Poll to Take the Pulse of America About Gun Control

Poll to Take the Pulse of America About Gun Control

by Bill Koehler

Special to The Libertarian Enterprise

Answer yes or no to all questions:

Question 1) I would rather see my mother raped and murdered than permit her to defend herself with a gun.

Question 2) I would rather see my daughter raped and murdered than permit her to defend herself with a gun.

Question 3) I would rather see my sister raped and murdered than permit her to defend herself with a gun.

Question 4) I would rather see my grandmother raped and murdered than permit her to defend herself with a gun.

Question 5) I would rather see my aunt raped and murdered than permit her to defend herself with a gun.

Question 6) I would rather be sodomized and murdered than to defend myself with a gun.
Any further questions?

It makes perfect sense...

In New Jersey, an illegal alien (who has a long history of vile illegal acts) takes an illegal gun and kills three law-abiding citizens who are gathered lawfully in a public place.

So what does Gov. Corzine want to do? Why, pass more gun control laws for criminals to ignore while they prey on disarmed citizens.

It makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
GBW

If you think "gun control" is a good idea...

If you think "gun control" is a good idea, you shouldn't have any problem with the following. And none of that nasty Constitution stuff gets in the way of it, because operating a motor vehicle is a privilege extended to citizens by the state, not an enumerated right.

There have been approximately 1,000,000 deaths by motor vehicle in the United Stated in the last 25 years. An inordinate number of these deaths are children and young adults. Current levels of regulation are insufficient to mitigate this horror. Motor vehicles are dangerous and unsafe. Ownership and operation of motor vehicles must be more restrictive and heavily regulated for public safety. Additional benefits include increased use of public transportation, less motor vehicle polution, decreased need for hydrocarbon fuels, less traffic delays, you get the idea. So, here we go...

Since motor vehicles have often been used in crimes, no one who has ever been convicted of any crime, misdemeanor or felony, shall be allowed own a motor vehicle, or to have an operator license for motor vehicles.

No person shall own a motor vehicle without a motor vehicle ownership permit (MVOP) for each vehicle. All MVOP applications must be submitted in person. All persons who apply for an MVOP shall 1) submit to a criminal background check, 2) submit a letter of recommendation from the chief law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction in which they abide, 3)submit to a blood test, and 4) show good cause for owning a motor vehicle.

No person shall operate a motor vehicle without an operator's license. All persons who apply for an operator's 1) submit to a criminal background check, 2) submit a letter of recommendation from the chief law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction in which they abide, 3)submit to a blood test, 4) show good cause for owning a motor vehicle, and 4) shall complete an 80 hour driving safety course.

Since a majority of motor vehicle wrecks, fatal or otherwise, involve alcohol, every motor vehicle shall be equipped with a device to test the driver’s blood alcohol level. Said device can only be operated from the driver’s seat, and will prevent the starting of the motor vehicle when alcohol is detected in the driver’s blood. When the driver’s blood alcohol level range is 0.05% to 0.10%, the device will lock all doors of the motor vehicle and notify police that an attempted aggravated assault is in progress. When the driver’s blood alcohol level range is 0.10% or above, the device will lock all doors of the motor vehicle and notify police that an attempted murder is in progress. Any DUI convictions prior to the implementation of these regulations would render the person ineligible for motor vehicle ownership or operation.

Since a large number of motor vehicle wrecks, fatal or otherwise, involve impairment caused by drugs, legal and illegal, no one who is convicted of operating a motor vehicle while using over-the-counter, prescription or illegal drugs shall be allowed to own a motor vehicle or to have an operator license for a motor vehicle.

Since many motor vehicle wrecks have been found to have occurred because the driver was distracted, no person who smokes, uses a cell phone, or has children under the age of 18 shall be allowed to have an operator license for a motor vehicle.

Since chances of survival in a motor vehicle wreck go down sharply at speeds over 55mph, the maximum speed limit shall never exceed 55mph. Any person convicted of speeding 5 mph or more over the speed limit, any speed limit, shall immediately have their operator license revoked and shall not be allowed to own, nor have an operator license for a motor vehicle.

Since many young people die as a result of motor vehicle accidents, no one under the age of 21 shall be allowed to own a motor vehicle or have an operator license for a motor vehicle.

Since many older people have and cause accidents, no one over the age of 65 shall be allowed to have an operator license, and shall surrender their operator license to the appropriate authority on the day before their 65th birthday. They shall be able to retain ownership of any motor vehicle, but may not drive it.

Since motor vehicles use flammable and often explosive substances such as gasoline, ethanol, diesel fuel, and natural gas, no person shall be eligible to apply for a motor vehicle ownership permit or an operator license that has not attended and passed, with a score in the 95th percentile or higher, a 40 hour certified course in the proper dispensing, use, storage, and mitigation of potential hazards of these dangerous substances.

Since many stolen motor vehicles are used in crimes, any person who allows their motor vehicle to be stolen shall be prosecuted in tandem and charged equally with any criminal using the stolen motor vehicle, and shall be personally liable for any damages, actual and punitive, resulting from the theft, including those of the person who took the car.

Since motor vehicles have been driven into crowds of people and have resulted in fatalities, no motor vehicle shall be allowed to operate within 1000 feet of any group of 10 or more people.

Since red is a color of aggression and red motor vehicles would potentially be involved in more wrecks than any other color, no motor vehicle shall be painted red.

Since black and gray motor vehicles are too difficult to see after dark and are more likely to be potentially involved in an accident, no motor vehicle shall be painted black or any shade of gray.

Since color-blind persons can mostly see colors only in shades of gray, no motor vehicles may be painted any color other than white

No person may own or operate any vehicle that looks fast when it is sitting still.

Let’s do it for “the children”…

If you see a gun: STOP!...

We recently entertained a houseful of company for seven days; my wife’s parents, her sister’s family which included a 6 yr. old girl and a 3 yr. old boy, and two other nieces aged 12 and 18. The 6 yr. old girl is one of the most inquisitive children I have ever known, and the 12 yr. old is not far behind her. This presented a problem for me since I own several firearms and typically, since we do not have children of our own, several of them are readily accessible most of the time we are in the house.

In the morning, I separated the firearms from their ammunition and locked both up. At night, I took out my defensive firearms, loaded them, and put them in their customary place. In the morning, they went back into storage. I considered this prudent; I do not know how (or if) my nieces have been trained regarding firearms.

I was reared in a rural home in which firearms were kept. My Mom and Dad taught me early to respect them, so when they taught me to respect firearms, I learned that lesson well. I don’t remember how I was at age six, (and I refuse to believe the stories my Mom tells; surely she exaggerates!) but I remember age 13 quite well. When I was at others’ homes, I respected their privacy and their property. I didn’t go pawing through drawers or looking into closets. If I had seen a firearm, I would have pointed it out to an adult and let them deal with it. I wasn’t unduly curious about firearms anyway. Since an early age, I was allowed to shoot with supervision, and it wasn’t the “forbidden fruit” that it seems to be for many who haven’t had that exposure.

The recent death of a Taylorsville, KY teen, has received much coverage. His death was due to mishandling a firearm. I do not know the circumstances. I place blame on no one. That is not my place. I understand there is talk of starting a “Mothers Against Guns” chapter. I suggest starting a “Mothers for Gun Safety” organization which would ensure children are taught the proper response when they see a firearm.

For whatever reason, many children do not have proper exposure to or training about firearms. Since safety is the first consideration and best taught when young, the NRA has developed The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program. The purpose of the Eddie Eagle Program isn't to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children. The program makes no value judgments about firearms, and no firearms are ever used in the program. Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks and household poison, they're treated simply as a fact of everyday life. With firearms found in about half of all American households, it's a stance that makes sense.

Eddie Eagle is never shown touching a firearm, and he does not promote firearm ownership or use. The program prohibits the use of Eddie Eagle mascots anywhere that guns are present. The Eddie Eagle Program has no agenda other than accident prevention -- ensuring that children stay safe should they encounter a gun. The program never mentions the NRA. Nor does it encourage children to buy guns or to become NRA members. The NRA does not receive any appropriations from Congress, nor is it a trade organization. It is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition.

The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program teaches children in pre-K through third grade four important steps to take if they find a gun. These steps are presented by the program's mascot, Eddie Eagle®, in an easy-to-remember format consisting of the following simple rules:

If you see a gun:
STOP!

Don't Touch.

Leave the Area.

Tell an Adult.

Begun in 1988, The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program has reached more than 20 million children -- in all 50 states. This program was developed through the combined efforts of such qualified professionals as clinical psychologists, reading specialists, teachers, curriculum specialists, urban housing safety officials, and law enforcement personnel.

Anyone may teach The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program, and NRA membership is not required. The program may be readily incorporated into existing school curriculum, taught in a one- to five-day format, and used to reach both levels or simply one or two grades. Materials available through this program are: student workbooks, 7-minute animated video (available on DVD or VHS), instructor guides, brochures, and student reward stickers. Program materials are also available in Spanish.

The NRA is committed to helping keep America's young children safe. In efforts to do so, they offer the program at a nominal fee. Schools, law enforcement agencies, hospitals, daycare centers, and libraries may be eligible to receive grant funding to defray program costs. Grant funding is available in many states to these groups to cover the cost of all program curriculum materials.

The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program for Pre-K to Grade 3

Program Materials Center

However, even with training, children don’t always do the smart thing. I didn’t, and you didn’t either. (And if we were honest, we’d admit we still don’t) There will be many children who will die because they did something they were told not to do, went somewhere they were told not to go, or played with something they weren’t supposed to. They have minds of their own. But we should still teach them about the potential hazards they will face. And since parents can’t be with their children 24/7, sometimes that’s all that can be done.

GBW

(Some materials in this post are from the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program website)

"How your 'X-ray vision' can expose armed suspects"

Most officers who get shot are caught by surprise—but does that have to be? If you know how to read the subtle cues that indicate a concealed carry, can you anticipate that you’re dealing with an armed subject and gain a preventive edge of timing and positioning?

This article for LE from PoliceOne.com and Calibre Press by PoliceOne Senior Contributor Chuck Remsberg talks about how to spot concealed weapons on the street. There are two aspects to consider as you read this.

1. If you are in any observational condition above White, this information may help you assess your environment more accurately so you can avoid goblins who are carrying.

2. If you carry concealed, this information may help you avoid the mistakes that make you look like a criminal to law enforcement personnel.
GBW

Idaho Sheriff: More concealed carry will boost public safety

Idaho Sheriff: more concealed gun permits would boost public safety

MOSCOW, Idaho -- The sheriff of a north-central Idaho county where a shooting rampage left four dead and three wounded last May wants more people to obtain concealed weapons permits and carry guns, including on the University of Idaho campus, to improve public safety.

"In my opinion, if there were more students with (concealed weapons permits), the world would be safer," Latah County Sheriff Wayne Rausch told the Lewiston Tribune on Tuesday. "Just because we (law enforcement officers) are charged with protecting the public, doesn't mean the public shouldn't be able to protect itself."

(Remember, police have no duty to protect anyone, say the courts.)
Here, here, Sheriff Rasch.
GBW

Self-Defense: Reasonable Beliefs or Reasonable Self-Control?

Interesting look at self-defense claims in criminal court. The author makes some excellent points..

Self-Defense: Reasonable Beliefs or Reasonable Self-Control?

KENNETH W. SIMONS Boston University - School of Law
Boston Univ. School of Law
Working Paper No. 07-14

Abstract: The reasonable person test is often employed in criminal law doctrine as a criterion of cognitive fault: Did the defendant unreasonably fail to appreciate a risk of harm, or unreasonably fail to recognize a legally relevant circumstance element (such as the nonconsent of the victim)? But it is sometimes applied more directly to conduct: Did the defendant depart sufficiently from a standard of reasonable care, e.g. in operating a motor vehicle, that he deserves punishment? A third category, which might be viewed as a subcategory of the second, has received too little attention: Did the defendant fail to act with the degree of self-control that can fairly be expected? Many criminal acts occur in highly emotional, stressful, or emergency situations, situations in which it is often both unrealistic and unfair to expect the actor to formulate beliefs about all of the facts relevant to the legality or justifiability of his conduct. A
"reasonable degree of self-control" criterion can best account for these contextual factors. Conventional criminal law norms often conceal the importance of "reasonable self-control," instead artificially applying cognitive or oversimplified conduct criteria.

In self-defense, for example, it is conventional to ask whether the actor believes, and whether a reasonable person would believe, each of the following facts: (a) an aggressor was threatening him with harm, (b) that harm would be of a particular level of gravity, (c) his use of force in response would prevent that harm, (d) the level of responsive force he expects to employ would be of a similar level of gravity, (e) if the force was not used, the threatened harm would occur immediately, and (f) no nonviolent or less forceful alternatives were available whereby the threat could be avoided. United States law typically requires an affirmative answer to each of these questions. Yet in many cases, an actor threatened with harm will actually have no beliefs at all about most of these matters. It would be unfair to deny a full defense to all such actors. At the same time, if we want to hold such an actor to a standard of "reasonableness" - and there are good reasons to do so - then we must reformulate the criterion as requiring a reasonable degree of self-control in response to a threat of force.

Keywords: Crime,
Criminal Law, Self-Defense, Justification, Culpability, Reasonable Person

JEL Classifications: K14

Working Paper
Series

Simons, Kenneth W., "Self-Defense: Reasonable Beliefs
or Reasonable Self-Control?" . Boston Univ. School of Law Working Paper No.
07-14 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1000906

Two shot while NOT resisting robbers...

Two bank tellers were shot yesterday in Louisville, KY. For no apparent reason, the armed robbers shot one teller in the abdomen and the other teller in the arm.

Neither teller was resisting the armed robbers.

We see more and more of this as time goes by, and I will once again link to Anarchangel's excellent post, Don't give them what they want.
GBW

Time to admit the gun nuts are right...

The following is an editorial from the Journal Inquirer, a Connecticut newpaper, regarding the story about the multiple murders linked a couple of posts back. I'd be willing to bet he gets crucified for taking this stand.

Time to admit the 'gun nuts' are right
by Keith C. Burris

In the aftermath of the Petit family slayings in Cheshire, we all reached for explanations: How do human beings sink this low? How could this tragedy have been prevented? Why?
There are so many nagging questions. They all need to be asked. And maybe some old arguments need to be hashed out again.
Why not a more stringent "three strikes and you're out" law in this state? Connecticut's version is so weak that it's more like "30 strikes and we'll think about it while you strike again."
Why not speed up the criminal trial process for repeat violent offenders? Get them off the streets. It's been proposed many times. Most people agree it should be done. It never happens.
Can't we better monitor the probation process?
Can't we do a better job of predicting -- figuring out which non-violent criminals are about to turn violent?
Are home alarms really effective?
How about dogs?
But somehow all of these ideas pale before the barbarity of this particular crime.
That is why one old question is worth asking again. It is this: What if the Second Amendment is for real? Is it possible that it should it be revered, just like the First Amendment?
Sam Ervin said, "The Constitution should be taken like mountain whiskey -- undiluted and untaxed." Maybe that applies to all of the Constitution.
Is it possible that the Second Amendment is not a quaint and antiquated remnant of a world that will never return, but an idea as relevant and sound today as when it was written?
Is it possible that we are not talking about the right of the government to form a militia when there is no standing army, but the right of the individual to defend himself, or herself, against both tyranny and lawlessness? Maybe we are talking about the right of self-defense -- the right of the individual to take up arms against a government that wants to oppress, be it foreign or domestic. And the right of the individual to defend himself against criminals, brutes, and barbarians when local police seem unable to stop them.
Might the Second Amendment matter almost as much as the First?
I think the answer is yes.
And just like the First, the Second is practical, newly relevant, and far wiser than the watered-down alternatives.
I don't think George Bush wants to impose martial law on his fellow citizens. But he has diluted habeas corpus. And he has enlarged Big Brother. You have to stop and think about a government that wants to control the thoughts and behavior of its people.
Should such a government be permitted to disarm them as well?
And whereas the reform of the criminal justice system along some of the lines suggested above (a real "three strikes" law and faster trials for violent offenders) would not have saved the lives of Jennifer, and Hayley, and Michaela Petit, a gun might have.
I don't say it would have.
I say it might have.
Had Dr. William Petit had access to a gun and known how to use it, he might have been able to dispatch the two perpetrators, who were armed with only an air gun and ropes.
Moreover, the three victims here were women.
What if Mrs. Hawke-Petit had been trained in the use of firearms? Suppose she had been able to get to a gun after her husband was beaten into unconsciousness by the invaders? Or when she was forced to take one captor to the bank to fetch him money?
It's worth thinking about.
Women and children are now the major targets of predators in our society. Government is not protecting them very well. Many professional women who work in cities know this and take courses in self-defense. A gun may be the only realistic self-defense against the sort of criminals we are talking about here.
And if a few women took care of a few thugs in cases like this; if a few stories like this one ended in a different way -- with a woman blowing one of these brutes to kingdom come -- it might be a deterrent. Lives upon lives might be spared.
A friend of mine said: "The gun nuts are back."
They are.
And they are right.
Mind you, we are talking about arming people who are trained and know how to use a weapon.
No one should have a gun who has not been trained.
Just as one gets training in handling a boat, motorcycle, or car, one must learn how to use and safely store a gun. (The National Rifle Association maintains an extensive national network of programs in firearms training and education.)
And, obviously, no one would be forced to own a gun.
A second caveat: Encouraging citizens to arm themselves is no "answer" to crimes like the Petit murders.
An "answer" does not exist.
But it is one of several remedies when we are faced with palpable evil.
All possible remedies should be on the table:
-- Various reforms of the justice system, like a real three-strike-law for predatory offenders.
-- Better psychological treatment for troubled youth.
-- Religious training, in both love and self-restraint, especially when people are young.
-- Prison programs that both retain the hard core and educate the educable.
-- More and better home alarm systems.
-- More cops visible in more neighborhoods.
-- Dobermans.
All of these approaches have merit.
So does self-defense.
None of these options "fix" a society that can produce human beings who torture and kill the defenseless for sport.
No one step or program can plug every hole in America's justice system, or its soul.
But there are times when a gun in the hands of a potential victim may save a life.
Let's admit -- since the murderers, and druggies, and psychos, and thieves already have guns -- that arming the peaceful, law-abiding, decent, and productive people, whether in a school, or a private home, or on the way to a parked car, is an option that also has merit.
--------
Keith C. Burris is editorial page editor of the Journal Inquirer.

A Horrible Story...

An alarm system and firearms may have gone a long way toward preventing this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/25/national/main3095614.shtml

Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?”

There are peer-reviewed studies which show that countries with stringent firearms laws do not have the reductions in murder and suicide that would seem to be “common sense” to many people. In that bastion of gun rights, the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, researchers Kates and Mauser recently asked the question, “Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?” (See link to article below) Their study of international statistics said no. These gentlemen are not right-leaning gun nuts, either. Their research shows essentially the same results that such studies have been giving for at least 15 years. I quote their conclusion below.

*************************
CONCLUSION
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition:

If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” handguns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.
© 2007 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy
*************************
The article may be found in its entirety at http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf. It is 46 pages and not a bad read for a statistical article.

Stuff you can use.

Marko is spot on here.
Why the gun is civilization
http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

News:
Forced to kill: 4 stories of survival http://www.charlotte.com/breaking_news/story/215469.html

Disabled vet shoots alleged carjacker. “…I'm not going to be the victim who can't defend himself anymore."
http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=3879017&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.1.1

Learning the rules for carrying a gun… http://www.wilsontimes.com/LIfe/Feature/289455703503417.php

Comment for Bud.

(This is continuation of comments on Bud's post found here. Since this
one is kind of long, I thought I'd post it here. Long posts are a little tedious
to read in the small Blogger comments window)

Bud, I wasn’t really comparing guns and cars. The right to keep and bear arms is, well, a right. The use and operation of a motor vehicle is a privilege, granted and regulated by the respective states. It is well within the power of the state to regulate the use and operation of motor vehicles, but the federal government and the states are strictly forbidden by the Constitution from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. I was, however, making the point that death is not the exclusive province of firearms. I did not mention registration, licenses, etc.

I would take issue with “inadvertent mayhem”. Of the approx. 40,000 people who die on the highways every year, approx. 20,000 involve alcohol. When your actions have unintended but harmful results, they are not inadvertent or accidental; they are criminal. Someone has decided, as evidenced by their actions, that their choice of drinking and driving is more important than the life of every person they meet on the road. Of the remaining 20,000, I would hazard a guess that a substantial portion is due to criminal negligence on the part of the drivers, such as driving while too tired, putting on makeup in the car, using a cell phone, eating, following too closely, driving too fast, reading a newspaper, and the list goes on.

I’m glad you agree that keeping and bearing arms is a right, even if you qualify it with “of some sort.” I’d be interested to see your reasoning behind limiting a human right. Do you apply the same description and standards to the rest of our civil rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, peaceable assembly, petition for redress of grievances against the government, search and seizure, and others, as you do to the civil right to keep and bear arms?

You see, the rights enumerated in the Constitution are not given to us in that document, nor are they given by government that government may take them away; we possess them at birth. (“…and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,”) If something is within the power of government to allow or deny, it is a privilege, not a right. When exercised responsibly so as not to infringe upon the rights of others, all our rights are, by nature, unlimited. This is called Liberty. However, when exercised irresponsibly and without respect of the rights of those around us (not liberty, but license: lack of due restraint), they are no longer rights, but crimes of various sorts.

When the man in Atlanta took the lives of people who were not threatening him, he was not exercising his right to bear arms or his right to self defense. He was committing the crimes of assault and murder. Participants in a riot are not exercising their right of peaceable assembly; they are committing a crime. If I were to slander or libel you, I would not be exercising free speech; I would be committing a crime.

And so we have laws defining, among other things, when abuse of a right becomes a crime. The purpose of laws is not to prevent crime; laws define crime and outline the penalties for unlawful behavior. Most people obey most laws not because they are afraid of the penalties, but because they desire to live at peace with their neighbors in an orderly fashion, and lawfulness is their normal way of life. Some people obey laws because, even though they would like to disobey some of them, they don’t want to suffer the penalty if caught and convicted. And then there are the rest, people who obey the laws only when it’s convenient for them because they have no respect for the people around them and, for some reason, don’t seem to dread the penalties. We call these people criminals. They do not respect our rights, and they impose their reckless selfishness on the rest of us. Criminals would pay absolutely no attention to any new restrictions or regulation of firearms. How do I know this?

It’s against the law for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. Yet how many convicted felons commit additional crimes with a firearm? In many jurisdictions, it’s against the law for anyone to carry a concealed weapon. Yet how many criminals pull a pistol from a pocket or a shotgun from under a coat to commit armed robbery? Need I go on? I think you get my point that criminals break the law. Any law that suits them. That is their nature.

In the sense you use it, it is not in the “nature” of guns to do or be anything. Nature is defined as a characteristic disposition or temperament, and guns are capable of neither. Nor are firearms good or evil, they are amoral. Firearms are tools. Some wield them to good purpose, others do not. Firearms do not take on the character of the person who uses them. Murders and assaults have been committed with knives, baseball bats, crowbars, telephones, ropes, rocks, sticks, motor vehicles, ash trays, axes, hammers, saws, stairs, fists, feet, and airplanes. Need I go on? Yet only guns have been singled out as “evil” things. Wouldn’t it make more sense to vilify the criminals rather than the tools they use? If you hire a carpenter to build a storage shed for you and he does it poorly, you don’t blame the hammer and saw when your shed falls down. It wasn’t the “nature” of the tools to do a bad job, it was a bad carpenter.

If someone misuses a firearm, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I have no problem with extended sentences for anyone who is convicted of committing a crime with any weapon, not just firearms. I do have a problem with laws that make it more difficult for law-abiding people to acquire, keep, or bear arms. Total bans on firearms do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Look at Washington, D.C. or New York City. In both those cities, it is nearly impossible for a law-abiding citizen to legally acquire a firearm, yet criminals acquire them easily. If a total ban doesn’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals, isn’t it reasonable to expect the only people on whom additional “gun-control” laws have an impact are otherwise law-abiding citizens?

I claim no privilege to use arms against anyone I want, whenever I please. That is criminal. However, I do have the human right of self defense, which may require the use of arms if I am in fear for my life or grievous bodily harm. I also have the right to defend those for whom I have a responsibility to defend against the same threats. In this, I am answerable to myself and my God. I am not saying I am above the law.

I have no desire to use arms against any person, but as this is not a perfect world populated by perfect people, I must at least consider that eventuality. Really the question here is not whether or not one will defend oneself. If you are attacked, you will not just sit and take it. The question is what tools you will allow yourself to use. I think it’s a bad idea to drive nails with a rock. There are better tools to use. I will use the most efficient tools I can for self defense.

Please understand. However much I may try to persuade someone, it is not my intent to force anyone else to own or bear firearms. How people exercise their civil rights (or not) is of no concern to me as long their actions do not infringe upon my rights. If, for any reason, a person doesn’t want to own a weapon, that is their call and it is fine by me. Like me, everyone lives with the consequences of our daily decisions, whether good or bad. That is personal responsibility. It is another thing, however, to make that call for someone else and force them to live with the consequences of someone else's decision. That is tyranny.
GBW

Why, oh why?

Why do you think anti-civil rights leftists always take the rare, but well publicized, (though usually poorly reported) tales of some poor deranged soul who goes crazy and kills family and/or friends, and immediately jump on the, "If we had more 'gun control' legislation, that wouldn't have happened." And then make with the ad hominum attacks and comparisons to all firearms owners.

What part of CRAZY don't they understand?

Oh, wait. This is the same bunch that thinks laws will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Never mind.

Not their finest hour...

(Cartoon courtesy of www.redplanetcartoons.com)

Follow the link above to read about taking Winston Churchill out of British history books.

News Articles and Blogs about Concealed Carry

More than a little interesting to me, because I will be carrying in VA next weekend.
http://progunprogressive.com/?p=559

And while the Virginia story is fresh in your mind... if you're thinking about carrying in Knoxville, TN
http://www.coltcco.com/?p=180

Restricting gun carry restricts freedoms - Student article in Collegiate Times.
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/2/ARTICLE/9188/2007-07-19.html

Propaganda about evil guns from MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19853442/

Excellent letter to editor comparing restrictive New England states to less restrictive states.
Laws Restricting Guns Misfire
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-freshblack0720.artjul20,0,5491484.story

The right to keep and bear arms is a Civil Right...

Suit challenges Kentucky law barring non-citizens from concealed weapons

Before you read the rest of this post, take a moment to read the article at the link above.

In light of his recent comments about the citizenship requirement in the Kentucky concealed carry laws and the suit brought by a British national, Alexander M. Say, residing in Kentucky, see above, I have a few questions for State Representative Bob Damron (D-Nicholasville) specifically, and all Representatives and Senators in general.

1. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would forbid Mr. May from attending religious services or otherwise practicing his faith?
2. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would forbid Mr. May from speaking at a public gathering?
3. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would forbid Mr. May from publishing articles in a newspaper?
4. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would allow police to enter Mr. May’s home or business and seize his property without a warrant or other due process?
5. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would allow police to arrest Mr. May and hold him without charges, and deny him access to counsel?
6. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would allow others to discriminate against Mr. May because of race or gender?
7. Do you really believe any non-citizen terrorist will be applying for a Kentucky Concealed Deadly Weapons License?
8. And assuming the answer would be “NO” to all of the above, we come to the most important question, then why would you deny Mr. May the Civil Right of bearing arms?

The right to keep and bear arms is one of our Civil Rights. It is not something that the national or state constitutions give us. It is not something that the legislature allows us. Our rights, according to the Constitution, were our rights before government existed. (See the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution) Nor does any one of our Civil Rights take precedence over any other. They are co-equal. If any would take first place, it would be the 2nd Amendment. Said Thomas Jefferson, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Mr. Jefferson recognized, as did most of the Founding Fathers the greatest danger to the rights of the people comes from government.

Representative Damron also said, quoting the AP article, “…the purpose of Kentucky's law is to allow "citizens" to protect themselves, which is what the Second Amendment to the Constitutional (sic) calls for.” Respectfully, Representative Damron, you are wrong.

Kentucky law does not “allow” citizens to protect themselves, and that is not what the 2nd Amendment is for, either. Self defense may be inferred, as the “security of a free State” recognizes not only external, but internal dangers such as insurrection or lawlessness. If the people are not secure personally, the State is not secure. The Kentucky Constitution does make specific mention of self defense. (Lest anyone think those wild Kentucky frontiersmen were responsible for what I have been told is the “archaic concept of private gun ownership”, the current Kentucky Constitution was adopted in 1891.)

“All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ... Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state, subject to the power of the general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. (Bill of Rights, § 1, para. 7)”

(And as regards Mr. May’s suit, the most pertinent phrases here are “all men” and “inherent and inalienable”.)

We need to reframe our defense of the right to keep and bear arms. “Civil Rights!” should be our frequent and consistent call and focus. We need to stop talking about being pro gun, or pro 2nd Amendment. It’s about denying us our Civil Rights!

We need start telling people it doesn’t have anything to do with hunting or sport shooting.

It’s not gun control; it is prior restraint of our Civil Rights.

It isn’t “reasonable regulation”; it is unreasonable and unconstitutional infringement of our Civil Rights.

Banning firearms is the constitutional equivalent of banning printing presses and padlocking churches.

We need to ask those we elect to office the kinds of questions I’ve asked above and hold them accountable for their answers.

Engage the opposition with a term most of them hold near and dear to their hearts and doesn't cause their eyes to glaze over at the beginning of the conversation.

I applaud Mr. May for standing for his Civil Rights, and wish him the best.

Is he going to kill me?

Too many people, particularly women, are told and go along with the wrong-headed advice of, "Let them have what they want. Don't fight them," when a criminal has chosen them for a victim. All that's left for the poor victim from that point is, "I wonder if he's going to kill me?

This post by Anarchangel might help you answer that question.

You have to wonder, if all the students at Virginia Tech had been given this excellent advice at orientation, would one or more of them have attempted to stop Cho? It's kind of difficult to aim well if several desks are being thrown at your head.

thx to Kim du Toit for the link.

To good to pass up - Free Front Sight Course

If you have website or blog, you can get a certificate for a free course at Front Sight by posting the links below.
Here is the link for the offer. I'm always happy to get something free, so here they are.

• Front Sight Firearms Training Institute


• Ignatius Piazza - founder of Front Sight


• Ignatius Piazza Blog


• Front Sight - in Guns & Ammo


• Front Sight - in New York Times


• Ignatius Piazza - in Times Democrat


• Front Sight - in London Times


• Ignatius Piazza - in Fort Worth Star Telegram


• Ignatius Piazza - in Chicago Tribune


• Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Life


• Ignatius Piazza - on Reform America


• Front Sight - on BBC News


• Front Sight - in US News & World Report


• Ignatius Piazza - in Washington Post


• Front Sight - in El Pais Seminal


• Front Sight - on USA Today


• Front Sight - in Santa Cruz Sentinel


• Front Sight - in Pajaronian Register


• Front Sight - in Gun Web


• Ignatius Piazza - in National Enquirer


• Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Sun


• Ignatius Piazza - in Forbes Magazine


• Ignatius Piazza - in Small Arms Review


• Front Sight - in Financial Times


• Front Sight - in Sierra Times


• Ignatius Piazza - on World Net Daily


• Ignatius Piazza - in El Mercurio


• Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Mercury


• Ignatius Piazza - in Playboy


• Ignatius Piazza - in San Francisco Chronicle


• Front Sight - in Los Angeles Times


• Front Sight - in Black Belt Magazine


• Front Sight - in Icon Magazine


• Front Sight - in The Mail on Sunday Review


• My Experience at Front Sight


• Front Sight - on CNN


• Front Sight - in Cybercast News Service


• Ignatius Piazza - in Gun World


• Ignatius Piazza - in Handvapen Guiden

Quote of the day.

"If we want to make our students safer, we should probably consider giving some of them the option of physical self-defense with something more than an organic chemistry book and Blackberry."

From an op/ed by Ed Leap for the Spartanburg (NC) Herald-Journal.
Complete text HERE.

Why carry a gun? Because a whole cop is too heavy!

The courts have held, and I quote, "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." (fine article by Peter Kasler)

My security system went off from an open door last winter at about 3 a.m. The monitoring company immediately called to dispatch the police and then called me. I live less than three miles from a major police station. It took a patrol car fourteen minutes to get to my house after I spoke to the monitoring company operator, and they called the police before they called me.

Luckily, it was a false alarm, but a lot could have happened in 14 minutes. If there had been one or more criminals in my home and they had been intent on harming my family, the police couldn't have done anything about it because the police weren't there.

I was there, and I have a duty to protect my family. The police do not. The police come to pick up the pieces, draw a chalk outline around the body on the floor, and try to catch the criminals who committed the crime.

If the police "protect" everyone so well, why do anti-gun Liberal celebrities who want other's guns taken away have paid bodyguards who carry firearms?

"There is something about a Republican..."

This old cowboy sure had a way with words...

“There is something about a Republican that you can only stand him just so long; and on the other hand, there is something about a Democrat that you can’t stand him quite that long.” —Will Rogers

And that's why I never miss an election.

(thx to Patriot Post for the quote)

Some thoughts on "Gun Control"

1. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution enumerates the self-evident, pre-existing human and civil right of a law-abiding individual (those who habitually obey the law) to keep (own and control) and bear (carry on or about their person or property) arms (generally considered firearms, but could be any other weapon) shall not (what part of NO don't people understand?) be infringed (hindered, encroached upon, denied) by government. A number of state constitutions also specifically address this civil right. Remember, rights are not given by government, but should be protected by government. (But don't hold your breath.)

2. Surveys of incarcerated career criminals (those who make a habit of breaking laws) show they are not hindered by gun-control laws because they don't obey any laws that would hinder their criminal activities. Therefore, any laws which make it more difficult or impossible for law-abiding citizens (those who habitually obey the law) to acquire, keep and bear firearms are not aimed at criminals (those who habitually disobey laws) but at disarming law-abiding citizens, and are arguably unconstitutional.

3. Gun ownership by law-abiding individuals reduces violent crime. See http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/RTCResearch.html for a listing of scientific, scholarly studies which show a decline of violent crime in states where right-to-carry laws have been passed. There is also a link at the bottom of the page for works citing no reduction of crime due to right-to-carry laws. (Note: I have never seen gun control advocates forthcoming with information contrary to their position.)

4. Firearms are not evil. Firearms are only tools used to do various tasks as individuals wield them. And yes, tools are sometimes misused. Hammers, shovels, kitchen knives and automobiles have all been used to murder people. See http://www.a-human-right.com/ for more on firearms as tools. Nor are specific firearms “more evil” because of the way they look. See http://www.a-human-right.com/looks.html for “The Aesthetics of the Gun Debate.”

5. If it isn’t fully automatic (fires more than one shot with only one pull of the trigger), it isn’t an “assault rifle”. Fully automatic firearms have been regulated heavily since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Anyone who legally purchases a fully automatic firearm must undergo an FBI background check, have the approval of the chief law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction in which they live, and pay an additional $200 tax over and above the purchase price of the firearm. And did you know you can only buy fully automatic firearms manufactured before 1986? And most of them start over $10,000.00?

6. Gun control in the United States was originally instituted in post Civil War Jim Crow laws to keep firearms out of the hands of black Americans. This legislation was an unconstitutional attempt to deprive black citizens of the opportunity to acquire, own, and bear firearms, a civil right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Gun control laws passed today are less discriminatory. Many of today’s gun control laws violate the 2nd Amendment civil right of every citizen, regardless of race.



7. If you are in favor of restricting 2nd Amendment civil rights, take a moment and write down your proposal. Now, every where you have firearms or gun control, substitute "speech" or "religion" or "freedom of assembly" and see how it sounds. If the restrictions would be intolerable for your "acceptable" rights of free speech or religion or freedom of assembly, why are they tolerable to restrict any other civil right, including those enumerated in the 2nd Amendment?
GBW

Fighting the urge to "Do something!"

Once upon a time...

Washington, D.C. -- Members of Congress taking a little time off to watch football this weekend were shocked and appalled to see Washington Redskins safety Sean Taylor spit on Tampa Bay running back Michael Pittman.

"I was shocked and appalled!" said Representative John Murtha (D, Penn.). "Millions of Americans were watching when this dangerous assault was committed on national television. If the networks think they can get away with this, they can think again. I have asked the Chairman of the FCC to hold immediate hearings to ensure the immediate removal of all football games to Pay-per-View. The NFL is broken, and it's time to do something about it."

Representative Murtha has also instructed his staff to begin drafting a bill which he says will be ready at the end of the week. "With a little luck, we'll have a law on the President's desk by the end of the month."

At a press conference Monday afternoon, Senator John McCain was scathing in his criticism of the NFL, and promised a review of the weekend's events in light of the government-granted monopoly. "Make no mistake, this torture cannot be allowed to continue. If the Armed Forces can't do it in defense of our country, I'm certainly not going to allow it to continue in the National Football League." The Gang of Fourteen is scheduled to meet later this week to discuss the issue.

On the floor of the Senate, Senator John Kerry (D, Mass.) was urging more direct action from his colleagues Monday morning. "It is incumbent upon us to take immediate action in the Senate. We can expect little action from a White House which hasn't even seen fit to issue a statement condemning this heinous act," said the Massachusetts Senator. Aides to Kerry said calls to his office were running five to one against spitting, and characterized the general tone of the messages as "outraged".

In a rare gesture of bipartisanship, leaders of the House and Senate have agreed to put the spitting bills on a fast track to a floor vote, and most Washington insiders expect a delay in the Alito hearings until this legislation has cleared committee.

When the Constitution was written, it was thought that citizens would step up and serve in office for a time, then go home to their farm or business and resume their normal life. The laws passed by these citizen lawmakers would be tempered by their life experiences, their natural aversion to government interference in their lives, and the realization that, after their service was over, they had to live their daily lives with their former constituents. (as opposed to today's situation where too many have little life experience outside politics, little aversion to government intrusion into our lives, living mostly among their colleagues in Washington, D.C. and taking a job as a lobbyist inside the Beltway instead of moving back to Ottumwa)

But from the first time some figured out that it was easier to sit and talk in Congress than to hoe corn in the sun or argue over the price of dry goods with Mrs. McGillicuddy, we have had what amounts to a professional legislature. And what does a professional legislature do? Why, it legislates! And legislates, and legislates, and legislates...

Once upon a time, laws took their sweet time going through Congress. It sometimes took years to get an important bill signed into law, and by the time the vote was taken, most of the members of Congress that voted on it had read it and knew what was in it. Take a look at this article by Bruce Bartlett on "Changing the Culture of Congress" for more on this. Today, many Senators and Representatives are often surprised by what is contained in the bills they pass, because they do not give them even the minimum attention they should.

Someone told me once that it is unreasonable to expect lawmakers to read the bills they pass. There are too many laws and they are too complicated. If they are too complicated to read before they are voted on, doesn't it hold likely they are bad laws that will be too complicated to live under? Can you say IRS? And as to too many?

The United States is organized as a federal republic because the Framers rightly reckoned that a pure democracy would soon degenerate into mob rule. Legislators responsible to an electorate would gather together one step removed from the madding crowd, allowing cool heads to give due consideration to issues before them--issues of import to the entire country.

But professional legislators must pass bills. It justifies their existence. It gives meaning to their lives. It shows they are important, because SOMEONE HAS TO DO SOMETHING. And when important issues run out, well, just any old thing the polls throw up will do. Would it surprise you to see the article I began with above in a newspaper? Well, it wouldn't surprise me.

I wish there were some way to get across to lawmakers that they really don't have to make laws all the time. We have plenty. Every law is an imposition, if not a burden, on the citizenry. If no new laws were passed in this session of Congress or the state legislatures, would that be a bad thing? I don't think so. Gee, maybe they could even repeal a few while they were waiting.

In Rome, victorious generals were often awarded a triumph; a parade thru Rome displaying the plunder of the war on floats depicting battles and carrying captured kings or chiefs, the general's favorite legion marching behind. The general, usually dressed in armor made of gold, rode in a chariot pulled by the finest horses, and basked in the adulation of the citizens of the Rome. And lest he let all this go to his head, riding in the chariot behind him was a slave who held a golden crown above the triumphator's head and whispered in the general's ear, "Momento mori," (remember, you are mortal) a warning that the glory would soon end and normal life would resume.

Perhaps we could adapt this from the Romans. (Not the triumph part.) Yes, perhaps someone could stand behind each Member of Congress while they were in Washington and whisper from time to time, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
GBW

If Jesus were alive today...

On my way to and from Lexington yesterday, I caught a bit of Jerry Springer on a Cincy radio station. The bump said, as best I can recall, "If Jesus were alive today, he'd be a Liberal, drive a hybrid car, drink Merlot, and listen to Jerry Springer on the radio."

Just a few observations.

1. Jesus is alive, today. Just because He isn't on Earth doesn't mean He isn't alive.
2. He isn't a Liberal. Nor is He a Conservative. He is God. Amazingly, there is a difference.
3. Anyone with a working knowlege of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, understands that Jesus doesn't need a vehicle, not even a hybrid.
4. Jesus drank wine when He was here on Earth. Scripture does not speak to any preference.
5. Jesus does listen to Jerry Springer on the radio (Omniscient, omnipresent, etc.) But that's between Him and Mr. Springer at a future date.

Also caught a few minutes of Al Franken. That was too many.
GBW

Major Civil Rights Victory in Louisiana

Major Victory For Firearms Owners And Freedom In Louisiana
Friday, September 23, 2005

(Fairfax, VA) -- The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana today sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable and law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

“This is a significant victory for freedom and for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The court’s ruling is instant relief for the victims who now have an effective means of defending themselves from the robbers and rapists that seek to further exploit the remnants of their shattered lives,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

Joining LaPierre in hailing the U.S. District Court decision was NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. “This is an important victory. But the battle is not over. The NRA will remedy state emergency statutes in all 50 states, if needed, to ensure that this injustice does not happen again."

The controversy erupted when The New York Times reported, the New Orleans superintendent of police directed that no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to have guns and that “only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons.” ABC News quoted New Orleans’ deputy police chief, saying, “No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons.”

The NRA also pledged that it will continue its work to ensure that every single firearm arbitrarily and unlawfully seized under this directive is returned to the rightful law-abiding owner.

(Yes, this IS a civil rights issue, check your copy of the Constitution. It's called the Bill of Rights. GBW)

Violence in New Orleans

Spent several days in SE KY at my parents, and my grandmother, a wonderful woman in her mid-80s, kept asking, "What's wrong with those people down in New Orleans?"

This essay from Eject! Eject! Eject!, Bill Whittle's blog, pretty much sums it up. I wish I'd written most of it.

Mr. Whittle rates this one "R", so consider yourself warned. Thx to Kim DuToit for the link.
GBW

Equal and opposite reaction?

Well, they say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll just let Timothy Kelly's pen tell the tale.
GBW

Give them something to think about.

An AP article tells us of a new law, passed by the North Carolina legislature and currently on the Governor's desk awaiting his signature, which would require courts to give battered spouses information on how to get a concealed carry license.

As I write this, there is an armed standoff in PRP between police and a man alleged to have just killed his estranged wife. We all know protective orders are all but useless, but I wonder, if it were common practice for these poor ladies to be packing heat, would their ex-whatevers be so keen on coming after them?

One of my wife's most told stories involves a nurse who worked for her several years ago. The soon-to-be ex-husband chased the nurse around a community college parking lot with a shotgun. She called some of his family shortly after that and asked them to tell him she had a pistol and had been practicing with it, and guess what? She never heard from nor saw him again.

I hope the Governor of North Carolina signs the law and many battered spouses avail themselves of their 2nd amendment rights. Hmmm. Time to write to some legislators.
GBW

Listen to "the Mrs."

One of the best things about A Nation of Riflemen, Kim Dutoit's blog, is The Mrs., Kim's wife. She has her own blog, though she doesn't post often enough, and her latest post, This is Normal, is right on the money.

Take a moment and read it, won't you?
GBW

Why the Left hates the 2nd Amendment

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. "

Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 178o

But surely nothing like that would ever happen in the United States!
GBW

Haven't abandoned the blog...

Greetings.
I haven't abandoned the blog. I have let work issues distract me from the important things.
Between not really keeping up with the news, and a general disgust for the lack of leadership from the GOP and their unseemly way of taking whatever the Left dishes out by laying down and whimpering has just left me cold.
I'll try to do better, I promise.
GBW

Rule 18

USNews.com: John Leo wonders about news that doesn't make the news, why the media ignore some stories (6/13/05)

John Leo's article has some excellent examples of unreported stories, one of which is "Rule 18" in the Al Qaeda handbook.

"Mainstream media have been reluctant, in all the coverage of treatment of detainees at Guantanamo, to mention that the al Qaeda training manual specifically instructs all of its agents to make false claims of torture. The New York Times seems to have mentioned the manual's torture reference only once, in a short report from Australia. Several other papers mentioned it as a one-line quote from a military spokesman who pointed it out. But until the Washington Times ran a front-page piece last week, a Nexis search could find no clear and pointed article in the U.S. press like the one by Alasdair Palmer in the London Sunday Telegraph, with the headline "This is al Qaeda Rule 18: 'You must claim you were tortured.' " He wrote that the manual doesn't prove "that the Britons were not tortured in Guantanamo. But it ought to encourage some doubts about uncritically accepting that they were--which seems to be the attitude adopted by most of the media." Amen to both points in that last sentence."

Does it make you wonder, given the general tone of the torture and abuse stories in most of the media, just how much reporting is going on versus hysterical repeating of rumors, innuendo, and lies? And just why are they so eager to believe the worst all the time?
GBW

Not another cent.

I received a pledge form from the RNC today. It reminded me of the promise I'd made to support my Party. I will be sending it back with only a letter asking why I should support my Party when it breaks its promise to me.

We were told the Republican Party would lead. I have to say I'll believe it when I see it. And that's when they'll see another check from me.
GBW

No good will come of it...

Well, the Democrats "caved" in the Senate. Well, not really. They gave up nothing and gained legitimacy for their erroneous position by the collusion of Republican defectors. Yes, that's what they are. The Republicans gained nothing and lost legitimacy for their correct position by the sabotage of Republican defectors. No, the up or down votes agreed on really don't mean anything. There will be a Supreme Court appointment in the near future, and unless it's Hillary Clinton, the Dems will filibuster.

Would have been much better to get it out of the way now.

If I were a Republican in the Senate, I'd be thinking about some new leadership. I'm a Republican in Ky, and I know that's what my next letter to Senator McConnell and Senator Bunning will suggest.

There's an envelope on my counter in the kitchen right now with a pledge form to the Republican National Committee. What to do??? HMMM.

Just one quick question. - who won the election, anyway? Right now, it sure doesn't look like we picked up nearly as many seats as it seemed on Election Day.
GBW

Details on the Rolling Block

From my cousin:

We started with an old military Remington action, and my gunsmith buddy completely reworked it to Sporting Rifle configuration. The barrel is by Green Mountain (highly regarded in our circles), full octagon, 32” long, chambered in .45-70. Stock is Remington Sporting Rifle configuration, English walnut, steel buttplate and forend tip. The action was engraved by Ken Hurst, of NC (used to work in the Colt Custom Shop). The metal finish is a combination of methods, all original to these types of rifles…the buttplate, forend tip, triggerguard, hammer, breechblock, and tang sight base were color-case hardened. The action frame is carbonia blue (think pre-war Colt blue-black), and the barrel is slow rust blued. Montana Vintage Arms tang sight and globe front with spirit level complete the piece.

GBW

New (old) Rifle

The pictures below show the current pride and joy of my cousin, G.P. (After his family, of course)
The engraving was done by Ken Hurst. The stock work was done by my cousin.
I'll have to try really hard not to covet this one. Right.
I've lost the details about the rifle, and G. is at a silhouette match in TN this weekend, so I'll try to post details Monday or Tuesday.
When Master Sgt. G.P. leaves the Army, he'll get to do this kind of thing all the time.
GBW

Beautiful wood.  

Completed rifle, right side of action. Look at that wood. 

The completed rifle, with proud owner 

In the white, right view. 

In the white, left view. 

The Nuclear Option according to Nick Anderson

This is another of the many reasons why I seldom read and never buy The Courier-Journal, the only daily paper here in the Peoples' Republic of Louisville Metro. Nick Anderson, prize-winning cartoonist at the C-J, has this take on some Senate Republican's efforts to get the Senate to do its Constitutionally mandated job and give an up or down vote to the President's nominees. While you're on this page, you can look at more of his work and get really steamed.

Oh, I know it's on the op-ed page, but really, if one of the major voices (picture's worth a thousand works, remember?) of the C-J can't see the difference between elected officials in the United States doing their job, and the Communist dictator of North Korea, why should I spend money on the rag, unless, of course, you are a moonbat. At least Anderson is a better artist than the poor-excuse-for-a cartoonist Joel Pett at the Lexington Herald-Leader.

Louisville and the Commonwealth deserve a top-notch Conservative daily newpaper. Where o' where are you O' Voice of Truth and Reason?!?!?!?!
GBW

Those who can't do...

Nice article by Victor David Hansen in The American Enterprise Online.

I've often wondered at the level of willfull ignorance of the Left in America, but it pales in comparison to that found on the Continent. That and what I have always believed is rank envy.

The next time you think someone across the Pond is making a good point, just remember the surest prediction of the British elections: 40%+ minimum taxes for everyone in formerly Jolly Olde England. And the Continent is worse. Of course, that only applies to the small percentage who actually have jobs.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Winston Churchill

GBW