GUNS: Nuetered Brits Fear Terrorists

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

http://bearingarms.com/nuetered-british-fear-terrorists-may-attack-smuggled-guns/

Nuetered British Fear Terrorists May Attack With Smuggled Guns
Posted by Bob Owens on June 29, 2015 at 5:21 pm

*** begin quote ***

The British people long ago gave up their natural right to own firearms, and are now fearful that they may stand nearly defenseless against homegrown Muslim terrorists armed with obsolete Cold War-era submachine gun:

Fears of a Tunisian style attack on the streets of Britain have been raised after it emerged that criminal gangs have been smuggling powerful submachine guns into the country.

Security chiefs are concerned that the weapons, capable of firing 1,000 rounds a minute, could fall into the hands of would be jihadists.

A report from the National Crime Agency (NCA) published last week into serious and organised crime in the UK, found evidence of an “increased threat” of Czech made Skorpion submachine guns being imported into the UK by street gangs in London and the south east.

The fear is that these weapons could then find their way into the hands of extremists, intent on carrying out a terror attack.

There isn’t apparently any direct evidence that any terror cells have acquired Skorpions, but more a general fear that if they do acquire some of the weapons criminal gangs are sneaking into the country, that a Mumbai-style attack is possible. In that 2008 attack in similarly disarmed India, ten Islamic terrorists slaughtered at least 164 and wounded hundreds more over the course of a four-day assault.

*** end quote ***

What do “sheep” aka “steeple” expect?

That bad guys will obey their laws!

Insanity — that’s why they are bad guys.

Argh!

# – # – # – # – # 


RANT: Some things are “different” depending upon your bias

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

http://cafehayek.com/2015/06/sauce-for-the-progressive-goose-is-sauce-for-the-free-market-gander.html

Sauce for the Progressive Goose Is Sauce for the Free-Market Gander
by DON BOUDREAUX on JUNE 28, 2015

*** begin quote ***

Here’s a letter to a gracious, learned, and smart long-time correspondent whose view of the world differs greatly from my view of it:

Mr. Claude Knowlton, Esq.

Dear Mr. Knowlton:

Thanks for your e-mail.

You think me “wooden” and “unrealistic” for criticizing the majority opinion inKing v. Burwell.  Unsurprisingly, I disagree.

You are, of course, correct to note that the meanings of words and phrases are often ambiguous and, thus, require interpretation.  And reasonable people can and do frequently disagree about the best interpretations of ambiguous words or phrases in their specific contexts.  Recognition of this reality, however, is no license for a court to give to words and phrases meanings that those words and phrases plainly do not have.

*** and ***

This controversial interpretation of the statute is then challenged in court.  If Chief Justice Richard Epstein accepts – as he surely would – the administration’s claim that a minimum hourly wage of $7.25 harms many of the workers who Congress insists it meant to help, why should he and other like-minded members of the SCOTUS not use the logic of King v. Burwell to uphold the Paul administration’s reasonable argument that, to make the Fair Labor Standards Act work as Congress intended, “$7.25” must be read as meaning “$0.01”?  I certainly now can see no good reason for any such “wooden” and “unrealistic” restraint on the part of the Court.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics

*** end quote ***

Of course, “liberals” (aka socialist Big Gooferment types), would insist that laws they favor mean what they say; not what a “classical liberal” (i.e., little L libertarian like the Dead Old White Guys) would want them to mean!

Argh.

–30–


%d bloggers like this: