Wednesday, October 31, 2007

A Curious Silence

Not long ago I was flipping through the NRA's political journal, America's First Freedom, which I get as a member of the NRA. The issue I had in hand was the October issue, and in his column Wayne LaPierre was beating the anti-Democrat drum, raising the alarm about how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would screw the American gun owner and the gun industry to the wall if they managed to get elected. All the standard bugaboos were brought up -- licensing, registration, reinstatement of the semi-auto ban and the rolling back of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Now, all of those are certainly viable threats, of which we all should be ever mindful. But reading LaPierre's column, I noticed no mention of anyone on the Republican side. Which to me was a little bit off, because as you know, at least one candidate on the GOP side supports at least licensing and registration, and this candidate was one of the big-city mayors -- in fact, the ONLY Republican mayor -- to file suit against several firearm manufacturers for allegedly "flooding the streets with guns." No, that's not an actual Giuliani quote as far as I remember, but it quite accurately summed up his philosophy when he was in the driver's seat in New York. And anyone who reads Bruce at No Looking Backwards knows Mitt Romney's just as bad, notwithstanding his lifetime membership in the NRA. (More knowledgeable folks than myself have said that the NRA is violating its own bylaws for not expelling folks like Romney and Michael Moore, but that's another post altogether.)
What's more, LaPierre made noises about planned Democratic infringements on the First Amendment as well, but again, absolutely no mention of anyone on the Republican side. Which is astonishing to me, considering the fact that a certain Republican senator running for president has his name on the biggest infringement of the First Amendment ever to come down the pike. Many people say the RKBA shouldn't be a partisan issue, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. And the NRA is making that goal of the RKBA not being a partisan issue that much harder with its silence regarding the biggest faults of the front-runners on the GOP side of the aisle. We need a bipartisan consensus to keep our rights, not a bipartisan consensus to take more of them away, and that last thing is exactly what we would get if the Republican candidates LaPierre did not mention in his column were elected. Romney and Giuliani are every bit as bad as Clinton and Obama on the issue, and they deserve to be called out on it. The NRA is severely undermining its credibility by not doing that. It won't be anything but bad if the NRA is seen to be little more than shills for the Republicans, and seeing things like what Wayne LaPierre wrote in his column does nothing to dispel that notion. We deserve better.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

A History Lesson in Motion

From the AP this morning, via the Houston Chronicle, the bit in bold caught my eye...

They travel for days though checkpoints, across dangerous roads and past Myanmar's bribe-hungry soldiers to make it to the Thai border. They're not refugees fleeing the junta — they simply want to see a doctor.

Myanmar has one of the world's worst health care systems, with tens of thousands dying each year from malaria, tuberculosis, AIDS, dysentery, diarrhea and a litany of other illnesses.

While there are hospitals in the impoverished Southeast Asian nation also known as Burma, only a few can afford to pay hospital workers the various "fees" in the tightly controlled nation fueled by corruption.

"Even if you use the toilet in the hospital you have to pay money," said a 70-year-old man from Phyu Township, who journeyed two days by bus to see a doctor at the Thai border town of Mae Sot and have a cataract removed. He declined to give his name for fear of reprisals.

"They never think of improving health care," he said. "They only pull the trigger. Because they are holding the guns, we have to live like this."

But remember, my friends, the government must have a monopoly on force!
In all seriousness, though, I would love to see those who subscribe to that notion be forcibly deported to places where they would have to bear all the consequences of such a circumstance. I do wonder, though, why exactly they don't go live in one of those places. Like all the leftists who threatened to leave the country when George W. Bush was reelected in 2004, just get off their tails and leave. There are plenty other places in the world where the government has that monopoly on force, why the hell won't these people just go to those ratholes instead of trying to make our country just like them? Food for thought...

Saturday, October 27, 2007

...and I should care, why?

Via Cassy Fiano comes this interview with John Rich of the mainstream country audio freakshow-trainwreck Big and Rich:

John is an avid supportive of Fred Thompson's presidential bid because he's a conservative who agrees with Fred's voting record.

The pro-lifer is against gay marriage.

"I think if you legalize that, you've got to legalize some other things that are pretty unsavory," he says. "You can call me a radical, but how can you tell an aunt that she can't marry her nephew if they are really in love and sharing the bills? How can you tell them they can't get married, but something else that's unnatural can happen?"
We are encouraged to show our support for Big and Rich the best we can. And for the life of me I can't understand why. I would guess part of this support would include buying cds, concert tickets 'n' swag. And I just won't do that just because John Rich says something I agree with, just as I didn't throw my Dixie Chick cds under the bus because of their asinine remarks on the London stage in March 2003. When it all gets down to the nitty-gritty, to be honest I really don't care what these people think and I don't understand why so many people do. I do wish many of them would keep their mouths shut, though. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- one of the reasons I so admire George Strait is that he stays the hell away from the political crap and lets himself and his art stand on their own merits instead of throwing sand in the gears by doing stupid shit like what Rich and the Dixie Chicks did. And yeah, it's stupid. These people shouldn't be touted as authorities on politics -- or looked up to -- any more than the New England Journal of Medicine should be touted or looked up to as an authority on guns; as a matter of fact, I personally am that much less inclined to support Big and Rich, if only because of those who agree with John Rich saying we should support them because of what he said.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

What Else Can You Tell These People But Where To Go?

Via just about everyone comes this snippet from this story about various protests on college campuses around the country regarding their criminal empowerment policies, from Peter Hamm of The Brady Campaign to Prevent People From Possessing the Means of Effective Self Defense:

"You don't like the fact that you can't have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school."

Pardon my french, but Peter Hamm, you pusillanimous prick, you can climb right back on that moral high horse and ride it straight to hell. And I am just going to leave it at that, before I say something really, really low-road.

Rebecca Aguilar Speaks

...and it seems she's none too happy with her fate...

"I don't know if I'll survive without a blemish," she says. "Every time you Google my name now it's like 'Aguilar, suspension or ambush.' Before it was 'Aguilar, award-winner.' It's changed in a week."
Bwaaaahahaha! Payback's a cast-iron bitch, ain't it? If you ambush people on camera and get suspended for it, well, I'd guess that's generally what happens in the Internet age, but that's just one man's wild-arsed shot in the dark. But here's what gets me:
But the camera kept rolling and Walton kept talking. What most viewers remember is Aguilar asking him, "Are you a trigger happy kind of person? Is that what you wanted to do -- shoot to kill?"

Aguilar asked this in a non-confrontational tone that she maintained throughout the interview.

"The way I asked him was not in a harsh manner," she says. "I'm very careful about my tone. Because since I am a woman, I don't want to be called the b-word."
Call me crazy, but it's just scary as hell to think this woman made her career in the communication field, because she's missing something here that's just fundamental, and it pains me to think that it has to be pointed out to a media professional in a major market like Dallas-Fort Worth. Specifically -- there are just some questions that are going to come across as loaded no matter in what tone of voice you ask them, and I am sure I am not the only one who thinks that terms like "trigger happy" or "shoot to kill" loads those questions so hot that they definitely qualify as a brazen crossing of the line of decency. And it's yet another insult to my intelligence and that of many others that this reporter would think we wouldn't see those questions like that. As a commenter on The High Road said,
"This is the bare, naked face of media conceit. Let us all watch and learn."

...and if you would like to see some more evidence of said media conceit, take a gander at some of the comments here. It would seem that at least a few people in the media indeed saw Rebecca Aguilar's actions and think she did nothing wrong. For some strange reason a quote from Billy Beck comes to mind from a comment made at Tam's place as she was ruminating on the death of Kathryn Johnston -- a question that needs to be asked of the media in situations just like this one:

"...does it remotely concern you that untold numbers of your fellow Americans are beginning to hate your f**king ass with a fury that you can't imagine through those beady eyes of yours?
"It should. It really should."

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

So, Mitt Romney, How DO You Define Self-Defense?

Via Bruce at No Looking Backwards comes a reply from Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, to a letter from Red's Trading Post -- the Idaho gun shop that's more or less under siege by the ATF -- asking Mr. Romney about his stance on our right to effective self-defense, also known as the Right to Keep And Bear Arms. Mr. Romney's response:

I firmly believe in the importance of responsible gun ownership and sales. As a member of the National Rifle Association, I do not believe that we need any more federal gun control laws. I also recognize that some types of extreme weapons, those which were not meant for hunting, sport, or self-defense, have no business being on the streets.
I have to wonder, just exactly how Romney defines self-defense. How about, say, the Jews at the Warsaw Ghetto? What did he think they were doing? Or how about the Korean shopkeepers during the L.A. riots of 1992, what did he think they were doing? I love how these politicians say they're for owning defensive arms and in the next breath more or less advocate bans on certain defensive arms...wait, no, I don't love that. I hate it and think it's absolutely infuriating that said politicians never, ever get called out on such a crystal-clear contradiction. Why do these mooks continually insist on insulting our intelligence like that?

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

My Friday Gun Shop Adventure

So last Friday after I picked up my new gun, I was on the hunt for some half-decent factory ammo to run through it, namely the Remington UMC. It's about the hottest factory practice ammo you're gonna find on the shelf, drives a 180-grain FMJ at about 1150 fps, or so they advertise. I'd only seen it at one gun store around here, Shooters Supply, which of course closed earlier this year. I'd seen references to another little shop in Vidor here and there, Gary's Guns out on Highway 12 just northeast of where it runs into the interstate.
So after I took care of my Friday business, I rode out there to pick some up. I'd called 'em before and the clerk told me they had plenty of it.
"You might wanna stock up now, my friend, 'cause it's only gonna go up from here." One more reason I am quite glad I took up reloading.
Anyway, I got out there late Friday afternoon. They had a pretty good selection of pretty much anything gun-related you'd want, at least with what I could tell with my somewhat cursory glance around the store. The guy at the counter told me, "We got anything you could want, what do you like?"
Bet you could guess what I told him, too. "Well, I have a bit of a fetish for 1911s."
The ole boy didn't miss a beat. "What caliber? .45, 9mm, 10mm? How 'bout a .38 Super?"
"Well," I said, as I glanced down at a Kimber 10mm identical to the one I picked up last year, "I do like the 10mm, in fact, I picked up a Dan Wesson Razorback earlier today."
"Well then. You need a .38 Super. Check this out." With that he pulled out one of the most beautiful Smith & Wesson 1911s I'd ever seen -- a Doug Koenig model from the S&W Performance Center, with the square trigger. As far as I remember, the price on that thing was somewhere in the neighborhood of $1500.
"Try it out and see what you think."
Lord have mercy. They say the 1911 generally has the best trigger pull of any pistol, but this was out of this world. The trigger pull alone would have been worth the price tag, you just wouldn't belieeeeve. But I'd have been paying it off forever. Speaking of that, the store clerk piped up again.
"We got this little thing called layaway..."
"Yeah, and I have this little friend in my pocket called a credit card, but it'd hate me forever, and I already shoot one esoteric caliber, I can't quite afford another right now..." I did say that as I laughed and grinned, though. "But I do have another little friend at home, an RCBS turret press."
And off the discussion went into reloading. He said he loaded a bunch of calibers, though I don't remember which ones he said he loaded the most. 9mm, 10mm, .45, .38 Super, 9x23 were some of the ones he mentioned, though. I asked him if he had any pet loads for the Centimeter, but he said he only played around with that one. My impression was pretty favorable, though. The guy sounded like he knew his stuff pretty well. All that and virgin 10mm brass, to boot -- the only place in the Golden Triangle I've seen it! No once-fired, but none of the other shops I'd frequented had that either. As far as I remember it was about $15 per hundred, With that price, and the other components, one could load 10mm at a price that runs neck-and-neck with factory .45acp, and that's hardly a bad thing. Like I say, I'll be checking them out more...

Monday, October 22, 2007

Southeast Texas Gun Shoppe Musings

Via ye olde Site Meter, I got a visit today by someone from Lamar University, my alma mater, who googled the phrase "Buy guns in Beaumont Tx."
And I don't know what to tell ya as far as that goes, but to say that if you want the best price, doooon't buy 'em at Gander Mountain. Gander has a pretty good selection, but the prices are just outrageous, and from what I hear even more so since Shooters Supply closed down a little over six months ago. I heard last week at the range that the week Shooters closed, both Academy and Gander Mountain jacked up the prices on their pistols by about $100. I would certainly like to know how the Beaumont Gander Mountain's gun sales have gone since it opened two years ago. No matter how brisk their firearm sales might be, what does it say for Gander Mountain that a little shop like Shooters managed to stay open and still do pretty good business? And for something a little more concrete, consider this: I saw a used Dan Wesson Razorback -- the gun I picked up late last week -- in Gander Mountain some time ago and it was right at $800 before tax -- which works out to about $865 after tax, and maybe more if Gander charges a NICS and/or transfer fee. But I got mine new in the box from my friendly local FFL for not quite $900 out the door. But that's just my situation. I was in Gary's Guns out on Highway 12 in Vidor (more on that a little later) getting the Remington green box 10mm and they had a pretty good selection, and the prices were comparable to Shooters Supply, who like Gary's was a Kimber master dealer. If that's what you're looking for, I'd check them out, and I've heard Jim's Firearms in Nederland has good prices for the pistols from Yonkers too. Beyond that I don't know. Shooters was the only actual gun store I bought a gun from. All the rest have come from another FFL; the only other gun store I've dealt with around here on a regular basis is BZ Gun and Repair in Groves, and that's been for reloading supplies. I don't know how much cheaper on average they'd be, but you won't find them higher anywhere than Gander Mountain. As I told my FFL, I go to Gander to look -- but I come see him when I want to buy.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Range Report: Dan Wesson Razorback

So late yesterday morning, the Razorback and I ventured out to the gun club, with 100 rounds of 180-grain Remington UMC in the green box. And just for grins, I brought along the chronograph to see how the actual velocity of that particular load compared to the advertised velocity of 1150 fps. I set up the target at the 7-yard mark and loaded the two magazines the pistol came with and it was off to the races. I was a bit disappointed, though, as the ammo didn't quite get to the advertised velocity; if I remember right it was running somewhere between 1080 and 1100 fps. I was shooting ragged holes, though, more or less. The Razorback shoots every bit as good as it looks. :-) Seems I was shooting a bit to the right, but it ate every round without a problem, and the trigger's nice and crisp. Of course I'd expect nothing less for what I forked over for that pistol, but again, it's just extremely well-built -- and at about $200 less than the Kimber Stainless Target II, well, I just cannot say enough good things about it. (Of course, I won't be getting rid of said Kimber any time soon. ;-) And to be fair, the price of the Kimber did include two extra magazines.) If you're looking for a good 10mm 1911-type pistol, this one gets the Live from the (upper) Texas Gulf Coast Seal of Approval. Can't recommend Dan Wesson highly enough. I may just have to get another once I pay off the credit card...

yes, sir, one of the great songs of the canon...

Now playing, here: Johnny Bush, "There Stands the Glass." I love Strait's live version of this, but it's just an all-around great song, period.

And another one, right after it! Brian Burns, "I've Been Everywhere (In Texas)," from his 2002 cd The Eagle and the Snake. If you haven't gotten that one, you really should...

Saturday, October 20, 2007

What's Better Than Having One 10mm Pistol?

Having TWO 10mm pistols, of course!
So, to that end, a few weeks ago I asked my friendly local FFL to get on finding me a Dan Wesson Razorback, the company's famed 10mm 1911. I've heard many good things about the Dan Wesson pistols since CZ bought them out a couple of years ago, namely that they're pretty much the best 1911s on the market for the prices they fetch -- more or less a custom pistol for an assembly-line price, with fewer MIM (metal-injection-molded) parts than just about any 1911 manufacturer save for the higher-end makers like Wilson, Baer and Nighthawk. For a long time I was under the impression that CZ/Dan Wesson was like Kimber in that they only dealt through a master dealer network and not through the distributors like Davidson's and Lipsey's. There was only one CZ stocking dealer around here, Shooters Supply, and of course it closed earlier this year. The next closest CZ stocking dealer was Carters Country in Houston. I thought I'd have to go there to get the Razorback, but as it turned out, of course, I was finally able to get it through my normal FFL. So I went and picked her up yesterday afternoon and last night sat down and stripped her down and cleaned her with BreakFree CLP. The fit and finish on that gun is absolutely impeccable, and the trigger breaks like glass. So far I'd say it's every bit the equal of the Kimber, far from being some second- or third-rate "knockoff" (and I have a feeling my old friend who made that comment will agree once he sees her). She's getting her first test drive today, with 100 rounds of Remington UMC; I thought I'd replenish my brass supply a little bit. ;-) Wanna see it?

Range report to come. ;-)

Friday, October 19, 2007

More Anti-Gun Idiocy from a Journalist-in-Training

Via just about everybody, we have this, from the Cal State-Fullerton Daily Titan...

Every citizen has the right to vote, but not everyone chooses to fulfill that right because they sometimes don't deem it necessary. So is having a gun necessary?
Non sequitur. Does not compute.

if you know you are mentally capable of having a gun, then you can wait-whether it takes a week, a month or 3 months.
Yes, of course you can wait, unless you're being stalked by a scorned lover or some such, in which instance even a 72-hour wait may well be lethal. But I guess Ms. Wojtalewicz thinks the same way the rest of the anti-gun enuretics do. "If it saves just one life..." Never mind all the lives that could well be lost because of such a waiting period...

If you want a gun, buy one. But don't complain about the background checks and necessary precautions you have to take in order to get a gun. If you have nothing to hide, then think of the measure as a way to ensure that psychos aren't able to get a gun.

Personally, I think of a waiting period and background check as a cop-out, a disgustingly half-assed measure that does nothing to address the real problem. I guess it never crossed Ms. Wojtalewicz's mind to ask what in the hell said psychos were doing walking the streets with free people in the first place. Yet another example of an anti's simple-minded way of thinking. More of that below:
In one of his comedy performances, Chris Rock poked fun at gun control and instead suggested we should have "bullet control," with each bullet costing $5,000. "People would think before they shot someone. 'Man I will blow your f***ing head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me a second job, start saving up, and you a dead man. You'd better hope I don't get no bullets on lay-away!'"

As silly as this idea may be, it's an exaggeration of an idea of limiting the ability to obtain ammunition for the guns-and I doubt that would put Kmart and Wal-Mart out of business. One's right to bear arms would not be infringed upon. And if you only need a gun for protection, there is no need for purchasing bullets all the time, since the gun would just be sitting underneath your bed, waiting for a possible intruder to enter your home.
Amazing. We quote Thomas Jefferson, and they quote Chris Rock. If that doesn't shed the light of a thousand suns on on the lunacy of the anti way of "thinking" (and I use that term in the loosest sense possible), then I don't know what does. And as you see, Ms. Wojtalewicz ignores yet another reality -- if you actually want to be able to hit what you're aiming at with that gun, you need to p-r-a-c-t-i-c-e with it...which takes -- you guessed it -- ammunition that she wants to raise the price on! And yes, going after the ammunition does indeed infringe on the RKBA, because without that ammunition a gun is nothing but a useless hunk of wood and steel. As an old friend says often, "An unloaded gun ain't nothin' but an expensive club."

And there are words of wisdom in the comedian's spoof-"people would think twice before they shot someone."
How does she know decent people don't do that already? How presumptuous! I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

People shouldn't be able to stumble upon ammunition and guns while they are shopping for household necessities...
Why? Apparently for no other reason than "because Aleksandra Wojtalewicz said so."

Pardon my french, Aleksandra Wojtalewicz, but you're a farking tool.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Rick Perry Sells Out Texas Gun Owners

I haven't been too sure what to make of Rick Perry. He had his good and bad points, and he's done some great things for the People of The Gun here in Texas, including signing the Castle Doctrine law, taking the CHL records out of the public domain and clarifying the law to say you can travel with a loaded gun in your car without a CHL, and signing the law prohibiting weapon confiscations in states of emergency as happened down in New Orleans. With such actions, I as a Texas gun owner am quite confused at what I saw in this morning's Houston Chronicle:

Gov. Rick Perry's endorsement Wednesday of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for the Republican presidential nomination sparked renewed speculation that Perry is seeking a spot on the ticket as a vice-presidential candidate.
Perry's endorsement of Giuliani was unusual because the conservative governor differs with Giuliani on numerous issues, including Perry's opposition to abortion and support for gun rights.
Perry downplayed their differences on abortion, saying Giuliani would appoint "strict constructionists" to the U.S. Supreme Court who would have an impact on limiting abortions.
Perry said a presidency under Democrat Hillary Clinton would lead to court appointments "that would cause people to wake up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night.
Perry also said Giuliani understands there are differences on what kind of firearm limits might work in New York and not work in Texas or other places.
Perry made it clear that one of his biggest reasons for backing Giuliani is a belief that he can win the presidency.

Where to start? I can't believe Perry actually swallowed Giuliani's shuck-and-jive. Perry's reviled by more than a few conservatives in this state, to be sure, but I never expected his tin ear to be so bad. The issue of Giuliani and his double standards on the gun issue has been covered here and elsewhere before, but there is one thing I don't think I ever really thought about before Perry's sellout. Notwithstanding his recent conversion as a proponent of federalism and state's rights, Giuliani's record of advocacy for uniform federal laws further restricting our rights is well-known and out there for anyone who cares to go looking for it. And I just can't believe there's been anything to change his opinion on that. At this point I would still will bet on Giuliani using the presidency as a bully pulpit for getting those stricter laws in place nationwide. No matter what he tries to sell to us, his record more or less speaks for itself.
As for supporting Giuliani because he can supposedly win -- what about certain other candidates *cough*Fred Thompson*cough* who are more or less running neck-and-neck with Giuliani 13 months before the damn election? It's still early yet and there's a lot that could happen. I realize the go-along-to-get-along mentality is quite prevalent in politics at all levels, but I still find it disgusting that Perry would throw his principles away so early. On second thought, maybe he never really had any. Maybe he just did those good things on Second Amendment issues because he knew those actions were politically expedient. Whatever the case, I am just left shaking my head. For shame, Governor Perry. For shame.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

"...We love to cut you down to size, we love dirty laundry..."

One would think that was KDFW Fox 4 Dallas' theme song, after seeing the following video.
First, a bit of background, from the Dallas Morning News:

A Ledbetter-area business owner fatally shot a suspected burglar Sunday morning – the second time in three weeks that he killed an intruder, Dallas police said.

James Walton, owner of Able Walton Machine & Welding in the 2000 block of Chalk Hill Road in West Dallas, was alerted to the intruder when his motion sensor system activated about 9 a.m. Sunday, police said.

Mr. Walton, who also lives at his business, went downstairs with a shotgun and fired at a man who had broken in. The intruder was later identified by police as Jimmy Gannon of Ferris.
Now, take a gander at how Rebecca Aguilar ambushed Mr. Walton in the parking lot of the Academy where he went to get a shotgun to replace the one the police took from him:

"Are those tears of remorse?...Are you a trigger-happy kind of person? Izzat what you wanted to do, shoot to kill?" Good grief, this Rebecca Aguilar is a real piece of shit. They haven't even invented the words to describe just how contemptible that sort of judgmental, self-righteous, ratings-hungry behavior is, not to mention the mooks who would engage in it.
As Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit said:
I was struck by reporter Rebecca Aguilar's body-language, literally standing over him in judgment with tailored suit and umbrella. The way she looked down, literally and figuratively, on an old man who had defended his life, entirely legally, and reduced him to tears seems to me to be representative of the worst stereotypes of Old Media.

A-yep. I would say I hope creatures like Aguilar aren't ever forced to make the choice of whether to pull that trigger, but I can't say that because it's not true. I would love nothing more than to see people like Aguilar be forced to make that decision and the sooner the better. It's really the only adequate remedy to such reprehensible behavior. I know it'll likely never happen, but we can certainly all hope. Maybe if it did she and those like her wouldn't be so damn judgmental.
In the meantime, it seems Aguilar has been suspended by KDFW for her reprehensible behavior. Time will tell if she keeps her job, but whether or not she does, I still shudder to think how many reporters in all forms of media see that and don't think she did anything wrong.

Monday, October 15, 2007

I Get Referrals...

From Wilmington, Ohio, "How much is a Ruger P90DC worth?"
My question is, why in the hell would you wanna sell it? The Ruger P-Series pistols are arguably the best value in the market for what they cost. Maybe a bit bulky for a carry piece, but for a house or truck pistol you could hardly do better. Granted, the P90 is on an entirely different level than, say, a Sig P220 or Kimber Covert, but I'll say this anyway -- When it comes to a defensive sidearm, if one could plot a price vs. quality curve on a graph, the Ruger P-series pistols would probably occupy the sweet spot on it. Buddy, if you're out there, keep that gun. If you get rid of it, you'll regret it one day.

Monday Media Snippet Musings

Now this just floored me. I never would have expected this kind of snark to appear in any major newspaper, even the Dallas Morning News:

Re: "Teen opens fire at school – Suspended student kills himself after injuring 4 in Cleveland," Thursday news story.

Tragic school shootings are still occurring, and school children are dying. All gun ownership should be prohibited except by the military and law enforcement. People would feel safer and not ever worry about being shot by a criminal.

Germany successfully confiscated weapons in 1938, while Rwanda and Uganda disarmed the populace.

These examples bear witness to successful government confiscation, so are American citizens ready for these next steps?

Makes me wonder how many people caught what the writer was really getting at, although I am sure there were some who were thinking he was actually serious and -- more frighteningly -- agreed with him. But that was just brilliant. I tell you what, some of the letter-writers are better than the people who actually write for the papers. Which brings me to the next item, from Cornell Sun blogger Tony Manfred:
...People aren’t keeping muskets in their cupboards in case the government comes and tries to take their land; they are stockpiling assault rifles so they can go out and murder dozens of little kids before anyone can even reach for their cell phone to call 911. Our loyalty to the Constitution is killing thousands of Americans a year.
And for those who want to keep guns legal so that they can fulfill some twisted fetish by murdering defenseless animals, I’m deeply sorry. I know that hunting is a popular hobby in this country but allowing people the pleasure of slaughtering animals at the expense of human lives is unacceptable. Once guns are made illegal, hunters can trap deer and beat them with baseball bats or knife them to death, everyone wins.
The delusional Neanderthals at the National Rifle Association should be charged as accomplices in every gun-related murder since 1871. Their efforts to brainwash millions of people and bully politicians into thinking that anti-gun laws are written by communist traitors have led to hundreds of thousands of murders. The NRA’s motto for demanding widespread firearm availability, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” is one of the single dumbest combination of words in the English language. Are you kidding? If I don’t have a gun, the likelihood that I will be able to kill to you is undeniably much lower. Guns kill people. There is no chance that Americans would be killing each other at this high a rate if guns were illegal. You’d have to be crazy to think that there would be the same amount of murders in this country if no one had firearms. Something that can inflict as much damage as a gun has no business being readily available.
I’m all for individual liberty, but giving 300 million people the option to murder each other is not an inalienable right. The idea that not allowing citizens to carry firearms strips them of their rights is vastly overstated. My right to stay alive, my right to not get murdered, supercedes your right to have the option of murdering me. This is a case of putting the right to life behind the right to bear arms. Fewer guns make everyone safer. Banning guns allows for an unfettered pursuit of happiness.

To think the leftists accuse the People of the Gun of being closed-minded, reactionary bigots. And the pot sayeth unto the kettle, "thou art black!" He calls us delusional delightfully open-minded and tolerant of him!
"Stockpiling assault rifles so they can go out and murder dozens of little kids." What the hell do you say to that? And what does it say about the people who run the Cornell Sun that they would let anyone write such a hateful screed? Just think -- brain-dead mooks like Manfred are going to be the ones running the major media institutions in this country before we know it! Doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? I know it does me!
Fewer guns make everyone safer, eh? Yes, indeed. Ask all the German Jews who had their guns taken away from them, or how about some of those ethnic Tutsis in Rwanda, or the Cambodians who lived under the rule of the Khmer Rouge...oh, wait, you might have a problem with that, considering so many of them are six feet under, which is arguably a state of being that can hardly be characterized as being safer...
One more time, for all you gun-haters reading this. Molon Labe, you sons of bitches. Come and get them. And do it your own damned selves. At least show that much integrity, instead of sending other men with guns to do your dirty work for you.

Sunday, October 14, 2007

An Awesome Tune, From An Awesome CD, From An Awesome Band

Now playing here: Cross Canadian Ragweed, "17," from their 2002 self-titled "purple" album...
"The porch swing still looks the same, she probably won't even remember my name, just like she didn't back she married, is she doin' fine, does she know about all the nights I laid awake cryin', just to know her hand...the door opens and I run away, just like the same ole're always 17 in your hometown..."

UPDATE: 10:40pm Texas time: Pat Green & Cory Morrow, "Are You Sure Hank Done It This Way," from 2000's Songs We Wish We'd Written. Yes, the Waylon hit from 1975, and it rawks...

More Shania Fanboy Invective! comments to this post:

You are seriously jealous or something. You seem to forget that Shania is a global megastar and long eclisped your little country station.
As I said immediately after, the only thing Shania Twain ever "eclisped" was the level of teh suck that she established for herself to begin with. I really don't give a damn about her success or the lack of it. What I have the problem with is the fact that she was marketed as a country artist and radio people gave her airplay that would have been better spent on artists who weren't using the country genre and radio format as a jumping-off point to other genres. I am every bit as disgusted with that as I am the Dixie Chicks using the platform they were given as a result of their success as a platform to spout off political crap. As for me being jealous, that's just about the most damnably pathetic argument I've seen as of yet. I am quite happy with my life and my musical tastes, what the hell would I have to be jealous of?
I don't begrudge Shania Twain her success. She makes pretty decent bubble-gum pop, I guess, but to call it country is, to put it mildly, an insult to the genre and everyone who made it what it is today. As for the selling the records without "catoring" to country radio...well, there are a lot of people who sell records without kowtowing to the ridiculous confines of country radio. Maybe not in the tens of millions, but they do make a pretty fair living as far as I can tell; if they couldn't make a living at it I'd guess they wouldn't still be doing it. And even if they did sell millions of records, you wouldn't find us as their fans using those numbers trying to justify our tastes as so many of Shania Twain fans do. And yeah, it IS "so many." I have seen more people than I can count over the last ten years use that EXACT argument. They think it's such a big deal and I don't understand why. Granted, I think it's cool that somebody like George Strait can go platinum singing George Jones and Guy Clark and Bruce Robison songs like he did on his latest cd, but even if he didn't I'd still like him and buy his cds and go see him live when I could. I suppose the Shania Twain and Faith Hill fans feel the same way, but still I can't help but think they're more than a little bit insecure. If they weren't they wouldn't find any validation in the fact that millions of others share their tastes. But that's just what I think about that.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

More Good Stuff...

here: Bruce Robison and Kelly Willis, "Angry All the Time." Tim McGraw had the hit with it, but Bruce was the writer and the one who recorded it first. For my money Bruce is a much better singer, though Tim did a serviceable job with it....

Friday, October 12, 2007

Friday Morning Computer Musings

So I had a couple of interesting conversations this week with a computer tech. He spent some time in the Army and he's been tinkering with electronics longer'n I've been alive. Of course the old PC vs. Mac debate came up, and being the recent Mac convert I had to ask him what he thought, especially considering the fact that Microsoft recently rolled out the bug-riddled Vista operating system. He had nothing but good things to say about the Mac, and basically said Microsoft more or less conditioned the world to accept less than the best when it comes to operating systems with the way the company operated; the systems they put out would more or less run on any PC with the appropriate specs regardless of who made the individual parts, but they could get away with that because of the way they wrote the software, which of course is what leads to crashes, viruses and the like. This is in direct contrast, of course, to the Apple OS which will only run on the Apple computer. Not only that, the way some manufacturers put those PCs together leaves a lot to be desired, especially as it relates to memory. Just for an example, I went to see him again yesterday and he was working on a Compaq with Vista installed. As if Vista wasn't flawed enough, it took more than half the computer's memory just to start the damn thing up, let alone run it continuously, or its programs -- and this was with the memory that came from the factory. Then he showed me an error message he was getting, which showed that the computer was having problems with a printer port -- and that particular computer didn't even have that kind of printer port. He told me he would not recommend a person in the market for a new computer get a PC with Vista for at least another six months, after Microsoft rolled out the service packs for it. I don't know how well Vista is selling and don't really care, but I'd be willing to bet this particular example was not an isolated one. It was a bit serendipitous that I ran into this fella, as earlier this week I saw the picture below on another blog...

Some might think what I am about to say is just nit-picking, but I'll say it anyway. Used to it didn't bother me so much, but it burns my tail more and more when I see reliance on hardware or software that doesn't come from Microsoft cast as a defining characteristic of a lefty moonbat. (Note: I most emphatically DO NOT think Ron Paul is a moonbat even though I don't agree with some of his foreign policy ideas, but if you read most of the righty blogs you'll see that sentiment expressed.) If I were a betting man, I'd bet my next firearm that the vast majority of those who make fun of folks who rely on non-Microsoft products have never even used those products. (Mike Hendrix at Cold Fury came up with a dead-on term for the malady those people suffer -- Apple Derangement Syndrome.) I have to wonder what these people would say if they ever sat down and used an Apple, or Firefox for that matter.
Oh, yeah, and speaking of alternate web browsers -- I told this same computer tech about the nickname I've seen for the Microsoft browser, Internet Exploder. His response?
"Yeah, that's about right."

Thursday, October 11, 2007

A few words on bein' a Texan...

jimmyb said in comments to this post...

I could be a Texan?!!?!!?

You honor me, sir.

And you could be an Ohioan.

Or is that an insult...?
There's a whole lot of folks out there who measure up to the honor of bein' a Texan, I think. Texas is just as much a state of mind as it is a geographical location, if not more so. Call it like you see it, live and let live, and that sort of thing. You don't necessarily have to be born or raised between the Sabine and Rio Grande to measure up to the lofty Texas standard, and by the same token just because you were born and/or raised in Texas doesn't automatically make you authentic. For some reason the late, lamented Molly Ivins comes to mind, the Texas-born newspaper columnist who trafficked in hoary cliches, faux populism, trusty canards, and half-truths (and yes, Mr. Chaffin, I did steal that from you. :)). Maybe I would have thought differently had I agreed with what she said, but I still can't help but think I'd have been immensely embarrassed for my state and my political ideology that someone like Molly was who represented them both. (As far as Texas newspaper columnists go, I much prefer Leon Hale.)
As far as bein' an Ohioan -- well, I haven't met that many, though I'd guess most of 'em were good, salt-of-the-earth folk, much like Texans. I did have this one girl from Lorain screw me over but good several years ago, but I'm not gonna paint everybody from the Buckeye State as deceitful, clueless ****s. I would consider bein' an Ohioan as a compliment in most cases. Now, New Yorker, New Jerseyan or Massachusettsite, THAT might be different... ;-)

Monday, October 08, 2007

I think he missed the irony...

Some idiot leftist blogger, on the shooting of the kids by the Wisconsin cop:

Well.. here we are again. A tiny town in Wisconsin, 7 young kids are dead and no one knows why. A deputy sheriff who was 20 years old apparently got into a jealous rage and went after a girl, taking the others in his path.

He was a deputy sheriff. He was a cop. He was obviously dangerous and he was armed.

So when, oh when will there be gun control in this country? How many more have to die?

"When will there be gun control"? Hey Sparky, guess what? They HAVE gun control in Wisconsin. As a matter of fact it's one of only two states where you cannot lawfully carry a firearm on your person under any circumstances -- in other words, it's exactly the conditions you and your emasculated gun-hating brethren want us all to have to live under. You could even say that "the government...(had) a monopoly on force" here. (Ladd Everitt, call your office, you evil son of a bitch!)
And as Dave Hardy points out, the Big Three of the gun-grabbing organizations in the U.S. are all conspicuously silent on the matter. I wonder why that is? Maybe because what happened up there put the lie to the statement that only the police and the military should have guns? Or maybe they think that if they ignore what happened, it'll be swept under the rug or maybe those people that evil bastard killed will all come back to life?Whatever it may be, they can all go straight to hell, the whole sorry lot of them.
(h/t Nicki)

Sunday, October 07, 2007

What Planet Are These People From?

More idiocy from the aforementioned Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Ownership:

"If we love to say that we’re the freest country, then why [do]… our elected representatives… talk about getting government out of people’s lives? If you’re so proud of democracy then acknowledge that government had some role in that."
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over? I believe it was Ronald Reagan who said, "that government which governs best, governs least." The only roles the government has in a nation of free people is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to (the people) and (their) Posterity." And I for one will acknowledge those roles, but beyond that the only legitimate role the government has is to stay the hell out of the way. Personally, I think that the more the government meddles in people's lives, the more it undermines the role of insuring the domestic tranquility. And that's why elected officials talk about getting government out of people's lives, and furthermore, it's also why those who act on that talk are held in such high esteem by freedom-loving people.
And there was something I don't think I addressed before, namely Everitt's being so aghast at the prospect of the overthrow of "our democratically elected government." I just have to ask myself, have he and his acolytes even read any of the documents this country was founded on? Specifically the Declaration of Independence? I mean, the men who wrote that document freely and openly acknowledged in said document that such action was THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF A FREE PEOPLE. Don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself, if of course you haven't already:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
We hold that document in such high esteem that we have been celebrating its creation -- and the actions those men and many more took to back it up -- for the last 200-plus years. And this is but one more reason I can't ascribe the motives of Everitt and his minions to ignorance any longer. One more time, folks, these people are evil to the core. Somehow I think they speak so frankly because they're frustrated at the lack of progress of their insidious agenda, and I don't think it's too late yet to keep working within the system of government we have set up -- but even so, I said it at 45superman's place yesterday and I'll say it here:
The more I hear talk such as that coming from Everitt and people like him, the more I agree with a quote posted on David Codrea's blog by Mike Vanderboegh that led into one of his essays:
"Hell, let's just start shooting the bastards. Let's get this crap over with while I'm still young enough to march in the victory parade down Pennsylvania Avenue."

Friday, October 05, 2007

D.C. Gun-Ban Advocates Get Pwned

...and you can read it here. A few choice snippets:

The court of appeals explained that allowing individuals to possess only non-functional firearms inside their home is tantamount to prohibiting such
weapons outright. "As appellants accurately point out, § 7-2507.02 would reduce a pistol to a useless hunk of ‘metal and springs.'"...

The city's handgun ban is not rendered constitutional simply because the city claims (mistakenly) to refrain from violating the Constitution in other ways, e.g., by not banning rifles and shotguns. The court of appeals aptly described that argument as "frivolous." Pet. App. at 53a. By Petitioner's logic, the city could ban the practice of religions it believes foment a disproportionate level of violence so long as it "allowed" an array of other religious practices that still satisfy spiritual needs. ...

The rights secured by the Second Amendment are not negated by the various policy preferences masquerading as social science in Petitioners' brief.
The city is not required to approve of the freedoms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The city is not required to believe such rights are efficient or well-advised, or contribute to the formation of a wholesome society. The city is required only to obey the Constitution.
There is not one individual right secured by the Constitution that cannot be challenged in some manner on policy grounds. The fact that some may think those values unwise, or even unsafe, does not mean they may simply be ignored. Indeed, the whole point of enshrining certain rights in a constitution is to ensure that the liberties they protect not be subject to competing, evolving – and often, as in this case, misinformed – policy views of government officials.
And if policy benefits could be invoked to ignore constitutional provisions delegating power to the government, this Court would soon be asked to adjudicate the existence of everything from the postal monopoly to the income tax.
Petitioners' opinions of the normative policy choices reflected in the Constitution, as ratified and still operable today, are irrelevant. Whatever a court of social science might say about the city’s firearms prohibitions, this is a court of law. ...

Petitioners correctly note that the Second Amendment "does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die." Pet. at 30 (emphasis added). Yet the city consistently fights to secure its right to stand by while its citizens are victimized by crime.
For example, the city has successfully defended its right to "stand by while its citizens" are raped, kidnapped from their homes, and further abused. Warren
30 v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981) (en banc). The city has likewise successfully defended its right to "stand by" in the face of the worst urban rioting in our nation’s history. Westminster Investing Co. v. G.C. Murphy Co., 434 F.2d 521 (D.C. Cir. 1970).
The city has even defended its right to "stand by while its citizens die" when the perpetrator is a police officer. Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. 1983) (en banc). Indeed, the city has asserted its right to "stand by while its citizens die" in the course of volunteering their assistance to the police. Butera v. District of Columbia, 235 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
I'm just a layman, and a clearly biased one at that, but that has to be the most thorough dismantling of an opponent's case that I've ever seen. And we're not just talking about Fenty and his minions in Washington either. The anti-gunners from sea to shining sea always bring up the point that we as citizens don't need guns, that the police will protect us, but they have never once addressed the judicial precedent -- set by more than a few cases -- that says that citizens are not entitled to individual police protection and indeed have no legal recourse when said police fail to provide said protection. I don't know how the plaintiffs in this case chose Gura & Possessky to represent them in this pivotal battle, but it's plainly obvious to me that they struck solid gold. And I think that if the Supreme Court doesn't take the case, and rule that the Second Amendment is an individual right -- as the Founding Fathers so obviously indicated it to be in their other writings -- it'll be the clearest indication yet that the court has yielded too much to the socialist forces who want our great country to follow all of the failed models of government across the pond and through history, not to mention a cowardly move on their part. It's long past time for this issue to be settled and for us all to regain our rights, once and for all.

Rant of the Day: Colt Snobbery

Seems that here and there I see people dumping on certain brands of 1911s, certain as in everything that doesn't have the prancing pony on it. You probably know exactly what I'm talking about, too:
"If it ain't a Colt it is a copy."
To each his own, but I find that to be the most infuriating type of gun snobbery out there. I know Colt was the original 1911 manufacturer and that everyone who came after them was more or less following in their footsteps. So technically I suppose one could say that everything that came after the Colt WAS a copy...but it seems to me that the implication of the term is that every 1911 that isn't a Colt isn't worthy -- or is less worthy -- of the name, the legacy, or the reputation, and pardon my french, but I just can't help but call bullshit on that. Every now and then I am tempted to unleash teh snark on some unsuspecting prancing-pony worshipper who's looking down his nose and ask him, "What about an Ithaca? Or Remington-Rand or Singer? Were THEY copies too?" I can confidently say that I have n-e-v-e-r, not even once, seen any Colt worshipper talking smack about anything that the troops used in the great wars of the first half of the 20th century, Colt rollmark or no. And I can't help but think that it's solely because of where those guns have been. Which by itself is worthy of a measure of respect, granted -- but still, I can't help but wonder what the Colt worshippers would be saying if Remington-Rand, Singer or Ithaca were still cranking out 1911s today.
I don't have any experience with Colts. I'll admit it. I would like to own one at some point, but as of yet it hasn't worked out for me to get one -- mainly because of my personal priorities vis-a-vis what I want in my gun collection. I COULD have had a Colt a long time ago but wanted other guns first. And I don't understand why, for example, my Springfields are somehow less worthy just because they don't have the prancing pony on them. I don't think I settled for less, and I don't think I'll be settling for less when I get that Dan Wesson Razorback either...and I'll go on record as saying that anyone who does think I am settling for less can go jump in the lake.

Thursday, October 04, 2007

...yes, I'm loving this station...

Now playing here: Charlie Robison, "Loving County," from his 1999 cd Life of the Party. A killer song (in more ways than one), from a great cd....

"...and the moon is so bright, it don't look like night, and the diamond, how it sparkles in the lights of Loving County...."

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Dirty Range Fun

not THAT kinda dirty, just keep readin'...
So last weekend I loaded up a few more rounds of 10mm, as I had a few more primers here and there I needed to put to good use as well as some more Berry's 180-grain plated flat-nose bullets.
I had a few left over from the last range trip with the's been a few weeks since I've taken the 10mm out, because I nailed my Shooting Chrony as I was testing a load I'd worked up before I even got the first reading on how hot it was. But I ordered a new one late last week and it came in Monday, so today I took it to the range to see how it worked out. I picked up another Shooting Chrony, but I took a step up to the Alpha model, the red one that will hold one 2- to 32-shot string and calculates average velocity, standard deviation and extreme spread. I took about 60 rounds today, with the following specs:

Case: Federal and a few Winchesters, three times fired
Bullet: Berry's 180-grain plated flat-nose
Charge: 12.1 grains of Accurate Arms No. 9
Primer: Remington 2 1/2 (large pistol)
OAL: 1.260"

Firearm: Kimber Stainless Target II

The only difference between this load and what I've loaded before was the primers, as I'd been using CCI large pistol primers before. And there was a bit of difference that I could see, from both the velocity readings and inspection of the pistol after shooting.
The load with the CCI primer was running just over 1150 fps on average, with individual shots running anywhere from 1120 to 1190, while the load with the Remingtons was running about 1120. I only took a seven-shot string, but the load was amazingly consistent through the string, anywhere from 1115 to 1128 feet per second; that's the lowest extreme spread I've had with ANY load I've worked up. I don't know how it would have changed if I had taken a longer string; maybe I'll try that next time out and see how it works.
But then again, I might not. The lower velocity I could deal with -- that much could be remedied with a higher charge, as examination of the cases showed it was running at about-normal pressures -- but it seems that not all the powder is burning, as the gun was a good bit dirtier when I was finished shooting than it usually is. I suppose one could also try magnum primers -- I've read of people using them a lot with the 10mm -- but I just don't know if I want to try that with a stock gun, as it'll ramp up both pressure and velocity if what I've been told is right. In any event, other than the dirty gun, it was a fun range day. But to twist the old saying, even a bad day at the range beats a good day at work. Better too that I managed to recover well over half my brass. I think I recovered about 50 out of 65, and it didn't take me that long either. Maybe I'm gettin' better at that too!

Color Me Speechless!

Perusing The High Road this morning, I saw a mention that a group called the Congress of Racial Equality filed an amicus brief in support of the appellants in Parker v. D.C., the case that will determine whether the nation's capital gets to keep in place its blatantly unconstitutional gun laws. So I summoned my Google-fu, and it seems it was strong this morning, as it led me to this. Click and you'll find just about everything the folks on the side of liberty have been talking about for years in relation to gun control being used as a tool to oppress minorities. Just a snippet:

Behind current gun control efforts often lurks the remnant of an old prejudice, that the lower classes and minorities, especially blacks, are not to be trusted with firearms. Today, the thought remains among gun control advocates: if you let the poor or blacks have guns, they will commit crimes with them. Even noted anti-gun activists have admitted this. Gun control proponent and journalist Robert Sherrill frankly admitted that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was “passed not to control guns but to control Blacks.” Robert Sherrill, The Saturday Night Special 280 (1972). “It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the 'Saturday night special' is
emphasized because it is cheap and it is being sold to a particular class of people. The name is sufficient evidence - the reference is to 'n****r-town Saturday night.’” Barry Bruce-Briggs, The Great American Gun War, The Public Interest, Fall 1976 at 37.

As they say, read the whole thing. What a refreshing contrast to other groups supposedly committed to the goal of racial equality such as the NAACP, who blame the guns themselves as opposed to those who are actually committing crimes with them -- although I will admit I get the idea that the folks at CORE might well be thought of as a bunch of "Uncle Toms" for not falling in line. But they're exactly where they need to be on this issue, and good on them!

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Quote of the Day, or Maybe the Week...

From Hyunchback, in comments to the last post:

"Alex, I'll take 'Consequences' for $500."


"What happens when government has a monopoly on violence?"

Like I said, grade-A snark, and true as true can be...

Monday, October 01, 2007

Another Anti Slipup...

or, one more reason gun controllers are evil to the core...

"We need your help," National Council of Churches President Michael Livingston implored of the WCC’s “Living Letters” team while they were in Washington, D.C. "We need your help to turn around this terrible situation we have." No doubt sincerely, he told the ecumenical group: "We want to learn from you, and from our own stories, to make this world a world of peace."
Mostly Livingston wanted the “Living Letters” to help advocate stricter gun control in the U.S. He was joined by Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, who bewailed: "We have a real pride in violence in our country." He likewise exclaimed, "We also profit from it,” fingering the U.S. films that “glorify violence and promote vigilante justice,” according to a WCC account.
More revealingly, Everitt insisted that “the government must have a monopoly on force,” according to an account by my assistant Rebekah Sharpe, who attended the meeting. He identified the obstacles to fuller gun control as “hardcore gun owners” who have a “profoundly, virulently anti-government attitude.” Many of these hardcore zealots adhere to the National Rifle Association’s ostensible belief that “if our government becomes tyrannical they have a right to take over that government, our democratically elected government!”

The government must have a monopoly on force? After the events of the 20th century, in which almost 175 million people were murdered by government agents who by and large had the monopoly on force? Once again, I cannot find the words to describe just how evil, how rotten to the core these people are. I know well what Occam's Razor might say to this -- never ascribe to evil what can be attributed to ignorance -- but in the case of the gun-grabbers I just don't buy that anymore. And what to say of this "World Council of Churches"? I have spoken of the Religious Left before, but still I found it breathtaking that supposed "men of God" would lend their names to efforts to leave God's people defenseless. And, once again, there are no wors to say just how evil that is. Evil and quite ironic as well, considering the radical Muslims seem to be taking over various parts of the world across the pond. Maybe it's wrong of me to think this, but I can't help but think the people who advocate that monopoly on force deserve to live under that boot of tyranny, and all the attendant characteristics and consequence of that tyranny. Let them live as second-class citizens, be stoned to death or have their heads cut off. At this point I am more than willing to tell them to their evil faces, "you scumbags asked for it."
(h/t Armed and Safe)