Sunday, November 30, 2008

the singular of 'anecdote' isn't 'data,' either...

So apparently, Mike Ditka said this, after New York Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg in a New York nightclub:

I feel sorry for him, in the sense that, I don't understand the league, why can anybody have a gun? I will have a policy, no guns, any NFL players we find out, period, you're suspended.

NFL blogger Michael David Smith had this to say in response to that:
Ditka deserves credit for pointing out a simple fact that Burress learned the hard way: If you carry a gun around, you're more likely to hurt yourself than protect yourself.

What an assclown you are, Michael David Smith. Stick to blogging about things within your area of expertise and shut the hell up about everything else, especially things you think are "facts" that you don't have shit to back up with.

Fair winds & following seas, brother...

I see today was the day the esteemed Kim du Toit retired from blogging. I hate that. God knows I didn't agree with him on some things and thought he could be abrasive as hell (mostly on the things I didn't agree with him on), but the vast majority of what he wrote I found myself nodding my head in complete agreement with. He really is a unique voice and I'll miss reading him every day. From his writing he seemed to be a really good guy, the kind Free America desperately needs more of. Farewell, brother, and I wish you the best...

Bend over, indeed...

because, yep, here it comes again...

Drug cartel gangsters waging a criminal insurgency against Mexican society and government are making the Houston area their marketplace of choice, as they spend millions of dollars statewide buying military-style weapons and ammunition.
Gangsters have honed in on this city because of its glut of gun shops, its proximity to the border, and its long-established networks for smuggling narcotics into the United States, federal law-enforcement officials said.
The surge in fraudulent purchases comes as more than 4,000 people have died in Mexico's criminal underworld violence this year.
Authorities can point to numerous crimes, including the infamous 2007 Acapulco Massacre to illustrate the carnage brought on by Houston-bought guns that have gotten into the hands of ruthless killers.
To help Mexico keep drugs out of the United States, the U.S. government needs to increase the number of federal agents fighting weapons trafficking, Sarukhan said, and to develop better intelligence as to who's buying the guns, where they're buying them and where they're taking them.
The number of ATF agents assigned to the Houston region, which stretches from near Del Rio to the Gulf Coast, has increased 12 percent in the past two years.
Current interpretations of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms, make such investigations difficult, agents said. Federal law prohibits the government from having a long-term database of weapons or ammunition purchasers.

Whoa, did you catch that last part? To help Mexico keep DRUGS out of the United States, the GUN trafficking methods need to be beefed up. Nothing about tighter border security to keep better track of what's going into and coming out of Mexico or to keep the guns on this side and the drugs on that side, and nothing about taking the stratospheric profits (and thus, the incentive to get them here) out of the drugs themselves. As one of the commenters said, funny how the Chron spins the story to make the gun stores the problem and not the illegal immigrants (or, for that matter, the porous border). I see that Carter's Country, Academy and the other stores in Houston were mentioned as having done nothing wrong here, and in any event, from what I understand the FFLs as a group tend to police themselves pretty stringently anyway. And, of course, if the damn Mexican government officials would pull their heads out of their asses and recognize their own citizens' natural, God-given right of self-defense with the best tools available, the illegal gun problem, well, it wouldn't be as much of a problem. (And don't you love how the reporters point to the Constitution as making the fix more difficult?) Mother Nature abhors a vacuum, friends, and the phenomenon written about here is just another illustration of the fact that she will NOT be denied. And it's also yet more proof that, as long as you have a War On Drugs, you will have a War On Guns. You cannot have the first without having the second. It really is just that simple, and it's a lesson we should have learned with the failed Prohibition experiment back in the 1920s and 1930s. And I know what's going to follow in the pages of the Chron — in fact, I'd lay money on it. Mark my words, to follow this story will be another Chron editorial advocating the passage of another semiautomatic rifle ban, this time with teeth, under the guise of "being a good neighbor" and "helping our friends south of the Rio Grande fight the scourge of illegal drugs and gun violence." Nothing about tightening the borders, nothing about our insane drug laws, nothing about Mexico's insane gun laws. Nope, just as it's always been, it's going to be about OUR guns and OUR right to keep them being infringed upon.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

I don't know if I'd want even one of those...

...or, I Get Referrals, Part Whatever...
from somewhere in Korea, Smith Wesson 325.
That looks to be a pretty nifty little weapon, if you have to have something so light that doesn't leave brass lying around. I don't know if I'd want one of those, though, considering they have that internal lock on them. That would seem to me to be just one more thing to go wrong. I've read reports here and there of those ultra-light post-Clinton agreement S&W revolvers locking up involuntarily under certain conditions; granted, though, those were with the magnum revolvers and very hot loads. Still, though, I'd stay away, though your mileage may vary of course. If I had to have a wheelgun, I'd look for maybe a 3" Ruger GP100, or 4" if I was feeling froggy. I had a 4" at one point and would love to get another.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

...the hell?

...and I thought that Jim Zumbo made a boneheaded move, well, this from South Dakota-based H-S Precision ranks right up there with that:

I just got off the phone with one of their employees about the report that they printed a Lon Horiuchi endorsement on the back of their catalog.

It is true.

It'll be fun to see how AHSA-clowns like Bill Schneider spin that. In the meantime, the words of the late, great Jeff Cooper come to mind:
"The Federal agent who shot Vicki Weaver in the face, deliberately, while she was unarmed and holding her child is named Lon Horiuchi. Remember that name. He is still walking around loose. That man must eventually pay for his crime, here or hereafter. Lon Horiuchi."

Lessons not learned...

From this morning's Chron...

Texas officials plan to test cell phone jamming technology after a prison system lockdown and search turned up hundreds of smuggled mobile devices.

Let's see, we have what's supposed to be one of the most secured environments around, yet contraband still finds its way in. There's a lesson in there somewhere...

Monday, November 24, 2008

Ok, now THIS was good...

Not that I didn't think a guy like David Hardy would have a sense of humor, I just never would have expected something so sharp...

I suppose I must mention his (George Will's -- ed.) piece in WashPo. I mean he is a famous writer who wears a tie and always looks like he never got over being buggered with a turnip during freshman hazing at an Ivy League school (and has a classical education so he would recognize being buggered with a turnip) but can still use baseball analogies in every article, even if discussing his appendectomy, just to show he's one of the guys. Provided all the guys in question have been buggered with turnips as a prelude to a really classical education.

OK, I tired of his writings years ago and rarely read them. Just as he probably rarely eats turnips. But I digress.
But Will (who is probably as frightened of firearms as he is of turnips) maintains it is a disputed right (hey, there was a dissent!) and now the Court will have to ... shudder ... decide what it means, and that means policy makers (i.e., the Obama Admin., Nancy Pelosi, the California and Illinois legislatures, etc.) will be unable "to function as laboratories for testing policy variations." Policy variations as to ... hmmm... expressly-stated constitutional rights. But, where the question is at all close, Will argues that conservativism requires deference to elected policymakers, especially those at the local level. "Judicial conservatism requires judges to justify their decisions with reference to several restraining principles, including deference to the democratic branches of government and to states' responsibilities under federalism."

I think Americans in 1791 chose their policy variations.

*snerk* One gets the idea, yes, that David Hardy's not a fan. When I see such ham-fisted, doctrinaire analysis of something that really should be cut and dried, it really turns me off too. And that's exactly what Will's analysis of Heller was. He got so caught up in his little rule book that he missed the whole damn point of what the court did in Heller — that is, they stood up for individual liberty, which is what I for one thought conservatives were all about, intellectuals and their little rulebooks be damned. I suppose I should be fair and mention that Will was riffing off another conservative judge's analysis of Heller, but even so, that still doesn't change the fact that Will was more or less agreeing with that analysis. You see Hardy pointing out some of those elected policymakers Will contends the courts should defer to. I must say, that was brilliant. One gets the idea that those rules would allow for some flexibility so as not to give said policymakers free rein to piss all over the rights that so many have fought and died to protect, but I guess in the world of pointy-headed intellectuals like George Will that isn't the case. I keep thinking of one of the first things the great Bill Whittle wrote — just substitute "conservative intelligentsia" for "Europeans," and it fits perfectly:
"We are, and remain, the descendants of people who had had quite enough of being told what to do by inbred aristocratic fops and unelected, intellectual sadists. When Europeans call us simplisme, they show themselves incapable of recognizing the difference between intelligence, of which we are amply endowed, and intellectualism, that circle-jerk of coffee table revolution and basement politburo planning that we have never had much patience with."
Maybe it isn't quite fair at first glance to lump Will's bloviations in with Europeans' attitudes toward the American ethos and way of life, but it's quite obvious to me that all of this is a game to him and those like him, just like Communism worked fine at the coffee table but was an unmitigated disaster when put into practice. "Rights? Who said anything about protecting your rights, you declasse rubes, there are rules that must be followed here!" Once again, he's gotten so caught up in the rules that he's completely missed the object of the entire exercise. I guess such is par for the course for intellectuals, but my blog-friend Ted had a great example of what their level of thinking leads to:
The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy had a great line about intellectuals proving that Black is White, and promptly getting run over at the next crosswalk.
A-yep. Thing about it is, though, in this instance they're trying to get us ALL run over...

Sunday, November 23, 2008

I got yer ambiguity right here, Sparky...

...or, One more reason intellectualism seems to get such a bad rap on the right these days...

Of conservatives' few victories this year, the most cherished came when the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. Now, however, a distinguished conservative jurist argues that the court's ruling was mistaken and had the principal flaws of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion ruling that conservatives execrate as judicial overreaching. Both rulings, says J. Harvie Wilkinson, suddenly recognized a judicially enforceable right grounded in "an ambiguous constitutional text."
Writing for the Virginia Law Review, Judge Wilkinson of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says Heller, like Roe, was disrespectful of legislative judgments, has hurled courts into a political thicket of fine-tuning policy in interminable litigation and traduced federalism. Furthermore, Heller exposed "originalism" — the doctrine that the Constitution's text means precisely what those who wrote its words meant by them — as no barrier to "judicial subjectivity."
Since 1973, the court has been entangled in the legislative function of adumbrating an abortion code, the details of which are, Wilkinson says, "not even remotely suggested by the text or history of the 14th Amendment." Parental consent? Spousal consent? Spousal notification? Parental notification? Waiting periods? Lack of funding for nontherapeutic abortions? Partial-birth abortion procedures? Zoning ordinances that exclude abortion facilities? The court has tried to tickle answers for these and other policy questions from the Constitution.
Conservatives are correct: The court, having asserted a right on which the Constitution is silent, has been writing rules that are detailed, debatable, inescapably arbitrary and irreducibly political. But now, Wilkinson says, conservatives are delighted that Heller has put the court on a similar path.
In Heller, the court was at least dealing with a right the Constitution actually mentions. But the majority and minority justices demonstrated that there are powerful, detailed, historically grounded "originalist" arguments for opposite understandings of what the Framers intended with that right to "keep and bear arms."
Now the court must slog through an utterly predictable torrent of litigation, writing, piecemeal, a federal gun code concerning the newfound individual right. What trigger locks or other safety requirements impermissibly burden the exercise of this right? What registration requirements, background checks, waiting periods for purchasers, ballistic identifications? What restrictions on ammunition? On places where guns may be purchased or carried? On the kinds of people (e.g., those with domestic violence records) who may own guns? On the number of gun purchases in a month?
Judicial conservatism requires judges to justify their decisions with reference to several restraining principles, including deference to the democratic branches of government, and to states' responsibilities under federalism. But, Wilkinson writes, Heller proves that when the only principle is originalism, and when conscientious people come to different conclusions about the Framers' intentions, originalist judges must resolve the conflict by voting their preferences.

Hoo-boy, where do we even begin?
I fail to see how anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity could say with a straight face that the Second Amendment is "ambiguous constitutional text." Taken all by itself it might be, but taken in tandem with the Founding Fathers' commentary on an armed citizenry, it gets to be as clear as a freshly-washed window — that is to say, the Second Amendment clearly and unambiguously protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. Why is this part of the debate still even stirring, let alone fully alive?
As for the court having to "slog through an utterly predictable torrent of litigation," well, so the hell what? It deserves to be asked why all those laws were passed in the first place and whether or not they amount to a violation of the Second Amendment. It would seem to me that things like gun registration and licensing run afoul of the Fourth Amendment by undermining the right to privacy enumerated therein. Those two measures have already been ruled to violate the Fifth Amendment in certain instances. In Haynes v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled a felon cannot be forced to register or license a firearm because in doing so, it's basically forcing that felon to admit his crime — which, therefore, makes it a violation of the Fifth Amendment. I don't see why it couldn't be argued that licensing and registration would violate the Fourth Amendment due to a compromising of a "reasonable expectation of privacy" as defined by Justice John Marshall Harlan in Katz v. United States. After all, once those license & registration records are out there, likely as not they're going to be made public record, which leaves the door open for — you guessed it! — wholesale violations of privacy from sea to shining sea at the hands of anti-gun public officials such as, say, Dick Daley or Mike Bloomberg, through their willing accomplices in the mainstream media.
As far as deference to the democratic branches of government...all righty then, what if those democratic branches of government were engaging in widespread violations of natural rights, sort of like they were in D.C. and continue to be in Chicago and New York City? What then? Will throws out all this mumbo-jumbo and expects folks like me to just lap it up, but he makes it all out to be way the hell more complicated than it really is. The term "idiot savant" and the phrase "missing the forest for the trees" come to mind, because that seems to be exactly what George Will is and exactly what he is doing here.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Mmm, yeah, big surprise there...

Say what?

Barack Obama's choice for Attorney-General, Eric Holder, has stated that he favors 'reasonable restrictions' on free speech on the Internet.

Par for the course, I suppose. Obama and his evil minions don't have any respect for the Second Amendment...what in the hell makes anyone think they'd have any respect for the REST of the Bill of Rights? I did see quite an interesting comment at Gateway Pundit, though...
Oh, don't worry so much; it's just the internet.

You wont find "internet" in the Bill of Rights"

After all, how can it be speech? You're writing, not talking. Right?

Oh, now that is just golden. Using the very same logic many of the gun prohibitionists use! "The Second Amendment didn't protect AK-47s, just muskets!" Of course many media outlets don't use that exact line of reasoning, but they use something so close as to be indistinguishable, that is, "The Founders couldn't have visualized assault weapons!" or something to that effect. Should be interesting to see how they react when it's their ox getting gored...but then, likely as not it'll be the blogs and conservative media getting clamped down on rather than the bigger MSM outlets. And just like the hunters throw the pistol & semiautomatic rifle owners under the bus, the big MSM outlets will do the same to the blogs and smaller, more conservative media outlets, making the undermining of the Constitution and the Founders' Republic that much easier. Nothing good can come of this...where will it end?
(h/t David Codrea)

Friday, November 21, 2008

A little Friday morning gun talk


Numerous and frequent complaints from the troops have led to some U.S. Department of Defense efforts to find a new pistol to replace the current M9 9mm weapon. It's not just nostalgia.
Most of the military people issued a pistol, will rarely have to use it. But those who do, like Special Forces, want more firepower than a 9mm round can deliver.
Many key members of Congress are determined that the Department of Defense will not end up with several different new pistols. Congress is telling the brass, If they don't like the M9, then agree on a new one. But so far, the services have not been able to agree. Thus the saga continues.

Take that with as small or as large a grain of salt as you like, but it's still food for thought, I think. I'd be interested to know why the services can't agree on a new sidearm. My guess would be that some of them want to go back to the tried-and-true Government Model 1911, while others feel that wouldn't be a good route to take because of the different manual of arms or reduced round capacity. As far as the different manual of arms goes though, I don't see why it would be that big of an obstacle. As long as you remember that manual thumb safety and your Four Rules you should be okay. I know there are those who will bring up the point that none of our NATO allies are clamoring for a bigger pistol round, but why exactly is it that the Americans are? I don't know how nostalgia could be the beginning and the end of that. Who's to say that those who want the bigger round don't remember how well it worked when it was the issued equipment? If it hasn't already been done, it would be quite interesting to see what the soldiers thought who'd actually fired pistol shots in anger over in the sandbox...

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Shut up and go away already, Kathleen...

Ok, this whole martyr woe-is-me act from Kathleen Parker has gone way the hell beyond any useful shelf life it might have had. As if all the crap she's been spewing before wasn't bad enough, now she's gone right up to outright bigotry:

...the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.

I think it's safe to say Kathleen Parker's more or less jumped the shark. It's bad enough she was ridiculing Sarah Palin and by association the base Palin energized when she was campaigning with John McCain, but this is just beyond the pale. There was absolutely no need for this. If Mike Huckabee had been the GOP standard-bearer in the election Parker might have had a point, considering Huckabee seemed to have few if any qualms about turning the country into a borderline theocracy. But since we had arguably the most middle-of-the-road candidate in the race, Parker's just showing her true colors...and as we can see, they turn out to be pretty damn ugly. And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we see some sort of backlash here, in the support going up for the more overtly religious candidates like Huckabee. More likely though, most conservatives are by this time tuning Kathleen Parker and her fellow pundits out, or, in the case of Jonah Goldberg, calling them out for the bullshit they're spewing:
I don't know what's more grating, the quasi-bigotry that has you calling religious Christians low brows, gorillas and oogedy-boogedy types or the bravery-on-the-cheap as you salute — in that winsome way — your own courage for saying what (according to you) needs to be said. Please stop bragging about how courageous you are for weathering a storm of nasty email you invite on yourself by dancing to a liberal tune. You aren't special for getting nasty email, from the right or the left. You aren't a martyr smoking your last cigarette. You're just another columnist, talented and charming to be sure, but just another columnist. You are not Joan of the Op-Ed Page. Perhaps the typical Washington Post reader (or editor) doesn't understand that. But you should, and most conservatives familiar with these issues can see through what you're doing.

A-yep. It looks really bad for us to be calling out people like George Clooney and the Dixie Chicks for their faux-martyr bullshit when we have people ostensibly on our side doing it too...although it's been said that people like Kathleen Parker are angling for a new audience. I believe it too, but that doesn't make their drama-queen hysterics any less infuriating.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Yeah, this really surprised me...

right here...

When Mad Jack McCain announced the choice he'd made of Palin as a running mate late last summer, I was delighted and surprised. It wasn't simply the only smart move the Hanoi Senator had made during his campaign, it was probably the only smart move any Republican had made since Eisenhower ended the Korean War.
One so-called female so-called comedian referred to Palin as a "...little freaked out, intimidated, frightened, right-wing Republican, thin-lipped bitch", unintentionally describing herself by temperament, if not by political persuasion. She also warned the vice presidential candidate that she (Palin) would be gang-raped by her (the comedian's) "big black brothers" if she (Palin) visited Manhattan.
This to a real woman who, at least by implication, knows how to deal with a rapist the way a rapist ought to be dealt with, not with a little plastic whistle or a sisterly candlelight vigil, but with... well, let's just put it this way: there are places in Alaska where you're not allowed to venture unless you're carrying at least a .357 Magnum.

What was the surprise? That it came from L. Neil Smith, one of the most strident large -L libertarians out there. I honestly never thought I'd see someone like him have such glowing words for anyone on the national level of either of the two big parties. Call me crazy, but I'd say that endorsement's worth a hell of a lot more than any from the pundits from the Northeastern establishment media. And I'd also say the fact that L. Neil Smith holds her in higher esteem than the aforementioned pundits is incontrovertible proof that she and more politicians like her are exactly what the Republican Party needs to lead them out of the wilderness.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Another Fudd Speaks

I know many have already taken good shots at this guy, but what the hell...

I consider my right to bear arms one of my basic freedoms, but not the only one, so buckle up, gun nuts. I happen to think other amendments to our constitution such as Number 1 (freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition), 13 (abolishing slavery), 14 (equal protection under the law), 19 and 26 (right to vote for women and all citizens over 18) and others might actually be more important than Number 2.

Ah yes, the ever-convenient straw man of "gun nuts only care about the Second Amendment." Bill Schneider must not be a very well-read person, at least as far as today's gun culture and gun bloggers' representation of that culture goes. The fact is if you read just about any of the gun bloggers out there, it's a safe bet that you'll find 99 percent of them commenting regularly on violations of other constitutional rights and general civil liberties. And what's with the putting all those other amendments ahead of the Second anyway? I don't see the 13th, 14th, 19th or 26th Amendments under attack here. I don't even see them in danger. So I guess you could call that a red herring of sorts, but no matter what you call it he's still way off base. If some tyrannical regime started trying to undermine all those other rights, just who is going to change that? I would think it would be people with — wait for it! — guns. So when you look at it like that, it would seem that what those "gun nuts" — you know, the ones Bill Schneider so cluelessly and self-righteously derides — it would seem that what those people say is absolutely true, that the Second Amendment is the guarantor of all the rest, which, ergo, makes it the most important. You'll note I didn't mention the First Amendment as not being under attack...because, of course, it was under attack during the campaign. And as evidenced by the Democrats chomping at the bit to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, there's going to be a sustained attack on the First Amendment for at least the foreseeable future. I wonder why Bill Schneider didn't say anything about that?

I’ve learned that gun nuts are scared, and I am, too, but for a different reason. They’re terrified about our new president sending out a flock of black helicopters to confiscate their guns--or at least make it harder to buy them.

Yeah, well, considering the new president's abysmal record vis-a-vis gun rights, can you really blame them?!

That doesn’t scare me in the slightest, but I am terrified about the corporate greed that has assassinated our economy, the health care crisis, those trillions of federal deficit, a rapidly widening income gap, and escalating poverty and homelessness sweeping our country as we squander billions overseas to fight unwanted, unwinnable wars or for “aid” to countries that consider us the Great Satan.

So it would seem all that high-minded concern for constitutional rights was just a load of shit...because as far as I know, nowhere in the Constitution did the Founding Fathers give the government the power to reign in supposed "corporate greed," or address some supposed "income gap." As far as the trillions of federal deficit...well, I seem to recall the last time the balanced budget amendment came up for a vote in Congress to send to the states for ratification, it FAILED due to lack of support from the know, the party we just handed the government lock, stock and barrel to. As far as that "unwinnable war," well, maybe not so much.

Guns, guns, guns--that’s all that matters to these people.

He says that, of course...but it isn't true, is it?

Even though I think gun nuts deserve our respect, I don’t always respect their tactics. Witness the recent Cooper Firearms fiasco. The gun nuts went on a mission to crucify Dan Cooper and destroy his company for expressing his support for Barrack Obama. In their words, they “Zumboed him.”...
...gun nuts have no right to destroy a person’s career and an entire company of innocent people because of one person’s political views. This is America, land of the free and the brave, where we don’t persecute people for their beliefs.

Actually, Dan Cooper deserved exactly what he got. What Dan Cooper did with his actions boiled down to betrayal of anyone who owns a boomstick. High-minded Fudd martyr rhetoric be damned.

Somehow, we need to separate the two issues, guns and hunting, which continues to my main criticism of the National Rifle Association (NRA). America’s most powerful lobby should stick to protecting our gun rights and not pretend to represent hunters.

Oh, THAT's real nice. Tell me who it is throwing who under the bus again? Which faction is it that's trying to split the gun owners again? Seems to me this guy just wants to sit on his ass and just let the gun-grabbers come after the politically incorrect guns, so naively assuming that they'll leave his intermediate sniper deer rifle alone. He made a gallant effort to make it sound like he gave a shit about everybody else's guns, but it's pretty obvious he doesn't. Hell, he even admitted as much when he said the only reason he owned a gun was for the very first paragraph of his self-righteous screed.

I’ve learned that most gun owners aren’t hunters and some have nothing but scorn for hunters because we’re soft and care about other amendments.

Soft? Maybe. Care about other amendments? Well, ultimately, that's not true...because once the Second goes, it sets a precedent for all the rest and makes it that much easier, as the oppressors with the guns will say to the ones without the guns, "What are you gonna do about it? You don't have any means of resistance!" Not that I'd expect some simple-minded Fuddite asshole like Bill Schneider to figure that out for himself, though.

Another old favorite...

...heard on the drive to work yesterday...
I've always been a pretty big fan of Lynyrd Skynyrd, one of the mainstays of the classic rock stations my parents were always listening to when I was growing up. Of course there were a couple of their songs ("Sweet Home Alabama," "Free Bird") that got played so many times, to the point that they might cause some folks to roll their eyes, as Jimmy Buffett's "Margaritaville" does. But I still think the lion's share of what I've heard from is damn good..."Gimme Back My Bullets," ""Simple Man," "What's Your Name," all great songs...but my all-time favorite from this Jacksonville, Florida band is and has always been this cut from their very first album...

"Tuesday's gone, with the wind...."

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Hey, more visitors!

I do believe the esteemed *hawk* *spit* Rep. Lungren, or at least one of his staffers, saw the letter I wrote to my congressman:

And later:

I wouldn't be too surprised to find they think I am some sort of extremist — read: ideological purist — or single-issue voter willing to throw people off the bus for ideoogical purity. Which isn't the case, a gun owner, I just have more than a little bit of a personal interest in this. But one would hope that in general the Republicans will take the road back to smaller government, one that stays out of people's lives...and politicians who tell their constituents they can't own a certain type of weapon fail that test as far as I am concerned. My congressman has A ratings from both the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America, so I'm thinking he'll take me seriously. At least I hope he does. And I hope I am not the only one who wrote...
Meanwhile, in a related thread over at Hot Air...

do you have a source showing his support for gun control? Because all I have found is his rightful support of protecting gun manufacturers.

On page one of this search, we have this link...I really, really hope our representatives in the House take more initiative than that...

Saturday, November 15, 2008

A Letter to My Representative

...or, let it never be said anymore that I sit on my tail as a gun owner:

Dear Representative Poe:
Good day, sir. My name is *redacted*, and I am a resident of *town in Texas' 2nd Congressional District*. It has come to my attention that Rep. Dan Lungren of California is running for House Minority Leader against John Boehner of Ohio. I implore you as a freedom-loving Texan and American citizen to cast your vote for John Boehner and against Dan Lungren. As California's attorney general in the late 1990s Dan Lungren oversaw the turning in and/or confiscation of thousands of previously-legal semiautomatic rifles after the state of California outlawed those rifles with the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act. For that effort and others, he has in the past been endorsed by the Brady Campaign, which as you may know was originally known as Handgun Control. Perhaps Lungren's other beliefs may be in line with what the Republicans believe, and he may well have moderated his stance since his election to the U.S. Congress, but personally I'd be inclined to believe said moderation was due to political expediency than an honest change of heart. it's my humble belief that his previous actions in relation to this issue alone render Lungren completely unfit to hold any public office, let alone be a party leader in this nation's Congress. Ask yourself, "What would the Founders say to Lungren's actions in California?" It's bad enough that we have the gun-grabbing Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress and the Presidency to boot. Please don't give the enemies of liberty a bigger foothold in the Republican Party too. We need a bipartisan mandate to leave our guns alone, not a bipartisan mandate to take them away — and the latter is what we will be moving toward if Dan Lungren is rewarded with the post of House Minority Leader. Thank you very much for your time.

Best regards,
*name redacted*
*town redacted*

Yep, that's about right...

Scott Chaffin, aka The Fat Guy, in comments to this post:

George Strait's awards are the tee-tiniest of head-nods from the Nashville establishment that everything else wandering around that stage is, for the most part, useless, soulless fluff used to sell trucks and tampons.

Word, my brother. I can't argue with even a syllable of that. The head-nod was even bigger in 2000 when that same organization voted "Murder On Music Row" the Vocal Event of the Year. I'd love to know what the individual CMA voters who cast their ballots for that song thought about the trends at the time — off the record, of course. (You could never have gotten them to speak honestly on the record because it'd likely as not destroy their careers and make them radioactive in the industry.) It'd be interesting to know exactly what the trend-setters at the time thought of that as well. I'm sure that on the record it'd be little more than mealy-mouthed platitudes to the effect that "it's good to respect the past, but the genre must evolve..." Which is true, but it seems to me that they use the word "evolve" as code for "sound more like '70s rock or what gets played on '90s-2000s Contemporary Hit Radio." I'd argue that with some exceptions, the REAL natural evolution of the genre lies in what's going on down here in Texas, while Nashville's basically the center for "country music for people who don't like country music." While I don't automatically turn up my nose at everything that comes out of Nashville, still I don't see how anyone could deny that mainstream country music has been watered down for the sake of mass appeal. And it sucks, but at least we have more choices now than we did ten years ago, what with the advent of satellite radio and the rise of the Texas scene.

Friday, November 14, 2008

A bit of good news, and a bit more RINO prattling...

First up, the good news, from this morning's Chron:

Instead of managing a White House transition, or preparing to assume the vice presidency, the man who failed in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination and was passed over by John McCain for running mate is focusing on his family and political interests.
And it may stay that way through 2012 and beyond.
The surprising ascendancy of McCain's eventual pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and her popularity among some GOP conservatives have left Romney wondering whether he could wage a viable second campaign for the White House, according to friends and advisers.

Yeee-haaa! From your lips to God's ears, Mr. Johnson. While I do think that far too much is being made of the whole "diversity" bit, the last thing the Republicans need to be running in 2012 is another greying old-guard Northeastern RINO hack like Mitt Weapons Of Unusual Lethality Romney. By the time 2012 rolls around, it's quite arguable that Sarah Palin will have the executive experience that compares favorably to Romney's and in a much more attractive package to boot. I really hate to admit that packaging has gotten to be as important as what's in the package itself, but it seems that with the ascendancy of an empty suit like Barack Bernardine Dohrn Obama, the importance of the packaging has for the moment surpassed the contents. Or, as Mike so pithily put it, many of his supporters said, "He's good-looking, glib, and fashionably dark...Oh boy aren't we just the grandest for supporting programs that made him possible." I'd say that between Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal, the national GOP has a very bright future...

...or at least it will, if it tells self-righteous loser Republicans In Name Only like Kathleen Parker to sit down and have a nice, steaming cup of shut the hell up:
Election Day has produced fresh fury from self-proclaimed "conservatives" promising never again to read me or fellow apostates who criticized the Republican ticket.
This is, of course, their right, but is this really the way to go about salvaging the Republican Party?

Yep, I'd say it is, Kathleen, considering you criticized the wrong half of the Republican ticket. I'd say if anyone's shooting the messenger, it's you whining about the mail you get from those who are rightly disgusted with the tack you and your fellow RINO apologists have taken since McCain chose Sarah Palin as his VP nominee. And way to compare the Republican base to toddlers, you condescending bitch. Real nice move there. I know you think you're hot shit because of your position, but just because you've made it into the upper echelon of the "conservative" punditocracy doesn't necessarily make you a messenger, much less a credible one. No matter what your fellow RINO circle-jerkers might tell you. But I'm guessing you're just gonna keep digging that hole. Because you're just THAT clueless.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

On legends, awards and success...

or, Maybe I have a mild case of cognitive dissonance too...
Being a fan of a lot of non-mainstream artists, I'll admit I've gotten to the point that I don't really put much if any stock in awards shows anymore. Not that I ever really did, but there was a time that I got a little ticked if my favorites didn't win. That changed after I started getting into the Texas music scene and discovered a lot of great music from artists who in all likelihood won't ever make it to the stage at the CMAs, ACMs, Grammys or what-have-you. Since then I've pretty much gotten to the point that I go, "another awards show, yawn, that's nice..." I'd run into people here and there who would point to those awards as some sort of justification for liking the artists who won them — as if those awards made said artists better than all the others — and I'd just have to roll my eyes.
But, as Ron White might say, I told you all that to tell you this. Even with that lengthy disclaimer, I must admit it was still quite gratifying to see the great George Strait take home the CMA Album of the Year award last night for Troubadour. A lot of artists get less and less attention as time goes on, both on the radio and in the record stores. But the Strait man carries on, still putting out music that runs neck-and-neck with what he was doing when he was the hottest thing in Nashville in the mid-to-late-'80s. And it still gets played, still gets bought, and still gets recognized. It'd still be good even if he didn't win any awards, but I do think it's great that Strait can still do that well and get that recognition after almost 30 years on the scene — still doing pretty much the same style of music that he did back then, to boot.
Compare that to Reba McEntire, who strayed far from the neo-traditionalist style she started out with and pretty much peaked out artistically and commercially in the late '90s. As bad as it sounds, I got a little bit of gratification from that too. "You see, that's what happens when you get away from your roots..." I know that's not what always happens, but still I thought Reba's early stuff was far, far better than the lion's share of her later work.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

A Few MORE Words On Molly Ivins...

More or less continued from here...
So I got a referral, from the search for this phrase: "it was the dearest wish of thomas jefferson's heart that teenage drug dealers should cruise the city".
That was from a column written by the late, lamented Texas *snort* columnist Molly Ivins in 1993. I don't know how she ever got to characterizing herself as a "civil libertarian," as going by most of what she wrote, she was about as much of a "civil libertarian" as was Benito Mussolini or Idi Amin. She was a beloved Texas personality to a lot of leftists, which just goes to show you how much respect many on the left had for the Texan ideals Molly so gleefully shat on so often during her time at her keyboard. I may well catch some incoming for this, but as a Texan, Molly Ivins always struck me to be about as real as a three-dollar bill. I've said it before and I'll say it again — Molly Ivins was more or less a Maureen Dowd from Houston. Just like Maureen Dowd has her cutesy-nickname shtick, Molly Ivins had her down-home country-bumpkin Texan shtick leavened with a hearty helping of leftist bile, which basically could be boiled down to, "Shucks a-mighty, Ah shore do hate me some Republikens, 'specially that dumb ol' George Dubya, hyuck-hyuck-hyuck!" And it was bullshit, just like most of the word vomit that came off her keyboard. Fake, insincere, ignorant and hateful bullshit at that. I know it may be disrespectful to speak ill of the dead, but as far as I am concerned, such disrespect is only fitting for someone who used her First Amendment rights to so vigorously shit all over my Second Amendment rights (and everyone else's too, of course). A lot of people bemoan the lack of civility in modern political discourse, and I'll admit I am one of them...well, Molly Ivins contributed a hell of a lot more to that lack of civility than was her fair share. Even if the more polite of us don't want to admit it.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Well, maybe because it IS...

Lisa Falkenberg is without peer in Texas print media when it comes to not getting it, and today's column is no exception...

Some see pride in Obama's win as wrong

...Some of my fellow whites apparently are feeling a bit confused, disturbed and even threatened by all the smiling, chest-puffing, Obama T-shirt-wearing black folks strutting around like they run the country or something.
Well, finally, for the first time in our nation's history, someone who looks like them will be running the country. Can we blame them for celebrating?
Yes, apparently, we can. Where some of us see pride, and share in it, others see divisiveness.
"Unfortunately, all these good black Americans see is the color of a man's skin," read one comment under my column last week featuring the perspectives of 1960s freedom fighters.
"I thought this election was not about race, but that's pretty much all I've heard since the result was declared final," wrote another, who went on to lament how Jesse Jackson wept openly, Condoleezza Rice "could barely contain herself" and a "usually composed Colin Powell was unabashedly happy that a black man was now our president."
Another reader e-mailed Viewpoints on Saturday, apparently in sarcastic response to the Houston Chronicle's promotion of a special section on Obama's historic win: "Is it still possible to get reprints of the special Sunday section highlighting George Bush when he was elected in 2000 or 2004?"
A white loss
All these people can't be oblivious to the historic moment our country has just witnessed: A man who would have been sent to the back of the bus in the 1950s will soon be riding on Air Force One.
Black schoolchildren learning about America's presidents will finally find among the row of white faces an image that resembles their own.
So why the sour grapes?
"It's a classic argument," says Eric McDaniel, a University of Texas assistant professor who specializes in racial and ethnic politics. "The victory of a black person is automatically seen as a loss for white people."

Oooh, logical fallacy alert! Namely, straw man argument. I have seen no one anywhere saying that the election of a black man to the presidency would be a loss for white people. And it would seem to me that Lisa Falkenberg and her ilk are placing the fact that this is a "historic" occasion above the fact that we just elected to the presidency a gun-grabbing Constitution-hating Marxist who couldn't pass a government background check for a defense contract with the government. It's worth asking, just exactly why the guns and ammunition have been flying off the shelves since Barack Bill Ayers Obama was elected. Considering his record, I find it difficult, nay, impossible to believe that all those munitions were just for target practice or hunting — especially considering it hasn't been the traditional bolt-action hunting guns whose demand has skyrocketed. I don't understand why the next step on the way to a completely non-racist society has to be the targets of past racism getting a pass on their own racism. And that's exactly what it is. If you vote FOR someone just because of their skin color, you're just as much of a racist as one who votes AGAINST someone for that reason. And it really is just that simple.
In yet another bitter irony, the clueless Falkenberg wrote last week about '60s freedom fighters supporting Barack No Guns For You Obama — ironic because of the fact that the President-elect deigns to bring back involuntary servitude via "mandatory volunteer service" for certain groups, although this time people of all colors will be under the lash if he gets his way. (How's THAT for equality?) Who is it once again that's distracting from the real issues?

Monday, November 10, 2008

How many times has Bryan Miller jumped the shark, now?

I knew Bryan Miller was a delusional, no-class, unhinged asshole, but I never thought I'd see him accuse the mainstream media of being shills for the "gun lobby." Really now. And you note he spews that shit from a computer in an overwhelmingly blue state. Compare that to the Associated Press, who actually had people who, y'know, went to gun stores and talked to people as opposed to just pulling shit out of their asses, as Doug Pennington from the Brady Campaign did. (Imagine that. News reporters observed and reported on those observations, for once.) Speaking of the Organization Formerly Known As Handgun Control, check this out:

Second visit since Friday. I do believe I've hit the big time! Hiiii, guys! I see you didn't have jack to say about me calling you out as the professional prevaricators you are! So it's true! I always knew it was. I got yer (not-so-)narrow subsection right here, you evil sons of bitches! It's a whole new world now, you don't have just the big old mainstream media hauling your water anymore, how does THAT feel? I see your frustration has become more evident as you and your evil minions lash out, and it's rather ugly...but at the same time it's a thing of beauty as well. I'm not counting on it, but I'm hoping your buddies in Congress have learned the lesson that catering to you costs them votes. We'll see how that goes, but I do still have some, um, hope.

Sunday, November 09, 2008

Not so narrow, nope...

Mike W., in comments to this post:

Narrow subsection my ass. I bet if you ran down your blogroll you'd find that almost everyone on it owns a gun (or several) that'd be banned under HR1022 or similar AWB's.

Yep. ARs, AKs, Garands, M1As, G3 clones, FALs, Mini-14s, I know all of those are represented on my blogroll. And I know there's probably no way to know for sure, but I'd bet there are a lot of people buying the in-demand rifles for whom those rifles are their first EBRs. (I'm one of them — yep, believe it or not, last week's purchase was my first battle rifle.) And the way the story's been told in both the MSM and the blogs (blogs from gun store OWNERS too, mind you), the spin that it's a "narrow subsection" of gun owners being afraid here is a load of horseshit. So yeah, Doug Pennington was more or less talking out of his ass. His organization and others like it seem to be are really good at that.

Saturday, November 08, 2008

Nice, I suppose, but I still ain't so sure...

I didn't have the visceral reaction to this that some other folks did, but that's not to say that I don't understand that reaction. The spirit of the thing is nice, but that's about as far as it goes. I suppose it'd be real nice if we all did work together, but what about those on the left side of the aisle who opposed those in charge on the right side every step of the way over the last eight years? And what are those 52 percenters going to be doing when Barack Black Racist Jesus Obama and his cohorts in Congress, say, bring back involuntary servitude, throw the country into a depression with their confiscatory taxation and start making ever-bolder moves towards citizen disarmament via the Democratic Congress and the United Nations? Are we supposed to go along to get along then too? I don't theeeenk so, Lucy.

Maybe we're not as stupid as they think, eh? least, if this is any indication...

...gun enthusiasts nationwide are stocking up on firearms out of fears that the combination of an Obama administration and a Democrat-dominated Congress will result in tough new gun laws.
"I think they're going to really try to crack down on guns and make it harder for people to try to purchase them," said Smith, 32, who taught all five of her children — ages 4 to 10 — to shoot because the family relies on game for food.
Last month, as an Obama win looked increasingly inevitable, there were more than 108,000 more background checks for gun purchases than in October 2007, a 15 percent increase. And they were up about 8 percent for the year as of Oct. 26, according to the FBI.
No data was available for gun purchases this week, but gun shops from suburban Virginia to the Rockies report record sales since Tuesday's election.

Huh. Looks like freedom-loving Americans didn't buy Barack Piss On The Founders, You Don't Need Guns Obama's shuck-and-jive about respecting the constitutional rights so many have fought and died for. Or, to put it another way, they're buying guns 'n' ammo instead of hope 'n' change. One would almost think gun owners thought he and Joe Biden were feeding them a line of shit. (I know that's exactly what I thought.) It's good to see that not all of us have either stopped using or completely lost the ability to evaulate things and think critically.
And if this story is any indication, I got off my ass and went to the gun store right in the nick of time...

Friday, November 07, 2008

And he says this with a straight face?

I believe he does...

Obama has said he supports an individual's rights to own guns with reasonable restrictions, so it seems that a "narrow subsection" of gun owners are afraid of being denied access to assault weapons, said Doug Pennington, spokesman for the Brady Campaign, which supported the weapons ban.

You know what this is? This is what is commonly referred to as a lie. Ever since the AWB expired, the guns it proscribed — as well as the guns that are proscribed in HR 1022 — have come to be the best-selling weapons in the country, no doubt due in no small part to groups like the Organization Formerly Known as Handgun Control agitating for them to be banned. So I'd say it's more than just a "narrow subsection" of gun owners who are afraid of being told they can't buy those guns anymore. I see the AP hack didn't bother to find any kind of figures that contradicted his claim. So much for the press looking for both sides of the story...

Another guilt-ridden white liberal spews word vomit...

in this morning's Chron:

It has been disheartening to see, during the last phases of this long, bitter presidential campaign, unmistakable signs that the seeds of racism, while no longer flowering forthrightly as in the bad old days, still lurk just beneath the surface of the soil, waiting for a chance to bring forth another sickly bloom. The spectacle of attendees at McCain/Palin rallies yelling "Kill him" and "Terrorist" and "Off with his head" when Obama's name was mentioned, the repeating of all the Big Lies, that Obama is a secret Muslim, that Obama "pals around with terrorists," the encouragement and unleashing of the witless fringe, this is just racism in another form. Even "Joe the Plumber," given a national forum, could not restrain himself from indulging in a little casual racism by comparing Obama's "tap dancing" on the issues to "Sammy Davis Jr." How far back are we willing to wade in the racist muck in order to win an election?

Really. So if Mr. Wurzelbacher had compared Barack Jimmy Buffett Obama to Fred Astaire it would have been ok? How far back are we willing to wade? Why don't you ask that question to all those who demonized Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice? As for the contention that our President-elect "pals around with terrorists"...well, considering one of those pals did indeed want to kill 25 million Americans in the aftermath of his socialist revolution, well, I'd say that would be pretty damn terrifying if you were one of those 25 million. (Oh, and then there's the thing about the "kill him" it turns out, that one was more or less an urban legend...) But what the hell do I know, I'm just a bitter hick clinging to my guns and religion down here in the hinterlands of flyover country...

Thursday, November 06, 2008

Parting Stabs...

Interesting, but not surprising...

As the running mate with a potentially brighter political future, Palin has more at stake going forward than McCain, whose aides now have an interest in blaming outside factors for their loss, making Palin a tempting target.
Fox News reported Wednesday that Palin's lack of knowledge on certain topics also strained relations. Carl Cameron reported that campaign sources told him she had resisted coaching before her faltering Katie Couric interviews; did not understand that Africa was a continent, not a country; and could not name the three countries that are part of the North American Free Trade Agreement -- the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Ah yes, the ever-reliable "campaign sources said." It's bullshit -- snarky mean-girl he-said-she-said middle-school rumor-mongering bullshit, all of it. Unless I miss my guess, most of us learn the seven continents around fifth grade. And mark my words, Palin was no exception. You just don't get that far in life without that basic knowledge. It was bad enough to see the conservative intelligentsia dump on Sarahcuda the way they did, but this, this is just...despicable. Can you fucking believe these people? Damn them all. How the fuck many people do you think went to the polls voting for "Sarah Palin and that other guy?" I would lay money down that most of them did. Because let's face it, while McCain deserved respect for his service to our country, he would have been a piss-poor choice for President just like Barack Obama was and I guaran-damn-tee you he would have lost by an even bigger margin had it not been for Sarahcuda. I am still wondering why in the hell Fred Thompson didn't get any further than he did in the primaries....because while he had his flaws, he was a far, FAR superior choice. But nooo. Damn these people. Sarah Palin is arguably the best thing that happened to the Republican Party and the conservative movement since Ronald Reagan and now even more people supposedly on our side are trying to destroy her. Pardon my french, but may these people roast in hell. Every last fucking one of them. And for you people who claim Fox News is basically the PR branch of the Republican Party or the conservative's a big ole FUCK YOU too.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

As Ron White said, you can't fix stupid...

So the Organization Formerly Known As Handgun Control thinks that "America should take notice that reasonable policies on guns are carrying the day." You know, things like laws that would ban the purchase of rifles just like the one I picked up yesterday. It's worth asking where in the hell they get that idea, as it was the gun owners who the Democrats were pandering to, with just a mention here and there of bringing back the Clinton gun ban. And then there are those gun owners out there who are morons or who just suck. (Apparently there's a shitload of 'em too.) As Mike Vanderboegh said, these people are just like the "rooster who crows just before dawn and concludes that when the sun rises, it is because he has commanded it to do so."
They go on to say, "There is no indication that candidates, at any level, lost their elections because of support of reasonable gun measures." Question is, though, how many of those candidates made those unconstitutional laws a centerpiece of their campaign, or even pointed to them as a plank as opposed to downplaying them or not talking about them at all? I see that Blanco County, recently mentioned in this space, went 70 percent for John McCain and John these fools think that county's Dem party chair mentioning the Brady Bill and the Clinton gun ban in the local newspaper actually HELPED Barack Obama or Rick Noriega in that county? As Ron White said, you can't fix stupid.

Random gun stuff

Reader and fellow blogger Ted, in comments here...

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, it to find yourself in possession of ZERO rounds of 7.62x51 NATO Ball.

Bring it on, buddy. And the next mission too, which will be to replenish the ammo supply. As they say, an unloaded gun ain't nothin' but an expensive club. ;-)

Shooter, in the same post:
Enjoy the hell outta that rifle. I take pleasure in thinking that maybe I put the bug in your head about it in the first place.

You kinda did. I thought about getting something in .223, but I wanted something a bit more versatile. I'd heard great things about the HK91 but the prices on one deemed it completely out of the question, no doubt due to the 1989 import ban (thank you George H.W. Bush, you motherfucker). When I read up on the PTR-91 and checked it out more it looked to be quite an attractive option. Just for grins, do you reload for it? I've heard that if you get a port buffer for it, that salvages the brass leaving it in decent shape for reloading. I got that milsurp 7.62 for a pretty good price, but I know there's only so much of that.

Oh, you think? Check out this nice bridge...

Subhead from this story in the Houston Chronicle:

For some, Obama's victory signals a move toward equality and a dramatic change in attitudes toward race in America

Dramatic change in attitudes towards race? My aching ass. If these people actually believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell them. It might be a stretch to say that white guilt was a deciding factor in what happened last night, but considering the treatment of people like Clarence Thomas and Michael Steele, I refuse to believe this country's that much less racist than it's always been. In fact, I'd say in a way the tables have it's the blacks who are the dominant racists in the country now. You'll just never see it pointed out in the mainstream media, just like you'll never see it pointed out that a great portion of the violence committed with guns in this country is black-on-black. (And once again, it's worth looking at how that violence is fueled by turf wars over illegal drugs. Nary a word on the War On Some Drugs during the campaign from either side, so I'm guessing the current insanity will continue, on both the drug AND the gun front.) When a black Republican is elected to the Presidency, I'll believe that there's been a "dramatic change in attitudes toward race." Till that day comes, I'll be thinking the blacks are the predominantly racist ones now.

Really, there's only one thing appropriate this morning...

...and that's some Rudyard Kipling.

As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

A nice surprise...

or, I did double my patriotic duty today! In my possession as of 11:30 this morning: one of these, along with 100 rounds of surplus 7.62x51mm NATO ball. More to come...

How did I vote, you ask?

Well, let's just put it like this. I am not a f$cking moron and I do not suck. :-)

Just an observation for this Election Day...

They say character is really measured by what a man does when no one's looking...well, it's insulting enough what Barack Gruene General Store Obama does when everyone IS looking....

Monday, November 03, 2008


I had a lot of downtime at work yesterday, and during that downtime I came upon and re-read one of the stories I read in one of my freshman English classes, and the question came to me — is it not just blindingly ironic that a story like Harrison Bergeron was written by a raging leftist? I know that if you could buy most leftists for what they're worth and sell them for what they think they're worth, you could buy yourself an island in the Bahamas and still have enough cash to live the life of five Donald Trumps until you shuffle off this mortal coil...but to see someone like Kurt Vonnegut write something like that, that exposes the very philosophy he espouses as the morally bankrupt, evil thing it is, now that I think about it, that just blows my mind. One wonders if he ever caught even a glimmer of the contradiction...

Sunday, November 02, 2008

Oooh, good one...

Oldsmoblogger, over at Snowflakes in Hell:

We must hang together does not mean "we must hang together, except for Wayne Fincher, David Olofson, and other people who might get me disinvited to the cool parties if people think I’m like them."

Now that was a good one. Seems to me David Olofson was thrown under the bus by the same self-proclaimed voices of reason who would preach about throwing certain other people or groups under the bus. David Olofson's case might well not have been the best to take to court to challenge any particular statute, but the ATF's misconduct in this case — their basically making shit up as they went along and rigging the game for an outcome favorable to them — should have been the deciding factor in the Olofson case. If it had been any other law enforcement agency doing that in any other case, the defendant — whoever he or she might have been — would have gone free. And I can understand pointing out what David Olofson did wrong, but it's the government's wrongdoing that should have been the deciding factor here. And it's what everyone on our side should have been screaming the loudest about.

Saturday, November 01, 2008

Sooner or later you gotta do it...

Regarding the whole brouhaha with Cooper Firearms and Dan Cooper's support of Obama...
I am really tired of the self-appointed "voices of reason" lecturing and saying we shouldn't use terms like "Fudd." It could be argued the term doesn't represent all hunters, and indeed it doesn't. And we live in a different world now than we did 10-15 years ago. We've had a moderately pro-gun president and Congress since the '94 elections, and in the meantime we've had significant gains on the RKBA front — just to name a few things, some form of CCW in 48 states, the sunset of the semi-auto ban and the AR-15 platform becoming the best-selling in the country in the aftermath of that, and the Supreme Court declaring the Second Amendment to be an individual right. And anyone with any working brain cells should have seen the gun issue come roaring back into national politics after Heller was handed down. It's become more prominent now than it ever has been. Now here we are, very well on the cusp of having most if not everything we've gained taken away. Here we are, we could very well have the most anti-gun Presidential ticket in history elected next Tuesday, one allegedly "pro-gun" hunter organization endorsing said ticket, certain "hook-and-bullet" writers *cough*David Petzal*cough* remaining not fully convinced the Obama ticket is bad news for anyone who owns a boomstick, and now this? And said "voices of reason" are claiming the SHOOTERS should be the ones trying to smooth things over? Excuse me, but the hell with that. It's not the shooters that are or have been selling other gun owners out in return for the thirty pieces of "we'll let you keep your deer rifle and duck gun" silver. If there's any hunter out there that doesn't know what the term "Fudd" means that's one thing, but if they get irritated at it after it becomes clear what the term really means in this context (there's a pretty good definition in this post), then I'd argue they're part of the problem and damn well deserve to be called out for exactly what they are — traitors. And yes, Fudds. I'd argue that with the records of Barack Guns For Me But Not For Thee Obama and Joe I Wrote The Original Assault Weapons Ban Biden, and their buddies in Congress like Teddy No More .30-30s Kennedy, Dianne Mr. And Mrs. American Turn 'em All In Feinstein, Chuck Waiting Periods Are Only A Step Schumer and Carolyn That Shoulder Thing That Goes Up McCarthy, the stakes should be quite clear by now. I mean, are they not? Am I missing something? Is it really that hard to figure out that an attack on one gun is an attack on all of them?