Army of Dog

I’m ready to begin the Bacchanalian celebration of feasting and firearms alongside every other red-blooded American who understands the nature of our freedoms and the ease with which they can be taken away. That being said, I can’t help but feel like this decision was more of an escape than a victory. In a case about whether or not the state can impose virtually limitless restrictions on the Second Amendment protections of the American people, four of nine justices think that they can. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard someone ask in a frustrated tone, “how can liberals place such high value on First Amendment protections and then advocate violation of the Second Amendment in the next breath?” I think the answer to that question can be summed up best by this foul piece of logic by Justice Stevens in the dissent:

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

Read that steaming pile of excrement again and substitute the phrase “political dissent” for “uses of weapons” and you get an idea for just how insane the statement is. Yes, you doddering old fool, that’s exactly the choice they made. And with every reaking, half-assed justification for “common-sense gun control” that emanates from the festering gobs of wannabe tyrants on the left, the timeless wisdom of that choice becomes more clear.

The struggle over the gun issue, in which we have no doubt won an important victory today, is a small, but significant, battle in a war we are losing badly. At the risk of pissing all over an otherwise happy occasion, if we lose on issues like nationalized health-care, government takeover of industry, suicidal foreign policy, and, God help us, climate change, the joy of this victory will vanish like an illegal immigrant with a deportation hearing.

The goal of all of this is, of course, dependency. Cradle to grave, suckling at the public teat, helpless as a baby chick dependency. The more dependent you are, the more control they have, and the more control they have, the better able they will be to usher in their utopian vision of perfected humanity. Sure, they may be taking away a little freedom now and then, but it’s for your own good, you see. One day, when their vision comes to pass, it will all be worth it.

Still, today feels pretty damn good, and I, for one, intend to celebrate by adding something black and scary-looking to the Army of Dog arsenal. Or perhaps, in honor of the long-overdue demise of the DC ban, another 1911. Hell, maybe both, you see I’m just whimsical that way.

Ira Isaacs is being prosecuted in federal court for violating obscenity laws.  He apparently likes to make porn that deals with urine, feces, violence against women, and bestiality.  So, we’ve established that Isaacs is a complete douchebag.  That’s not really the interesting part.  The interesting part is that the judge presiding over the case has decided to initiate an ethics investigation against himself for posting porn on his own website.

LOS ANGELES (AP) - The criminal prosecution of a hard-core pornographer turned into a personal trial for the presiding judge, who called for an investigation Thursday into his own conduct over lewd photos and videos stored on his family’s publicly accessible Web site.

Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, asked an ethics panel of the court to initiate proceedings after the disclosure about his trove of sexually explicit material.

What kind of material, you ask?

The computerized cache included a picture of two nude women on all fours painted to look like Holstein dairy cows, images of masturbation, a video of a man being pursued by a sexually aroused donkey and a slide show featuring a striptease with a transsexual.

If you’re going to preside over an obscenity case, it’s probably not wise to let the world know that you’re into chicks with dicks and men being molested by donkeys.  At the very least, not the donkey part.

It has been long established that the 9th Circuit is completely batshit on most things, so that makes this more funny than sad.  The best part is that this case initially gained attention because of a report by the AP that potential jurors were “nauseated” by the idea that sitting on this trial would require them to actually watch Isaacs’ material.  When one potential juror asked the obvious question about how long they would have to watch video of animal fucking and fun with bodily fluids, the judge reassured them thus:

… Kozinski told them it would be about five hours and “I will be there watching with you. This is part of the job we’re doing.”

Uh-huh, it’s just the kind of sacrifice Judge Happy-Pants is willing to make in the name of truth, justice, and the American way.