McDonald 2A Trial - Privileges and Immunities, YOU CAN HAS!

An excellent "layman's" interpretation of Wednesday's Supreme Court Hearing on the McDonald case, which, essentially challenged Chicago's Gun Ban under the 2nd Amendment of the United States.

In essence, does the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States actually bar States and localities from banning guns? The 14th might say it does, but apparently the Statists think it does not.

FELDMAN: Here’s my first argument.
SCALIA: That argument sucks.
FELDMAN: Ordered liberty?
SCALIA: We haven’t used that since 1937.
FELDMAN: Have too.
SCALIA: When?
FELDMAN: Uh, here’s my second argument.
SCALIA: You just argued against your first argument.
FELDMAN: Did not.
SCALIA: Did so.
FELDMAN: DID NOT!
SCALIA: …
FELDMAN: *cries*
SCALIA: …
ROBERTS: You just argued the losing Heller argument.

Go here for the complete text, now including pictures! Very adult language, but very funny as well.

Share and enjoy!

A "Disturbing" New Trend

Last week, I posted "Remember...when *we* protest we're terrorists...", regarding the substantial difference between many anti-Bush left wing protests and the current folks out attempting to explain to the Statists that we don't appreciate their attempts to turn this once Great Nation into a cesspool of Marxism.

A comment was left by Cheddar, one of my longer standing readers, asking this:

How about the open carry folks in AZ at BHO's speech?

One thing I really like about Cheddar is their penchant for asking fair, well phrased questions that make me think. Great job by the way Cheddar, I always value your questions for kicking me up into the next level of thinking.

He was referencing this late breaking story today:


Ok, let's get past the anchor's idiocy calling it a "machine gun", and ignore the on-site reporter's eye rolling and not so subtle emphasis on certain words in order to attempt to denigrate the gentleman carrying the rifle. Honestly, I had actually made an attempt to seek out the Fox station in Phoenix for this embed in the hopes that some of that crap would be minimized.

Here, in my opinion, is what you have:

1. The Police made absolutely no arrests, not even for some lame trumped up trespassing or disturbing the peace charge.
   
2. The gentleman with the AR-15 has it slung, muzzle end down. He isn't holding it in hand, brandishing it, or otherwise acting "threatening.
   
3. He isn't trying to get into the event.
   
4. He has even taken the time to put on a tie and slacks, a very nice touch designed to prevent the "red-neck" sliming you just know these panty-wetting "journalists" want to slap on him.
   
5. He further is gifted with being able to conduct a coherent, thoughtful, reasonable conversation with the reporter interviewing him.
   

Take note of that last statement because I want no misunderstanding - I say that for no other reason than many folks of all walks of life, when they get on camera, can get a bit tongue tied or have affectations to their speech patterns that aren't the polished speeches and manicured accents you might be used to hearing on television. Take a quick listen to the people asking questions or making statements at any town hall and you'll quickly glom on to what I mean. This guy does a great job representing his view!

Is he there to make a statement? Yes. What statement is that? According to him, it is to exercise his rights under Arizona State Law (which I absolutely love being a former Arizonan myself) and the Constitution of the United States, while demonstrating his distaste for ObamaCare. In my opinion, what better way to call attention to the Bill of Rights than to exercise your First Amendment rights and your Second Amendment rights all at the same time?

You see, it's not about the fact that he was carrying weapons. In a recent article by Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman, a Statist hoplophobe reader named Frank asked:

Would it be appropriate for black and hispanic people to be allowed to openly carry guns everywhere in public, as well as to Town Hall meetings with Republican Congressmen?

I responded:

I would *love* to see more people peaceably carrying legal firearms. Fortunately I, unlike Frank, understand that race does not play a role in one's Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The key to my statement is "peacably". That is, not being threatening, not acting mad dog crazy, not making nasty gestures or innuendos that violence could result, just simply carrying a firearm for what it is - a metal tool. A metal tool that can launch projectiles very accurately and at high speed, something to be respected, but still a metal tool. You'll notice the camera showing him with it slung muzzle down, and secured by his arm, but otherwise just sitting there.

This is in stark contrast to this:

Notice the gentleman with the truncheon. He has it in hand, waving it back and forth, and gestures with it while asking questions. He's also doing so at a polling place, in a position where they are obstructing the entrance. Their stances are confrontational, challenging. Some of the challenge in their voice may be to what sounds like a slightly snarky college student who is a little antagonistic himself - admittedly.

So back to our protester at the Obama speech. He's acting friendly, relaxed, and in control. He knows why he is there - to protest peacefully, and instead of a Gadsden Flag or a sign, he has chosen a firearm to show as his symbol of defiance against the ever rising tyranny in our Government. Now ask yourself these questions:

1. If he had done anything more outlandish than stand there and probably chant and yell with the protesters, do you think that he would have been arrested?
   
2. Assuming he wasn't arrested after doing something outlandish, do you really think the media would have used different footage than him standing there talking quietly with the reporter or standing in the crowd?
   

We know how the media wanted this to happen. They wanted him rabidly yelling at the camera, maybe waving the rifle around Platoon style, etc. Ok, fine, I chose a Fox News related station. How about CNN?

That we don't see any of this footage, not even on CNN, tells us volumes about his good conduct. The CNN reporter even talks of ANOTHER man in the crowd with an "patrol rifle". Again, no arrests, nobody shot, everything nice and calm.

Ultimately, I think the best quote came from Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan (who actually seems to have his head screwed on reasonably straight to be sure), who said:

"In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to," Donovan said. "They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon."

And that's it right there. The folks showing up are legally carrying firearms under their local state laws, and certainly under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, while not actually intimating violence in any way, shape, or form, are likely those among us whom I feel are the most grounded in the true sense of Liberty that this Country was founded upon.

That some folks are hoplophobes and have bought into Helmke's sewage, leading them to wrongfully believe that the mere presence of a firearm turns anyone into a slavering ravening killer, are not in any position to lecture me on my rights. As I have posted in the past, those rights are granted simply by dint of my being on this planet, and can not be revoked or questioned by man.

I say that so long as these folks are not creating a situation in which the Secret Service feels that their job can not be performed adequately, and are remaining on the proper side of the law (and yes, to say that in light of my statement immediately above is a little contradictory, but face it - we don't need that kind of publicity - not yet at least), I wish that more people would show up peaceably exercising their rights like this. If nothing else, these folks remind the Statists in power of just how tenuous their hold is on those they would rule. These gentlemen now showing up armed to places where there are likely SS Snipers pointing large calibers at them are refreshing that little wedge of "oh shit" doubt in the Statists' heads. This idea is much better explained by Vanderboegh in recent his post entitled: Gambit: "Waco Jim" Cavanaugh and Gran Torino

As to what the Statist term is for these armed Patriots - it's likely:
Pencil-dicked Redneck Rightwing Teabaggers. Damned straight.

Gun Control...It works...really!!!!

Obese Houston inmate found with gun after 5 searches

So let me get a handle on this. You hoplophobic gun grabbers want to make the entire United States a gun free zone. You really and honestly believe that somehow all the criminals will just stop using guns if you make them "illegal". And yet, you can't even keep your freaking prisons gun free?!?!

An obese Harris County jail inmate turned over a pistol that had been hidden in the folds of his skin after he went through at least five searches upon his arrest and was booked into two different local lockups, authorities said.

The stupidity of the gun hating elitists astounds me.

Ted Nugent Does it Again

For those of you that haven't been over to the LawDog Files, I'd like to direct you to a YouTube clip he posted earlier today. Yes, it's Ted on the 2nd again.

Take a trip over to LawDog's and see what's happening. He is an excellent storyteller and an upstanding Texan.

The LawDog Files

Why Would You Need Your Gun There?!?!

How often do we hear it? Someone is talking about the places they carry, and inevitably another person will chime in "what, do you think you're going to need it there?!?". Often, (and unfortunately) the person making that exclamation is even a fellow CCW'er.

One of those places you commonly have this discussion about is the gym. "What, you think you're going to get mugged in the parking lot?"

Well, unfortunately, that is exactly what happened to a friend of mine very recently. He, like many of us, is attempting to shed the detritus of a too-sedentary lifestyle, and has been going to a local national chain gym to exercise. He lives in a reasonably decent area of North Dallas, I've been in that area to visit him a number of times.

He was coming out after his workout and heading for the car. He is not a CCWer, however, he does have a number of years of martial arts training, and has had enough experiences that he knows how to handle himself in a hands on situation. Well, as he's heading to the car, a young person in too heavy of a jacket approached him and gave the classical "approach/disarm" statement, something to the effect of "can I borrow a couple of bucks". When my friend answered in the negative, the thug-in-training reached into a pocket and pulled a knife, demanding his wallet.

A few things went very right for my buddy. Firstly, the thug telegraphed his movement for his pocket pretty well, my friend understood the moment the guy went for his pocket that things were very wrong (he went condition red, though he doesn't know it by that name), and as he told me, "I knew something was coming out, I just didn't know what it was." Finally, the thug was in grappling distance - not good when the other guy knows martial arts. My friend was able to control the thug's knife hand the moment he saw a knife come out of that pocket, and commenced to, shall we say...rearrange the thug's face. Once again, action beats reaction.

Long story short, he pounded the thug for a short bit, and when two other folks coming out of the gym saw that and asked what was up, the thug unfortunately was able to get away. Police were called, standard after action stuff here.

Ultimately, this continues to prove what I have known since I saw a SWAT team start clearing the building I was working in one day - life and death situations can happen anywhere. There are a number of people I know that only carry once in a while, "when I'm going to a bad place". They consider myself, and those like me that choose to go armed whenever and wherever possible, paranoid and delusional. "You'll never need it, and if you do, you won't be able to use it 'cause the guy will have the drop on you."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that thugs don't hang out in bad places, they go to good places where the pickings are much better. They don't care if you're on your way out to a nice dinner, or are on your way to work out, etc. They want money, and they want it now. Do not make the mistake of thinking these kinds of people are rational like you and me.

A while back, I posted my thoughts on this in a post called "Just Give Them What They Want". Feel free to take a gander if you have the time.

I'll leave you with a video I linked in that post below. Please, for the good of yourself and your family, watch this video and think about what it means to be sharing society with people that think this way. The story behind the video is here.
(The sound is a little odd at the beginning, but it gets audible pretty quickly into the interview.) (caution, there is uncensored language, don't blast it at work)




My friend ended up unharmed, other than a slightly sore hand. It could have been so much worse for him. Remember, it just takes a moment for someone that, when thinking about your family, can only say "f@#$ 'em" to truly ruin your life, and the lives of those around you.

Stay ready, and always be prepared to stop any threat that presents itself. Be safe out there folks.

Those Damned Gun Shows Again

New findings from FBI about cop attackers and their weapons

So many great and excellent numbers in here! So many Brady Bunch Bull Shit (BBBS) removers. Where to start?!?!

Some quick highlights:

From a pool of more than 800 incidents, the researchers selected 40, involving 43 offenders (13 of them admitted gangbangers-drug traffickers) and 50 officers, for in-depth exploration. They visited crime scenes and extensively interviewed surviving officers and attackers alike, most of the latter in prison.

Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows. What was available “was the overriding factor in weapon choice,” the report says. Only 1 offender hand-picked a particular gun “because he felt it would do the most damage to a human being.”

Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was “hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws.”

WHAT!?! They didn't go down to their local gun show and buy an assault weapon??? Sacrilege! You mean they didn't get a Glock Fowty because it's featured on TV?? No way!

Almost all carried when on the move and strong majorities did so when socializing, committing crimes or being at home. About one-third brought weapons with them to work. Interestingly, the offenders in this study more commonly admitted having guns under all these circumstances than did offenders interviewed in the researchers’ earlier 2 surveys, conducted in the 1980s and ’90s.

Ok folks, lets get more sober and serious. Private Property Owners! Listen Up! Your rules against carrying in the car or at work did not work for these folks. Laws against having or carrying the guns didn't stop these folks. They do...not....care to follow your rules and laws. What does that mean when you pompously exclaim "I don't want people carrying guns at my business, so I'm going to put a rule in my little handbook here that says they can't! That'll fix it!" Really, think about it.

These guys aren't taking a night off. They don't leave their gun at home when they go to the bar for a drink. Laws preventing legal gun owners from carrying guns in these places aren't stopping these people.

More seriously:

Nearly 40% of the offenders had some type of formal firearms training, primarily from the military. More than 80% “regularly practiced with handguns, averaging 23 practice sessions a year,” the study reports, usually in informal settings like trash dumps, rural woods, back yards and “street corners in known drug-trafficking areas.”

One spoke of being motivated to improve his gun skills by his belief that officers “go to the range two, three times a week [and] practice arms so they can hit anything.”

In reality, victim officers in the study averaged just 14 hours of sidearm training and 2.5 qualifications per year. Only 6 of the 50 officers reported practicing regularly with handguns apart from what their department required, and that was mostly in competitive shooting. Overall, the offenders practiced more often than the officers they assaulted, and this “may have helped increase [their] marksmanship skills,” the study says.

The offender quoted above about his practice motivation, for example, fired 12 rounds at an officer, striking him 3 times. The officer fired 7 rounds, all misses.

More than 40% of the offenders had been involved in actual shooting confrontations before they feloniously assaulted an officer. Ten of these “street combat veterans,” all from “inner-city, drug-trafficking environments,” had taken part in 5 or more “criminal firefight experiences” in their lifetime.

Now pay attention CCW folks! How often have you caught yourself thinking "those gangstas can't shoot for crap, I'm good just plinking at a target once in a while!" DEAD WRONG. And I mean DEAD. These guys are out practicing because, shock of shocks, they EXPECT to get into a gunfight. They KNOW they'll get into a gunfight, and by God, they want to make sure they SURVIVE the gunfight.

What about you? Do you want to survive the gunfight? Are you practicing as often and as well as you should?

Think through the ramifications of this study very carefully and re-evaluate your training priorities. Find someone skilled to work with you on instinct shooting, on fast target acquisition, on movement. Turn up your situational awareness when out and about.

Read the entire article at that link and take a good, hard look at yourself.

Obama Continues His Support for the 2nd Amendment

Obama Quietly Ends the Federal Flight Desk Program (Armed Pilots)

Ahh! The anointed one continues his support of the 2nd Amendment by defunding the program that allows Pilots the tools they need to prevent a cockpit intrusion.

Way to go! That'll make sure our flights are safe.

Judging from the information in the Editorial, it sounds like these armed and responsible Pilots were subject to excessive harassment by the TSA, which is a total disgrace.

Remember, all you who would fight for "National Concealed Carry", what the Government grants, the Government can totally screw up and subsequently deny on a whim.

The Art of Liberal Communication

We have all seen the steps a Liberal uses to communicate a point:

1. Make an unfounded statement.
2. When challenged with facts on that statement, change the subject.
3. When the subject can't be changed, insult the person counter arguing.
4. If that fails, attempt to get the Police or Authorities involved, or stamp off in a huff.

I had wondered where all of these people were getting their playbook from. Now I know.

Paula Anderson teaches "Communications" at Central Connecticut State University. Recently, when she assigned her class to make a reasoned argument regarding current events, John Wahlberg, one of her students, used that platform to make a reasoned argument for Licensed Concealed Carry (of Firearms) on Campus. I'm sure he didn't say he wanted to shoot students on campus, I know he didn't say he wanted to commit violence on anyone, he just stated that he wanted to be able to defend himself on campus, just like he can everywhere else in town.

Paula's response? Lodge a complaint with the Campus Police. Great Communications eh? David Codrea over at War on Guns has given us an assignment of our own. Let the Stasi calling Ms. Anderson know what we think about her little Marxist tendencies. I'll post her University contact information below. Feel free to drop her a line, I ask that you keep your discourse with her reasoned and civil.

Name: Anderson, Paula
Phone Number: 8322690
Job Title: Lecturer
Department: Communication
Location: R C Vance Acad Ctr 317
Email: andersonpau@ccsu.edu

My email to her is copied below:

I read with great dismay the harassment and degradation you visited upon John Wahlberg, simply because he was making a reasoned argument on current events, as assigned, in your classroom.

While we are all entitled to our own views, this country was founded upon tenets including personal freedom and accountability. That you would feign to teach "communications", and then call the authorities upon students with whom you had a disagreement of principles speaks volumes about your personal cowardice and complete lack of abilities in the subject you are supposed to teach.

What you have now demonstrated to your students is that they must submit to the status quo; that to believe differently than those with authority over you should be a crime. You have ensured that students who would think for themselves, that would speak up and ask simply "why" when they are in disagreement with what is being presented to them, will now fear the midnight call from the Stasi, that soft knock upon the door (or in this case, that evening phonecall from the Police); the harbinger of oppression.

I have sincere hopes that for your abuse of authority, you will see sanctions in some form. With any luck, the student you wrong will see fit to file suit for harassment. At best, I hope you lose your job over this.

While I have never subscribed to the statement "those who can't, teach", in this case, I believe it very apt.

Congratulations on successfully bullying someone with whom you disagreed, simply because you were unable to stand up and openly and logically refute their arguments.

I will be posting this at http://tyrannyunleashed.blogspot.com along with your University contact information. You are welcome to respond there, or by replying to this email address, that is, if you actually want to attempt to defend your craven actions.

--
Garry Morris
Tyranny Unleashed

As you can see, I have invited her over here to discuss her actions. I doubt she'll show.

While you're at it, head on over to the Campus Newspaper and dive into the fray in the comments section on their article.

To Mr. Wahlberg, I recommend you seek legal counsel and see what your options are to ensure other students won't be harrassed the way that you were. Thank you for your attempts to educate the Marxists at your school about what true Liberty involves, and I hope that you won't be dissuaded from continued efforts along this line. That they called the Police on you is the highest form of compliment - it means they didn't have any other way to refute your arguments or shut you down except to call for Daddy to come save them.

Congratulations Sir. If there is anything the pro-rights community can do for you, please let us know.

H/T to David and JD

Unbelievable

Pork, pork, lies, damned lies, and more pork.
9,000 earmarks, and a 10% rise in spending from last year. They're not even pretending to tell the truth any more. These idiots will say anything because many in this country either believe it, or don't give a fig either way as long as American Idol will be on the TV tonight.

The new Domestic Agenda
Plenty of tax increases for the "rich". Of course, that includes most small businesses, which, along with the corporations will have to lay off people and pass the rest of the increases on to anyone who consumes their goods - oops, that would be you and me.

$1.3tr Budgets that rely on hope and change, as well as cap and trade (which will grossly raise your energy costs, including gasoline and power for your home) will ensure that this Nation will plunge into the depths of Socialism and misery.

Capped off by...of course...a new Assault Weapons Ban that Holder has announced is a priority for this Administration. Of course, I've been yelling about that since September, not that that matters. Naturally, you have the progression of mouth breathers in the comments for that article hyperventilating about how you "don't need hand grenades to hunt". I don't even know where to start on that one. We've really reached a point where a majority of Americans, by all appearances, are good only for stuffing into cattle cars to go take a shower - at least as soon as their usefulness as idiots has passed.

I'm losing all hope. I hate to say it, but I'm truly reaching a point where I just don't know what to make of it all. This is no longer a Government by, for and of the people, it is an Oligarchy. Stuffed with lawyers and appointees that could give a flying f*** about us. They simply want more power and more money for them and their cronies.

Has Montana seceded yet? I'm ready for some "change" myself.

Edit: I have clarified the cattlecar statement. Please read that statement before you respond.

Openly Carried Firearms, Fellow Gun Owners, and Liberty

A gun forum I frequent (well, I frequent the part of it where issues regarding carrying guns openly and concealed is discussed) seems to have developed an interesting trend. Someone links to a drive in a state to allow citizens to openly carry their firearms. Often, someone responds with something to the effect of "open carry isn't a good idea because of..." and then lists a number of non-factual "reasons" why you shouldn't openly carry a handgun. The reasons are usually along the lines of:
You'll scare people.
Someone will take it from you.
If you're in some place and some guys want to rob it, they'll shoot you.

I've been attempting to refine my response. Today's incident had me responding to a poster who said, essentially, why would you open carry if you have a CCW permit?

Why concealed carry? Better yet, who are you to tell me how I am allowed to exercise my 2nd Amendment Rights?

Law Enforcement is sometimes a victim of gun grabs. However, most of those grabs happen not while the Officer is strolling down the street, but during physical tussles in which the Officer is hands-on attempting to make an arrest (or is in close proximity to a person who knows they have warrants and doesn't want to jail and the officer doesn't know it yet). Either way, using LEO gun grab stats to apply to citizens is not correct - it is apples and oranges.

Then there are those that always yell "someone will take it from you!" To be entirely fair, I have now heard of a grand total of one (1) case where this has happened in the US. Ever. The guy was out alone at 2 or 3am, in a dark area, and was mugged. They came up behind him (poor situational awareness) and got the drop on him. Can it happen? Yes. Will situational awareness help? Sure. Should you wear a holster with active retention systems - absolutely.

Ultimately, questions like this show that we're still our own worst enemy. The goal for all gun owners should be the unfettered, unrestricted ability to own and carry any gun we want, any way we want, so long as it is done responsibly. Whether it be rifles that are semi-auto (or please - full auto) versions of their military counterparts, big pistols, small pistols, shotguns, whatever, gun owners should be supportive of the 2nd Amendment as written - shall not be infringed. The moment we start thinking (and saying): "I don't think you need to....", and then attempt to validate that statement with emotional arguments that we can not back up with facts, we show that while we may talk about Liberty, we do not truly understand what Liberty means.

What is Liberty? In this particular case, Liberty means me carrying a pistol any way I want. Open, concealed, in a tactical rig, whatever - so long as I am doing so in a manner that will not directly endanger those around me. Questioning my need for exercising Liberty in that manner opens a Pandora's box that allows anyone to infringe anyone else's rights simply on the basis of their own biases and potentially flawed perceptions. It is from this direction that most Statists and Leftists come - "I don't think that's necessary, so you shouldn't be able to do it."

Why would anyone carry openly? Why indeed would anyone carry at all?

I feel all too often we really are our own worst enemy. How often do you hear someone who hunts say "sure, I'm for the Second Amendment, but those handguns (or assault rifles, etc) need to be banned"?

We really do need to focus on what is at the core of our ability to keep and bear arms. That is "arms". Not "bolt action deer rifles", not "revolvers", not "anything but assault weapons", just arms.

Allowing the banners to ban a class of weapons is like allowing a three year old to paint on the wall. The three year old doesn't care that you're just allowing it on the kitchen wall because that one's easier to clean. They know only that they just got away with it. So, if the kitchen wall is ok, let's try the living room wall. You have to tell that three year old right up front "No! It's never ok to draw on a wall!" A consistent message drives home the point.

Our inconsistency as a group in allowing the usurpation of certain freedoms and not others allows the banners to accomplish a divide and conquer strategy. We waste time bickering, they just laugh and proceed with banning something else.

That's why I have pursued a wider range of topics in this blog. I feel that as people who are concerned with Liberty, and if you're fighting hard on the gun issue, you're certainly concerned with Liberty, we have a responsibility to do our best to fight all forms of tyranny. That doesn't mean I think David Codrea at War on Guns should diversify - we need our specialists. I'm also not asking you to divert your limited resources and spread them out all over the place. However, take a little time to be aware of other issues, and drop an extra call or email to your reps letting them know your stance on those non-gun related issues.

Being involved in a wider range of Pro-Liberty activities will not only help to bolster the cause of gun rights, but will also allow you to argue more effectively on a number of subjects related to gun rights.

Most of all, think long and hard before throwing another Liberty oriented group under the bus. It's not ok to let someone go after someone else's rights just because you're not directly affected.

State's Rights

The Virginia Tech Betrayal

No doubt about it. These leftists will not rest until they have control over every little bit of your life.

The measure, sought by Gov. Tim Kaine after the 2007 campus spree, would have reined in the unfettered sales of lethal weaponry — from backwoods to battlefield guns — at weekend “sportsmen’s shows.”

With no background checks required on customers, the dealers present convicted felons and sociopaths an enormous loophole for mayhem. A federal study traced half of the crime guns in Washington, D.C., to Virginia. They move along the “Iron Pipeline” of weaponry infecting states along Interstate 95.

Ahh, the good old "Iron Pipeline". You're right, if we could just stop those 2% of crime guns that come from gun shows, everything would be better.

From the CATO Institute:

If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the the weekend) are the distinct minority.

Yet HCI claims that "25-50 percent of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers." That statistic is true only if one counts vendors who aren't selling guns (e.g., vendors who are selling books, clothing or accessories) as "unlicensed dealers."

Denver congresswoman Diana DeGette says that 70 percent of guns used in crimes come from gun shows. The true figure is rather different, according to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. According to an NIJ study released in December 1997 ("Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities," a report that covers much more than homicide), only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows.

That finding is consistent with a mid-1980s study for the NIJ, which investigated the gun purchase and use habits of convicted felons in 12 state prisons. The study (later published as the book Armed and Considered Dangerous) found that gun shows were such a minor source of criminal gun acquisition that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure.

All those guns are not causing problems in the states they originate in. They only seem to be causing problems in places with high ratings from the Brady Bunch, like Chicago and Washington D.C. Do you think for a moment that a criminal who is hell bent on using a firearm in a crime gets it legally? That they'd go down to the local gun show and get it? No. They'd much rather ask a buddy on a street corner and buy one illegally to avoid potential oversight.

What this demand from a panty wetting liberal really means is that he wants to be able to control what you do with your own property, in your own home, amongst your own friends and family.

There is no inter-state commerce involved in an in-state transfer between two private citizens. There is no Federal Jurisdiction to do this. Yet, in the name of the "children", we should enact draconian restrictions on private property rights.

Perhaps next we can regulate buckets, which kill far more children each year than guns. A bucket licensing and registration scheme, along with safety lock requirements would surely make more sense.

The Definition of Insanity

Weis: No Probation for Gang Member Caught With Guns

Jody Weis says the city has had a handgun ban since 1982 but people are still walking around with weapons. He thinks greater deterrence is required.

Let's ban them again! Yes! Or....maybe we can cut the thumbs off of anyone caught with a gun! Yeah!

They're already illegal you bloody moron! What more can you possibly do except make the sentences for having them longer???

I truly don't understand these people. Obviously, logic plays no part in their daily lives (and unfortunately, their daily legislative activities) but really - are people that stupid that they don't see what is going on?

GUN BANS DON'T WORK.

The Beginning of the End

I've asked in prior posts: Where is your line in the sand? At what point do you say "this far and no farther"?

David Codrea of the War On Guns, alerted by Jeff Knox of The Firearms Coalition really stirred a hornet's nest over on his National Examiner Blog today.

H.R. 45 was introduced on the first day. The effective result - the registration of all long guns with detachable magazines, and handguns by requiring a permitting system whereby all gun owners must take training and pay for a permit to prove their worthiness to exercise their inherent right to self defense. Further, there are national safe storage requirements, additional record keeping requirements, and, short of "occasional" gifting of firearms amongst family members, the Government steps in and regulates all transfers of firearms by requiring background checks.

Please go read David's writeup at the Examiner link above, it is excellent and will bring you up to speed.

So obviously, I read that post this morning, and the rage filled me (I think I spilled some coffee). I figured I'd post a comment on that site, adding to the sounds of who were giving the bill a richly deserved blasting.

Lo and behold, here comes Mr. Fudd himself! A poster styling himself The Rifleman immediately started defending the bill on the basis that it did not actually ban guns, and it's ok to license guns just like we do cars.

My response to him, and to this bill follows (I regret that I mistyped David at one point in my original response on the Examiner site - if you are reading it there under the handle Triptyx, please replace that one instance of "David" with "The Rifleman"):

The Rifleman. Every confiscation effort *ever* has begun with "common sense" regulations - like this registration scheme. This is unconstitutional (licensing a right guaranteed by the constitution), it's stupid (criminals will not register, they will not get their thumb print taken, and they will not use a gun registered to themself in the commission of a crime), and it's absolutely pointless.

What happens next year when they increase the exam requirement to yearly, and institute a fee of $500 to take it?

How about the year after that when they refuse to allow half of authorized exam proctors to re-up their authorization?

What about when they suddenly decide you don't "need" a handgun any more, and show up at the door of every registrant to take them with a SWAT team?

Hunters such as you, The Rifleman, that refuse to see that just because a restriction doesn't affect your bolt-action hunting rifle or shotgun now, doesn't mean they won't call it a sniper rifle and demand it be turned in next year, are the one of the key factors in the erosion of our rights.

This is not about "safety", it is not about "security", it is not about stopping crime, it is the first step to full blown confiscation. Plain and simple. If you refuse to see that, if you refuse to step up and stand united with other gun owners against laws that will do nothing to improve safety, or reduce crime, and cost billions of dollars of your tax money for no real gain, you'll pay the price later when they come for *you*.

This *is* the line. It shall not be crossed.

The Rifleman posted again later and said:
"

After making my post, I talked to a colleague of mine and predicted exactly the kind of wild attacks that appeared here today. I wonder how many of you were this concerned with warrantless surveillance on Americans. I suspect, very strongly, that the majority of you were in support of it. Hypocrites.

"

And there is more prattling on about how you can't yell fire in a theater, etc. At no point does he actually address any one of many well thought out and reasoned responses to his original posting. Naturally "Karen" then chimes in that seeing the responses to the article, she thinks maybe we *should* ban guns. Wow Karen, you don't see that every day. (end sarcasm)

That's ok though. We know that The Rifleman and Karen are either liberal plants, or a person whom we will not convince anyways.

Here is what the myriad of responses on that article should tell anyone who is supporting, lobbying, or voting for this bill:
You, the sponsors, supporters and enablers of this bill, are hereby placed on notice that there exist a large number of people in this nation that will not tolerate this. They will do what Americans have done since (and before) the founding of this country. They will dig in their heels and refuse to heed your decree. They know all too well that the Government that registers arms rapidly becomes the Government that confiscates those arms. Shortly after that, they become the Government that exterminates large percentages of its people.

You will either have to arrest or kill us. You will have to go door to door to make sure everyone registers, and you still won't get even 30% participation. And all the while, criminals will still be out there killing indiscriminately. Your bill is worthless garbage. It isn't worth the paper it is written on, nor the air that will be expended by all of you pompous, vapid windbags as you ramrod it through Congress. This bill is doomed to fail. Yes, you might get it passed into law, but you will very likely be signing death warrants for some number of the Police Officers that will enforce the law. You will be creating even more criminals to stuff in your overcrowded jails - the same ones you're having to release people from right now since you can't even bloody well afford to keep them there. You will be marginalizing a class of people for whom self sufficiency and a sense of honor is treasured. Attempting to remove that treasured heritage will result in bloodshed.

This bill itself might just finally finish tearing the fabric of this country irrevocably. You are pusillanimous tyrants, fit only to wallow in your own excrement and gorge from the trough of public funds. You are liars, and, worst of all, are without honor.

This far, and no farther. We will not register. We will not prostrate ourselves upon the floor and beg permission to exercise those rights which are granted to us merely by living in this world. We do not recognize your usurpation of the Constitution in this matter, and never will. You may kill some of us, others you may throw in jail, but you will not succeed.
III

Progress of this bill can be monitored at OpenCongress.org.

Happy Holidays

I've been traveling, and find that when I'm with family and friends out of town, I don't have a lot of time to sit down and post blog entries.

One thing I did while I was in Tucson, AZ was visit a gun show. What makes this interesting for me is that I am able to compare this show with shows that I attended a few years ago. Seeing as how I've been away from Tucson for that long, I was granted a unique opportunity to observe first hand the changes that our new administration is wreaking on the firearms industry.

Tucson isn't known for having a show every weekend like Dallas. While I saw advertisements for another show in mid-January, typically you see shows in Tucson about 4 or 5 times a year.

So I grabbed my father, who also enjoys shooting and carrying firearms, and a good buddy of mine who has been working with me on various shooting techniques he learned the hard way and we headed down to the show. I intentionally arrived just as the show opened, as I've seen here in Dallas just how nasty things have been getting.

I was very impressed. Tucson, where I have never seen a line to get in to any show had a line that was well over 100 yards long to get in. And this to one of the smaller shows I had been to. Luckily, my father noticed that people were all waiting in line for one ticket booth - another was open right next to the first without a single person waiting. After dispelling a whispered rumor in the long line that you had to be in that line to get a firearm zip tied, we proceeded right into the show.

I was shocked at the dearth of actual guns for sale. Racks that in previous years always held a few good battle rifles, tables full of AR uppers and lowers and accessories, palettes of ammunition - all pretty much absent. I noticed a fair number of Mosin Nagants and their like, but not a *single* M1A was in evidence. I did notice one, and I mean one, Garand (it was actually a beautiful example of the species and not unfairly priced - if I had had the money I would have bought it). I did see a few AR uppers here and there, but in all reality - most of what was around, with the exception of hand guns, was junk.

I saw one real ammo dealer, and it looked like he was selling gold bullion to Wall Street investors - his table was jam packed with people buying everything they had.

After grabbing some plinking ammo to shoot with my buddy while I was in town (I drove my lovely M4 clone out there with me as a treat) we left. We had been inside a couple of hours, and came out to find....you guessed it - a line 100 yards long waiting to pay to get in. And of course, with BAA sounds in my mind, the second ticket booth was still empty. I took pity on the line folks and mentioned the red-headed ticket booth a few times as I walked beside it on the way to the car.

Nothing has happened yet. As Vanderboegh has mentioned, the crush is on, and we haven't even had pending legislation mentioned yet. I do believe that there are a fair number of first time buyers running around out there (a friend at work whom I have been attempting to introduce to shooting told me today he's "heard some things" and wants to buy a gun very soon), but certainly not the press of blind sheep that will surely come when the Messiah takes office and the legislation starts flying. The worst part - rifles and ammunition are already running very low. There are little spurts of bulk ammunition popping up here and there, and if you're savvy, you can still hit a show and find a lovely Patriot Ordnance Upper for MSRP (and by the way, that price hasn't budged by much for the last year or so that I've seen), but in reality, I agree that the crush is coming. The panic will start.

As with the Clintons, I think we can likely thank the Libs for promoting firearms, and especially "assault weapon" (man I hate that term) proliferation, but I cringe to think of the final buying panic when the first couple of bans are suggested on the floor of the House or Senate.

Have you gotten enough ammo to hold out for a while yet? Why not?

I Don't Feel Safer Either...

We Don't Feel Safer

You often see editorials that frequently say "we have a right to feel safe". "The community has a right to feel safe."

Yet at no time do those authors even think about the rights of others around them for whom feeling safe means carrying a legally concealed weapon.

Does this mystical right to "feel safe" only apply to people who think one way? Perhaps these elitists truly believe that their way of thinking is the only correct way.

We don't demand they carry guns, despite our belief that guns make us safer. Why do they insist on demanding that we not carry guns due to their belief that not having a gun makes them safer?

Thanks to Oleg Volk for the image.

Backpack vs. Gun

Controversy Erupts Over School Proposal to Teach Kids to Fight Back Against Gunmen

Lord forbid we arm qualified, permitted teachers to simply put a few rounds into the gunman. We'd much rather have our children throwing books and backpacks at them.

This has been covered before on the various gun blogs, but here we are again.

"[He] (the school resource officer) was starting the conversation with us to say, well, ‘Do we want the kids to sit there and literally have the gunman be able to shoot them one at a time? Or do we want to allow instincts to kick in and basically allow them to protect themselves against the threat?'" Carol Jacobs, the district superintendent, told FOXNews.com.

Instincts? What instincts? Most people, at the sound of gunfire, will try to run away (and rightfully so). Fight or flight. And when you have nothing to fight with (or rather, far inferior "weapons" such as your Western Civ book, flight is number one on the list. And don't think for a moment that Carol Jacobs really wants people to be able to defend themselves against the threat.

If she did, she'd demand the state allow her teachers to train with and carry legal concealed firearms.

And in case you were wondering what the outcome is with regards to my blog title:
In the game of backpacks and books versus gun, gun wins.

The 3%

So here we are. On the other side, are the Brady Bunch, the AHSA, Joyce, the Main Stream Media, and many others whose ultimate goal is the total disarmament of the citizens of the United States of America.

Standing against them, are a few choice and select groups. JPFO, GOA, Three Percenters (3%) and local state organizations.

In between are pragmatists (prags), hunters (fudds), and sheep.

Prags feel that there is always yet a political solution. In this age of Olufson, Heller (sure, 2nd Amendment is great...except for what we say are "reasonable" restrictions), and our new ultra-left government, prags feel that "we should use the tools the forefathers gave us"...and nothing else.

Fudds believe that as long as the government doesn't touch their bolt-action hunting rifle, all is well. Those darned "assault weapons" and handguns should be banned.

Sheep, as one pragmatist put it recently, just want to drink their Starbucks and flip the bird to the driver in front of them.

Prags want to befriend the sheep, so the sheep will vote for pro-2nd Amendment issues. To the prag, the three-percenters are scaring the sheep, sending them scattering across the fields in terror. This, unfortunately, is probably true. However, I posit that the sheep are a lost cause as far as the pro-gun community is concerned.

Here is the problem. Sheep watch CNN, MSNBC, and their local news. Most Sheep news sources are not pro-gun. To your normal person watching TV, guns are for criminals and murderers. For now, news outlets are content to paint handguns and "assault weapons" as weapons designed to kill people. And not just people, but dewey eyed students and babies, and women at the hands of their drunk, red-neck male assaulters.

It was just recently here in Dallas that a competition marksman, using a 50 caliber rifle for practice, had a round get loose (I'm still not sure how, he was on a designated range) and crash through the ceiling of a woman's trailer, 5 miles down range. When the shooter heard of the injury on the news, he immediately turned himself in to the Police - as well as apologized in person to the woman and her husband. Luckily, the round only broke the woman's arm near her wrist, and the Police seemed likely to let the injury pass as an accident. The husband, while he accepted the gentleman's apology, happily went on the news and opined that this is why 50cal weapons should be banned. The news anchor, then, naturally chimed in that 50cal weapons can pierce tanks, shoot down airplanes, and, I kid you not, "destroy" concrete bunkers". And this was our local Fox News station. Yes, Fox ain't perfect, but when a network that is usually reasonably right-leaning makes those kinds of statements, what does that leave us with?

This misleading, and in many cases outright fabricated crap is what most sheep are inundated with day in and day out. Guns don't save lives. They aren't needed tools to ensure our Republic remains intact - they are for "gun nuts" and "red necks" to prove their manliness with, right up until Billy-Bob down the street decides he needs to shoot someone else because they took his parking space. I have even had friends who were gun enthusiasts tell me that I was "asking for trouble" because I carry a legally concealed weapon.

In all reality, how do you combat that? When the general populace has been conditioned to believe something by every source that they deem credible; when they are fed a constant supply of bull$^@# day in and day out, how do you really deprogram that when you do not have access to the level of resources that our enemies do? Further, how do you counter that kind of misinformation when your opponents have been trained not in logical debate, but rather taught to yell emotional tag-lines and stuff their fingers in their ears while screaming "lalalalala" when anyone raises a counter-argument?

Comments recently by self-described prags seem to indicate that those of us who are in the 3% have completely given up on the political front and are cleaning our guns in gleeful anticipation of "going hunting". However, that could not be farther from the truth. Most of us remain dedicated to a peaceful solution. Our opponents, however, know very little except for force (war). Don't pay your taxes, guys with guns come to haul you away. Criticize your representative, guys with guns come to take your guns. Even trying to work within the system ends up in which a shoestring is declared a machinegun (yes, this has since been reversed).

Make no mistake. Heller to the contrary (but not really), and the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the contrary, our government has proven time and time again that they will do whatever they want. Apparently, it is up to us to protest and get arrested and spend millions of dollars of our own money (and another few million of our tax dollars as the government defends itself) to get a ruling from a court that has shown it is no longer really interested in what the Founders intended. In the mean time, we spend years languishing under unconstitutional laws waiting and hoping that the powers that be will deign to let us actually live in the spirit of Freedom that is supposed to be guaranteed by "that goddamned piece of paper". Compounding the problem, there is actually little to no consequences for those who architect unconstitutional legislation and get it passed. The worst they get is voted out of office, and only then if they're not in a place where they have sufficiently programmed their constituents to line up and bleat with proper deference.

Meanwhile, the Fudds sit around cleaning their bolt-action deer rifles and vote for Obama because he's only after those evil massacre inducing "assault" weapons and handguns.

Ultimately, each faction of the gun community needs the others. As Mike Vanderboegh stated here, the Prags need us as the group that could be unleashed should Politicians refuse to be reasonable and follow the Bill of Rights. We need the Prags to act as the respectable front of people who aren't into all that "militia" crap and really don't truck with "revolution". The Fudds need both of the other factions to ensure that "armor piercing" rifle ammunition and "sniper rifles" don't get banned.

Unfortunately, until the three groups truly understand their differences and learn to work together to cover each others real and perceived weaknesses, the infighting and sniping will continue unabated.

Meanwhile, Mike's original question to the Prags and Fudds goes unanswered...
Where is the line in the sand at which point you will conclude that a peaceful political solution is no longer on the table?

I believe I answered that question recently myself.
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

"This is as far as the bastards are going."

"This is as far as the bastards are going." Click the link to see Mike's dialogue with a confused pragmatist who will gleefully talk to gun controllers as they disarm him completely.

I have mentioned Mike Vanderboegh a few times on this blog, and definitely have talked about him to those people I'm lucky enough to talk to in person.

I've linked an excellent response Mike made to a pragmatist (we'll call them Prags) who thinks that we can reason with people who, while they say they want to compromise, really have only one goal - the eradication of private firearms ownership in any form.

Mike recounts an excellent story that I'll rewrite here from Anecdotes from the Battle of the Bulge:
Late on the night of December 23rd, Sergeant John Banister of the 14th Cavalry Group found himself meandering through the village of Provedroux, southwest of Vielsalm. He'd been separated from his unit during the wild retreat of the first days and joined up with Task Force Jones, defending the southern side of the Fortified Goose Egg. Now they were in retreat again. The Germans were closing in on the village from three sides. American vehicles were pulling out, and Banister was once again separated from his new unit, with no ride out.

A tank destroyer rolled by; somebody waved him aboard and Banister eagerly climbed on. They roared out of the burning town. Somebody told Banister that he was riding with Lieutenant Bill Rogers. "Who's he?" Banister wanted to know. "Will Rogers' son," came the answer. It was a hell of a way to meet a celebrity.
An hour later they reached the main highway running west from Vielsalm. There they found a lone soldier digging a foxhole. Armed with bazooka and rifle, unshaven and filthy, he went about his business with a stoic nonchalance. They pulled up to him and stopped. He didn't seem to care about the refugees. "If yer lookin for a safe place," he said, "just pull that vehicle behind me. I'm the 82nd Airborne. This is as far as the bastards are going."

The men on the tank destroyer hesitated. After the constant retreats of the last week, they didn't have much fight left in them. But the paratrooper's determination was infectious. "You heard the man," declared Rogers. "Let's set up for business!" Twenty minutes later, two truckloads of GIs joined their little roadblock. All through the night, men trickled in, and their defenses grew stronger.

Around that single paratrooper was formed the nucleus of a major strongpoint.

We have made some incremental gains in the last eight years. However, Obama's own Change.gov site dictates directly that he will do his level best to erase those eight years in a few fell strokes of a pen. And not only erase those last eight years, but plunge us back into the dark gun control filled days of the 80's. The gun control fanatics are already trumpeting their triumph and are lining up with new bills designed to disarm law abiding Americans - leaving us at the mercies of thugs, gangsters, and crazed terrorists bent on our destruction. Do not think for a moment that attacks like those that happened in Mumbai could not be easily carried out in Chicago, Washington DC, or New York City - all three of which are full of unarmed victims. All three held up as utopias by gun control organizations.

The time for one step forward and two steps back is over. People like Mike (and I'd like to think myself as well) are willing to dig in where they are. They're willing to not only act as a rallying point for like minded individuals, but they're willing to risk potential harassment, imprisonment, or worse by showing the world that they're willing to stand up for what they believe in. By doing so, they provide hope and momentum to others who are willing to take up the fight, but don't have the eloquence, debate skills, or knowledge to effectively do so themselves.

Stand up and get vocal. Blog, leave comments and letters to the editor when you see an anti-gun article/editorial in your paper. Correct misconceptions where you can. Show the Government that there is a strong group of people out there that will not stand idly by while our rights are removed piece by piece.

Stop alongside your fellow Patriots in the road and dig in to bring the fight to the enemy.

For the record, the image above is a poster distributed to commemorate PFC Martin's heroic statement. The paratrooper in the image is PFC Vernon Haught, also of the 325th Glider Infantry Regiment. More information and a link to a nearly full size copy of the poster can be found at this site.

When Seconds Count...

A hat-tip to David Codrea at War On Guns for linking to this article.

I chose to post a comment to the article, I'll post it here as well:

A very interesting article, and one with a tone you do not often see on mainstream media outlets.

One thing you said interested me in particular though. Those of us who have gone through the background checks and training to carry a legal concealed weapon also believe that "no guns" signs encourage those bent on doing harm. As a group, we often tend to avoid locations who have posted such signs as a rule - since we are law abiding citizens (we have to be to have a concealed weapon permit by definition).

If the profile of an active shooter is indeed that they often turn the gun on themselves at the first sign of armed resistance, wouldn't having more people capable of armed resistance make sense?

While the (erroneous) point is often made that regular citizens with legal guns will do more harm than good in an active shooting situation by shooting each other and innocent bystanders, and how are Police to know they're the good guys, the basic idea is this: The guy you shoot is the one shooting people who are running and screaming. The guy you don't shoot is the one who has their gun out but is not shooting at people running and screaming.

While most folks with a legally concealed weapon aren't necessarily going to get involved in a situation like a mall shooting by throwing themselves into the fray, they will definitely defend themselves if attacked directly. And that's what you need. You need people who, when a sociopath comes into the building with a shotgun and opens fire, will fire back. Even if they don't hit him, they can potentially contain them long enough for the "experts" (Police) to arrive and take control, limiting the damage an active shooter can do.

Thank you for writing this article. I do hope folks will take a moment to think about the purpose a "no guns" sign really serves. In the game of life, gun beats paper - every time.

Always Remember

In light of our new overseers, remember this.



Hat Tip to Western Rifle Shooters