Must-Read Interview with Ted Nugent

Via Little Green Footballs this morning, I came upon this great interview with Ted Nugent, from a British publication, no less. Some golden stuff here...

"Never has there been such an upsurge in crime since they confiscated all your weapons. Why don't you arm yourselves? You Limeys have a zipper that's locked in the closed position, because you don't have a constitution. You're rewarded for shutting the fuck up.

"...I consider myself a true liberal. I am armed in order to stop good people being destroyed by bad people. Liberalism is assisting quality of life, whatever you may choose. I think that homosexuality is wrong. I think that people who drink, smoke and take drugs are doing wrong.

"But I'll tell you how I judge people. The people that ran up those burning towers on September 11 were my heroes. And among those warriors who ran back to save their fellow human beings, you know what there were? Homosexuals. Smokers. Drinkers. People I wouldn't agree with on numerous conduct levels. I judge people on this: are they in the asset column, or the liability column?"

"...How do you get peace, love and understanding? First of all you have to find all the bad people. Then...you kill them."

Quite refreshing candor there from The Nuge, and completely characteristic of him, of course. No doubt the Bradys and Sugarmanns of the world would piss themselves if they ever encountered him personally, and there's no telling what they'd say about him if you shot them full of sodium pentathol (though I can certainly hazard a few guesses), but as for me, I think Ted Nugent is awesome. It certainly wouldn't hurt the cause of freedom if we had a few more like him.

The Castration of the Sheepdogs

Captain Ed, on British politico George Galloway saying Tony Blair's assassination (by suicide bomber, no less) would be morally justified:

The voters of east London should be ashamed of themselves for sending such a sick man to represent them. The only true constituency for Galloway wears long, wraparound sleeves and resides within padded walls.

I suppose that may be true, but then, one could argue that true constituency stretches far beyond Galloway's east London district, considering what Britain has become in recent years with the disarmament of the citizenry, violent criminals being let off with a slap on the wrist, the creation of a new police agency that's eerily reminiscent of Big Brother and the effective criminalization of all kinds of self-defense, to the point where the authorities tell the subjects to give robbers whatever they want if they break in. Contrast that to the good old U.S. of A, where if someone comes breaking down the door at 2 in the morning, they face the possibility of eating a bullet, especially here in Texas. Oh, no, the lunacy isn't confined to London -- it's since spread far and wide in the U.K.
The Captain got me to thinking again, though, about something I've been mulling over for a long time, at least since the horrendous fate of Belgian teenager Joe Van Holsbeeck, who was murdered for his mp3 player by a gang of Muslim youths in a Brussels train station in front of hundreds of people. If you'll recall, one of the local politicians expressed dismay at the provincial governor's initiative against the possession and carrying of arms, and the governor came back with this remark: "I am the Governor of East Flanders, not of Texas. [...] I do not want to live in such a society [where citizens are allowed to possess arms]."
The revelation of that little aspect of Belgian society, and its commonality with British society (citizens not being allowed to possess arms) made me wonder: Does the disarmament of a people always lead to the emasculation of said people? Or, more accurately, does disarmament ever not lead to emasculation, and feelings of complete and total powerlessness? Here we have, in England, the subjects having to hide in their bedrooms when some thug comes breaking in, and in Belgium, the gruesome and quite public murder of a teenager and no one coming to his assistance -- can you imagine what goes on away from the eye of the media? It's quite a frightening thing to contemplate. I would argue it's nothing less than throwing open the gates of the Sanctuaries of Civilization and letting the barbarians storm through and tear down (in a figurative as well as literal sense), in effect, everything civilized people have worked to perfect over thousands of years. And that's one of the effects of disarmament that the gun-grabbers in this country probably don't stop to contemplate (or if they do, they obviously think it's worth the trade-off, as the results of British disarmament have been made obvious for all to see).
Dave Grossman speaks of sheep, wolves and sheepdogs. What is the difference between the sheep, and the wolves and sheepdogs, both in nature and society? Weaponry, and the preparation (psychological and otherwise) and willingness to use it -- the wolves for bad, and the sheepdogs for good. The wolves and sheepdogs have them, and the sheep don't; the sharp teeth and claws in nature, and the blades and the guns in human society. Take away the blades and the guns from the human equivalent of the sheepdog, and you might as well be declawing and castrating the canine equivalent -- and we have't even begun to contemplate the psychological effects of that (hint: those effects manifest themselves in events like the murder of Joe Van Holsbeek, where his fellow citizens just walked on by). We know what would happen were that to take place in nature -- complete and utter disaster -- and the same is happening now across the pond. It wouldn't happen overnight, but with the effects of the disarmament of the British people so far, what their society, and arguably that of Europe at large, becomes in the coming years is going to be a frightening warning to those of us here in the United States -- all the more reason that the American gun owner should be prepared to resist if UK-style gun laws ever become a reality here, and, in the meantime, through the political system, fight tooth and nail, so to speak, to make sure they don't.

Other Side Always Worth Listening To? Not Quite...

Not long ago, Banagor asked the following question:

Why do we have to address issues? I'm talking about "issues" the "other side" has.

Take, for instance, the London bombings. You’ve probably all heard of the report about the bombings by now. If you haven’t, listen to that story for a moment and see what you think.

Or how about Iran? Let's see what NPR has to offer:

NPR: Arab Media Reports on Iran-U.S. Relationship

As well as the following:

WAMU: Iran

Or the following on Hamas:

NPR: Experts Question U.S. Policy on Hamas

If you listen to any one of those stories, there is an overriding theme there: "We have to understand the other side".

Well, why do we have to? Why do we have to care? What idiots actually came up with this idea and passed it off as an enlightened way of thinking?

I'd really like to know the answer to that one myself. When he asked that question, I thought of an article I saw not long ago from the daily newspaper at Oklahoma University, titled "Gun problem in U.S. needs compromise." In it, the author, one Sarah Waldrop, said:

We have to come off our respective high horses, stop shouting at each other and start working together if we really want to solve the problem of gun violence in this country.

That means taking the best ideas from each group and toning down the debate a little.

Well, I suppose that's a good idea, in theory...but would anyone care to guess what the "best ideas" are that come from the gun grabbers?
National standardization of gun control laws -- and we all know that if statists like Michael Bloomberg had their way, this would mean New York-style gun laws all across the country. Gun permits, licensing, you name it. They speak of straw purchases from other states. While this is a legitimate thing to bring up, the fact is that the straw purchasers are committing at least two federal felonies -- the straw purchase itself (5 years in a federal prison) and lying about it on the ATF's Form 4473 (10 years in federal prison). So the laws are there, and to the extent they're being broken, it should be patently obvious to all involved, that yet more gun control laws would do little to nothing to change that.
"Nationally mandated lock-and-key approach to gun storage." Yet another futile Nanny State reindeer game that could very well cost lives. We know what this means in practice -- means you can have your guns, but you can't keep them out and loaded, which would mean, if the gun-grabbers even got their way on this measure, if you obey such a moronic law, when the wolf comes knocking at the door, your only prayer is that you can fumble the safe open and the gun loaded -- under an insane amount of stress -- before he breaks the door down and takes your stuff and maybe your life.
So this is what some people wait us to do...listen to and understaaaand the other side. It sounds great, sure, but as Banagor so astutely points out, "the media has transformed the word 'listen' into the word 'agree'." And nowhere is this more true than in the area of gun politics, as the media has made its anti-gun leanings patently obvious, time after time, for longer than I've been alive. Why should we listen to the other side when it's been proven to be spectacularly wrong time after time? Why should we listen to the other side when they have been known to disingenuously manipulate data to support their freedom-restraining, criminal-empowering agenda? Why should we listen to, let alone trust, the other side when they have shown with their rhetoric, time after time, that they don't trust us? Listen to these people? Not hardly. Marganize them and resist them every chance we get? You damn well better believe we will.

More Thoughts On 'United 93'

So I was over at David Codrea's place the other day, and he had a few words on United 93. He first quoted this piece:

At the point when the passengers realized they were on a suicide mission, they quietly asked the flight attendants for help in scrounging knives, hammers, screwdrivers, weapons of any kind, from the galley. Only a true gun rights patriot will recognize this series of fatal events. Thus we all owe it to our families and friends to make them aware of these outcomes. I have not read any mention of this element by any movie reviewer. It completely went by them.

And Dave had this to say, in response to that...

This is the reason why I decided I wasn't going to see this movie. I read reports of theater-goers weeping, and being moved, etc., blah, blah, baaaa.

Good Lord. There would have been no 9/11 if this country wasn't insane with dependency.

It's criminal that the memorable slogan of the day wasn't "Let's rack" instead of "Let's roll".

He's right, of course, but still the film is more than worth seeing; I'd argue it's probably the most important film to come out in a long time, something every American should see. United 93 was a very moving film, and yes, I cried like a baby, but my tears were more for the sheep than anything else, as they sat in their seats and said their last goodbyes to their families on the ground. It was that moving, but ultimately inspiring, as well. The sheepdog mentality and the ultimate, basic American character were on stark display on that flight, and in that film, and that is something we all should be reminded of, even those of us who know full well that 9/11 would have been just another day on the calendar were it not for the insane gun control laws on the books. Once again, Bill Whittle nailed it:

These trust the people freedoms are so deeply engrained in the fabric of America as to be almost hereditary, I think. I used to worry that we'd bred that out of us, and then along comes Todd Beamer and company on United Flight 93, who, first among us that day, realized they were being marched to their deaths and decided to do something about it. Not for themselves, because by taking that action they knew they were doomed. They did it for us. Not only to save the lives of those on the ground for whom their aircraft was headed, but to remind us of who we are as a people, to add to the list of ordinary Americans who can gather extraordinary courage and resolve because they have been trusted all their lives by their government and their fellow citizens.

And that was ultimately what United 93, the film, was for as well -- to show us, in stark detail, who we are as a people and whom we must continue to be if we are to have any chance whatsoever of winning this war against the radical Islamists, if we are to have any chance of continuing to be, as President Ronald Reagan put it, "the last best hope for a mankind plagued by tyranny and deprivation." Never forget, indeed...

More Bravo-Sierra Hysterics From the Violence Policy Center

Interesting discussion going on over at The High Road re: this press release from the rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth gun-grabbers at the Violence Policy Center (via KABA):

Written attacks on law enforcement are common on pro-gun web sites and discussion forums. A web site -- http://www.keepandbeararms.com -- owned by the Second Amendment Foundation, which filed a suit against the City of New Orleans with the NRA challenging gun confiscations during Katrina, regularly has posted comments attacking law enforcement. The web site has a section titled "The Authorities" which features alleged government intrusions on gun ownership and police misconduct. Posts on the site that appeared following Hurricane Katrina and reports of weapon confiscations included:
* "I do not care who you are, or what authority you claim to possess. If you attempt to disarm me, I will kill you. It is becoming increasingly clear that the government will use any tragedy or excuse to violate our rights and further expand their totalitarian regime....When the government begins to violate the rights of citizens under the auspices of keeping order, hunt down and kill all who follow such illegal orders. Only in this way will liberty prevail."

* "It was obvious that the lawyer in question [who said that he would not give up his guns, but later did] was talk talk talk, and not shoot shoot shoot."

* "Twenty JBT's [jack-booted thugs] outside your house may be bullet proof but they're not fire proof."

* "I hear that some JBTs [jack-booted thugs] enjoy cocktails after work. One cocktail they wouldn't enjoy would be a molotov cocktail."

* "The question is simple: would you give the cops a piece of crap gun to send them on their way. Or would you be willing to ambush the cops at your door and then have to leave your home and family to go on the run. Would you be willing to stay and fight and be killed. Or do you have people on your street that would be willing to fight and put the cops in a cross fire keeping them out of the area. The big question would you be ready to die in a gun battle."

* "From my upstairs window, I can cover the front yards of three neighbors. I make head shots at that range freehand all the time. With .223 fmj [full-metal jacket] and up, vest penetration shouldn't be a problem, either."

* "I have read several accounts, that if it were me, there would have been gun play. I don't say that lightly, however, I would not willingly be illegally disarmed and/or have my dogs shot. I may go down, but I guarantee that I would take more than one of the bastards with me. It is not too much of a stretch with superior weapons to take down a few rogue police. I would seriously try and avoid a confrontation with the military. For one thing, they do not have an agenda, and for another they will have superior firepower and numbers."

* "I will let the government (city, state, or federal) take my firearms one round at a time, after a good sight picture and trigger squeeze. Give me liberty or give me DEATH!!!

I said it on THR, and I'll say it here...try as I may, I just can't find anything wrong with the comments the VPC made out to be such a big deal. It would seem that those control freaks think our exercise of our First Amendment rights is just as bad as our vociferous defense of our Second Amendment rights. Yeah, I find the whole "jack-booted thug" reference to be a little unsettling, and in fact I think it's not a term that we should be using, as word choice here is half the battle, or at least a significant part of it. However, while I am not exactly sure what terms we should use to refer to those who would carry out that disarmament edict, whatever we call them, it doesn't change the basic fact that what they're doing is robbing us of a right they didn't grant us in the first place. That, my friends, is what we should be hammering home. And while bloodshed may well be an uncomfortable thing to contemplate, to take my words from THR, "...the fact is that there are people out there who will strip us of our liberties for the so-called 'common good,' and it's been shown that...appeals to reason, the innate rights of free peoples and the principles of law simply will not work with these people. So what's left? From where I sit, at that point you only have two choices -- either you fight those who would strip you of your freedom, with the tools at your disposal, or you submit to them and wait to see what the next freedom is that they'll take from you for the aforementioned 'common good.' It might well not look so good to see some of us talk of taking down law enforcement with guns and such...but our actions as a whole show that we are an eminently peaceable demographic, am I wrong here? I don't look for the Bradys and Sugarmanns of the world to point out the societal and political benefits of gun ownership, but then I try not to get too afraid of the extremist Sugarmann types. I think the last time I saw the Violence Policy Center quoted in the newspapers I read was when AP reporter Rose French did the hatchet job on Ronnie Barrett's .50 caliber rifle. That's not to say that's the only time since then that a VPC hack has been seen as the go-to person on a gun-related article, but I'd like to think the VPC doesn't hold nearly as much influence now as it did back when the Clintons were running things. I know that could change in the blink of an eye, and it's best that we be vigilant and keep in mind that no matter what we say, it's going to be taken out of context by Sugarmann and his evil minions and made to be the big deal that it isn't."

And if you think that's off base, take a look at this jaw-dropper from Mr. Sugarmann:

...The NRA is expert at exploiting high-profile events involving alleged infringement of their perceived 'freedoms' as red meat to motivate the pro-gun hard core.

How do you like that? According to Josh Sugarmann, our right of self defense is not a God-given or natural right, it's a "perceived 'freedom,'" that he obviously thinks that we freedom lovers pulled out of our collective asses. But that really isn't the most infuriating thing of all. That honor belongs to the fact that Sugarmann and his evil statist thugs will sit up there and scream as loud as they can for disarmament, but if it ever comes down to that, they'll send other people -- with guns, natch -- to do their dirty work. They are the worst kind of hypocrites. And gallons and gallons of innocent blood will be on their hands if ever it comes down to disarmament.

Not ready To Make Nice, Eh? Well, You're Not The Only Ones...(UPDATED)

Jeff at Beautiful Atrocities posted a real howler a couple of days ago...

But now our big new single tanked without even cracking the Top 20, & I'm in the toilet again. That video was art, it had symbolism! I was trying to express the message that, yes it's 3 years later, yes the country's moved on, but it's still all about me & how much I've suffered!

I reckon that's probably as accurate an assessment as any, and it'll be even more spot-on if the cd tanks as well. As I said earlier, I think I'm just gonna leave this one on the shelf...I just don't really care to go spend my money on leftist agitprop when there's good non-political stuff out there. Of course, I suppose that's playing right into Natalie's hands...

"I guess I was ignorant to the fact that the stereotypes behind country music were true — and it was disappointing."

...but, I really don't care. I didn't agree with the people who threw away and smashed their Chicks cds just because the Chicks dared voice a contrary opinion, and I liked it even less that they got thrown off country radio for it. Still, though, I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- it'd have been nice if the Chicks had left the politics off the stage in the first place. And by casting their lot in with the moonbat left, to pull out the old cliche, they made their bed, and now they're just going to have to lie in it.
And I hate it, I really do. Country's my favorite genre, and if you're a regular visitor here, you know that I think it's gone to hell in recent years, what with the likes of Shania Twain and Rascal Flatts being presented as the "new face of country." The Dixie Chicks were different...they showed that country music could appeal to the masses and still retain the sounds that made it, well, country...whereas Rascal Flatts, Shania Twain, Lonestar, et al, they just make what can only be described as pop music with a faint hint of a steel guitar and/or fiddle here and there, or better yet, country music for people who don't like country music. Real country music will live on, but it's sad to think of what could have been for the Chicks' contribution to the canon if they hadn't pissed the opportunity all away just to "make a statement" on a platform bought and paid for by fans of a genre their frontwoman didn't even like. I know the Chicks are all thinking, "I didn't sign up for this!" Well, neither did the country music fans that Natalie took a big, steaming shit on.

POSTSCRIPT, May 19, 2006: Just for grins, I googled "Dixie Chicks, protests, Kristallnacht", and came upon this observation, from a commenter at Little Green Footballs:

The ironic thing, coming at the controversy from the other direction, is the comments by Krugman, or by Michael Moore during his off-the-meds rant at the Oscars, is it's hammering more and more nails into the Dixie Chicks coffin.

They have now officially become the annointed favorite country and western group for liberal New Yorkers living between 59th St. and Morningside Heights on the west side. This isn't exactly a hotbed of C&W fans, as a check of the Tower Records store near Lincoln Center would probably indicate. The last country singer people like Moore or Krugman probably gave a damn about was k.d. lang, and that's only because she announced she was a lesbian.

After their agent's statement last week about this whole thing being part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy drummed up by the people at Free Republic, it's possible he might actually be encouraging this sort of blather in hopes it will shame the Chicks' critics into silence. But overall, finding out the girls are the favorites of Michael Moore or The Times' editorial page (gee, I wonder when the Page 1 story in Sunday Arts & Leisure will appear?) is just two more strikes against them among the people who actually would buy their music. Better their new supporters just shut up and let the girls slip into anonymity for a year or so than become the poster children for Krugman's Nazi nightmare paranoia.

Yep.The leftists and their accomplices in the media threw just as much gas on that fire as the Chicks and their erstwhile fans did. Personally, though, I really don't give a flying rat's ass about the musical preferences of Michael Moore or the New York Times' editorial staff, but I think it would be very, very interesting to see what was in their cd collection or on their iPods. Somehow I just don't think you'd find any George Strait or Allman Brothers on there...

Chucky Shi..Schumer Shows His True Colors, Yet Again

Friends and neighbors, brothers and sisters, if ever you doubted where gun bigot extraordinaire Chucky Schumer stands on your natural right to arms, he made it known a couple of days ago, as the news broke that the NRA was going to ask police chiefs and mayors to pledge not to disarm law-abiding citizens like you and me in cases of natural disasters, terrorist attacks and the like. From ABC News (h/t Jeff):

"This shows the NRA at its worst, at its most extreme," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a longtime advocate of gun control. "To put handcuffs around police officers who are doing their jobs for some crazy way-out-there view that police officers want to confiscate guns of law-abiding citizens is to make a mistake. If I were Mayor Bloomberg or [New York] Police Chief [Ray] Kelly, or any other law enforcement officer, I'd say to the NRA, 'Make my day.'"

No doubt the NRA shall do just that, just as they did in New Orleans, filing suit along with the Second Amendment Foundation against the city of New Orleans in the aftermath of the Katrina gun confiscations...

Crazy, way-out-there view? So this statist swine thinks the Great New Orleans Gun Grab of 2005 was a product of the eeeevil gun lobby's imagination, just subversive right-wing propaganda? This blatant violation of New Orleanians' rights was caught on video and documented in the newspapers, for crying out loud! I would say Chuck and his ilk are stupid, but they're way the hell beyond that. Chuck Schumer and his gang of statist thugs are dangerous...very, very dangerous. I would go so far to say they're the very kind of people from whom our Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in the Constitution to protect us. I remember the words of Suzanne Gratia Hupp to -- who else? -- Mr. Schumer:

"The Second Amendment isn't about protecting ourselves against criminals. It's about all of us protecting ourselves from all of you."

How appropriate it was that she made that comment to the senator from New York. If I remember correctly, the NRA in the near future is coming forward with recorded testimony from those who were forcibly disarmed, further countering Chuck Schumers blatantly dishonest portrayal of post-Katrina New Orleans. Still, though, I find it outrageous and quite disturbing that a United States Senator would effectively go on record as characterizing recorded history as "some crazy, way-out-there view." I am trying so hard not to get to the point that I could legitimately have Godwin's Law invoked upon me, but I defy anyone to say Schumer's tactics, if taken to a certain extent, would not be coming straight out of Joseph Goebbels' playbook. Throw a ready-willing and able anti-gun media in there, and, well, presto! The despot-enabling propaganda gets spread far and wide, with little or nothing to effectively counter it! Of course, there's the blogosphere, and outlets like Fox News, but still on the other side we have the Big Three networks and the East Coast Axis of Misinformation, made up of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and while the latter doesn't have as much sway as it used to, it's still rather frightening to contemplate what could happen, especially if that onerous Brady Bill II were passed about the time a major disaster struck. Sometimes it's enough to make me wish that Texas and all the rest of the Southern states would break off again so we wouldn't have to be subject to such dangerous idiocy.

The Lady Kimber On Display..or, Some More Gun You-Know-What

Yes, friends, that's right. Yet another gun modification, though I think this may well be the only modification I make to to this Kimber, as it comes more or less fully outfitted from the Kimber Custom Shop. Here's how the gun looked in its stock configuration:



Like I say, it comes built-to-the-hilt. Match-grade trigger and barrel, anodized aluminum frame, parkerized steel slide, but I was thinking, those grips are nice, rather elegant, but I had something else in mind. The Hogues on my Springfield GI made it shoot a good bit better than it did out of the box, so I figured, why not get a set for the Kimber, too? And here we are now:




As in the case of the Springfield GI 1911A1, here we have yet another example of form and function both being improved considerably; those black grips set off that green anodized frame quite well, in addition to making the gun easier to shoot. It was a great-shooting piece to start with, but with those rubber grips with the finger grooves, it feels like it was made just for my hand..granted, the 1911 fits me well in its stock configuration, but this makes it much better. Now, if only .45ACP wasn't so blasted expensive to shoot...next item of business? Re-loading equipment and instruction...

Guns & Testosterone

First off, this spot-on observation from Tam, on the study detailed here:

Take the testosterone away from Russell Crowe or Viggo Mortensen and you're left with Richard Simmons or Leonardo DiCaprio and, assuming that one is post-pubescent and heterosexual, who really wants that?

A woman with a sense of humor and enough guns to equip the British Army. Now that really shoots MY testosterone levels through the roof...

In all seriousness, though, what in the hell was up with the headline of that story? "In Men, 'Trigger-Happy' May Be A Hormonal Impulse"? Take a gander, if you will, how Websters defines "trigger-happy":

1 : irresponsible in the use of firearms; especially : inclined to shoot before clearly identifying the target
2 a : inclined to be irresponsible in matters that might precipitate war b : aggressively belligerent in attitude

Now, how's THAT for anti-gun bias -- not to mention anti-male? I guess this is the next step in the argument that a gun is used as a phallic substitute..."hey, the science shows it folks, you can't argue with that!" It's quite easy to argue with, though, as we've seen all sort of bullshit studies cranked out about every issue under the sun, it seems, and this one is just another one in that sorry bunch.
How about the game itself? Take a look, if you will, at the ages at which this game is aimed: 6, 7, 8, 9. Now, I can't speak for anyone else, but somebody sat me down in a room and told me to do anything with a game designed for kids, suffice it to say, my testosterone levels would be pretty damned low. Really, just what else would they expect? Does anyone want to put any money on the researchers NOT knowing exactly what to expect? A firearm vs. a kid's board game with the score being determined by testosterone levels? Judas Priest. The results of that would be about as predictable as a matchup between a bunch of middle-school footballers and one of the Dallas Cowboys teams of the early '90s. Par for the course, I know, but it gets quite aggravating.
And then, of course, there's the matter of the gun. I agree with Kim du Toit:

We have become gentled, more civilized, more refined, and more, well, more like women. Unfortunately, however, fifty years of social conditioning cannot easily overcome tens of thousands of years of genetic conditioning, which is why little boys still prefer to have swordfights than host dolls’ tea-parties, and why men still get into fistfights. It is an instinct that will not be denied, much to the dismay of those who would attempt to suppress it or deny its existence...when push comes to shove, men will still defend themselves, out of instinct.

This defense of "self" extends to family. Every man I know would cheerfully put themselves in harm’s way to protect their children—it is the most basic male instinct, after sex.

And for many people, including myself, the gun is part of that -- immature elitist snickering about phallic substitute be damned.

Would It Ever Really Be Too Late?

A few days ago, I was commenting on Firehand's gun shop rumor, and in that particular post on his blog, he mentioned the question, "is it not too soon to shoot the bastards, but too late." I've been pondering that question the last couple of days, and here goes...
Would it ever really be too late? I think that one depends solely on a follow-up question, too late for WHAT? Too late for liberty to be preserved, or too late for massive bloodshed and all kinds of upheaval? And here's the reasoning behind that...
I don't think that it would ever be too late for the preservation of liberty as the Constitution and the Founding Fathers spelled it out. It's been said that man's natural inclination is to desire freedom and liberty, and I basically agree with that. Admittedly, though, years of statist indoctrination from politicians, the public education apparatus and the leftist media have seriously undermined that natural inclination in many ways. One that comes to mind, as Denise at The Ten Ring so succinctly put it, is the rise of...

Professionalization. This is an attitude that only a plumber can replace a washer, only AAA can replace a flat tire, only a cop can use a gun—we are witnessing the death of self-reliance.

And with the rise of the professionalization attitude, comes an attendant loss of liberty, because you're free only to the extent that you're self-reliant. And undoubtedly, a great many people seem to think that's an acceptable trade-off, as evidenced by, for example, the shredding of the natural right to arms in places like Chicago and Washington, D.C.
However, the question needs to be asked -- to what extent does the prevailing political attitude in Chicago, D.C., New York, etc. represent the prevailing political attitude in the country as a whole? I would argue, not to any great extent, as evidenced by the resurgence of conservatives in government in recent years (I know many of them have completely forgotten what they were elected to do, but that's another post entirely) and, for example, the not-overly-stringent state gun laws in places like Texas. (I know many would probably accuse me of playing right into the hands of Mike Bloomberg, Tom Menino, etc., but the fact is the scourge of crime in their respective fiefdoms is the result of their own fascistic local and state laws vis-a-vis law-abiding citizens' possession of firearms, to say nothing of other things that have precisely jack shit to do with the laws in other jurisdictions.)
But, you're probably asking, what does that have to do with the potential New Orleans- and Waco-type situations writ large across the country?
A great deal, I think. There are indeed a great many people who don't own guns in this country, but outside of the aforementioned statist shitholes, it could be argued that we gun owners are more or less viewed with benign neglect, as evidenced by the arguably less strict gun laws here -- that is to say, the people at large believe that a gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen isn't something to be afraid of. And if it ever did come down to such outrageous Constitutional violations (of multiple amendments, mind you -- the 2nd, the 4th, the 9th and 10th), of law enforcement and military going from house to house, I think at least a few people -- gunnies and non-gunnies alike -- would be shocked out of their complacency and take action, whether it be getting the ball rolling on forming that well-regulated militia (OUTSIDE the auspices of the National Guard, of course), general civil disobedience, or what have you. And even if that phenomenon was not that widespread, all would still not be lost.
Consider the numbers. It's been estimated that there are 60 to 80 million gun owners in the United States. Let's just assume that only 5% of them would resist, or form some sort of organized resistance to, gun confiscations. That's roughly 3 to 4 million gun owners. We all saw the cluster-fuck that the siege outside Waco turned into, and there were less than 100 people inside the compound at Mount Carmel, not all of whom were armed. I am well aware of the numbers of law enforcement at all levels, and the military as well, but at least in the case of soldiers, sailors and airmen, it's not altogether difficult to imagine how disarmament of people who have done nothing wrong fits into their political views. Indeed, Bill Whittle wrote in "Freedom,"

A Marine Corps officer wondered to himself whether such an order to disarm law-abiding citizens would be carried out in the United States. He discovered that most of his men would not follow an order to disarm the populace by force.

Whether this Marine's survey could be accurately extrapolated to the armed forces personnel as a whole, I still find it heartening. I like to think that more people than not, share those Marines' worldview. And it's probably the biggest reason that I believe the question posed in the title to this post, is:
"No. It'll never be too late. We might well face bloodshed and upheaval, for as Thomas Jefferson said, the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, but the ideals of freedom and liberty enshrined in our Declaraton of Independence and Constitution will live on forever -- even if it isn't in the country that's known as the United States post-upheaval. An armed and free people will see to it."

Another Bad Comparison

...this time, from the heart of the leftist fever swamp, the Daily Kos. SayUncle reports on the Pro-Gun Progressive's attempts to convince the resident leftists of the values of gun ownership, and we find this comment:

To equate the right to carry a gun with the attacks on my right to determine what happens to my own body (????!) is at the very minimun - laughable.

You want to carry a gun fine but don't you DARE try to equate that with some asshole's attempts to turn me in to a walking, talking incubator the moment one of my eggs gets fertalized.

Judas Priest. I never knew one person could be so blinded by fanaticism. I guess she's probably one of the ones who thinks that all violence is bad unless, of course, it's exercised by agents of the state. Blinded as this one may be, though, that's no excuse. How ludicrous is it to think that the "right" to have an abortion is more important than the right of self-defense? I'd love to see people like this explain how the "right" to an abortion is going to see them through the night that a rapist or home invader breaks into their home armed with a knife or a gun. It would be quite enlightening, indeed...

Stampede of the RINOs, and A Potential Bona-Fide SHTF Moment On the Horizon

Well, maybe not a stampede, but they're certainly making their insidious presence known...
First off, of course, we had Mike Bloomberg's "gun summit" in New York City, and now we have this...

The Brady Campaign has announced that Paul Helmke will take over as their president. He replaces former Congressman Michael Barnes. Helmke was mayor of Ft. Wayne, Indiana, and lost in the congressional primary against Rep. Souter. Basically, their leadership is changing from an antigun Democrat to an antigun Republican.

And that last thing is the long and short of it, really -- from a wolf, to a wolf in sheep's clothing. I am not sure what percentage of the nation's 80 million gun owners are single-issue voters, and how many of them make gun control that single issue, but mark my words -- if the Democrats ever pull their heads out of their asses on the gun issue and finally see the Bradys and their ilk for the tyrant enablers that they are, then the Republicans are in for a very unpleasant surprise, especially when one takes into account the Republican base's disiillusionment and dissatisfaction with the batch of Republicans in power in Washington. But chances are the Donks will continue marching in lockstep with the gun-grabbers...and if there's any truth whatsoever to the rumors commented on at this post at Firehand's place, we could be in for some big, big trouble...it would be the New Orleans gun confiscations writ large all across the country, a bona-fide SHTF moment with even less justification than NOLA (which is to say, less than zero justification). It worries and scares me...there has been much discussion about what would happen if it did come down to such a moment. Would law enforcement and/or military personnel actually go from door-to-door, nationwide, disarming law-abiding citizens as would be mandated by the law Firehand discusses? There's been discussion about it on the forums at The High Road, and many have stated flat out that they wouldn't allow it to happen, that they would band together with fellow gun owners and promise armed response to whoever came to take their guns. So what we could be looking at is Waco and New Orleans, rolled into one, all across the country, another potential civil war if we gun owners ante up as our fellow Americans decide to forcibly disarm us. I hope we don't see it...but the possibilities frighten me. In looking at the gun control agenda's advancement to the point it has, and looking at the fine mess the Pachyderm Party has gotten us into, I can only recall the words of one Winston Churchill...
"...if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

What are our chances? Who the hell knows at this point? The NRA says, "Remember New Orleans." They would do well to remember those words. We all would. Pray for our Republic, dear readers...She faces potentially dark days ahead.

First Of Many 1911 Modifications...

Yeah, admit it, you KNEW this was comin'... ;-)
Ever since I picked up that Springfield GI Model 1911A1, I knew that I'd at least like to get a set of Hogue rubber grips on it -- specifically, the kind that wrap around the front, with the finger grooves on it. Wanted to even more, after I shot a full-size Kimber with a set of Hogues on it -- damn, did that thing ever feel good in my hand -- and finally, last Friday afternoon, I broke down and picked up a set and put 'em on last weekend.



I was amazed at how awesome those grips made that gun look, in addition to improving the feel of it. Set off that parkerized finish just perfectly, and they help me shoot it a little better, too. As far as I remember, the gun didn't have any kind of checkering on the front of the grip, which made for some loose shooting sometimes, especially one-handed, but with those finger grooves, well now, THAT's my kind of gun control!
But, it seems that not only have I caught the 1911 bug, I've also been bitten by that custom modification bug...because I managed to get my hands on a copy of the 2006 Midway USA catalog, and guess where the first place was that I flipped to in it? Thaaaat's right..."1911 Gun Parts." I am sitting here now, thinking, you know, that gun would look and shoot awesome with maybe a Commander-style hammer, and an Ed Brown Videki Long 3-hole trigger, and an ambidextrous safety would be just what the doctor ordered for this lefty...maybe a new, tighter-fitting barrel for it, and some Meprolight tritium night sights like what's on my Kimber Tactical Ultra II...possibilities abound, I could see me emptying the wallet quite easily! This will do for now, though...

Call me crazy, but I just can't help but think...

that this is the saddest thing I've ever seen. From the website:

Most model gun replicas work, function and operate EXACTLY like the real thing (accept they do not fire a forward projectile) which makes them completely safe to use and own. No license, certificate or documentation is required to purchase or own. These are like the type of replicas seen in movies which looks like real bullets are being fired, with shells ejecting flying through the air, barrel smoke, everything you get from a real gun in action except no forward projectile is fired which makes them completely safe.

I just don't think I could stand to have one of those replica guns around, knowing that my government finds my possession of the real thing dangerous to society and that my fellow subjects actually agreed with that line of shite. If something like a replica firearm isn't the perfect symbol of the emasculation of the British, then I don't know what is. God help the United States if ever we go down that rabbit hole.

What's In A Name?

How about intolerable sanctimoniousness? Consider some of the anti-gun organizations whose crap we have to deal with on a daily basis:

The Coalition To Stop Gun Violence
Stop Handgun Violence
Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence
Americans for Gun Safety

Now, anyone who keeps up with gun politics knows that every one of these organizations -- indeed, just about any organization with any variant of the term "gun violence" in its name -- is vehemently anti-gun. Yet here they are, with these laudable-sounding names, as if they're the only ones who want to see violence perpetrated with guns decrease. What kind of self-righteous horseshit is this? Do they really believe that the NRA, Gun Owners of America, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, etc., don't want to put an end to violence perpetrated with guns? Well, yes, of course, that's exactly what they believe, even if they don't say as much -- they show it every day in their demonization of guns and pro-gun organizations (and, by extension, the gun owners that belong to those organizations). Still, though, I find it infuriating that they can get away with such. If there's a better example of jumping on the moral high horse and riding it till it falls over from sheer exhaustion, then I have yet to see it. I have no doubt whatsoever that every single gun owner who's ever walked, would love to see gun-related violence decrease, and even end. It gets damned tiring to be implicitly blamed for all the evil in the world that's perpetrated with guns...and when you think about it, I wouldn't be surprised if the gun-grabbers out there would be content with pinning even more shit on us, simply because of the attitudes we hold not just in relation to guns but in relation to life in general. And "Americans for Gun Safety"??? Like your average gun owner isn't in favor of following the Four Cardinal Rules to the letter? I daresay if anyone has a vested interest in gun safety, it's people who actually handle loaded weapons all the time as opposed to the morons who cower in fear when the word "gun" is mentioned. I own guns. I shoot them every week without fail. I wish people didn't do bad things with them, but they do, and I'd like it if they didn't, but that's just how life is. People are going to do bad things with guns and everything else they can get their hands on. And damn these people for thinking that people like me having less access to firearms is going to make this world a less violent place. It's nooot, m'kay? Once again, Mr. Whittle:

The history of civilization shows time and time again how decent, sophisticated city dwellers amass wealth through cooperation and the division of labor -- only to be victimized by ruthless gangs of raping, looting cutthroats who couldn't make a fruit basket, sweeping down on them, murdering them and carting away the loot, to return a few years later, forever, ad infinitum. Vikings, Mongols, desperadoes of every stripe -- they are a cancer on humanity, but there they are and there they have always been.

Last clause of that last sentence, one more time: "There they are and there they have always been." And no amount of self-righteous moral preening, exploitation of personal tragedy (Sarah Brady, are you listening?) is going to change that.

We Must Hang Together....

...or we shall most assuredly hang separately:

...whether you’re content to be an incrementalist like me or you’re a balls-out absolutist like Publicola, we’re on the same side. And this isn’t the time to be fucking around with petty disagreements among the ranks while those pushing gun control walk all over both of us.

A-fraggin'-men. The gun-haters are united in their agenda, despite their ostensible differences, and we have all seen they don't give up when they get their "partial victories." And no matter what they say now about not wanting to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, they have all contradicted themselves at one time or another -- for example, James Brady commenting that "For defense of the home, that's why we have police departments," the fact that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence was originally named The Coalition to Ban Handguns, the opposition to shall-issue concealed-carry laws, etc. Not the time to be fucking around, indeed. I'd love to see the gun laws revamped overnight...but just as Rome wasn't built in a day, gun rights in the United States were not eroded in a day, and they won't be restored that way either. And if the absolutists vs. incrementalist fight keeps on going, they'll just be eroded even further. Somethin's gotta give, folks...

New Gun Argument? More Like The Same Old BS...

...that East Coast leftists have been pushing for the last 35-plus years. From always-reliable leftist hack E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post:

Have you noticed that Washington politicians have given up on thinking about new solutions to gun violence?

Well, no. I have, however, since we've gotten ourselves a Republican House and Senate, and a Republican in the White House, that we've more or less been holding the line on gun rights and that gun owners in general aren't quite as persecuted and demonized as much as we were in the halcyon days of the Clinton administration ca. 1993. And this, in my mind, can only be a good thing, though I know very well that things could be much, much better on the gun-rights front -- i.e., perhaps a nationwide "Castle Doctrine" law, legal open- or concealed-carry without the permit system, perhaps a law or two decreeing that no municipality on these fruited plains shall ban any type of hand-held firearm (i.e., bye-bye to laws such the ones in place in Chicago and D.C.), laws forbidding any kind of registration or licensing system for ownership or purchase of weapons...in short, this country's system of gun laws could indeed use a complete overhaul, just not in the way Mr. Dionne and his leftist ilk are thinking -- but again, things could be a LOT worse than they are.

Bloomberg is a Republican, if hardly a partisan sort, and it may take a Republican to restart a debate that many Democrats have fled after a careful examination of the electoral map -- and years of exhaustion from demagoguery on the issue.

Now, if Dionne gave a damn about letting his readers know what Bloomberg's real agenda was, this would more accurately read, "Bloomberg is a Republican In Name Only, and he is dancing in the blood of innocent people to advance his agenda of New York-style gun laws all across the country -- in an attempt to restart a debate that was settled in the minds of right-thinking people long, long ago. Democrats have fled from this debate, after a careful examination of the electoral map showed they were completely out of step with what most Americans think in regards to more so-called 'gun control'-- and years of demagoguery on the issue have left them exhausted and completely out of new ideas, so, of course, they regurgitate the same old leftist cant that wore itself out long ago. They're doing just that in New York, as we sit here."

national leadership in the war on gun violence.

Example No. 1: Demonization of inanimate objects.

The mayors, Menino said, do not want to meddle with the rights of hunters.

Example No. 2: Attempting to reassure us here in the red states, "We don't want to take your deer rifle or your duck gun," completely ignoring the fact that Founders did not put the Second Amendment in the Constitution to protect a damned sport (no offense to hunters).

criminals can easily obtain weapons in jurisdictions with looser regulations.

How did they do that? They broke a few fucking laws, actions that can put them in the Greybar Hotel for a long, long time, that's how. "Oh, but just a few more laws will fix the problem." Uh-uh, Scooter. I'm callin' bullshit on that one, and I'm sure I ain't the only one. Anybody who knows a damned thing about the gun laws in place now, knows that every single gun purchase (both defensive sidearm and long gun) from a federally licensed dealer since 1993 is on record, subject to audit by the ATF. Now, whether it should be that way is a debate for another time, but it's more than a little disingenuous for the anti-gunners gathering in New York City to sit there and claim that the violence in their fiefdoms is the fault of "other jurisdictions," when the fact is that the criminals broke the laws in those "other jurisdictions" in the first place.

Supporters of gun regulations are always cast as metropolitan highbrows lacking in respect for the way of life of law-abiding country folks.

Uh..maybe that's because they are? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and has a bill and feathers...well, it's quite obvious it's not a three-toed sloth.

Yes, there is a cultural difference between big cities and rural areas, but it's a difference in how guns are used. Rural people treasure their guns mostly for hunting and recreation, and as collectors. In inner cities, guns -- especially handguns -- are used almost entirely to threaten or kill other human beings.

Once again, the great Bill Whittle drives the point home better than I ever could (emphasis mine):

It is abundantly clear that the rate of handgun murders in the United States is not uniform. Very large murder rates can be observed in small, exceedingly violent populations of every race in this country, and these rates seem to be more related to issues of income, education and living conditions. Certainly guns are freely available in areas where our murder rates are appallingly high. They are also found in very large numbers in communities where handgun crime is virtually nonexistent.
Doesn’t that tell us that there is something deeper at work here? Could it be, perhaps, that the problem is not with the number of guns in this country but rather in the hearts of those who we allow to wield them, repeatedly? Could it really be as simple as apprehending, and punishing, those that would do harm to innocents and to civilization? Rather than banning guns, should we not attack the moral rot that infests these small, violent populations of every color who put such horrible numbers at our feet?
...I hate seeing our kids get shot on the street, I hate it, I hate it. But that is the cost of freedom. People get horribly killed on Spring Break road trips to Florida at age 18. They're driving drunk. We could prevent them from going. We would save lives. Enron and MCI steal like the worst characters from Dickens, taking people's Christmas dinners so they can have gold plated faucets. We could regulate more, make things harder for the millions of honest businesses that build and trade honorably each day. The day may come when someone flies a Cessna into a stadium. We can ban the airplanes. Ditto for pleasure boats. We can ban and confiscate and regulate to our hearts content, and we will undoubtedly save many, many innocent lives by doing so. All for the price of a little freedom.
I believe we should punish the perpetrators. I will not agree to restrict the freedoms of the vast numbers of people who abide by the concomitant responsibility and live lives of honesty and decency.

Punishing the perpetrators. Attacking the moral rot in certain subcultures in this country. There's your "new gun arguments" right there. But just hold that thought, for a moment. More from Mr. Leftist Hack "Journalist":

We desperately need a new politics of gun regulation in which law-abiding gun owners see the fight for tougher laws not as a form of disrespect for their culture...

It'll never happen, and I'll tell you why -- because every time some blowhard politician starts making noise about "gun violence," he (or she, as the case may be) always, always ends up demonizing law-abiding gun owners (and the organizations many of them belong to, such as the National Rifle Association), professing some half-assed "support" for the Second Amendment and pooh-poohing our God-given rights, in short, insulting our culture, repeatedly. It'll be no different this month in New York, with the likes of Bloomberg, Menino and Anthony Williams -- three of the biggest gun-haters who ever walked, it's a surprise Dick "The Turd" Daley ain't there -- at that conference. (I hear people raising hell now and then, about the persecution of smokers because of what many perceive to be the political incorrectness of the habit. I always tell them, "it could be worse -- you could be a gun owner.") All the while, the aforementioned blowhard politicians whining about "gun violence" do and say not a damned thing to address the breakdown of the nuclear family, bad parenting, absence of positive male role models in the lives of this country's young men, the denigration of getting an education as "selling out," and the list goes on. It's not the guns that are the problem; it's a dysfunctional culture. And until we get started on fixing that, nothing is going to change. But don't expect any answers out of New York City this month; if you do, you'll be sorely disappointed.

(h/t David Codrea)