NEVER BEEN SHOOTING? Would you like to try it?
An offer for Louisville Metro area residents.

If you have never been shooting, are 21 years old or older and not otherwise barred by state or federal law from purchasing or possessing a firearm, I'd like to invite you to the range. I will provide firearms, ammunition, range fees, eye and hearing protection and basic instruction.

(Benefactor Member of the NRA, member of KC3, former NRA firearms instructor, former Ky CCDW instructor)

Email me if you are interested in taking me up on this offer. Five (5) people already have.

September 28, 2007

Another "gun free" disarmament zone invaded by terrorizing criminal.

No one has been reported injured. It looks as if the 17 year old gunman had plenty of opportunity to kill inside the Oroville CA school, but didn't .

Let's look at the facts.

  1. The school was a "gun free" zone.
  2. Someone carried a gun into the school.

What's wrong with this picture? Well, it's not a clarion call for gun control. Let's look at the facts.

  1. 1. The shooter was 17. He had a handgun. This is illegal under Federal and California law. He didn't pay any attention to the law.
  2. 2. The shooter carried his illegally obtained handgun into an area where it is illegal to carry a handgun under Federal and California law. He didn't pay any attention to the law.
  3. 3. It is against the law to threaten someone with a firearm. He didn't pay any attention to the law.
  4. 4. It is against the law to hold people against their will. He didn't pay any attention to the law.

I'm sure there are many more I could mention here, but I'll refrain since I don't know details. The point is, people who are determined to break the law, BREAK THE LAW. It's what criminals do. Now, before you say he isn't a criminal, look at the list above. He may not have been one yesterday when he was thinking about it, but the moment he picked up that handgun this morning; he was a criminal.

And no, the little gun wasn't whispering in his ear and leading him on. If it was, I'm sure the psych interviews will bring it out, and it still wasn't the gun's fault.

There are still rumbles filtering south from the efforts of some to allow teachers to arm themselves for the protection of themselves and their students. Incidents like this can only make that option more reasonable to more people as time goes on. See my post below about the terrorist threat to our nation's schoolchildren, and it seems almost inevitable.

Valor

from The Patriot

Profiles of valor: Airman Phillip King

On 8 August 2006, in Ebrahimkhel, Afghanistan, just north of Kandahar, Air Force Senior Airman Phillip King was leading a convoy to help the Afghan National Police (ANP) and Afghan National Army (ANA) when a rocket-propelled grenade landed within five yards of his Humvee. A full-scale insurgent attack came right on its tail.

Returning fire, King positioned his Humvee to shield the convoy against the incoming barrage. When a second RPG blast gave him a concussion, King persisted, exposing himself to intense enemy fire to direct defensive fire by Afghan soldiers. This allowed an ANA soldier to neutralize the enemy site using a hand grenade.

As King led his team out of danger amid continued sniper fire, he discovered a second ambush site where Taliban forces had entrapped five Afghan soldiers with gunfire. King maneuvered his vehicle, freed the soldiers, then led the ANP and ANA troops to establish a perimeter.

Still taking heavy fire from machine guns, small arms, and RPGs, King’s team called in air support. Just before it arrived, King again exposed himself to intense fire to mark the targets for the bombers, which effectively took out the Taliban position. Airman King’s actions saved the lives of more than a dozen Afghans and helped eliminate 20-25 Taliban militants. His team suffered no casualties.

King, who volunteered for the 365-day Afghanistan deployment, called it “another day on the job.” The U.S. military called it heroism in ground combat. For his actions, Airman King was awarded the Bronze Star with Combat “V” for Valor.

Senior Airman King, thank you for your service.

I pray daily for those in harm's way. Part of that prayer is that their service might continue when they return home by vigorously engaging in the political process, even to the point of running for office. We need men and women of Valor in public service.

Remember Beslan??? "Al Qaeda Targets Our Schoolchildren"

On September 20th I posted about the continuing shriek of "gun free zones" for schools that I believe will almost certainly turn into killing zones for terrorists. Mark Sheppard of The American Thinker has written an article, "Al Qaeda Targets Our Schoolchildren", that should turn your blood ice-cold. Here is his introduction and pressing question. Follow the link for the rest.

While Democrats prepare witless campaign slogans blaming Republicans for millions of children not protected by health insurance, al Qaeda's blatant threat to exterminate 2 million American kids remains unheeded.  And it will likely continue to be, notwithstanding mounting evidence that there exists no peril on Earth our young need greater protection from today than merciless jihadist monsters.

Not lack of a national insurance plan. Not global warming.  Not racial or cultural disparities. Not even the Patriot Act, any of its overplayed incursions into individual liberties, or any of the other countless silly and diaphanous liberal causes célèbres, but rather that which would abruptly and savagely end their innocent short lives.

Nearly 6 months have passed since I first challenged the inexcusable refusal by DHS and FBI authorities to publicly connect the obviously connectable dots representing an unnerving number of alarming events -- particularly in the wake of the Beslan school massacre. These include:

  • Videotapes confiscated in Afghanistan showing al-Qaeda terrorists training to takeover a school [newly available Video]
  • Spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith‘s declaration of al-Qaeda's "right" to kill 2 million American children
  • An Iraqi national with known terrorist connections caught with a computer disk containing information detailing Department of Education crisis planning for U.S school districts. 
  • Two Saudi men - one wearing a black trench coat despite the Florida heat -- terrifying a busload of Tampa schoolchildren by boarding a school bus and remaining for the entire ride to school, all the while laughing and speaking Arabic.
  • A March FBI/DHS bulletin noting "recent suspicious activity" by foreigners who drive school buses, are licensed to drive them, or have actually managed to purchase them right here at home. Including "members of the unnamed extremist groups" who have obtained commercial drivers licenses with school bus endorsements.
  • Osama bin Laden's promise that the 2004 terrorist attack at Beslan will happen many times over in the United States.

In that time, little or nothing has been done to relieve parents' understandable anxieties, despite the fresh dots which continued to accrue on this disturbing non-puzzle.

Dots like the seventeen full-sized yellow school buses reported stolen from charter schools, business schools and private bus companies in Houston, Texas, over the past few months. Connect to that and previous disturbing stories the fact that thousands of school bus radios have also been stolen (2000 in California in 2005 alone), and the images shaped should be triggering earsplitting alarms throughout all branches of media and law enforcement.

But instead -- the silence looms apparent while the question remains: Why?

September 27, 2007

Government doesn't really want to be Big Brother...

They want to be God.

Well, at least the omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent parts. Of course, depend on U.S. cities to spend a fortune on technology the Brits have already proven does not reduce crime.

Actually, the Brits have had some success in apprehending some criminals, but with their screwed up way of looking at things, sometimes the victims can go to jail longer than the criminal.

Just what we need here.

September 26, 2007

Got the GRPC draft agenda today...

 

Tartaro,Gottlieb, Pratt, LaPierre, Lott, Cramer, Parker v. D.C. counsel, Wheeler, Knox, Kopel, Kates, Taff, and on and on and on.

I can't wait.

Why don't we just TALK to them?

Our friends on the Left often ask why the Right is so opposed to just talking to the Iranians.

Why, a dialogue is all we need!

Yeah, dialogue. That's the ticket. Of course their dialogues tend to be a bit one-sided.

( thx to The Anarchangel.)

September 25, 2007

Giuliani and Gun Control.

If we judge a man by the totality of his actions, Rudy is in deep doo-doo.

(Update: How did 9/11 change the Constitution? The Bill of Rights said the same thing on 9/10 and every day before.)

See this from the Washington Post .

"Thank you very much for your efforts on behalf of H.R. 4296, the assault weapons ban," Clinton said in a May 6, 1994, "Dear Rudy" letter.

"With your support and encouragement, the U.S. House of Representatives took a critical step toward getting assault weapons off the streets, out of neighborhoods, and out of the hands of criminals," said Clinton, adding he was "grateful" for Giuliani's "dedicated" backing of the bill.

Many Republicans joined the NRA in opposing the assault-weapons ban, which lapsed in 2004. The law also included funding for cities such as New York to hire more cops and imposed stricter sentences for repeat violent felons.

Giuliani wrote Clinton back on May 31. "Thank you for your autographed photo and your kind note," he said. "Please know that you have my continued support for this crucial legislation."

Later in the year, after signing the anti-crime bill into law, Clinton wrote Giuliani again to thank him.

"You can be proud of all of your efforts to promote this bill," Clinton said in an Oct. 4 letter to Giuliani. "Your hard work made this victory for the American people possible. Please accept the enclosed signing pen as a token of my appreciation and admiration."

Giuliani again returned the praise.

"Thank you for the signing pen. I greatly appreciate your thoughtfulness, and I look forward to continuing to work with you to reduce crime and improve the quality of life in New York City and across the nation," he said in an Oct. 13 "Dear Mr. President" note.

Criminal use of a gun NOT an exercise of Second Amendment rights...

Sigh...

One more time.

When someone uses a firearm when they commit a crime, it is not an exercise of Second Amendment rights. It. Is. A. Crime.

Abusing the First Amendment? Slander or Libel.

Abuse of the Second? Murder, armed robbery, wanton endangerment, etc.

Abuse of the Third? Criminal Trespass

Abuse of the Fourth? Criminal Trespass, or if the Government, denial of due process

Get the idea? When someone is convicted in a slander or libel suit, no one (except the perpetrator) says, "Oh, he just exercised his First Amendment rights." No, they say he committed slander or libel.

I think it would be entirely appropriate to sue some of the people who are continually equating law abiding citizens who are exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Some large awards might shut them down. Or shut them up. Either one is fine with me.

Concealed carry charges dismissed, man has right to self defense.

Driver's gun charge tossed

Judge finds prosecution of delivery man unconstitutional
By DERRICK NUNNALLY
dnunnally@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Sept. 24, 2007

A Milwaukee County judge found the concealed-weapon prosecution of a pizza driver who shot two would-be robbers in seven months unconstitutional Monday.

The ruling by Circuit Judge Daniel A. Noonan means Andres Vegas won't face criminal charges in the non-fatal shootings. Prosecutors had filed a misdemeanor count of carrying a concealed weapon after the second shooting, in January, and said Vegas had been warned after a July 2006 shooting not to carry a concealed gun while driving for his job.

However, Noonan agreed with defense attorneys' contention that Vegas needed the gun to protect himself in his chosen work, citing state Supreme Court decisions that found justified exceptions to the state's concealed-carry ban.

"Given Vegas's experience, he has a need for a gun at a moment's notice," Noonan writes in his decision. "Enclosing and unloading the weapon is not a reasonable alternative to secure and protect his safety. Plus, Vegas while delivering pizzas enters and exits his car constantly; it would be unreasonable for him every time that he enters his car to require him to unload it and place it in a case and then reverse the process every time he exits. This defeats the purpose of having the gun for security and protection."

Craig Mastantuono, one of two attorneys who represented Vegas, said the weapons ban had presented Vegas, 46, with two untenable choices: either carry a gun illegally or else go unarmed on delivery runs in the same central-city neighborhoods where he has been robbed four times.

"Mr. Vegas's situation may seem unique," Mastantuono said, "but given the gap between the rights that are afforded Wisconsin citizens in the right to bear arms amendment and the prohibitions that restrict Wisconsin residents in the concealed-carry general ban that was never updated by the Legislature, I think it's going to be a recurring situation, quite frankly."

Deputy District Attorney Kent Lovern said the office has no plans to appeal the decision. An appeal could give a higher court an opportunity to hand down a precedent-setting decision on whether the concealed-carry prohibition is constitutional, whereas Noonan's decision applies only to Vegas's case.

Mastantuono said Vegas has moved on, career-wise. After the charge was filed, Vegas became a delivery driver in a Milwaukee suburb. He is now a cook.

"Mr. Vegas felt required by circumstances - not only of threats to his safety but being prosecuted for defending himself - he felt required to change careers," Mastantuono said.

(from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online)

September 24, 2007

Another open carry harassment...

Another hassle for a citizen exercising his right to carry openly, this time in Washington County, VA.

The Sheriff of Washington County, VA, thought someone's PC complaint about lawful behavior was sufficient reason to send his deputies to remedy the situation.

Wouldn't it be nice if law enforcement told these people to shut up and leave people alone?

Twain on cradle to grave...

“The mania for giving the Government power to meddle with the private affairs of cities or citizens is likely to cause endless trouble, through the rivalry of schools and creeds that are anxious to obtain official recognition, and there is great danger that our people will lose our independence of thought and action which is the cause of much of our greatness, and sink into the helplessness of the Frenchman or German who expects his government to feed him when hungry, clothe him when naked, to prescribe when his child may be born and when he may die, and, in time, to regulate every act of humanity from the cradle to the tomb, including the manner in which he may seek future admission to paradise.” —Mark Twain

I wonder what he'd say now?

(from The Patriot Brief)

Cowboy Assault Rifles

Cowboy assault rifle. Hmmmm.

Found this at MadOgre via GeekWithA.45.

Might have to try this with my .44 Marlin. Synthetic stock, 16" barrel with ghost sights or red dot. Yeah, that's the ticket.

September 23, 2007

Why I'd vote for Cthulhu

(I posted the comment below in response to "Why vote for Cthulhu" over at View from the Porch. I'm cross posting here because I've decided that any comment over 300 words gets cross-posted. Yeah, ok, I know that just makes me lazy) 

I’m not about making anyone do anything they don’t want to do. I make my choices and respect at least the right of others to make their own even when I don’t agree with them. So instead of saying what you should do, I’ll tell you why I’d vote for Cthulhu.

Even though I’ve never served in the military or any elected office, as an American who loves my country, I consider myself no less bound to an oath which might read,

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute my duties as a citizen of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, I hereby declare, on oath, that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." This is substantially the oath of the naturalized citizen of the United States.

As a citizen in this republic, one of my duties to preserve the Constitution is to vote for people to represent me in the government. Sometimes I’m happy to cast a vote for someone. Sometimes I’m happy to vote against someone. Sometimes I just have to suck it up and vote for the lesser of two evils. However, I will be at the polls to vote on every Election Day. In my opinion, to do less is to spit on the grave or in the face of every person who has ever worn a uniform in service to our country.

Now, if you disagree with me, we can still be friends. You can stay home or vote third party: that’s your business. But practically speaking, how does that differentiate you from the lazy slobs who stay home because they can’t be bothered to figure out what’s going on, or the folks that write in Britney because, like, she’s had a hard time and could use the boost in self-esteem?

I’m not a one issue voter, and I suspect that’s true of most of you. So far, I can’t find a single issue where I agree with any of the announced Democrats, with the possible exception of Bill Richardson. I’m sure I can find at least one with any Republican candidate. That’s all I need.

I'm glad for Giuliani's new pro-gun views...

Really I am. Anytime someone sees and agrees with the wisdom of the Founders, for whatever reason (and 9/11 was a good one), I am well pleased. Rudy Giuliani has every right, and even an obligation to change his mind when more information changes the way he views something. The same goes for Romney and his new pro-life views.

However, even with his new-found attitude toward arms and their owners, I can't vote for a man who, as a matter of course while Mayor of one of America's largest cities, rejected  and worked against the Constitutional rights of all Americans. I feel the same way about John McCain and his staunch support of the unconstitutional campaign finance "reform" law. I have a lot of respect for both of these men, but I can't vote for either of them in the primary. You'd think folks running for office which requires an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States would read the darned thing before they run. Give themselves a chance to back off gracefully, before they make themselves look foolish.

I was hoping Hunter or Huckaby would make a better showing. Right now, it looks like Fred Thompson is going to get my vote. We'll see how things turn out.

Lest anyone think I am a one-issue voter, let me assure you, I am not. There are other reasons I am not pleased with most of the Republican field. But if you don't respect the Constitution when it speaks plainly, you don't have any business running for office, particularly Federal offices.

I don't know much about football, but...

Aren't you supposed to have a defense? U of L dropped it's 2nd game in a row to a Syracuse team that hadn't shown much this season. Of course it really helped Syracuse that the U of L defense pretty much hasn't figured out the other teams may pass the ball every now and then. Gee whiz!

These guys are starting to look like UK used to!! No effective coverage in the secondary, a sleep-walking attitude and, remember tackling fellows, where you grab the other guy and pull him to the ground? U of L's highlight reels of the Middle TN, UK, and Syracuse games are full of "broken" tackles. Broken is about right. After the game with Middle, I thought it might be coaching, but after today, I'd put most of the blame on the field.

Sheesh! I expected a few rough games this season. That has been radically upgraded to a rough season.

September 22, 2007

I guess it was all the answers in the middle...

Your results:
You are Will Riker
Will Riker
70%
Worf
70%
An Expendable Character (Redshirt)
65%
Chekov
60%
Uhura
60%
Beverly Crusher
60%
Mr. Sulu
50%
Jean-Luc Picard
50%
Deanna Troi
50%
Spock
49%
Data
38%
Leonard McCoy (Bones)
35%
James T. Kirk (Captain)
30%
Mr. Scott
30%
Geordi LaForge
30%
At times you are self-centered
but you have many friends.
You love many women, but the right
woman could get you to settle down.
Click here to take the Star Trek Personality Quiz

If I knew any martial arts, I guess it would have kicked it over to Worf, but I can't figure this Riker thing. Not that there's any thing wrong with Riker.

I'm a baaaad boy?

(Gun x 34)+(Shoot x 2)+(Hell x 1) = NC-17?

I guess it's maintained by GFWs.


September 21, 2007

Valor

from The Patriot

On the evening of 2 February 2007, Army Lt. Brennan Goltry was commanding the second truck of a five-vehicle convoy in Samarra, Iraq, when enemy insurgents fired on the lead humvee, crippling it and wounding its gunner. After directing his driver to position his vehicle as a shield for the injured soldier, Goltry opened his door amid a barrage of incoming rounds and returned fire. He sustained two gunshot wounds to his left leg. Undeterred, he continued shooting until the enemy was neutralized. Disregarding his own injuries, Goltry rallied his men and countered the ambush with an offensive. His platoon repelled the enemy, securing strategic positions and capturing one enemy combatant. When a medical vehicle sought to evacuate Goltry, he refused, choosing instead to remain with his troops.

Lt. Goltry is quick to redirect any praise for his actions toward his soldiers: “I’m real proud of my men,” he says. “They fight real hard for me and they’ve saved my [rear] more than once.” He terms the events “just another day.” Indeed, fellow officer Capt. Buddy Ferris notes, “[T]his is the type of stuff he does every day. It’s not the first time he’s been shot, and it’s not the first time he charged the enemy.”

For his actions, now-Captain Goltry was awarded the Silver Star, the Combat Infantryman Badge and two Purple Hearts. He is expected to receive a third Purple Heart for injuries sustained during an insurgent attack on 6 May.

Lt. Goltry, thank you for your service.

I pray daily for those in harm's way. Part of that prayer is that their service might continue when they return home by vigorously engaging in the political process, even to the point of running for office. We need men and women of Valor in public service.

September 20, 2007

Western Kentucky University students plan protest FOR concealed carry

Some WKU students are planning an "empty holster" protest in support of Students for Concealed Carry.

Protests are important, but join KC3 (Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed) and the NRA and work to get the legislature to change the law.

Hmmmm. I wonder why the police already had their pictures?

From Zendo Deb I see two goblins will no longer be victimizing citizens in their homes here in the Peoples' Republic of Louisville.

See the story here from WHAS.

And the man that was defending himself has been arrested for drug trafficking and tampering with evidence after the police found cocaine in his freezer.

That story here from WAVE3.

The money quote:

"If someone comes up on the dwelling or the premises, with the intent to commit a felony, the presumption (is) that they are there to cause death or serious bodily harm," said WAVE 3 legal expert Bart Adams. 

Adam says that "gives the owner, the person that is there, the presumptive right to use deadly physical force or physical force to repel any attacker or any invader.

Thank you Kentucky Constitution and the General Assembly.

How Do Gun Bans Affect Non-Gun Owners?

The defective premise of gun control spreads to other issues affecting non-gun owners now.

LOS ANGELES 9/19/2007 3:48 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)
(from www.goodforthecountry.com, posted with permission)

Gun bans wrongly and wrongfully affect non-gun owners because bans disarm only the law-abiding. Nothing new, until you see how this spreads. As usual, criminal laws do not interfere with crime until after-the-fact; gun control interferes with only the honest and before-the-fact, and then again after-the-fact, often within a system which victimizes constituents twice. Lifting gun bans can enhance crime control and lift government burdens. For some officials, carrying burdens is desirable, but it is an abuse of the law against the interests of the United States.

Understand that citizens play a role in crime control -- you might say that it is a burden that is ours to carry - and gun bans unreasonably and illegally freeze the citizen out of the process entirely. Police are utterly a reactive force. Reliance on a reactive force to the exclusion of the citizenry is a trap. Assumptions have been that only police can control crime, or that it is their job to protect individuals who summon them. Both are false, and let’s get real on this right now. Advice such as "Don’t do anything until we get there," – "Be a Good Witness." — "Give them what they want," – "It’s the Police’s job," have all proven to contribute to individual tragedy and to crime overall, and to do nothing to stem it. Nothing.

The fact is that Police have no duty to protect individuals. Not since the inception of an organized police force in the middle 1800's, and not today. It has been merely an assumption, and perhaps very important for the head of a household to know.

The answer is, of course, not to react to violence as any single political answer, but to meet it instance-by-instance, and regular beat officers know very well that the target is the first line of defense. This burden is ours, and nothing will ever change it. It is wrong to interfere with it merely for political reasons.

Police, attorneys, judges, gun owners and others also know that citizens are possessed of all legal authority to stop a crime in progress, especially their own rape, robbery or even murder. We can even come to the defense of another. All gun regulation seeks to attack this citizen authority.

Right-to-carry states [where citizens carry their guns] comprise a super-majority not only on these principles, but on an entire philosophy that an armed citizenry doesn’t contribute to violence, an armed citizenry de-escalates it. Isn’t this how crime should be fought — with no one getting hurt?

The FBI agrees. As a central destination for crime reports handed in by law enforcement around the nation, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report gives national figures of shooting deaths of about 29,500 each year; the Bureau furnishes its companion figure of citizens who use their gun to de-escalate a crime in progress to be more than 2.5 million times a year. Understand that Police and gun owners are not foes, but allies.

For the nearly 30,000 who die unarmed, there are 2.5 million who don’t die in a crime because they have not only superior force, but full authority to act, and they use both. 2.5 million times a year.

Here is how gun laws affect the non gun owner. Bans are an exquisite example of how constituents fear their city managers more than they do criminals. managers then come to know this and the principle spreads.

From disaster preparedness and disaster recovery, education content and violent crime — constituents are increasingly frozen out of the process of shaping tragedy and disaster of what could be a societal plane crash into a much more preferable controlled descent. Citizens are the supreme authority in this country; why freeze them out of a healing/recovery process? Consulting officials in cases such as the Virginia Tech Shooting and refusing to give greater weight to parents and students is ludicrous when the intended target and the supreme authority there [students] are one and the same.

Gun bans are no different. Gun control fails because it obscures and punishes the authority to act when facing grave danger. This principle of hiding your authority spreads to other political issues. It’s that simple -- many of which are based on a fraud of fighting crime and hate.

In the months ahead, constituents need to remember that the Second Amendment is not about guns – it is about abuses of the law. The founders didn’t care about weapons of the future – but they did anticipate recurrences of what they had just defeated: abuses of due process for political gain – a looting of the nation by keeping crisis going, to put it in modern terms.

How does a gun law affect me, if I don’t even own a gun? It works to dissolve the legal force which backs your citizen authority against boondoggles, such as those claiming violence or hate. Fraudulent programs then grow, in preemptively ascribing hate and violence to all, and that includes you. When crime or hate is used as a reason to take the force - and the choice - out of the hands of you, the non-criminal, the non-hater, because they cannot disarm the criminals, when it is used to criminalize the honest, then you have an abuse of the law.

Abuse of the law was the very reason the Founders wrote that the citizens be the supreme authority, and not only vigilant, but armed to back that authority. In any era.

__________________________________________________________

Copyright © 2007 Good For The Country, Inc. All rights reserved.

One of these days...

A terrorist will walk into an American elementary school and kill a lot of children. This will happen, and I expect sooner rather than later.

Why does certainty appear nearly 100%? Well, it might be because they are assured daily by people shouting at the top of their lungs that schools are and should remain gun-free zones.

Why wouldn't we want armed teachers? Firearms in the hands of responsible people aren't any danger. Aren't the teachers responsible people? If they aren't, why do you allow your children to be enrolled at a school with irresponsible teachers?

Can't teachers be trained? Well, since education is their life, they should be trainable. Can't we run background checks on teachers. Oh, wait, they already do.

Don't teachers have the right to protect themselves? I guess not, listening to all the wailing and moaning going on out there.

I guess someone might get hurt if those evil guns are in the schools. As opposed to the evil terrorists????

September 19, 2007

Do you care about violence against women?

A LOADED QUESTION

from The Oregonian
the story about her suit again the Medford School District

Sunday, September 16, 2007

By JANE DOE

I'm the Medford school teacher you've heard about. The one who will ask an Oregon judge on Tuesday to affirm my right to carry a Glock pistol to my school so I can protect myself from a man who's hit me and threatened to kill me: my ex-husband.

In 2004, I legally bought a gun for the first time. It was a decision I deemed necessary after years of abuse and continued threats drove me to obtain a restraining order. I knew my safety and the safety of my children ultimately depended upon me alone.

I had strong suspicions my ex-husband had violated his restraining order by coming to my home several times. One time, I saw him leave, literally passing him as he came out of my driveway. When I reported this, I was told the restraining order did not forbid him being there when I was not home.

My ex-husband lost his concealed carry permit and his gun when he was arrested for menacing, several months before our separation, in an unrelated incident.

To be eligible for a license to carry a concealed weapon, I was required to attend a course taught locally. The instructor was thorough. I learned how a gun should be used, the dangers if it was mishandled and that I need to continuously practice using my gun. I follow those lessons. The course also reviewed legal ramifications an owner would face if her gun was involved in an incident. After passing the required background check and offering validation of completing the course, I received my permit.

I believe that Oregon law clearly permits me -- and anyone else with a concealed handgun license -- to carry a concealed weapon into schools. My employer, the Medford School District, maintains that I would be violating district policy if I did so.

A "gun-free" zone only informs a potential criminal that he or she won't face an armed private citizen, making a school a prime target. In addition, my school's police officer is assigned more than one school, and when he is working on campus, his office is in an annex away from the main building and far from my classroom. Second, my ex-husband is approved as a substitute teacher in my district, making it possible for him to be called to work in the same school where I've been working or at my daughter's school. Furthermore, my classroom has several windows, making it possible for anyone outside to catch glimpses of me or my students moving around the room.

Even after recent events in Nickel Mines, Pa., and Virginia Tech, where Amish schoolchildren and college students were gunned down on campus, very little has changed where I work. We have name badges, but if they aren't worn, no one notices. Doors do lock from the inside, but a teacher's key opens all classroom doors.

Children entering a classroom as students are just as important as the teacher's own. But, far beyond any wealth of knowledge that they might receive from an instructor, the greatest gift is assurance that their school is a safe place in which to learn. At the same time, this case allows them to see the importance of knowing our rights and helps them see that if left undefended, such rights may be lost forever.

It is woefully irresponsible to deny the possible risk of violence in public schools. It is shameful to attempt to victimize those who would seek to defend children in our schools, ridiculously inciting fear over teachers' mental competency or proficiency in handling a firearm. More importantly, it is abhorrent that any district would be so hypocritical to insist students receive instruction on the importance of individual rights only to trample the rights of their teachers whenever it sees to do so.

I encourage you to demand that the Medford School District obey state law and abandon its current policy that bans me from carrying a tool I need to protect myself, my students and my co-workers.

The writer is a member of the National Rifle Association whose legal bills are being paid for by the Oregon Firearms Education Foundation. Her lawyer, James Leuenberger of Lake Oswego, said he is listing her name as "Jane Doe" in the complaint he will file this week in Jackson County Circuit Court.

This is not news...

Former Senator Lincoln D. Chafee leaves the GOP saying, “It’s not my party any more”

I think my cat could have told him that years and years ago. I just wish the GOP could get a refund on all the money it's wasted for decades on a "Republican" seat.

Would this money have made Hillary a "Hsu"-in for nomination? or What China wants, China gets.

“Hillary’s presidential campaign knew since at least June that there were serious questions about China-born [Norman] Hsu, her own top fundraiser now behind bars. Yet she agreed to return the $860,000 he bundled for her from mostly Asian donors only after the scandal broke in the press. Even so, she’s declined to publicly identify the 260 donors, and may ask for some of the funds back. Now as [in 1996, former deputy White House chief of staff Harold] Ickes is involved, this time as an adviser to her campaign. And the same guy who courted all the shady Asian donors in last decade’s Clinton campaigns is heading Hillary’s fundraising now. His name: Terry McAuliffe. Seems they’re up to their old tricks. Hillary claims she had no reason to vet big Asian donors to her presidential campaign, no reason to be suspicious of them. She suggests critics who think she should have been more suspect are racist... But the Ickes notes clearly show Hillary had every reason to check out Hsu, with whom she and Bill snapped photos and whom she let fete her campaign manager in all-expenses-paid trip to Las Vegas. Even though she was first lady at the time, Hillary was a key point person for her husband’s fundraising activities and had close ties to [Yah Lin ‘Charlie’] Trie and other shady Chinese donors. These included Johnny Chung, who delivered a $50,000 check to her in the White House—money that came from leaders of China’s military... Hsu is cut from the same cloth as the other ethnic-Chinese hustlers and bagmen with whom Hillary rubbed elbows last decade. She should have known better than to look the other way as he raised more money for her than anybody.” —Investor’s Business Daily

from The Patriot

I'm so tired...

Some bozo tried to tell me today, in all seriousness, that Second Amendment rights only apply to the arms extant at the time of the amendment's adoption.

So, I asked him if all rights were limited to what was known/in use at the time of the Constitution's adoption, and he said, "Yes!"

So, there's no freedom of speech for anyone using modern presses, radio, television, the Internet, etc.? No religious freedom for any denomination that came into existence since?

And he said, "Don't be stupid! Of course not!"

(Sigh) I guess it's too much to ask for a little consistency.

Liberal Granny is converted to firearms owner and user

See the article here.

As we scribbled through a mound of paperwork, I commented, "I'll bet you don't get too many liberal women in here buying guns."

He chuckled. "You'd be surprised." His eyes sharpened as he declared: "A gun is evil only until you need one."

Relax. She isn't going to shoot a neighbor. (Though I'm sure some will think it worse.)

Someone needs to watch fewer movies...

"Now what you have here is a sawed-off, 12-gauge shotgun," he said, snapping the weapon's foldable stock into place. "A very good street sweeper. You can conceal this gun and take out a room full of people with one shot."  ---- Glynn County, GA Deputy Sheriff Michael Johnson

Now, I don't know about you, but if I were a law enforcement officer, I believe I'd find better sources for my statement to newspapers than
"movie" facts. Deputy Johnson apparently isn't aware that short-barreled shotguns and rifles were outlawed by the NFA only because of their ease of concealment, not because they are weapons of mass destruction. Don't think he's familiar with trench coats, either. And isn't there a Federal procedure to follow to transfer these things? After all, it was a sale, wasn't it? Isn't that the purpose of a "buy back"? And if the SBS, also known as "any other weapon", wasn't registered, didn't at least two people commit at least one Federal felony?

It gets better.

Sheriff Deputy Michael Johnson pulled one particularly curious firearm from the bag.

"This is a Reuger (sic) 9mm," he said, taking the ammunition clip that was with the gun out of the bag. "But this is the 75-round clip that came with it."

He snapped the clip into the body of the gun, completing what was already a sinister appearance.

"This gun had completely fresh, hollow-point rounds when it was brought in," he said. "So it hadn't gone very long without being used. It doesn't take too much work to make a weapon like this fully automatic."

OOOOOO! We have to watch out for those guns with a "sinister appearance" don't we!? And "doesn't take too much work to make a weapon like this fully automatic"? Puhlease. If the ATF could take any firearm and not "take too much work" to make it full auto, they would have done it and banned it. Period.

These jokers don't have a clue.

September 17, 2007

Y'hear me? A RIGHT!

Democrats, Then and Now

No Liberal bias at Yale...

“When it comes to the ‘money primary,’ Yale University employees favor Democratic presidential candidates over their Republican rivals—by a margin of 45 to one. Federal Election Commission filings from the first two quarters of the year show that University faculty and staff have given $44,500 to Democratic presidential candidates—most often to Sen. Barack Obama—and just $1,000 to Republicans... Charles Lockwood, the chair of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences and the only faculty member known to have contributed to Giuliani, joked that, ‘Most people in my department are slightly to the left of Joseph Stalin’.” —Yale Daily News

Call me Bubba, you're going to anyway.

Too many suppose the "gun rights" movement to be an expression of the "gun culture", a phenomenon particular to the United States and that portion of its populace prone to personal and political violence and anarchy and usually considered by "enlightened souls" to be dim-witted and backward in most matters personal and political.

While I would be the first to admit these attributes may be occasionally seen in some few instances, the most common qualities of those who are avid supporters of the Second Amendment are a dedication to the rule of law and the validity and applicability of the Constitution of the United States in public policy and life today, pride in the United States of America, a fierce commitment to personal and national security, and a confidence that, if pretty much left alone by the Federal government, her citizens can and will take care of themselves.

“If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws—the first growing out of the last... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.” —Alexander Hamilton

As a rule, "gun nuts' do not suffer fools, have no use for anyone that can't back up their arguments with facts (real ones), and have nothing but scorn for those who base their thinking on fuzzy "feelings" and utopian tripe that makes them feel good about themselves (and usually superior to others), no matter the consequences.

Pro-gun people seldom prevaricate. If you want to know what they think, just ask them. And don’t expect them to spare your feelings. That’s probably why they didn’t say something in the first place.

Pro-gun people don’t want you in their business, and have little desire to get into yours unless you’re meddling with theirs, particularly on Constitutional issues. They have no desire to force everyone to own and/or carry a firearm, and will steadfastly resist any effort on your part to infringe on their right to do so. They are eager to present their rationale if you want to hear it, but if you decide it’s not for you, that ends the discussion as far as they are concerned.

Yup, my kind of people.

Happy Constitution Day... what's left of it.

“Should, hereafter, those incited by the lust of power and prompted by the Supineness or venality of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to shew, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting an inviolable.”
George Washington, First Inaugural Address

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
—attributed to Benjamin Franklin

September 15, 2007

I've always said The New York Times was worthless

From Instapundit. (via Say Uncle.)

re: 60%+ drop in NYT stock

Shareholder equity in the New York Times company is roughly $825 million. That's about the value of the Times' interest in its new headquarters tower opposite the bus terminal. The implicit value of the Times newspaper and other properties is therefore zero.

September 14, 2007

THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT

(The article below can be found here. Found it through a comment on Sharp as a Marble.)

by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right ? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus."

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus," has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

    "I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

    "The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

    "The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

    "I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

    "I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):


[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

it seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. no one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak ?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor ?

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.


About the Author

    J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the CBS "Twilight Zone" episode in which a time-traveling historian prevents the JFK assassination. He's also the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing, the first publishing company to distribute "paperless books" via personal computers and modems.

    Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's right to keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal to those afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments.

If Liberals are not traitors...

“Our forces are killing lots of al-Qa’ida jihadis, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving democracy in Iraq a chance—and Democrats say we are ‘losing’ this war. Was that a direct quote from Senate [Leader] Harry Reid, [or] the Osama bin Laden tape released this week? I always get those two confused... If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they’re really stupid.” —Ann Coulter

September 13, 2007

Gun Free Zone Sign to post on your front door

Click on the sign for a larger version. This would work equally well for both home and business. I think I'm going to print up some of these on a good quality card stock and carry a stack in my car to give to managers of establishments that don't want my trade (those who post No Weapons signs), and to offer to hoplophobes for their home.

(Found this here)

Determined to die...

Yes, if we just ban all guns, people will quit killing themselves, too.

Sure they will.

Thanks, Marko.

September 12, 2007

An open letter to Ms. Donatelli and the news department at WAVE TV

I saw your report on the efforts of the Justice Resource Center to prohibit firearms sales in high crime areas of Louisville. These efforts are morally equivalent to the Jim Crow laws of the 19th and 20th centuries which disarmed minorities and rendered them unable to protect themselves. Rev. Coleman should take a look at the history books before he promotes victim disarmament upon the people he purports to represent. The ‘gun dry zone” touted by the Justice Resource Center can only make the situation worse.

Nearly every “massacre” in recent history has taken place in a “gun free zone” which did nothing to stop the criminals from murdering their victims. American cities which have placed the most draconian firearms restrictions on their citizens consistently have the highest murder rates.

For the record, there is already a total ban on firearms in both state and federal law for the circumstances presented in your report. I’d like to see a follow-up investigation by your station about the statistics for arrests, prosecutions, and convictions for “gun” crimes in Metro Louisville. Actually, these charges are seldom fully prosecuted, and are often plea bargained away. If “gun” crime is such a problem, why isn’t it enforced and prosecuted more vigorously at the state, local, and federal levels? And why doesn’t the Justice Resource Center insist on this vigorous enforcement and prosecution before they make it more difficult for

A disproportionate percentage of murders are committed against criminals by criminals, and most of these are drug related. Most of these murderers have a long history of violent crime. I’d like to see a follow-up investigation from your station about why these violent criminals are still on the streets.

Here are a few facts to consider for your next report.

  1. In the entire history of mankind, not one gun has ever committed a crime of violence. Inanimate objects are incapable of committing crimes. Criminals commit crimes, and sometimes they misuse firearms to do it.
  2. Most people who use guns in crimes are already legally prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. Consequently, most firearms used in crimes are stolen, purchased from another criminal, or otherwise obtained illegally.
  3. Current state and federal law forbids all convicted felons, people convicted of certain misdemeanors, or anyone who is under a restraining order, from purchasing, owning, or being in the possession of any firearm.
  4. Every person who purchases a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer, or redeems a firearm from a pawnshop, must undergo an FBI instant background check, and fill out and sign a form 4473 certifying under penalty of perjury they:
    1. are a citizen of the U.S., or resident alien (resident aliens may purchase long guns only)
    2. are the actual buyer of the firearm (it is a felony to purchase a firearm for another person who is prohibited from purchasing that firearm for themselves)
    3. are not under indictment for a felony or any other crime for which you could be imprisoned for more than one year
    4. are not a fugitive from justice
    5. are not an unlawful user of, or addicted to narcotics or any other illegal or controlled substance
    6. have never been adjudicated mentally defective, incompetent to manage their own affairs, or been committed to a mental institution
    7. have not been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces
    8. are not subject to a domestic restraining order
    9. have not been convicted in any court for the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
    10. have never renounced their U.S citizenship
    11. are not an illegal alien
    12. are not a nonimmigrant alien.
  5. Every person who purchases a firearm from an FFL holder must show a picture ID.
  6. Not one criminal will find it more difficult to purchase a firearm because they can’t legally purchase a firearm from an FFL holder like a pawn shop.
  7. The law-abiding citizens of high crime areas are not served by making it more difficult to arm themselves.

Rev. Louis Coleman supports reinstatement of Jim Crow Laws in Metro Louisville

A report on WAVE TV tells us the Justice Resource Center and Rev. Louis Coleman want to reinstate Jim Crow laws that disarmed black citizens. For shame. I remain of the opinion we could stand more armed, law-abiding citizens in the high crime areas of Louisville instead of the victim disarmament zone proposed by Rev. Coleman and the JRC.

The report was more that a bit one-sided, and my next post will address some if its deficiencies.

September 11, 2007

SOC 357: The Sociology of Ballistic Idiocy

Here is an interesting article by Mike S. Adams over on Townhall about a professor who agrees with the right to keep and bear arms, but doesn't think the Constitution applies to bullets.

Accessorize your infant

Thanks to Say Uncle for this one.

Bulletproof Baby

Never bring a knife to a... Never mind.

Over at The Smallest Minority, we see another sad chapter in the continuing saga of victim disarmament. He calls it, "Boy, it's a Good Thing Nobody had a GUN!"

Our neighbors above the border really got this one right. Yeah. Oh, and it's the military's fault. Well, at least they didn't blame Bush. Yet.

The money quote, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

September 5, 2007

Good advice for gun buyers...

Five reasons it's not your FFL's fault from The Cathouse.

Or, you could go through the hassle simple, easy process of getting your own FFL.
GBW

I guess if a shoestring can be a machine gun...

"The assault weapons listed on the Des Moines police report was a bag of Cheetos."

Don't let the ATF hear about this. I couldn't stand to have to do a background check every time I go to the snack machine.

They don't trust us? Go figure.

“The argument for gun control has always been based more on utopian visions than empirical facts. That, and the Left simply does not trust an armed citizenry.” —David Niedrauer

Could that be because they figure at some point they'll be stood up against a wall for their foolishness???

The drive in...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

There is a NASCAR. YOU ARE NOT IN IT!

I'm a really laid-back guy. I don't fume and fuss much. But as my friend Tony has often said, "What I wouldn't give for a rocket launcher on the front of my truck!" Too many idiots on the same stretch of road at the same time. AAGH!

September 4, 2007

The LawDog Files: The Sergeant-Major

The LawDog Files: The Sergeant-Major

I wish I'd learned this lesson 30 years ago.
GBW

Let's do it for the children...""

“The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.” 
                                                                      —John Stuart Mill

When someone tells me that restrictions of our human and civil right of keeping and bearing arms are necessary for "the common good" or  "for the children" or "civilized people" or some such nonsense, I think of this quote from John Stuart Mill.

When a gun gets stuck in your face...

Blogonomicon: Interview with Michael DeBose in USCCA Magazine

Amazing what a gun stuck in your face does to your views on gun control and concealed carry.
GBW

Who are the poor?

“Overall, the typical American defined as 'poor' by the government has a car (31% of  poor’ households own two cars), air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR, or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs... A third of  poor’ households have both cell and land-line telephones... If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year—the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week... nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty... If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation’s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty... A quarter of legal immigrants and fifty to sixty percent of illegals are high-school dropouts. By contrast, only nine percent of non-immigrant Americans lack a high school degree. As long as the present steady flow of poverty-prone persons... continues, efforts to reduce the total number of poor in the U.S. will be far more difficult. A sound anti-poverty strategy must not only seek to increase work and marriage among native born Americans, it must also end illegal immigration, and dramatically increase the skill level of... legal immigrants.” —Robert Rector

(emphasis added mine)

head