The Deception of IANSA, and "The Rules"

A while back, Rebecca Peters, the head of the International Action Network on Small Arms, debated NRA president Wayne LaPierre. If I remember correctly, it was available on pay-per-view in late October of last year and is now available on DVD. IANSA has a transcript of the debate on its website. Apparently, though, substantial portions of that debate were edited out of the transcript. (big surprise there! *snort*) From THR (h/t: Carl N. Brown) comes this:

Rebecca (Peters): Yes, I believe that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns have
no legitimate role in civilian hands. And not only that, handguns
have no legitimate role in civilian hands.

So much for that "not wanting to take Americans' guns," eh? Ms. Peters and her evil minions have also characterized the NRA and American gun owners as hateful and paranoid. Hateful? I don't know if I'd go quite that far, though I do have nothing but contempt for those who would disarm my countrymen and me in what amounted to nothing more than a naked power grab for the all-powerful State. And as far as paranoia is concerned, as the old saying goes, it's not really paranoia if they're out to get you -- which Rebecca Peters, IANSA and the United Nations so obviously are.

Ms. Peters has also been quoted as saying Americans should "abide by the same rules as everyone else." Now, you take that by itself and it sounds good -- fair play for everyone, everyone gets an equal shot, etc. etc. But when you put that statement in the context of history, and you look at how many people have died, how many people have had their God-given rights denied, their lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness taken from them at the hands of various stronger players, be it The State, various criminal elements, radical fundamentalist Muslims, et al, right on up until today, by the rules Ms. Peters and her evil ideological soulmates want us to follow, that's just an incredibly dense thing to say. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, considering the source, but just who-in-the-bloody-fuck do these people think they are trying to fool? I suppose they probably could put one over on a goodly portion of the American people, but there are many of us who are aware of our history, the sordid history of Europe, and the fact that we as a country did not get to where we are -- more or less at the top of the international food chain -- by following the same corrupt, tyrant-enabling, failure-prone, deadly rules as the folks across the pond. We threw their rulebook out and wrote our own, and it's made us the envy of the world ever since. America ain't in the best shape it's ever been in, but it's far preferable to the cesspool that Europe has been turning into for the last few decades, and now those socialist pukes want to drag us into the pits with them -- that, at its core, is what this UN disarmament conference is all about, I think. There is much to be said about the present state of Europe, but as far as the attempts go at the disarmament of the American people, a commenter at the Geek's place had this to say (emphasis mine):

Let them ban you the possesion of guns and you will not be citizens any more.

You'll be sheep herds, as we are in countries with gun bans.

Here, in "fading" Spain, having a gun (for sporting purposes)is REALLY DIFFCULT, and having a gun to defend yourself is IMPOSSIBLE.

We also don't have the right to defend ourselves: Should I shot an assailant inside my own home (if i had a gun...), an i'd spent next 20 years jailed.

In fact, sould I smack that assailant in the face and harm him, and i'd be in deep trouble with "Justice"...

So, keep it up, people. You are probably the Last Free Country, where people are real citizens. Don't let them take that from you, or soon you'll be sheeps, like we are.

Soon you'll see Europe (and Spain will be first) destroyed and invaded. It's Nature laws. We are week. Don't be week.

Bad luck I weren't born in the USA. Really.

We ignore those warnings at our peril, folks.

Moral Relativism and Rail-Riding Killers (UPDATE!)

(You might have to register at the Houston Chronicle site to read some of the stories mentioned. Try BugMeNot. Scroll down for update.)

As I write this, infamous rail-riding serial killer Angel Maturino Resendiz is likely being carried out of the death chamber in Huntsville, executed for the rape and brutal murder of Houston clinical geneticist Claudia Benton. Our local paper, the Beaumont Enterprise, ran a story on Mr. Resendiz today, and in it, was this quote from a member of the Beaumont chapter of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty:

We have a responsibility to hold ourselves to a higher standard than he held himself to...

Higher standard, eh? Well, just for grins, let's see exactly what kind of standards Angel Maturino Resendiz held himself to when woselecting methods for the mayhem he wreaked (emphasis mine --ed.):

Benton's murder, which catapulted Maturino Resendiz into headlines and launched one of the largest manhunts in recent American history, was outstanding for its brutality. Benton, 39, died of multiple stab wounds, one of which completely penetrated her chest, and head injuries resulting from a beating with a 2-foot-tall bronze statue. The attack snapped her right arm and shattered bones in her face.

Another standard:

...the scene inside the house was unspeakable. In a back room, Sirnic, 46 (Norman Sirnic, minister of Weimar Church of Christ -- ed.), and his wife, 47, lay side by side on the bed, their heads crushed by a sledgehammer.
Karen Sirnic had been posthumously sexually assaulted.

And another:

Police in northeast Texas became convinced Maturino Resendiz was implicated in the October 2, 1998, murder of Leafie Mason, 87, bludgeoned with an antique iron at her home in Hughes Springs.
Then, in the first week of June, the bottom fell out.
In Houston, the body of Rice University graduate student Noemi Dominguez, 26, was found in the bedroom of her home in the 6900 block of Van Etten, a short distance from railroad tracks. Dominguez, described as "the sweetest, nicest teacher — a darling who went the extra mile," recently had left her job at Franklin Elementary School to complete her master's degree.
In Fayette County, the body of Josephine Konvicka, 73, was found in her rural home, just 3 1/2 miles from the scene of the Sirnic killings.
Both women had been slain with a pickax. Fingerprints linked the crimes to Maturino Resendiz.

And another:

...police in tiny Gorham, Ill., reported that retired prison guard George Morber, 79, and his daughter, Carolyn Frederick, 51, had been murdered in their home, a short distance from the railroad tracks. Morber was slain with his own shotgun, which then was used as a club to kill his daughter (come to think of it, I'm surprised the Bradys aren't all over that one today --ed.). Maturino Resendiz's fingerprints were found at the scene.

So here we have Mr. Resendiz using various, quite painful, grisly methods of killing...
...and tonight the State of Texas is putting him to sleep using a painless cocktail of chemicals...
...and yet we're holding ourselves to the same standards that he held himself to.
If there's a better example of the moral relativism emanating from the port-side "thinkers" in this country today, I have yet to find it. I am not surprised, but I am sickened nonetheless. Better example? Sorry, dude. I think this is the perfect example. I don't want my tax dollars feeding this sonofabitch three squares a day for the rest of his life. Put that rat bastard down like the rabid dog he is and be done with it. Really, I think justice would have only been fully served if one of his potential victims (and better sooner than later) had put a bullet in his head before he could have killed again, but, well, as a taxpayer, I'll take what I can get.

UPDATE: Reading this morning's Chron, I came upon another quote from death penalty opponent/moral relativist David Atwood, of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (emphasis mine -- ed.):

...Atwood said in a written statement, "executing Resendiz accomplishes nothing for the citizens of this state."
Counting Maturino Resendiz, Atwood wrote, Texas has executed 368 killers since 1982, when executions here were resumed.
"The only thing they have done," he said, "is help politicians get elected and satisfy the cries for vengeance from some of its citizens."

Well, I'd say that what Resendiz's execution did for the taxpayers of Texas was rid them of a cold-blooded killer, but, well, that's just one crazy Texas blogger's opinion...
On a more serious note, though, I was reminded, when I read this, of another far worse episode involving Atwood and a victim of another savage band of killers Atwood wanted to keep fat and happy in the Texas penal system:

Date: MON 11/17/2003
Section: A
Page: 15 MetFront
Edition: 3 STAR

Victim's dad, death penalty foe in heated debate

By ANDREW TILGHMAN
Staff

PERHAPS DAVID ATWOOD picked a touchy time to debate the death penalty with Randy Ertman.
Atwood, of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, was hanging out on the eighth floor of the Harris County Criminal Justice Center last week, right after a judge set an execution date for one of the men who raped and killed Ertman's daughter.
"You're not proving anything with the death penalty," Atwood told Ertman. "You're just repeating what was done to your daughter."
"I think he's a piece of crap who deserves to die," Ertman told Atwood, referring to his daughter's killer, Raul Villarreal.
Ertman was on his way out of the courtroom, where he had just saluted Judge Mike Anderson for setting Villarreal's execution date for June 24, the 11th anniversary of the rape and murder of Ertman's 14-year-old daughter, Jennifer, and her 16-year-old friend, Elizabeth Pena.
"The death penalty's not good for anybody," Atwood told Ertman, a painter.
"Well, it's good for me," Ertman said, looming over Atwood.
"It's vengeance," Atwood said.
"I'm not into vengeance," Ertman said.
"You are, too, into vengeance," Atwood insisted.
"If you've got something to say to me, you want to say it outside?" Ertman asked.

"I'm not into vengeance."
"Are too!"
Such arrogance leaves me speechless. Repeating what was done to 14-year-old Jennifer Ertman and her friend, 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena? Take a look at one of the Houston Chronicle reports from 1993...

According to a source, the girls were forced to submit to "just about every sex act you can imagine, and a few you just couldn't imagine."
Statements by some of the suspects say that after the girls stopped moving, the six took turns jumping up and down on their bodies, to make sure both were dead.

According to other news reports from the Chronicle, Ertman and Pena were strangled with shoelaces and a belt, and various suspects stomped on their throats to make certain they were dead. And, again, the animals who committed these sadistic acts were to be put to death, one more time, boys and girls, with a painless cocktail of chemicals. Yet according to self-righteous moral relativists like David Atwood, by killing monsters like these, we're just repeating the horrible deeds they committed. It's a damned good thing it was not my face Mr. Atwood got into. I'd have broken his nose and maybe punched out some teeth. "You feel that, you cocksucker? My baby girl's pain was a thousand times worse!"

Clarification:
I guess I really should explain that last thing. It might make me sound like a violent, unstable person, hardly the type to be owning or carrying a firearm, but the truth is that I am a very calm and easygoing person. But honestly, if I'd had the fate that befell Jennifer Ertman had befallen my beautiful little girl (if I had one), and I'd had some asshole come up to me and shove his agenda in my face, knowing the pain I was feeling, I just am not so sure that I'd be able to hold back. Maybe I would have just told him to get the hell out of my face, but I just found Atwood's actions to be downright unconscionable. Judas, whatever happened to letting people grieve in relative peace? Think about that, those of you who read this and actually agree with what Atwood did.

Get us out, indeed...(UPDATE!)

Much has been written about the UN small arms talks in New York City. The folks in charge of the conference say that its aim is to find better ways to curb the illegal trade in small arms and they don't want to take Americans' weapons (never mind the fact that we find the requirements they want to impose on us, far too onerous to tolerate -- licensing, government-approved storage, andonandon) BUT! It seems as though one of the attendees, the Indonesian representative at the conference, has let the cat out of the bag:

We believe that no armed group outside of the State should be allowed to bear weapons.

Now, what can you say to that? After the utterly dismal history of the 20th century, in which various States disarmed, enslaved and murdered some 170 million of their subjects, we still have people who work for The State say that all the guns should be in the hands of The State. After all of the failures of this bureaucratic clusterfuck when it comes to stopping The State, whoever it may be, from slaughtering its people, or various groups from slaughtering their countrymen, these people are still advocating stripping the vulnerable of their last line of defense against their extermination??? What is it that many say, Get US out of the UN? It's long past time that has happened, as it's just a snakepit, full of tinpot dictators, tyrants, nanny-state socialists and anti-Semites. They need us a hell of a lot more than we need them, and it would be nothing but good if the United Nations was neutered, kicked to the side of the road and left to rot. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, and thanks for the memories...or, y'know, not.

UPDATE: David Codrea, once again, drives the point home even better...

It's time we chased these monsters from our shores, razed the UN building, pulled down their obscene twisted gun barrel sculpture (and melted it into something useful--like personal defensive arms) and pried off all those "World Heritage Site" placards desecrating revered locales like Independence Hall.

Amen, brother.

Must-See Video

No doubt many Texas gunnies recall the name Suzanna Gratia Hupp; she was the lawmaker whose parents were killed by madman George Hennard in the 1991 Luby's massacre in Killeen, the incident that spurred the passage of the Texas concealed-carry laws. Via THR, here is her testimony before Congress, from 1993, I believe. Quite emotional, awe-inspiring stuff, I thought -- which is why it was quite infuriating to see New York Senator Chuck Schumer sitting there with his hand propping up his head, looking like he was thinking, "yeah, whatever, lady, hurry the hell up, you're cutting into my three-martini lunch..." I'm sure I'm not the only one who wanted to, as Frank J. from IMAO would say, punch him in his dumb monkey face. ;-) Or at least slap him and say, "Wake the hell up and listen to her, you statist prick!"

Playing With Fire

I know it's late, but still worth a blog. From last week's Evans & Novak report, via THR:

Meeting after the big failure (of the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -- ed.) at the offices of the social-conservative Family Research Council, the top leaders of the marriage movement -- Catholic, Protestant and Mormon leaders among others -- discussed the possibility of an unprecedented Constitutional Convention. Two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures would have to call for such a convention -- which could be done only with great difficulty. Even then, no one knows what such a convention would look like or what sort of amendments could result from it. Article 5 of the Constitution is quite vague on the subject.

A Constitutional Convention? (heretofore referred to as Con-con) Just who in the bloody hell do these self-righteous jackasses think they are? We conservatives rightly raise a stink about judicial activism all the time, on issues from gay marriage to lawsuits against gun manufacturers and here we have an even worse form of activism from people who claim to be on our side -- lobbying by what could arguably be called an extreme minority group, accountable to no one but its own extremist members, lobbying for a convention at which the entire Constitution could be re-written, because they're not getting their way in Congress. Yes, that's right. Once a Con-con is called, it's open season on the whole thing. Do these meddling morons have ANY IDEA of what that could mean? Think of the possibilities. Just off the top of my head...

An official state religion.
A "right to employment," and a "right to strike." (that last thing is actually in the European Union constitution)
"The right of the people to be free of the fear of gun violence shall not be infringed."
A "right to affordable healthcare."

And there are plenty more where that came from, but you get the general idea -- a Con-con would arguably open the door to our country, the last, best hope of free men (and women) on earth, potentially being transformed into another one of the socialist, nanny-stater crime-ridden shitholes that too many European countries have turned into. Some might think I overstate the possibilities, but no doubt they're there. We have justices on the Supreme Court saying that international law should be taken into consideration when deciding cases here in the United States -- and the travesty of Kelo v. New London (incidentally, a year ago tomorrow that decision was handed down). We see the leftists in Washington and elsewhere howling about how corporations are gouging the little man, and not paying him enough (they also say, "Raise the minimum wage!") showing what little regard they have for the free market and the laws of supply and demand. And God only knows how many people in charge are listening to the folks at the UN, Handgun Control, the VPC, IANSA and the various and sundry other victim-disarmament organizations. Were we to rewrite our Constitution for any reason now, all of these people would be given a seat at the table and a voice in the proceedings -- which, strictly speaking, is how it should be (that is, to the extent they represent the viewpoints of the American people, which I would submit, is NOT to any great extent -- ed.) -- but with the way the American people have been brainwashed by the public schools and the media, the above-mentioned people and groups would arguably have the run of the convention, and by the time they were finished, if the product of their unholy alliance were to be ratified, I submit to you here and now that it would be nothing short of the end of the United States of America. The grand experiment isn't in the best shape now, and hasn't been for a long time, but it's still far, far preferable to what could come out of something like a Constitutional convention in this day and age. The religious rightists are playing with fire, and they need to be stopped at all costs. What they are proposing is nothing less than a Faustian bargain with the result being a Pyrrhic victory, with the sacrifice being the Republic itself and the further result of everything our forefathers and ancestors fought, shed blood and died for, being rendered to be in vain. All their sacrifices, for NOTHING. All so two men and two women won't be able to get married. I don't particularly like the idea of gay marriage myself, but if it comes to be that same-sex marriage cannot be proscribed by Constitutional Amendment as laid out in Article V, then that's just the way it's going to have to be, for the good of the Republic. Damn it, people, for the sake of our fair Republic and our descendents -- leave the Constitution the fuck alone! It's worked for us for more than 200 years!

New Heights (or depths) of Hysteria from the GFWs

From The High Road comes this, from apparent enuretic gun-fearing wuss David Ignoramus Ignatius of the Washington Compost (emphasis mine):

The NRA is also proposing federal legislation that would make it a crime for cops to disarm lawfully gun-toting citizens during emergencies.
Even by NRA standards, this is a bad idea -- not just divisive but downright dangerous. Does the gun lobby really want to remake America in the image of Iraq? The proposal was apparently motivated by the lawlessness in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, but if there aren't enough cops to patrol the streets, then hire more cops. When individual citizens, even "law-abiding" ones, decide to go it alone, the result is anarchy.

Given the gun lobby's usual success in muscling special-interest provisions into law, you might expect to see politicians rushing to sign the America-as-Baghdad pledge.

As David Codrea might say, "Leftist gun-hating journalists. Is there anything they don't know?"

But...Whoa. Just...whoa. Talk about new heights of hysteria. Now it's not just blood in the streets, now they're saying our natural right to arms has the potential to make the country into a war zone. And don't you just love this guys youthful, oh-so-naive idealism? "Just hire more cops." Never mind the cities' budget shortfalls, spending the money on other things like basketball arenas (and gun registries), and then we're not even getting into the cops walking off the job and taking part in the looting and such, and does anyone remember New Orleans Police Chief Eddie Compass' remark?
"If I put you out on the street and made you get into gun battles all day with no place to urinate and no place to defecate, I don’t think you’d be too happy either… Our vehicles can’t get any gas. The water in the street is contaminated. My officers are walking around in wet shoes."
This is yet another case of some clueless idiot sitting up there spouting crap from his air-conditioned office about something he knows nothing about. You wonder why newspaper circulation is on the wane these days? It's because they're chock-full of such abject idiocy as this. Please stay where you are right now, Ignatius. We don't need your kind of idiocy here in Red America. Heaven knows it's screwed up Blue America beyond all recognition.

UPDATE: Welcome, visitors from The War On Guns! My main page may be found here. Pull up a seat and stay a while!

One of the Ironies of Skynyrd...

So I was spinning some Lynyrd Skynyrd (All-Time Greatest Hits) earlier this evening, finishing off the pot of coffee I drank as I was reading the Sunday edition of the Houston Chronicle. As I was doing so, I was flipping through the liner notes to the cd, and the author of the essay contained therein talked about the song "The Ballad of Curtis Lowe" and its illustration of how the blues "captured the imagination of a generation of white, Civil-rights-era Southern youngsters, transforming both their consciousness and their music." Most of you know the song, I am sure...

"People said he was useless, them people all were fools,
'Cause Curtis Lowe was the finest picker to ever play the blues..."

I think that's probably as elegantly simple a denunciation of racism from any period that you're ever going to see. And I was well aware of the Skynyrd hit "Saturday Night Special"; in fact, it's one of my favorite songs from them, even though it's not a portrayal of responsible gun ownership. So you can imagine my surprise when I heard about the racist origins of the term "Saturday Night Special". Now, given something like "Curtis Lowe," I really don't think the guys were racists, but still, I wonder if they knew about those ignominious origins, or if they or anyone else back then or now appreciated the irony -- I bet you ole Curtis probably had him one o' them Saturday Night Specials to keep the lynch mobs away. (Yes, I know Curtis Lowe wasn't a real person, but there were a few black musicians who fit his description...) And, of course, being the Southern boys they were, I'd like to think that Ronnie and the gang knew good and well that a handgun was not in and of itself an evil object, and not just "made for killin'." I don't know if I'll ever find out for myself, though...maybe one day.

The Whittler LIVES!

New pearls of wisdom from the great Bill Whittle! Go. Read now.

A taste:

To the Untrained Eye it looks like Western Civ is going to hell in a hand basket; each of its former stalwarts marching silently into the sea, our only consolation as Americans being that we appear to be at the back of the line, leaning to the side of the queue to see which part of Europe takes the Big Drink first; our own progress towards oblivion being delayed somewhat by the usual band of Right-Wing Gun Nuts, Morality Hypocrites, Talk Radio Blowhards and Chickenhawk Bloggers – all four categories of which, thanks to Hugh Hewitt and Kim Du Toit, I now find myself in.

More from your humble author later this evening...

Thoughts: SF Gun Ban Flameout

So, as we all know by now, the San Francisco gun ban has gone down in flames, and as Tam said, the victim disarmament advocates are furious...

"We're disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on handgun possession," Dorsey said. "San Francisco voters spoke loud and clear on the issue of gun violence."

As the old saying goes, same shit, different day. But this is a clear window into the way these people think. "Reasonable" to them means taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens -- taking the guns out of the hands of the people who aren't the problem. It hasn't worked in Chicago, it hasn't worked in Washington, D.C., it hasn't worked in Great Britain, what the hell makes the morons who run San Francisco think their city's going to be -- or, rather, would have been -- any different? Just because they see things through different lenses than the rest of us doesn't mean that view is reality. I know that's perfectly obvious to most people outside the San Francisco city limits, but I still don't understand why they think the way they do, on the issue of violence perpetrated with guns or anything else. Justice was served, no matter what those leftist jagoffs and their slimy attorneys think. We should all hope it remains so, because even if San Fran is chock-full of wrong-headed people, they're still humans, with all the concomitant rights and responsibilities.

Now, as for the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, who brought the suit to strike down the gun ban, David Codrea brings up an interesting question that he's raised before, that apparently has yet to be answered:

Here's the NRA statement on the legal defeat of the San Francisco handgun ban:

This ruling supports the premise of NRA's argument.

The NRA filed it's lawsuit soon after Proposition H passed...

The NRA is determined not to see this gross injustice happen again...

Meanwhile, true to form, here's the statement from SAF:

“We’re proud to have worked once again with the National Rifle Association..."

Once again, SAF shares credit and NRA claims it all for themselves.

Why
does this
keep happening?

I have a feeling I know why: because the NRA is, arguably, the largest kid on the gun-rights-advocacy block, and they want to keep that title so as to keep the lion's share of gun owners' dues-and-donations money. And if they started giving any credit to the other organizations they worked with, it might cause more than a few gun owners to look into these organizations and find that their less moderate -- less-compromising, shall we say -- stance on the natural right to arms is more to their liking and shift their NRA dues and donations to those other organizations. Is it right? Hell no, it's not right. And I think every NRA member deserves to know, straight from Wayne LaPierre and the other folks in Fairfax just what the hell they're afraid of. Dave and any other NRA member reading, have you asked them why this is? I am. We deserve to know. And in any event, I really, really think it'd be to the benefit of gun owners everywhere if all the gun-rights-advocacy organizations joined and worked together on Capitol Hill. I am just one person, but I will do my part, with what limited funds I have, to make that happen. As Ben Franklin said,
"We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Exciting Music News, From the Mailbag...UPDATE! Well, Maybe Not

This might be considered ancient history to some folks, but on Memorial Day weekend two years back (May 29, 2004 to be exact) three big names in American music -- George Strait, Alan Jackson and Jimmy Buffett -- played a one-off show at Texas Stadium in Irving, where the Cowboys play ball. Through a couple twists of fate, I was lucky enough to be off work that weekend and have enough extra bucks in my pocket to score a ticket a couple of weeks before the show. It was every bit as good as fans of those three gentlemen might expect, with some unique moments that might well never be repeated -- Strait and Jackson dueting on "Designated Drinker," Strait and Buffett singing a duet of "All My Ex's Live in Texas" (which, incidentally, was the only time I'd ever seen Strait do that one live in the 10 times I've seen him thus far) and the grand finale of the evening, the three of them belting out Buffett's signature song, "Margaritaville." The possibility was mentioned that there'd be a live recording of the show for sale at some future undetermined date. With the drudgery of life getting in the way between then and now...bad relationships, college, hurricanes, you know the drill...that live recording slipped to the back of my mind and almost off the radar completely. Well, last night as I was navigating the Web, the following message showed up in my inbox:

"Rumor has it that the JACKSON STRAIT BUFFETT Live at Texas Stadium CD (apparently a CD-DVD combo!!--ed.) will be issued by MCA Nashville and is currently scheduled for a June 13th release."

A search for it at Amazon.com turned up this. It said the release date was Feb. 7, and that's come and gone. But I am guessing that cover art wasn't Photoshopped, as the cd has also been mentioned at BuffettNews.com, a Parrothead-run site that Buffett himself visits and has mentioned on Radio Margaritaville. In any event, I am very, very excited. More on this one as it develops...

UPDATE: Went to the FYE in the mall yesterday, and no Jackson/Strait/Buffett cd to be found. I haven't a clue of the release date and was, quite frankly, too ticked off to ask. Maybe I'll go today. I was so looking forward to it...

New Fun With an Old Friend

Two of my last three acquisitions have been 1911s (more on the third when I get a little more time), and that's what I've been shooting almost exclusively for the last couple of months. But, the Springfield GI 1911 was not the first .45 I ever picked up. That honor belongs to the Ruger P90, the "big old brute of the P-Series line," as Dick Metcalf of Shooting Times called it. I picked up this gun in early August of last year, not quite three weeks before Hurricane Katrina hit, and made it my home defense gun. I took it out every week between then and February, feeding it a steady diet of 230-grain hardball and Federal Hydra-Shok, cycling a mag or two of Hydra-Shok through each week, as I liked to keep the ammo in it fresh as possible just in case a goblin came calling.
Well, I am ashamed to say, once the 1911s came along, that regimen fell by the wayside, save for the weeks my Springfield was back in Geneseo in March getting a new extractor to fix its stovepipe jams. And last week, I was thinking, you know, I really should get reacquainted with that gun, plus get the ammo out of the mag that had been sitting there since the last week in March. So I took her out, oiled her up and it was off to the races -- or, rather, to the range -- after a trip to Shooter's Supply in Beaumont to pick up a set of Hogue rubber grips for her:



100 rounds of 230-grain Magtech, and about 16 rounds of Hydra-Shok (that stuff is expensive! I try not too shoot too much of it at a time), and not one malfunction of any kind. And, save for a couple of instances of slide stop engagement due to limp-wristing the first time out, so it has gone for over 2,000 rounds since I picked it up. God, I love that gun. It may be big and inelegant, but it shoots like a dream. (And yeah, a lot of people do think it's ugly, but as for me, I don't share that opinion...it ain't a 1911, but as I've said elsewhere, compared to the Glock, the Ruger P-series pistols are the sidearm equivalent of Sophia Loren. ;-)) My pistol experience is still quite limited, I'll admit, but if you're in the market for a good non-1911 .45, you could hardly go wrong with a Ruger P90.

So Easy For Him To Say...

David Hardy at Of Arms and the Law points us to a story from The Hill, where a bill blocking arms confiscations during emergencies is reported to have made it out of committee. And, as Hardy put it, just in case there's any doubt on where some folks stand on the issue, here's a quote from Joshua Horowitz, director of the Organization Formerly Known as the Coalition to Ban Handguns...

"There’s been a lot of hyperbole on this," Horowitz said. "There's evidence that the police were doing their job. It's not for a gun control group or the NRA to get in there and make decisions. I don't know why we don't trust law enforcement to do what's right in these situations."

So there you have it, folks. Add another to the list of people who think that the Great Louisiana Gun Grab and all its attendant consequences and implications was just overblown rhetoric. He says there was evidence the police were doing their jobs, but, interestingly enough, he just leaves it at that -- citing no evidence, and we all saw with our own eyes, the failings of law enforcement in the situation. But the most infuriating thing of all, is that these cretins will spew this shit as they sit up there in their goddamned air-conditioned offices, light-years away from the hellish shitholes that situations like the post-Katrina Gulf Coast are. I have to tell myself, "breathe, dude, breathe..." but I am just completely flabbergasted that there are people out there who are just so completely and utterly clueless. I would love to see people like that, without any warning whatsoever, thrust into the situation that so many central Gulf Coast residents found themselves in, and leave them unable to defend themselves.
Let them see then how they like it, and...
Let them remember their clueless, gutless, spineless mewling about "trusting law enforcement to do the right thing" when said law enforcement is stretched so thin that they're not even THERE to "do the right thing" -- and that's before we get into whatever portion of law enforcement walks off the job, joins in the looting, etc.
Let them remember their gutless mewling when the wolf shows up at the door and there's no sheepdog there to protect them.
Let them remember their gutless mewling, as the wolf eats them alive.
Remember, folks...this is the type of people with whom those who like to position themselves as "sensible moderates" want us to compromise. Remember that always, especially when these "sensible moderates" start their self-righteous lectures.

In Case You Ever Wondered How Democrats Feel About Gun Owners...

...click here (h/t The High Road), but do so at your own risk. You'll see your gun referred to as a "penis extender" and an "ego builder," and the following comments made about one of the pro-gun posters there...

"Wonder if he has a cowboy outfit to go with (his gun), like Dubya and his beloved Saddam gun?"
"(You think he has that) infamous rocking horse like Shrub's as he works it from the gate to the ranch house...all the whilst screaming "Unka Dick...Unka Dick?"
"Why should I not be allowed to know that you are carrying a weapon, and therefore a potential danger to my family?"

How strange, and infuriating. I always thought that liberals assumed that man was basically good. If that really was the case, then they'd be the biggest advocates of the RKBA to be found. How convenient for them to throw man's intrinsic goodness out the window when it comes to law-abiding citizens' right to defend themselves. Fucking hypocritical leftists. I'd say hang them all, but I have a better idea -- find every anti-gun Democrat and make it the law for them to put the following sign in their yard:



(found here)

A modest proposal, perhaps...but if it got them to pull their heads out of their asses and find better arguments than jejune remarks about gun owners' supposed feelings of inadequacy, then so much the better. In the meantime, I'll be shooting as much as I can, and stocking up on ammo as well...

No Texas Disarmament

Yes, I know it's late, but still worthy...

Gun-toting Texans can relax about one concern this hurricane season: The state has no plans to disarm residents in the wake of a big storm.

A questioner got big applause at Brazoria County's hurricane preparedness conference Thursday when he asked whether law enforcement agencies were going to demand that private citizens surrender their firearms after a storm.

Texas Department of Public Safety Sgt. Randy Jones said taking firearms from citizens has never been part of a state plan.

He recalled going to Bridge City after that town was slammed by Hurricane Rita in September and seeing a homemade sign that read, "You loot, we shoot."

Residents conducted armed patrols to make sure that homes and businesses were secure, he said. State troopers going into the damaged area assisted the patrols, rather than stopping them.

"The locals know much better who belongs in their neighborhoods than a DPS trooper who may be from as far away as Lubbock," Jones said. "If you're guarding your neighbor's home with a shotgun, nobody is going to bother you.

"Of course, if you're walking out of his house with a television set, then we're going to arrest you," he concluded, drawing a big laugh.

Maybe I should have paid more attention to the news. I never knew about the armed patrols, the state troopers' assistance of them, or the "You Loot, We Shoot" sign. (No doubt that was not the only one!) What a stark yet refreshing contrast to the rape of the Constitution that occurred in the Big Easy in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Jeff at Alphecca makes a great point, though...

Promises are like turds. You can make a bunch of them but that doesn't mean you keep them...
Put it in writing. Put it in legislative writing. Make it the law that you can't confiscate legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens.
Even after law enforcement confiscated guns from citizens in New Orleans, lying shit Nagin and company claimed they hadn't done any such thing. It took a court order and a lawsuit to get them to admit that they had.

That last thing is definitely worth pointing out, and it would very much be a good thing to have the proscription of post-disaster arms confiscations codified into state law (and federal law as well, but that's a whole 'nother discussion).
Still, though, I can't help but think that the powers that be here in Texas would never take their cue from Ray Nagin, especially taking into consideration his horrendous performance after Hurricane Katrina. And the fact that it was brought up at that conference, as well as DPS Sgt. Jones' response and that of the audience in general, is heartening, as it shows the confiscations were noted and not forgotten by Texas citizens and that Texas law enforcement saw the value of armed citizen patrols. I know the circumstances would be different, considering the fact that they'd be in their own jurisdiction, but I seem to recall various Texas law enforcement agencies recalling their officers in the wake of the Katrina gun confiscations. Add to that the utter public-relations disaster that would ensue in the state of Texas alone (and we haven't even gotten to those who might shoot back), and all that's left to be said is, those who would take guns in the wake of a Katrina-type disaster in Texas had indeed better beware. Still, though, we need it in the law. There need to be consequences, dire consequences, spelled out in the law for violations of such a natural right. They've gotten away with it so far in southeastern Louisiana. Nagin, Compass and Riley should be sitting behind bars this morning, and should be there for a bloody-well long time, and be held up now and forever as examples of what not to do after a natural disaster. A very, very bad precedent has been set, and we should be fighting as if our lives depend on it to ensure it never happens again. in any event, though...

Buy Ammo. Buy Guns. And train, Train, TRAIN.

What About the Religious Left?

In a thread over at THR the other day, a debate was going on over who we have more to fear from, the right or the left. In that thread, a quote from George Bush the Elder came up:

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.

And that one got me to thinking, since The High Road is, after all, a gun forum.
There are those on both sides of the political spectrum who speak of the threats posed by the "religious right" in this country since the Republicans have been in power in Washington and avowed Christian George W. Bush has been in the White House. Some have even gone so far as to contend that the factions with the most influence in Washington want to see the United States more or less turned into a theocracy, that the "religious right" has the country in a choke-hold and represents a dire threat to our Republic. But no one ever says anything about the Religious Left. Many of us know their issues, as quoted in the Post's article -- basically, government solutions to everything that ails this country, and this includes more gun control. Just for fun,I went looking for some of the measures that have been championed by the religious left, and, well, just take a look for yourself. From the United Methodist Church:

Another issue discussed at the 2000 General Conference was the issue of gun violence and the stance that the United Methodist Church should take on gun-control in the United States. Roughly 71% of the representative board voted to approve a resolution agreeing to support laws that would ban some firearms (including handguns and assault weapons)...

From Christian Ethics Today:

we developed a petition which could be used by churches to send a message to local, state, and federal level politicians about measures which need to be taken. The petition calls for an outright federal ban on assault weapons. It asks our state to repeal a recent law allowing ministers to carry concealed weapons in the pulpit! (yes, and we all saw the results of such a policy last week in Louisiana. -- ed.) It also suggests some more stringent measures, such as requiring all guns to be licensed, and all owners to attend a safety course in order to get their license renewed.

From the wolves-in-sheepdogs'-clothing at the Anti-Defamation League:

"While we have always supported legislation that attempts to address the problems of extremism and gun violence in our society, the recent school shootings in Littleton, Colo. and Conyers, Ga. have focused public attention on another troubling dimension of the problem – the ease with which young people are able to obtain guns in this country," said Howard P. Berkowitz, ADL National Chairman, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "Strong gun laws are the only way we can act immediately and decisively to hopefully prevent another tragedy from happening in our schools."

(for an excellent rebuttal to the ADL's dangerous nonsense, refer to Aaron Zelman and his invaluable organization, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and here is another great smacking-down of the ADL's disgusting attempts to "use the Holocaust as (its) own political tool")

And this, from gun scholar David Kopel:

...as legislatures have debated laws allowing licensed, trained citizens to obtain a permit to carry a handgun for protection, some of the most vocal opponents have been religious groups. Now the state chapter of the National Council of Churches does not show up at legislative hearings armed with criminological data. Instead, persons claiming to testify on behalf of "the religious community" come to express their "moral" opposition to the use of deadly force against criminal attack...Within the gun control movement, one does not have to dig very far to find the strongly-held and sanctimonious belief that the NRA and its ilk are moral cretins because they believe in answering violence with violence.

If you click on the Kopel link, you'll also see the execrable Charles Schumer actually saying that Sarah Brady -- the "paleo-(Cindy) Sheehan of the anti-gun movement," as Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee so accurately described her -- was "doing God's work." Kopel goes on to demolish Schumer's holier-than-thou claim with an excellent case for the moral legitimacy of self-defense with deadly force. Aaron Zelman, again:

But who exactly is Chuck Schumer's god? Certainly not the G-d of Judeo-Christian teachings -- the G-d who championed righteous self-defense in the name of life. Does Schumer worship the golden calf? Or perhaps he was referring to Anubis, the Egyptian god of death who conducted souls into the underworld. Or Set, the Egyptian god of chaos who personified evil. For evil and death will reign in a world where thugs are armed and disarmed victims bow helpless before them.

We are blessed to have such eloquence on our side. But, in any event, the question remains: Why does no one say anything about the insidious threat posed by such rhetoric and efforts from the Religious Left? Say what you will about the Religious Right clamping down on sex toys and such, but while I agree that the efforts of the RRs are misguided and may well be potentially dangerous to the Constitution and the Republic, the efforts of the Religious Left at further disarming Americans deserve no less scrutiny. In fact, I would argue that they deserve more, as we all know exactly what happens as a people is disarmed: everything from complete and utter societal breakdown, as seen on the streets of not-so-Great Britain-anymore, to the wholesale slaughter of the peoples whom those in power do not favor, as seen in Nazi Germany and Cambodia. We know they'll say, "it could never happen here," but then, no doubt many of the 120-some-odd-million innocents slaughtered by their governments in the 20th century thought the very same thing.
As for the whole "patriotism" angle, well, anyone who's familiar with the who's who of those in the gun-blogging community know very well that some of the biggest America-boosters to be found are atheists. Two names that ome to mind are the peerless Kim du Toit, and Kevin Baker at The Smallest Minority, and if I remember correctly, the GeekWithA.45 has said that he's a bit of an agnostic (Geek, if you read my rantings, please feel free to correct me on that point...) I am a theist, but I know better than to think that theism is a prerequisite for patriotism, and I think all true right-thinking people do as well.

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.