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.

November 30, 2007

And yet MORE nonsense from a college newspaper

Guns on college campuses would create chaos

Editorial Board of The Daily Aztec of San Diego State University. An independent newspaper.

Issue date: 11/29/07

The tragedy of the Virginia Tech shootings in April left behind a lingering, uneasy feeling about school security, much like the aftermath of the Columbine shootings in 1999. Two sides quickly rose to provide an answer to students' desperate calls for protection: Add heavier restrictions on gun regulations or loosen current restrictions. The latter, being the more overtly extreme and irrational, seems to have hit a new low.
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, with a membership of 8,000 students, is a non-partisan group that promotes the importance for students with handgun licenses to be able to bring their guns onto college campuses. The Virginia Tech incident only fueled the group's cause. It argues that if colleges allowed students to express their Second Amendment right on campus, it would be a safer place.
The truth actually lies polar-opposite with Students for Concealed Carry on Campus' claim. People can't fight fire with fire. Adding more guns to the equation doesn't create a more peaceful environment - campuses will instead be more prone to violence.
Guns being permitted on school grounds could have detrimental repercussions, including accidental firings, gun thefts and an increased risk of violent behavior because of provocation by peers or professors.
School should be a safe haven where students feel comfortable and secure; however, it's also a culprit of anxiety, experimentation and, therefore, impulsivity. Stress, frustration and guns don't make a mix to take a chance with.
Putting students' and the faculty's lives in immediate danger by allowing student gun owners to carry their guns on campus is irresponsible, impractical and counterproductive. Instead of preventing a disaster, campuses would be vulnerable to chaos.
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus claim they're deprived of their right to self-defense. But the refutation to their argument isn't about restricting freedoms - it's about responsibly laying out laws that won't create chaos; it's about the right thing to do. What's flawed about the radical group's rationale is that no one on campus should have a gun except for police officers. A college is an institution for higher learning. Students shouldn't be transporting weapons to class or be concerned about the possibility of other students concealing weapons. Also, a student shouldn't need a gun to protect his or herself because campus should be a safe, controlled environment.
If students should organize and promote any change regarding protection, it should be to increase safety on school campuses via weapon scanners, security cameras and police.
Students shouldn't have the right to bring weapons on campus, but they should have the right to feel safe while on campus.

To which I replied,

To the Editorial Board,
You presented an editorial that is poorly written, poorly reasoned, and riddled with hoplophobia.

(Hoplophobia is the irrational fear of firearms and other forms of weaponry. Col. Jeff Cooper, who coined the term, stated, "the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user."  It is as though firearms emanate evil waves of influence on anyone unfortunate enough to be in the immediate vicinity, forcing them to violent acts against their will. Paranoia toward those who do not fear guns and might carry them is also quite common.)

Yesterday, someone went to class on our campus with a concealed firearm. He or she did not shoot anyone. No one stole his or her gun. It did not go off “accidentally”. Social order did not break down; chaos did not ensue. Why, no one even peed their pants! You did not feel one bit less safe because this person carried a concealed firearm on campus. He or she felt much safer.

I’d like to take a moment to lead you through your Chicken Little moment.

Q: How can you conscientiously characterize the peaceable pursuit of the human and civil right of self-defense by responsible adults as extreme, irrational, radical and low? May I assume you have similar views of the other groups on campus that pursue their civil rights?
A: Of course not. You are capable only of such an emotional response to concealed carry because of your hoplophobia.

Point of fact. Fire is often fought with fire, and quite successfully at that.

Q: Is a law-abiding person who has a concealed carry permit and carries while off campus more prone to commit a violent act when on campus?

A: Of course not. That law-abiding person is no more likely to commit a violent act on campus than off. The percentage of concealed carry permit holders who commit violent crimes is statistically insignificant. This is a manifestation of the paranoia that often accompanies hoplophobia.

Q:  Since you are so concerned with the possibility of “detrimental repercussions”, could I correctly assume you advocate and stump for banning all vehicles, bathrooms, kitchens, swimming pools and five gallon buckets, tobacco products, alcohol products and fatty foods?

A: Of course not. You do not have an irrational fear of those inanimate objects, even though all of these have orders of magnitude more “detrimental repercussions” than firearms.

Q: If a student or faculty member conceals a firearm in a holster on their person, how is it likely to be stolen or accidentally fired?

A: It is not likely to be stolen or accidentally fired. A human agent must act in both of these circumstances. Just in case you do not know, if no one knows you have it (concealed, remember?), it cannot be stolen, and someone must pull the trigger on a firearm before it will fire. Remember, there is no evil aura to rat out the gun.

Q: You say school “should be a safe haven where students feel comfortable and secure” and then describe it as a place of anxiety, experimentation, impulsivity, stress, and frustration. Did you intentionally omit violent crime, particularly against female students, on your weapons-free campus?

A: No, I am sure the omission of violent crime was not intentional. I am sure it is difficult to think of predators on campus who target unprotected students when those evil guns are being discussed. That being said, I fully agree that those who are incapable of dealing with anxiety, stress, and frustration, and those who are prone to experimentation and impulse are poor candidates for firearms ownership, much less a concealed carry permit. But you should not penalize those who are not debilitated by these conditions.

Q: How does allowing responsible, law-abiding adults who carry off campus suddenly become “an immediate danger” to the lives of students and faculty when he or she steps across the street onto a college campus?

A: One does not become “an immediate danger” when stepping onto campus with a concealed firearm. The responsible, law-abiding adult merely changes location, not intent. The percentage of concealed carry permit holders who commit violent crimes is statistically insignificant. This fine example of your paranoia and hoplophobia is emphasized by your contention that the mere presence of a firearm would lead to chaos. There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country that have never been used in any kind of crime.

SCCC members have been deprived of their human right of self-defense on nearly every campus in this country.

The refutation of their arguments must necessarily be about restricting their right.

No campus can provide enough policemen to keep every student “safe” every moment of every day.

Laws do not create order. Laws define crime and the punishments for conviction of crime. You keep saying chaos. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Even if only cops have guns… Grow up. Criminals do not pay any attention to any law they don’t like. Gun-free zone worked really well at Virginia Tech and Columbine, didn’t it?

A student shouldn’t need a gun. Again, grow up. Let’s leave this adolescent denial of truth behind us and move on to living in the real world. This is not Utopia and there really are bad guys out there.

A student may need a gun. There is no such thing as a safe controlled environment. There are few environments more controlled than jails and prisons. Never been an assault or murder in a jail or prison, right?

A maniac could drive onto campus tomorrow, get out of his vehicle, kill ten students, get back in his vehicle and drive off campus. Tell me how a weapon scanner, security camera, or police officer could stop him.

If you cannot be responsible for your own safety, you cannot be safe. All responsible adults should be allowed to carry a firearm anywhere they have a right to be.

And may suggest the Editorial Board get a good English grammar, a style book, and a dictionary?

The Cardinal Coalition flies again!

From GotDesign at Smarter than Celery:

During the 2004 presidential election, several bloggers from the Louisville area banded together to post commentary on the election, the candidates, etc.
Soon we will be re-establishing The Cardinal Coalition for the 2008
Presidential election season.
If you are a Louisville-area blogger and would like to participate, please drop GotDesign a line.

We look forward to hearing from you.

I was privileged to be part of The Cardinal Coalition in 2004-2005, and am pleased to be part of it for the upcoming elections. If you might be interested in participating, I encourage you to email GotDesign.

Collaborative blogging is easier for me than solo blogging, and it may be for you, too. If several participate regularly, there is less pressure to come up with "something, anything" on a daily basis since others are posting, too.

More editorial nonsense from a college newspaper

Taking aim at the Second

The Supreme Court will take up a landmark case regarding the right to possess firearms.

The issue of individual rights and firearms has always been highly contentious. The Second Amendment, written in such a confusing way, has offered little in the way of clarity. Does the right to bear arms only pertain to militias? How much power does the government have to limit possession of guns? The Supreme Court will try to shed some light on this debate early next year when it considers a controversial handgun ban in Washington, D.C.

For 31 years, Washington D.C. has banned the ownership of handguns in an attempt to lower its homicide rates. The city does permit individuals to own rifles and shotguns if they are kept at home, disassembled or locked up. But last March an appeals court ruled that the ban was unconstitutional. Now the city is appealing that ruling to the Supreme Court, and city lawyers are hoping to emphasize the role of handguns in Washington's violent crime rates and the Constitution's use of the word militia.

Around the country, local governments are watching this case closely as it may have huge impacts on existing and future regulations. The Supreme Court has traditionally stayed away from ruling on the Second Amendment; the last and only case specifically regarding the Second was in 1939.

Don't be surprised if the Supreme Court avoids directly answering the question of gun rights. This issue has persisted for many years, and the wording of the Second Amendment almost makes it seem as if the Founding Fathers were being intentionally vague ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed").

Ultimately, local governments should be able to restrict gun ownership. If a community is suffering from massive gun violence, local government must be able to crack down and limit who can own and what types of firearms can be owned. Washington D.C.'s rates of violence have improved over the years, but it's impossible to know how effective the ban has been. Regardless, Washington D.C.'s gun death rates are about six times the national average, and the safety of its citizens should take precedence.

to which I posted...

Confusing. Offered little in the way of clarity. Intentionally vague.

Given the current dismaying state of all levels of our educational system, I cannot know whether to blame your ignorance on poor teaching or poor learning. I suggest you Google “the unabridged Second Amendment” and see what someone who actually learned their grammar lessons would think about the choice of adjectives you have applied to the Second Amendment. The following sentence is grammatically identical to the Second Amendment.

“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.”

Are you still confused?

By the way, there are hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of citizens of the United States. Only a very small fraction of those hundreds of millions of guns is used in crime. It is already against the law in all fifty states to use a weapon in the commission of a crime. It is much more reasonable to prosecute those who choose commit violent crimes and imprison those convicted instead of promulgating new gun control laws whose only result is the disarming of law-abiding citizens, the only ones who obey gun control laws. Convicted violent criminals lodged in state facilities do not commit crimes on the street. I would think you would prefer a sure thing to gun bans you admit are “impossible to know” their effectiveness.

Actually it is possible to know. No gun ban has ever been effective in reducing violent crime. Why? Well, it is because CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY THE LAWS!

I thought college was supposed to teach people how to think. Sheesh.

November 28, 2007

Christmas film reviews... Yeah, that's the ticket

Thanks, Kadnine. I haven't enjoyed movie reviews so much in a long time.

A taste...

A similar fate befell "In the Valley of Elves," TriStar's $80 million claymation remake of the 1964 Rankin-Bass classic "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer." With an all-star cast including Tommy Lee Jones as Dasher, a reindeer father haunted when his naive red-nosed son Rudolph (Ryan Phillipe) volunteers for a dangerous rooftop mission only to be killed by Santa (Javier Bardem) in a friendly fireplace incident, the film's strong Oscar buzz was expected to carry it to a big opening weekend. Instead, the fog-of-Christmas-Eve drama could only muster $24,813 from 2,505 screens. One Tri-Star executive blamed the disappointing receipts in part on the the film's R rating and controversial interspecies gay love scene between Rudolph and Herbie (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young elf who undergoes a sexual and dentistry awakening.

Way to go, iowahawk!

Advice from an old Democrat to the New Democrats

“A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America has not yet become an American. And the man who goes among you to trade upon your nationality is no worthy son to live under the Stars and Stripes.”
—Woodrow Wilson

A quote for the day for our Anti- brothers and sisters...


“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”

Aldous Huxley

" idea that needs more thought"

From the Muskogee Phoenix.

Guns on campus is an idea that needs more thought

Around 8,000 students nationwide have joined Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a group that argues students licensed to carry concealed weapons should be allowed to pack heat along with carrying textbooks.

That raises a difficult issue.

We support the right of Americans to own and carry weapons, but in the same breath, we believe it’s a fundamentally bad idea to have teenagers in already difficult emotional situations add the volatile ingredient of firearms to an already potent stew.

The bottom line is college shootings make us all justifiably afraid for students trapped on a campus where a madman is firing hot lead left and right, but we shouldn’t allow that valid fear to lead us into making profoundly unwise decisions.

We agree that campuses everywhere must address the threat from violence, but they should not exacerbate the problem by allowing what are essentially still kids to tote guns all over the place where other kids will be put into danger.

So, after giving the idea some thought, I posted this comment on their web site.

First, Federal law prohibits anyone younger than 21 years old from owning or carrying a handgun.(under most circumstances).

Second, the various states also prohibit anyone younger than 21 years old from getting a concealed carry license.

Third, the Federal and various state governments allow those 21 years of age or older to purchase handguns, and where allowed by law, to carry weapons concealed.

Fourth, how about all those firearms incidents on campuses in Utah... Still waiting... Anything? Right. That should tell you something right there.

What you call a "profoundly unwise decision" to allow "teenagers" to carry on campus is already illegal everywhere in the United States.

However, adults who are not otherwise prohibited from possessing or carrying firearms should be allowed to do so anywhere they have a right to be. Misuse of a firearm, or any other weapon for that matter, is against the law in every state and usually carries severe penalties. Let adults assume responsibility and if they abuse it, prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

Your emotional opinions based on inaccurate assumptions would continue to disarm law-abiding citizens, rendering them defenseless against predators and maniacs.

I hope the Muskogee Phoenix's "support" for "the right of Americans to own and carry weapons" is better thought out and based on facts.

November 27, 2007

You keep using that word...

I would expect this from an attorney.

Activists on both sides of the steaming debate over guns ought to be able to agree, at the very least, on two things. The first is that the language of the Second Amendment is, grammatically speaking, incomprehensible. The second is that the time has come for clarity from the Supreme Court about whether the "right to bear arms" is an individual or collective one.

Perhaps none of the schools from which Mr. Cohen graduated didn't offer English grammar classes. As seen in one of my previous posts which points to this article, the Second Amendment is anything but incomprehensible. And calling the Second Amendment an "ambiguous, mealy-mouthed compromise", well you would think if anyone should know ambiguous and mealy-mouthed compromise, it would be a lawyer. However, the Federalist Papers and ample other evidence from the Founders show it to be otherwise.

About par from a lawyer on the CBS payroll.

Japan tightens gun control.

For the past 62 years, firearms have been pretty much outlawed in Japan. The few exceptions are heavily regulated and registered hunters and target shooters. And of course, the criminals who ignore regulations and registration requirement. Emphasis mine.

TOKYO, Nov 26 (Reuters) - Japan's parliament on Monday passed legislation strengthening gun control following a spate of shootings by gangsters, including the assassination of a city mayor in April and the recent murder of a hospital patient in a case of mistaken identity.
The revision of the firearms control law is the first since 1995, and imposes heavier punishments for gun crimes committed by members of organised crime gangs.
After the new law takes effect, which is expected by the end of the year, possessing a gun as part of organised crime syndicate will result in a sentence of one to 15 years in prison or a fine of up to 5 million yen ($46,100). The current provision is for a prison sentence of one to 10 years.
Under the revision, possessing more than one gun would become a crime, and would carry a prison term of between one and 15 years.
Japan already has strict gun control laws, and firearms are mostly in the hands of registered hunters or "yakuza" gangsters. The number of shootings fell to a record low last year, but the fatal shooting of the mayor of Nagasaki in southern Japan in April by a suspected gangster and an armed stand-off in which a policeman was killed in May had spurred calls for even tighter supervision.
Police on Sunday arrested a gang member suspected of shooting dead a patient earlier this month at a hospital where a rival gang member had been hospitalised. Media have said the case was murder by mistaken identity. ($1=108.45 Yen) (Reporting by George Nishiyama, editing by Rosalind Russell)

2nd Amendment and the 2008 races

Mr. Blackwell's best dressed would be wearing a firearm? Well, this Mr. Blackwell would.

Now the Supreme Court will weigh in on whether or not the framers of the Constitution actually bestowed a right to government over the people in the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

The answer seems obvious.

The Bill of Rights details individual rights that government cannot take away. When the framers referred to the people, they meant the individual, not the government. Most Americans get it. Even liberal legal scholars like Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe get it when it comes to the individual rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. They believe the clear wording of the document favors the individual’s gun rights.

Guns are for Liberals, too.

See the entire article here. Well said, Mr. Eber.

We may not need a compelling reason to own a firearm other than the fact that an armed populace is necessary for the security of a free state. Anti-Patriot Act liberals should realize that if they cannot trust the government to respect the privacy of their phone calls or to grant proper due process, then they should probably not also assume the government can be trusted not to disarm its citizens in the name of public safety.

November 26, 2007


She'll probably be mortified, but I'm getting this sweatshirt for my sweet wife.

November 25, 2007

DC v Heller; The wait is over, let the waiting begin...

I didn't know this until today. Not much info flowing in the hospital waiting rooms.

Now we can really start sweating...

November 20, 2007

I'll leave you something funny...

Many of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, almost exactly 60 years ago, witnesses claim that an unidentified flying object UFO)with five aliens aboard crashed onto a sheep and cattle ranch just outside Roswell , New Mexico . This is a well-known incident that many say has long been covered up by the U.S. Air Force and other federal Agencies and organizations.

However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of March 1948, nine months after that historic day, the following people were born:

Albert A. Gore, Jr.

Hillary Rodham

John F. Kerry

William J. Clinton

Howard Dean

Nancy Pelosi

Dianne Feinstein

Charles E. Schumer

Barbara Boxer

See what happens when aliens breed with sheep? I certainly hope this bit of information clears up a lot of things for you. It did for me.

(An email from my cousin. See his fine work here. Scroll down to the 20th.)

No Blogging for several days...

My Mom is in ICU with a pulmonary embolism back home, and I will be headed that way shortly. If you're inclined, I'd appreciate your prayers.


November 19, 2007

"Unholster the 2nd Amendment"

OpEd from the L.A. Times

By Robert A. Levy
November 14, 2007

It's been 68 years since the U.S. Supreme Court examined the right to keep and bear arms secured by the 2nd Amendment. It's been 31 years since the District of Columbia enacted its feckless ban on all functional firearms in the capital. It's been eight months since the second most important court in the country, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, declared the D.C. ban -- among the most restrictive in the nation -- unconstitutional. The obvious incongruity of those three events could be resolved soon.

Later this month, the Supreme Court will decide whether to review the circuit court's blockbuster opinion in Parker vs. District of Columbia, the first federal appellate opinion to overturn a gun control law on the ground that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of individuals. If the high court takes the case, oral arguments likely will be held this spring, with a decision expected before June 30. (Full disclosure: I am co-counsel for the plaintiffs and am one of the attorneys who initiated the lawsuit.)

The stakes are immense. Very few legal questions stir the passions like gun control. And this round of the courtroom battle will be fought during the heat of the 2008 election. Further, Washington is home to the federal government, making it an appropriate venue to challenge all federal gun laws, no matter where an alleged 2nd Amendment violation might have occurred. Thus, Parker could have an immediate effect not only on D.C. gun regulations but on federal regulations.

Equally important, if the Supreme Court affirms the D.C. circuit's holding, state gun control laws across the nation could be vulnerable to constitutional attack. But before that happens, two other issues would have to be litigated.

The first is the knotty question of whether the 2nd Amendment can be invoked against state governments. Until 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. But in the aftermath of the Civil War, much of the Bill of Rights was considered "incorporated" by the 14th Amendment to bind the states as well. Regrettably, the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment has not yet been settled. And that issue did not arise in Parker because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, not a state.

The second question is even more complicated: What restrictions on gun possession and use would be permissible? Almost no one argues that 2nd Amendment rights are absolute. After all, under the 1st Amendment, the right to free speech does not protect disturbing the peace; religious freedom does not shield human sacrifice.

Similarly, gun regulations can be imposed on some weapons (e.g., missiles), some people (e.g., preteens) and some uses (e.g., murder). Indeed, the appeals court acknowledged that Washington might be able to justify such things as concealed-carry restrictions, registration requirements and proficiency testing.

But the Constitution does not permit an across-the-board ban on all handguns, in all homes, for all residents, as in the case of the Washington ban (with the exception of current and retired police officers). Somewhere in the middle, regulations will be deemed constitutional even if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court.

Meanwhile, the high court also will have to reexamine its 1939 gun case, United States vs. Miller, which generated more heat than light regarding the 2nd Amendment. The core holding of Miller, stripped of confusing clutter, was that protected weapons must be "in common use" and must bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."

Parker is entirely compatible with that holding. Pistols, which are banned in D.C., are self-evidently "in common use," and they have been carried into battle by American troops in every conflict since the Revolutionary War. But a proper reading of the 2nd Amendment should not attempt to link each and every weapon to the militia -- except to note that the grand scheme of the amendment was to ensure that people trained in the use of firearms would be ready for militia service.

Significantly, the 2nd Amendment refers explicitly to "the right of the people," not the rights of states or the militia. And the Bill of Rights is the section of our Constitution that deals exclusively with individual liberties.

That is why there has been an outpouring of legal scholarship -- some from prominent liberals -- that recognizes the 2nd Amendment as securing the right of each individual to keep and bear arms.

Considering the text, purpose, structure and history of our Constitution, and the clear weight of legal scholarship, it's time for the Supreme Court to revitalize the 2nd Amendment, which has lain dormant for nearly seven decades.

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.

Glenn Reynolds on the aftermath of D.C. v. Heller

(thx to Alphecca for the link)


A large number of pro-gun people have stopped thinking and fallen into utopian wishing as this case nears a decision. Even if SCOTUS drops on our side, the fight will not be over. Prepare to be disappointed by either a reversal or renewed efforts at unreasonable regulations if it goes "our way".

Don't forget!! National Ammo Day is TODAY.

National Ammo Day is here!

That's right. Don't be shy folks. Step right out and buy at least 100 rounds of ammunition. Better yet, buy 200 and send half downrange sometime today.

This is five years for NAD, and I wish us many more.

"but unless the whole will..."

(Attributed to Thomas Paine, this article was first published in the Pennsylvania Magazine, Philadelphia, July, 1775. Though penned 232 years ago, this is very applicable today to our fight to retain our Second Amendment rights. All emphasis mine. GBW)

Could the peaceable principle of the Quakers be universally established, arms and the art of war would be wholly extirpated: But we live not in a world of angels. The reign of Satan is not ended; neither are we to expect to be defended by miracles. The pillar of the cloud existed only in the wilderness. In the nonage of the Israelites it protected them in the retreat from Pharaoh, while they were destitute of the natural means of defence, for they brought no arms from Egypt; but it neither fought their battles nor shielded them from dangers afterwards. I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly agree with all the world to lay aside the use of arms, and settle matters by negotiation: but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank heaven he has put it in my power.


Kill a few and take the whole. thus the peaceable part of mankind will be continually over-run by the vile and abandoned. while they neglect the means of self defence. They supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.

But there is a point to view this matter in of superior consequence to the defence of property; and that point is Liberty in all its meanings. In the barbarous ages of the world, men in general had no liberty. The strong governed the weak at will...

Find the rest here.

November 16, 2007

Nurses continue strike

Registered Nurses are striking the Appalachian Regional Hospital chain. Here's an article. I'm from southeastern Kentucky and am very familiar with this situation. Don't believe the hospital claims. The nurses are abused, and patient care suffers for it.

My parents still live in an ARH service area. My mom had surgery this week, and she went to Tennessee to have it done. My Dad has officially informed our entire family that he is not to be taken to any ARH facility, not even for emergencies if it can be helped. Why? His mother was in an ARH facility last year. Dad told me this week he thought she wouldn't have pulled through if family hadn't been able to stay with her 24/7.

The hospital was chronically understaffed when my wife worked for ARH several years ago. I have friends who still work for ARH, and they have complained about understaffing for years. Just before the RNs strike took effect, one of my friends was forced to work three double shifts in a row with about 4 hours sleep between them. He was told, as they all are, that if they don't double back they'll be fired and reported to the Board of Nursing for abandoning patients.

It looks as though ARH has the upper hand now. I understand some have petitioned to dissolve their union. All I can say is come to Louisville. We need lot's of nurses up here.

Near miss?

I was driving up I-75 back to Louisville Wednesday evening, and just before I got to London, I was in the worst rainstorm I've ever seen. I couldn't even see the front end of my vehicle. I've never been in anything even close to that bad.

Here's what I see today.

Tornado in Laurel County, KY.

Too close for me.

Why didn't I think of that...

I have to say it would have made my life much easier through the years.

November 14, 2007

2nd Amendment Blog Bash coming to the "Ville!

I was happy when I found out the 2008 NRA Convention would be held in my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky. Imagine how I felt when I found out the 2nd Amendment Blog Bash is coming to Louisville and will be held concurrently with the NRA Convention, May 16-18, 2008.

November 13, 2007

Peace, love and understanding

There will always be petty criminals for whom the penalty of using a weapon outweighs their desire to use one. However, career felons and hard-core gangbangers who commit the majority of violent crimes have no such compunctions. They live by ignoring and breaking the law, just as we live by going to work. They will do whatever they feel necessary to bring home the bacon. For most of them, sticking a gun in someone’s face is as easy as shaking hands is to us. They are predators.

I believe most of them are sociopaths, though the term has fallen out of favor. Doctors now call this “condition” antisocial personality disorder. However, sociopath is much easier to type. What characterizes a sociopath?

  • Disregard for the rights of others
  • Violations of the rights of others, often appearing as disregard for the physical or sexual well-being of another
  • Unable to conform to society’s definition of a “normal” personality
  • Antisocial tendencies
  • Physical aggression
  • Unable to hold a stable job
  • Unable to maintain stable relationships
  • Often have a sense of superiority
  • Often thrill seekers
  • Often abuse alcohol and drugs
  • Usually a person of abundant charm and wit, which means most of the characteristics above may not be readily apparent

At what point do you think that a person fitting the above description will say, “Gee, they passed a law banning all firearms. I had better get rid of my guns, give up my life of crime, go down to McDonalds, and flip burgers for a living.” Or, “Oh my, there is a “no weapons allowed” sign on that door. I can’t rob them.”

People who believe this possible are exactly the kind of prey the predators look for, always in Condition White, always looking for that “goodness” inside every person that is just ready to burst out when shown a little compassion and understanding.

Laws are never functionally prohibitive

Sam gets out of bed, pulls on jeans and flannel shirt, then puts on his coat and shoves a 9mm pistol into his waistband as he leaves his home. The sun is well down toward the horizon on this cold December day, and shadows are rapidly lengthening. Sam’s day is just beginning.

Sam grabs a quick meal at a fast food drive-through and drives a few miles just outside of town. He parks just up the street from a mom-and-pop convenience market that cashes paychecks for workers from a nearby small factory. Today is payday. Sam has been here before, and knows the day shift will start to leave the factory in about 45 minutes. He watches the market in the mirror as a few people go in and out.

About 15 minutes before shift change, the last customer Sam saw enter the market comes out the door. Sam checks his pistol to ensure the magazine is full and there is one in the chamber and returns the pistol to the small of his back. He gets out of his car and hurries up the street toward the market. As he walks, Sam reaches into his coat pocket and takes out a ski mask that he pulls down over his face.

Looking through the door, Sam sees only the market’s elderly owner remains inside. Sam knows the old man usually works payday evenings himself, not trusting his other clerks with all the extra money kept in a cash box under the till. Taking a quick look up and down the street, Sam bursts into the market, pulling his pistol and aiming it toward the old man’s head.

Sam orders the old man to hand over the cash box. Lifting the cash box from under the counter, the owner pulls it up with his left hand, hiding the .45 Colt pistol he now holds in his right hand. As the cash box and pistol clear the counter, the old man throws the box at Sam and opens fire. Two rounds hit Sam in the shoulder and arm. He is able to get off one badly aimed shot toward the old man before he drops his 9mm pistol all feeling gone from his hand. The old man holds Sam at gunpoint and has the next customer that comes in call the police.

When the police arrive, they arrest Sam. A quick check shows that this is Sam’s third arrest for armed robbery, and probably an upcoming third conviction for the same. Don’t you love happy endings?

At the end of his short workday, I wonder how many charges will be brought against Sam. I am sure there are more, but here is my list.

  1. Carrying a concealed deadly weapon without a license (misdemeanor)
  2. Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (felony)
  3. Use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime (felony)
  4. Armed robbery (felony)
  5. Attempted murder (felony)
  6. Wanton endangerment (felony)
  7. Kidnapping (felony)

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there a law forbidding carrying a concealed deadly weapon without a license?

And isn't there a law forbidding the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon?

And one forbidding the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime?

And one forbidding armed robbery?

And attempted murder, wanton endangerment, and kidnapping?

Well, no. There are no laws that prohibit any of these things. What the legislature has done, at least in Kentucky, is proscribe certain behavior as criminal and define the level of punishment if convicted of that criminal behavior. An example from the Kentucky Revised Statutes:

515.020 Robbery in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when, in the course of committing theft, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person with intent to accomplish the theft and when he:
(a) Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or
(b) Is armed with a deadly weapon; or
(c) Uses or threatens the immediate use of a dangerous instrument upon any
person who is not a participant in the crime.
(2) Robbery in the first degree is a Class B felony.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 130, effective January 1, 1975.

Note the statute does not say, “You shall not commit robbery in the first degree.” No, it merely proscribes the behavior and defines the punishment (Class B felony). For an example of law that uses explicit prohibitive language, look in the Bible, specifically the Ten Commandments. God says, “Thou shalt not…”, and of course, no one since has ever lied, cheated, stolen, coveted, worshipped other gods, etc, have they? Of course, they have. Notice that God also said, "For the wages of sin is death..." He knew people would continue to violate His Laws.

Though the language in any law may be considered nominally prohibitive, in that it discourages behavior, in and of itself the law cannot and will not prevent the proscribed behavior. One may decide to submit to the law, or not. As long as man can exercise that freedom of will, laws can never be functionally prohibitive.

Why then do so many still insist the answer to “gun violence” is more restriction up to and including total bans on firearms? Many of the these same people promote the abolition of the death penalty. One of the reasons often stated in support of abolition is that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Many still commit murder with full knowledge of the consequences if convicted. To make their point, the abolitionists readily admit the law and its penalties cannot stop murder, so how can they expect laws that restrict and/or prohibit firearms to be effective?

Just how exactly is that supposed to work? Snowflakes in Hell, Alphecca, and Call Me Ahab post about efforts in the EU, where they are “just one law” away from a gun-less Nirvana. When asked how much money was enough, John D. Rockefeller, early 20th century oil billionaire answered, “Just one dollar more.” Like Rockefeller and his dollar, they will never be satisfied with just one more law to disarm us. I can understand their insistence, though. After all, the others they have passed have worked so well…

November 12, 2007

Oregon teacher loses first round of in-school carry quest

A Medford County, Oregon Circuit Judge says teacher Shirley Katz has no right to be armed at her place of employment.
An high school English teacher who wanted to take her semiautomatic handgun onto school grounds has no right to do so, a judge said Friday.
Shirley Katz, 44, has a concealed weapons permit and claimed a right to carry a handgun at South Medford High School in Medford, to defend against intruders or her former husband.

She will be appealing this decision to a higher court. I expect this will end up in the Federal courts. She might consider a concurrent suit in Federal court for violation of her civil rights.

Hagar considers his options...

(thx Robb)

We'll have to start calling them "Eddie"

November 8, 2007

I'm all a twitter...

SCOTUS reviews the D.C. case tomorrow!!

This could be really good, or it could be really bad.

I hate waiting.

Is this why most of my hits are only one page?

cash advance

Hobbes cuts to the chase...

In a previous post I mentioned the newest addition to our household, a young, formerly Tom, cat we've named Hobbes. I also mentioned that he hadn't figured out the daily "wake us up" part that Rascal pretty much has down pat.

Well, we knew it was only a matter of time. But Hobbes has decided to eschew the normal cat practices of sitting on our heads, slapping us with his paws, or gnawing on exposed extremities. No, Hobbes has cut to the chase.

About midnight last night, the alarm system siren went off. Though my wife had already turned in, I was still awake. I knew I had locked the doors, and I hadn't heard any glass breaking, so I went downstairs to see what was going on. The doors were locked, and the windows and sliding door were still intact, so I was quite puzzled.

I was leaning against a counter in the kitchen trying to figure out what was going on when Hobbes walked around the corner. I don't think he likes the siren. His back was still arched, his fur standing straight up on his back. His tail looked like a three-inch wide bottle brush. He rubbed around my legs for a couple of minutes and seemed to calm down.

I gave him a bite of food to help him cope with the ordeal, and started back upstairs. Rearming the alarm, I stood at the foot of the stairs for a moment watching Hobbes play in his little nylon cube. It's about 16 inches on a side and has holes on four sides. As I watched, he went across the room, took a running go at the cube, and after diving into it, sent it tumbling across the living room floor.

At that point the alarm went off again.

Apparently, though the motion detector is set so that cats can't set it off, a cat in a 16 inch nylon cube rolling across the living room is somewhat over the threshold.

Something tells me the little red cube may find a new home in the garage at bedtime tonight.

"Reasonable restrictions"

Speaking with an anti-gunner this morning I was hit with the, "Surely you must admit that reasonable restrictions are for everyone's benefit."

I'm reminded of a "reasonable" ham and eggs breakfast. Though reasonable to the chicken, the hog will hardly be of the same opinion.

November 7, 2007

Buy a 10mm for Robb

Over on Sharp as a Marble Robb is lusting after this sweet little thang (WARNING, hardcore gun porn), but his wife has threatened is discouraging any pursuit of the relationship. Something about, er, uh, well, let's just say it's a surgery most of guys would prefer not even to think about.

So, if enough of his faithful readers will drop a little in Robb's tip jar, he wouldn’t be buying it. We would. How can she object to that?

How about it? I know my site meter isn’t whirring like a fan, but certainly almost everyone who comes here has a blog, too, and if you tout the idea on yours, who knows what might happen.

Come on, folks. Let’s buy Robb a 10mm pistol.

(update) Little math, here. If only 100 people will drop a dime ($10) Robb could get his pistol and take the Mrs. out to dinner to mollify any lingering hard feelings.

Fletcher loses.

(sigh) Such a waste.

November 6, 2007

Some don't understand the personal responsibility of voters.

(A recycle from the 2000 election with a few minor edits)

Well, it's election day, and somewhere, sometime, people are going to be whining, "Oh, they did this," or "They did that (whoever They are), and I didn't get to vote." I don't understand it. It seems some people are unable to understand the simple concept of, "It's my vote, and I am responsible for seeing it cast, and cast correctly."

I once wrote of entitlements, "...a substantial portion of our people, uneducated in the history and foundation of our country, desiring only what is easy and without personal effort or cost, no longer have the desire or will to work for what they want."

Though most citizens are entitled to vote, it is our responsibility to do what is necessary to secure that right. There are few requirements for which I am responsible, and make no mistake, these are my responsibility. 

First, I must be legally eligible to vote. If by some act or failure to act I render myself ineligible, that is my fault.

Second, I must be legally registered to vote, that is, within the correct time period allowed for registration, and within the correct precinct and for primaries, registered to a party that has candidates on the ballot.

Third, I must go to the proper polling place to vote.

Fourth, I must provide to the poll workers legal proof of my identity that agrees with my registration information.

Fifth, I must know for whom I will be voting.

Sixth, I must understand how to cast my vote correctly. All the information necessary to successfully cast a legal vote is readily accessible to anyone who cares to know it, and assistance is available to those who need it. 

Under Kentucky law, if I am not legally registered, I do not have right to vote. If I am at the wrong precinct, I do not have a right to vote there. If I cannot provide legally required identification, the law requires the poll worker to deny me access to the ballot. If I cast an incorrect or blank vote because I have not taken the time to understand, or asked for instructions about the voting method, I have no one to blame but myself. If any of these occur to you, it is not some conspiracy by (fill in your favorite bug-a-boo here) to disenfranchise you, it is your failure to secure your right to vote.

I have worked polls in the past here in Kentucky. It is the duty of the poll workers to ensure, to the best of their ability, that the votes cast are legal, and cast correctly. Poll workers must ensure the identity of the voter. Any voter may ask for assistance from the poll workers. Representatives of both parties then assist the voter. Some counties use paper ballots (no punch cards of which I am aware, you fill in a circle with a pencil), some machines in which you flip a lever for your candidate. Instructions are posted outside and inside the voting booths. Sample ballots are available to study before you go in to vote. If you have a disability, you have the right to bring in a person of your choice, with a few exceptions, to assist you in casting your ballot. Provisional ballots are on hand for the appropriate circumstances.

Poll watchers who have received the same training as poll workers are allowed inside the polling place. They, just as a poll worker, can challenge a voter's eligibility to vote. However, if you are legally registered, at the correct polling place, and have identification, you cannot be stopped from voting in the appropriate races. If you let a challenge intimidate you and do not vote, you have no one to blame but yourself.

For years, I was challenged at every election. Poll workers and watchers would not, rightfully so, allow me to vote in city elections because I resided 20 feet out of the city limits. Though in the correct precinct, I was not a resident of the city. I could have called the challenge harassment, could have stayed home and complained about someone else taking away my right to vote, could have charged that my rights to vote in the city elections had been denied, or I could have gone to the polls and cast the legal votes I was legally eligible to cast. I never missed an election.

I do not care about your Party affiliation. I do not care what color you are. I do not care about your sexual orientation. I do not care about your religion. I do not care what part of town you live in, and it does not matter what anyone else thinks about these or any other matters. Be responsible for your vote. Do what you need to do to be able to cast a legal vote, and then go do it! Be a proud, responsible citizen. Do what is necessary to secure your right to vote and then get the job done.

And if you don't, well, accept the responsibility for your actions and STOP WHINING ABOUT IT!!!!

November 2, 2007

Here, here!!

The Fifth Column in the USA

By Malcolm Hedges Thursday, November 1, 2007

The MSM continues to hide behind fake 1st Amendment protections while acting in ‘seditionist’ and ‘treasonous’ manners!

Various “newspapers” have published classified information ‘leaked’ about important military and intelligence operations related to protecting the USA from attacks by groups that have declared war against the USA.

Since the mush-minds in Congress are too scared or stupid to respond to the declared war on America by Islamo-Fascists, there are some issues about ‘sedition’ and ‘treason’ convictions.

The next piece published that includes classified military information should result in the reporter and the publisher jailed with $1,000.000 bail!

Let them prove they were not helping our enemies for petty political advantage!

By the very act of publishing classified military information they have acted in a ‘seditionist’ and ‘treasonous’ manner.

Real journalists are welcome to question governmental actions, aiding abetting self declared enemies of the USA is a totally different issue!