours. We may be your doctor, or minister, or your child's teacher. We may even work in city administration, or the courts, or on the police force. And we are sick of being abused for simply being who we are, all because of hoplophobic* prejudice and fear. We don't see any reason why we should have to put up with it any more.

Which brings me back to my dilemma and the reason I am writing you.

You have shown progressive thinking and tolerance for that which the majority condemns. So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit.

Yes, I know, it will be a violation of California laws, but you've shown that you're willing to disregard those when it serves your goals. And because I am a peaceable citizen, I should easily meet Judge Warren's criterion that no immediate damage would be done by allowing this.

So what do you think, if I visit your city and proudly display my lifestyle choices, can I count on your support? As a private citizen, don't I have as much right to disregard laws I find reprehensible as you public officials? Isn't that what equality is supposed to be all about, where no class of citizen enjoys privileges and immunities not extended to all?

How about it? You wouldn't have me arrested, would you?

Please let me know if I have your support.


Sincerely,
David Codrea
codrea4@adelphia.net

* Credit and gratitude to the peerless Col. Jeff Cooper for coining this term.

NousDefionsDoc
02-25-2004, 16:48
The San Francisco Police Department has launched an investigation, the Redondo Beach Police Department has paid Mr. Codrea a visit, a Canadian anti-gun-rights nut requested that he use his gun to remove himself from the gene pool and reported him to the FBI.

BadMuther
02-25-2004, 16:54
Don't know whether to laugh or shake my hand.....the wonderful PRK.......:rolleyes:

At least we have great weather!!

Team Sergeant
02-25-2004, 17:21
I like this guy!

The Reaper
02-25-2004, 17:21
He has my vote!

Can we register all homosexuals, tax them, sue the maunfacturers(?), require them to be licensed, limit their right to gather and enjoy themselves, lambaste them in the media, and create a branch of the Federal government solely focused on ensuring their compliance with 10,000 laws and regulations, upon penalty of death and incineration?

Hmm....

TR

ktek01
02-25-2004, 21:02
LOL

They would probably call out the SWAT Team if you were spotted smoking a cigarette on the sidewalk in front of City Hall. :rolleyes:

HQ6
02-25-2004, 21:44
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The San Francisco Police Department has launched an investigation, the Redondo Beach Police Department has paid Mr. Codrea a visit, a Canadian anti-gun-rights nut requested that he use his gun to remove himself from the gene pool and reported him to the FBI.

Now that is messed up! Are we outlawing political satire as a form of protest now? When did the world become such a warm fuzzy PC place? Oh wait... that is only in California.

Now, I remember why I moved out of the land of the fruits and nuts.

switch100
02-25-2004, 22:12
I spent three weeks down in California (San Francisco & then Torrance) visiting relatives that now live down there a few months ago...I have zero desire to go back.

My one-word opinion of that state as a whole after visiting: Ridiculous.

The letter is great. The fact that they actually investigated just reinforces my opinion though.

BadMuther
02-25-2004, 23:14
Yeah, the politicians and the liberals and hollyweird are all wackos...but there are still plenty of good folks there still.

switch100
02-25-2004, 23:26
Oh, absolutely. No problem with (most of) the folks there at all. The state in a general sense just makes me shake my head and think of something else. :D

Airbornelawyer
02-26-2004, 12:30
A clearly agitated man writes a letter to several government officials saying he was thinking of coming to their offices with a rifle and several concealed pistols, and the police investigate it? What, exactly, would you expect them to do? Of course they knew it was likely just satire, but prudence dictates checking it out anyway. Was he arrested for threatening a government official? Were his weapons seized by the Redondo Beach PD? Is he facing charges?

Consider also that these officials have likely received actual death threats since they decided to forswear their oaths and play political martyrs. While Mr. Codrea's tone was less threatening and more satirical, so his intent to threaten is less clear, he also communicated a more realistic capability to threaten.

NousDefionsDoc
02-26-2004, 12:35
He didn't threaten them, he asked them if they would arrest him for exercising his 2nd Amendment rights.

The Reaper
02-26-2004, 12:37
My advice to him would be to eat a lot of junk food, especially Twinkies before going down there.

Then he cannot be held responsible for his actions.

I thought the point of his letter was that the officials were not just ignoring the breaking of state law, they were aiding and abetting.

Or is a public official helping people break laws they disagree with like jury nullification.

TR

CommoGeek
02-26-2004, 12:46
Rosie's getting married, so that makes it legitimate. :rolleyes:

Team Sergeant
02-26-2004, 13:09
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
Consider also that these officials have likely received actual death threats since they decided to forswear their oaths and play political martyrs. While Mr. Codrea's tone was less threatening and more satirical, so his intent to threaten is less clear, he also communicated a more realistic capability to threaten.

Martyrs? How about criminals or better yet miscreants? Is it now in vogue to break the law?

You make it sound as if they are embarking on a brilliant endeavor.
Even a simple layman such as myself can deduce that laws were broken. What next social freedom for NAMBLA?

The Team Sergeant

NousDefionsDoc
02-26-2004, 13:12
Originally posted by Team Sergeant
What next social freedom for NAMBLA?

The Team Sergeant

Too late.

These lawyers and their silly laws. LOL

NousDefionsDoc
02-26-2004, 13:15
Filling Sallie's Holes
© 2000 by David Codrea - Posted: 10.10.00

"Get a Backbone, America: Ban All Handguns," shrills the "Zero Tolerance for Slaughter" column subhead in Salon.com's perversely titled Mothers Who Think feature. The Mother Who Thinks we must is "feminist" author Sallie Tisdale, someone who feels that her opinions on gun ownership are worthy not only of sharing, but of adopting as national policy. Under force of arms.

Still, gun owners owe Ms. Tisdale a nod of acknowledgment for plainly stating what we have always known to be the true motive of those proposing "reasonable gun laws."

"I am no longer an advocate of gun control," Sallie warns us, "I am an advocate of gun elimination."

Sallie was "glad to see, shortly after the Littleton massacre, an editorial calling for the abolition of the Second Amendment," but parted ways with its author when he called for "a compromise that balanced the needs and desires of gun enthusiasts."

"Why," Sallie indignantly demands, "do we need to balance [these] with anything at all?"

"Do we really believe," Sallie cries, "that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson intended the citizens . to be scared to send their children to school? Why must we listen to the claims of gun lovers, or make any effort at all to satisfy their irrational appetite for weapons?"

Sallie tells us how wonderful life is in other countries, how nations that ban private ownership of arms have not devolved into tyrannies, and how statistics demonstrate that gun ownership makes America the least civilized society in the industrialized world. Sallie challenges gun owners to prove this is not so, citing as authorities such unbiased sources as "Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms."

"I'm unmoved by the insistence of the gun lobby that their desire to use mutilating lethal weapons somehow equals my need to allow them to do so," Sallie dictates. The claims of gun owners, Sallie maintains, should receive no more consideration than those of criminals, perverts and racists. "If an American cannot be happy without collecting and shooting deadly weapons, I invite him to move to a country where you can do so," Sallie decrees, reminding us that "most of them are religious or class-based tyrannies without many of the freedoms we enjoy here."

"The phrase 'gun nut' is no joke.I am afraid of guns; I am afraid of people who like guns and who own guns . I am a little scared all the time," Sallie whimpers.

"I want an absolute ban on the manufacture, sale possession and use of handguns and automatic weapons in this country, with long prison sentences for violations," Sallie commands. "The police need guns - at least until we get rid of the hundreds of millions of guns floating around," Sallie lets slip.

"It will not be easy or swift," Sallie admits. "200 million weapons is a lot of metal, a lot to find. It requires . collective goals and government support."

NousDefionsDoc
02-26-2004, 13:16
That's terrific. I'm sure Sallie is joined by many other Mothers Who Think that a goose-like inability to form conclusions based on cause and effect passes for reason. Fortunately, what passes for thought in Sallie's circles and among Sallie's following really doesn't matter.

Because by dictating the terms of our surrender, Sallie has absolved us of any need to rebut her idiot assertions on a point-by-point basis. Still, it might be useful to do so, not because we could ever hope to persuade Sallie and her kind to change their . ummm . minds, but rather to demonstrate what a hate-filled and dishonest gaggle of empty-headed harridans they are.

The reason, Sallie, you "need to balance" the concerns of gun owners is because there are millions of us, and we need neither your permission nor your approval to exercise out inalienable rights. Are you truly stupid and arrogant enough to think that our freedom depends on what you are willing to "allow" us, and that we will have no say in the matter?

As for Jefferson and Franklin, don't go there, Sallie, unless you really want to expose how pathetically ignorant of history you truly are. The quotes from the Founding Fathers concerning the right and the need for an armed citizenry are legion, and exemplified in Patrick Henry's admonishment to "guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect any who would approach that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."

As much as this may affront your elitist sensibilities, Sallie, citizens through most of our republic's history not only confidently sent their children to school, but in many cases sent them armed. That we didn't suffer Littletons in those days before gun control speaks volumes, especially of the damage done to children, and to society and to freedom when they are raised by inane Mothers Who Think like you.

As shameless as you are dull-witted, you dare to equate America's freedom-loving gun owners with "sexual predators, heroin dealers or white supremacists." What a cheap, dirty shot, but somehow it does not seem out of character for you, Sallie, resorting to naked "hate speech" to dehumanize peaceable and productive citizens for their effrontery to hold different values. One would think, Sallie, that someone described as a "bisexual mother of three" would have more sensitivity and sense than to try scoring points against other human beings by resorting to sexual aspersions against their character. Especially since we're fighting for the right of ALL people to keep and bear arms, Sallie. We're not the ones trying to render minorities and the gay/lesbian community vulnerable to violence, whether it is motivated by hatred or by criminal intent. You are.

And we understand that you, Sallie, along with fellow anti-defense fanatics Hillary Clinton, Donna Dees-Thomases, Sarah Brady, and Rosie O'Donnell would rather see your idiot lemming Million Mom followers trussed, sodomized at knife point and butchered like hogs than trained and equipped to defend themselves.

It is not lost on us, Sallie, that by adding the arbitrary qualifier "industrialized" to the comparison of international homicide rates, gun hating "statisticians" can omit or include countries as they see fit to support whatever conclusions they aim to reach. Funny how Israel and Switzerland, both with higher gun ownership rates than the U.S., have such dramatically lower incidents of violent crime. Funny how you think places that call their citizens "subjects" don't abridge freedom, Sallie. And just out of curiosity, perhaps you could point to even one "religious or class-based tyrann[y]" that allows uncontrolled private gun ownership?

Is it not true, Sallie, that these always, without exception, employ thevery gun prohibitions you endorse, and that their citizens, always and without exception, are powerless slaves, employable or disposable at the whim of the state? How many tens of millions of disarmed innocents have been murdered in the past century, Sallie, by rulers who agree with you that they should enjoy a monopoly of force?

In a way, it is kind of amusing that you live in such self-induced perpetual fear, Sallie. What a rabbit you seem compared to the free and confident armed women whom secure and trusting men cherish and admire. But your dismay does seem misplaced, Sallie; after all, look at the most heavily armed population of individuals in the planet's history, the 4 million members of the NRA. How many people have been murdered in the past year by one of these, Sallie? In the past ten years? The past 100?

Would you say that their violent crime rate is lower than England's, Sallie, lower than Japan's? How about lower than the police, who should take note of your plot to disarm them after they have tried disarming the populace they are sworn to protect and serve?

You want to use the force of the "collective" to criminalize and assault peaceable people who simply want to be left alone, to raid every third home in the land to "find" all "200 million weapons, " and you're afraid of them? Thank you, Sallie, but you can take your silly little neuroses with their monstrous repercussions and go quiver and slaver and hiss somewhere else (perhaps one of those countries you want to exile gun owners to). The short answer to your demands is "No." The longer answer is two words and starts with "F." You can't have our guns, Sallie. We're not going to give them up. There aren't enough of you to take them from us, and if you try we will resist. Now go away.

Go back to writing your trivial books for inconsequential Women Who Think that it's chic to be self-indulgent weaklings; somehow, your newest endeavor, Pigs in a Blanket, seems so apropos. But it's your earlier titles, The Best Thing I Ever Tasted: The Secret of Food, and Talk Dirty to Me: An Intimate Philosophy of Sex, that really divulge what makes you tick.

Why, Sallie! Suddenly, what you're all about is clear. You're preoccupied with self-gratification and fulfillment through food and sex. Why Sallie, you carnal little dear, you're obsessed with filling holes! Gluttonously so, it would seem, because you're bent on filling ones other than your own.

Holes were filled at Lexington and Concord, Sallie, when the government tried to disarm the people. Out of this was born the codified acknowledgment that they would never be permitted to do this again. More holes were filled at Ruby Ridge and Waco, Sallie, when the government, emboldened by dupes such as yourself, decided to test their ability to infringe on the right of
the people to keep and bear arms.

How many more holes will you demand be filled, Sallie, in your insatiable and blasphemous quest to strip us of inalienable rights endowed by our Creator? How many of your fellow citizens are you willing to have agents representing your will imprison? How many of us do you want raided and crushed to advance your contemptible, tyranny enabling agenda? What's your tolerance for slaughtering those who would defy you, Sallie? How many of us are you willing to have killed?

How many holes will be filled, Sallie, if you and your fellow subversives continue to dig away at our freedoms? Be warned, Sallie. The wretched, superficial paranoia you live in now is nothing compared to the horror you and yours will visit on this land if you don't back off, and back off now. Push peaceable people far enough and hard enough, Sallie, and they will eventually push back. Pray that you never see America's "backbone," Sallie. Stop digging us into that hole.

Molon labe, Sallie. And no, sorry, it's not a reference to labia, your personal and professional fixation with such matters notwithstanding.

It was spoken, Sallie, by the heroic Leonidas, King of Sparta, at the battle of Thermopylae. It was his reply to the conqueror Xerxes, whose multitude of Persian invaders surrounded the brave, doomed three hundred Spartan warriors, and who demanded that they surrender their arms.

Only this time, Sallie, the defenders outnumber the aggressors.

Molon labe, Sallie.

Come and get them.

HQ6
02-26-2004, 14:22
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
A clearly agitated man writes a letter to several government officials saying he was thinking of coming to their offices with a rifle and several concealed pistols, and the police investigate it? ....
Please show me where he made a threatening comment, because the way I read it, he asked a question:
So what do you think, if I visit your city and proudly display my lifestyle choices, can I count on your support? As a private citizen, don't I have as much right to disregard laws I find reprehensible as you public officials? Isn't that what equality is supposed to be all about, where no class of citizen enjoys privileges and immunities not extended to all?

How about it? You wouldn't have me arrested, would you?

Please let me know if I have your support.

The tone was obviously satirical. The letter called for no action but rather pointed out the lack of action of a politician, a judge, and a high ranking law enforcement officer when faced with enforcing a law with which they did not agree. Honestly counselor, should we allow our elected officials to enforce only the laws that they deem necessary or worthy of their time without comment or protest? What if the laws they deemed to be unworthy of there time was a law condemning child pornography rather than a law condemning same sex marriages. Should we fold our hands politely in our laps and let that slide as well?

You think the law enforcement reaction was not excessive? Perhaps charges should be filed against Mayor Newsom, Judge Warren, and Acting Chief Fong for obstruction of justice. Charges of attempted euthanasia should be brought against the Canadian as well. What do you think... would that be excessive?

ktek01
02-26-2004, 16:21
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

Molon labe, Sallie.

Come and get them.

Exactly.

I also like this comment I came across on another site

"Then they came after the gun owners which was dumb because, hey, we have guns."


:D

BadMuther
02-27-2004, 08:35
Good post NDD.

HQ6
02-27-2004, 18:25
Many of you have probably seen this, but I found it to be an interesting side note. The Canadian anti-gun-rights nut sends death wish (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=3639) and then notifies the FBI (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3641)