After UO student government refused to pay for the event, Young Americans for Liberty asked the conservative group Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) to step in.“ASUO’s refusal to fund a poker night hosted by UO’s chapter of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) expressly because it disagrees with the event’s message amounts to constitutionally prohibited viewpoint discrimination,” FIRE said in a statement. “FIRE urged the university administration to step in to protect its students’ First Amendment rights.”“Since ASUO is an agent of a public university, the University of Oregon administration is legally and morally required to intervene to rectify the First Amendment violations perpetrated by ASUO,” FIRE Senior Program Officer Ari Cohn insisted.Although ASUO sponsored last year’s event, the group said that its mission statement was being interpreted differently this year. The university issued a statement supporting ASUO.“ASUO receives many funding requests and is empowered to select which do and which do not receive support,” the university noted.

Source: Oregon libertarian students demand school pay for gun giveaway because it’s ‘free speech’

See, guns are bad, M’kay? But guzzling beer and cider are OK!

Along with food from Afghanistan and the usual funnel cake, ASUO decided to collaborate with Falling Sky Brewery, which will replace The Buzz in the Erb Memorial Union in fall 2016, bringing the first-ever beer garden to the event. Students over 21 this year can enjoy a cup (or three) of cider inside the snow fencing in EMU Amphitheater on Friday from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Source: Fall ASUO Street Faire refreshes with beer garden and new vendors | Emerald Media

I would imagine that Libertarians would try to avoid being funded by somebody else and seek their own solutions, but from I what gathered in this specific case, the students (in this particular and the general population) have to contribute to ASUO which is supposed to provide for events like the Poker event or accepted fair kegger on an egalitarian basis. But since they are openly saying that they will not provide funding because they don’t like the message, then it does become a First Amendment issue since they are collecting monies from the students who do not have a say on how the money will be spent.

If anything, this should be a fun one to watch.

Have you ever wondered what the difference is between Grandmothers and Grandfathers?

Well, here it is:

There was this loving grandfather who always made a special effort to spend time with his son’s family on weekends. Every Saturday morning he would take his 5-year-old granddaughter out for a drive in the car for some quality time — pancakes, ice cream, candy– just him and his granddaughter.
One particular Saturday, however, he had a terrible cold and could not get out of bed. He knew his granddaughter always looked forward to their drives and would be very disappointed. Luckily, his wife came to the rescue and said that she would take their granddaughter for her weekly drive and breakfast.
When they returned, the little girl anxiously ran upstairs to see her grandfather who was still in bed. “Well, did you enjoy your ride with grandma?” he asked.
“Not really, Grandpa, it was boring. We didn’t see a single asshole, horse’s ass, socialist left wing Obama lover, blind bastard, dip shit, Muslim camel humper, pecker head son of a bitch or Homo anywhere we went. We just drove around and Grandma smiled at everyone she saw. I really didn’t have any fun.”

California Department of Justice agents have seized more than 500 firearms from a Clovis man who is prohibited from owning guns, Attorney General Kamala D. Harris announced Wednesday.Albert Sheakalee, 59, was arrested Nov. 12 for illegally possessing the firearms. He was released from jail after posting $11,000 bail.

State Department of Justice agents seized 209 handguns, 88 shotguns, 234 rifles, 181 standard capacity magazines, 10 high capacity magazines, 100,521 rounds of various ammunition and 10 assault weapons, including a .50 caliber bolt action rifle, from Sheakalee’s home in Clovis. Sheakalee is in an Armed & Prohibited Persons System (APPS) database due to a prior mental health hold, which prohibits an individual from possessing firearms, authorities said. But as of Wednesday, Sheakalee has not been charged, according to Fresno County Superior Court records.

Source: Clovis man banned from owning guns had 500 firearms, state AG says | Fresno Bee

Here is where it gets interesting.

According to Coleman, in the summer of 2015, Sheakalee went through a stressful time and sought treatment. “He has never been adjudicated as any sort of threat to anyone,” Coleman said. “And despite his desire to find help, Sheakalee found himself on a government list which the Department of Justice claims denies him the right to own firearms.”

Source: Lawyer: DOJ violated Clovis gun collector’s constitutional rights | Fresno Bee

The following day, Sheakalee’s lawyer reiterated their position:

Sheakalee’s attorney Mark Coleman says his client is not high risk, like investigators imply. “This is a 59-year-old man who has never committed a crime before in his life. He’s never been adjudicated by any court as being dangerous, he’s never been adjudicated by any mental health professional as being dangerous,” said Coleman.

Source: Sheakalee to fight state for his 541 guns – Story

This one stinks to high heaven, but we are going to need more details. Specially with the last part, if neither a judge, nor a mental health professional had him adjudicated, who did and why?

Maybe $80 for the gun and only because you can use it for parts.

Go ahead, say it: Florida Man.

Lately it is not allowing me to post comments on several Gunny blogs and I have no idea why. It just gives me the preview and the publish button, but you click on it and it sends you back to the same comment page and again the preview.

And for McThag.
Actually Moreno is #15 in the last list I just checked. Garcia, Gonzalez and Rodriguez make the fist three spots. Perez used to be the most common 30 years ago and now dropped to 8th.

Hat Tip: Nicki K.

I caught this on the interwebs today:  “Let’s send our gun-packing watercooler warriors to fight ISIS.”

How about not.

It is a turd sandwich of an article.  It starts with an obnoxious title and ends with a statically inaccurate character defamation of gun owners, with a big, deliberate constitutional misinterpretation turd right in the middle.   Of course it went all the way, with the usual condiments of ignorance, contempt, and anti-gun hogwash.

Let’s take a bite, shall we.

The author opens by referring to gun owners as “watercooler warriors.”  It’s a snide insult to gun owners, especially to those who have served in the military.

Skipping to the end, the author states:

Many of America’s most aggressive hawks are presumably already armed, and have spent years practicing their marksmanship against doves, deer, ducks and other domestic enemies. This is a magnificent chance for them to put it into action against foreign enemies too.

Meanwhile, many of our gun owners have a surplus of aggression that needs an outlet. They manage to shoot and kill about 30 U.S. citizens every day, meaning we suffer our own “Paris attacks” every few days at the hands of a few of our own citizens. 

Again, it’s the same anti-gun BS that gun owners are aggressive and trigger happy, just waiting for the first chance to shoot someone.

As Mark Twain famously wrote:  “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”  I don’t know if the “shoot and kill about 30 U.S. citizens every day” statement is accurate, but the way he approaches it is not.  Assuming the number is accurate, those shootings are not evenly distributed across all law abiding gun owners.  It’s not as though 30 random law abiding gun owners a day decide to kill someone.  The overwhelming majority of shootings are concentrated in certain areas and socioeconomic groups (criminals be committing crimes).  This video breaks the numbers down much better than I can do a write up here.  The point is, the vast majority of law abiding gun owners will never shoot anybody, ever.

Alone, these insults to law abiding gun owners are the same thing that we see all the time posted on the CSGV Facebook feed.  But what really makes this article is the total lack Constitutional accuracy.

Most gun owners know they have a constitutional right to “keep and bear arms,” but they may not realize the government also has a constitutional right to draft them to serve in the country’s defense.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep arms to maintain a “well-regulated militia” for the security of the state, meaning a force of citizen-soldiers that the federal government can send into battle. Anyone availing themselves of the right to keep and bear arms is thereby making themselves available for the militia.

While the author is accurate in that the US Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to “raise and support Armies” that is not part of the 2A.  It is Article 1, Section 8, to be specific.  The “well regulated militia” has nothing to do with the Selective Service system, which was founded in 1917.  The US Supreme Court made it clear that the “right to keep and bear arms” was an individual right and that “a well regulated militia” does not mean a military force.  At best “a well regulated militia” is just the pool of potential conscripts in the US.

SCOTUS looked at the 2A twice in recent memory, Heller and McDonald, and at no time came to the conclusion that the right to possess guns was had in exchange for military service.  The right to keep and bear arms was affirmed to exist for the purpose of defending oneself.

Going to the heart of the issue, our Founding Fathers made it crystal clear why they believed in the right of the people to keep and bear arms: TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM THE TYRANNY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

The idea of drafting gun owners and sending them to war might sound controversial today, but it would not be to the Founding Fathers. It’s exactly what they recommended. They believed in citizen-soldiers rather than a professional army.

At the very least, [Obama] could require registration from everyone who owns a semi-automatic assault weapon such as an AK-47. Why not? What sort of patriotic American owns an AK-47 and high-capacity clips and yet refuses to answer his country’s call when asked?

No, wrong again.  The national defense and power to raise an army and navy is established in the Constitution.  This nation was born because of a Government trained and equipped military.  It was lead by General George Washington.  It was equipped and trained, largely by the help of France.  Its soldiers were paid and its officers commissioned by the Continental Congress.  Remember, the Minuetmen were not part of the Continental Army.

The United States Government has never sent Americans, armed with their personal firearms, into war.  Not even when war occurred on US soil, e.g. the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Mexican-American War, etc.  The idea of citizen soldiers did/does not exist as a means to fight wars overseas.  It existed/exists to defend the American people from their own government if the normal process of a redress of grievances has failed.

Oh, and thanks for questioning our patriotism and implying that we are cowards, asshole.

But in the author’s tongue-in-cheek suggestion, he seems to overlook the fact that selectively drafting people based on political ideology and sending them, untrained, and inappropriately equipped to fight and die halfway around the world, is EXACTLY why the 2A exists.  To stop the government from pulling that type of bullshit where it targets citizens for death or exile for disagreeing with the government.

Even with his last sentence, the author has proven he wrote the article while self-administering a naked eye colonoscopy.

Why not deploy them against ISIS?

That’s what gun owners have been asking, in reference to attacks on US soil.  If Paris (twice), Mali, Israel, or Kenya has shown us anything, it’s that between the first cries of “allahu akbar” and when the police end the killing, terrorist can rack up quite a body count.  Concealed carriers have  cut short mass shootings in the past.  But why do I believe that this idiot is fan of gun free zones.  Sure, he wants to send gun owners to Syria to defend America, but I doubt would want CCW permit holders to defend him or themselves in his local shopping mall.

In the end, this is nothing more than the same anti-gunner fantasy to wipe out American gun owners that Miguel has been chronicling for years.  The only difference is, rather than suggest that the US military do the killing, he wants ISIS to do it.  It’s clear from his obvious distaste for gun owners.  All 727 words of this digital poop-spear boil down to “just send those fat, gun owning, knuckle-draggers to Syria to get wiped out by ISIS.”