I've watched for several days the story that has grown out of a short, grainy video that shows a Marine in Iraq throwing a puppy to its death.

The act shown in the video, whether it shows a real sadistic act of animal abuse or a Marine with a warped sense of humor throwing a stuffed animal, is sickening.

Perhaps even more sickening is the mob mentality that has overtaken some of those who have viewed the video, who took it upon themselves to post the names and home address of the Marine alleged to be in the video and that of his family members, inviting other Web vigilantes to commit violent acts against them.

It is understandable to be outraged by the act shown whether is if fake or real, but does any rational human being think that an appropriate response to such an act would be the rape or murder of innocent family members, as some have called for? As for the Marine at the center of the controversy, he is currently under protective custody because of threats against his life.

There seems to be far more outrage over this video of animal abuse than far more sadistic and frequent reports of greater acts of brutality committed against human civilians by militias, terrorists, insurgents, and criminals in Iraq. I wonder why that is.

Where are the Internet detectives on Digg when al Qaeda in Iraq shows video of a car bomb that wipes out innocent families? Why are these Youtube and blog denizens not clamoring to discover the identities and home addresses of Islamic fundamentalist thugs that film decapitations and torture?

Sadly, there is far less outrage for these human victims, and occasionally, there are even attempts to rationalize their inhuman brutality.

I'm sure that if they were asked about it today, every politician in Washington would tell you that they were "shocked and appalled" at the actions of the Marine in the video, and yet, most Congressional Democrats, including Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, would help set the stage for far worse in Iraq with a headlong, unconditional withdrawal that would make such depravity far more possible.

They seek to knowingly and willfully abandon Iraq to those would would do far worse than throw that nation's civilians down a ravine, because they think the war costs too much, or because it is unpopular with their constituents.

So many of the same people who have whipped up so much outrage over a dog are indifferent to greater depredations visited upon Iraqi women and children... and yet they claim that the Marine in the video is the savage among us.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:27 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

A little over a month ago, shortly before taking my concealed carry class here in North Carolina, I put up a post asking for advice on a carry gun, something small enough to carry concealed, but large enough to shoot accurately without discomfort.

What I learned during the class is that getting a concealed lawyer was perhaps my best bet, "if I could only find one small enough to shove in a holster.”

As that wasn't practical, I was back once again to deciding on a sidearm.

After a lot of Internet research, and talking to fellow shooters, I'd narrowed down my choices to three sidearms: the Smith & Wesson M&P Compact, the Springfield Armory XD, and the Glock 23, all in 40 S&W caliber.

I went with the 40 S&W as a compromise between the higher magazine capacity of 9mm pistols and the bigger hole of the a .45 ACP.

I liked the subcompacts from Springfield Armory and Glock, but didn't like the shorter sight radius or the fact that my pinky finger curled under the magazine. I also realized that because of my lifestyle, a slightly larger gun was not a limitation in where I could carry. The Smith, while an interesting design and a handgun that fit my hand very well, was simply too new of a design for me to feel comfortable staking my life on.

So it was down to the service model Springfield XD and the Glock 23, and from there, it was simply a matter of what fit my hand best, and which might be cheaper to shoot.

The winner?

Both the Glock and the XD fit my hand well, and in the end, the availability of a .22-caliber conversion kit sealed the deal in favor of the Glock 23.

While the addition of a conversion kit means more initial capital outlay, it also means that I can afford to practice far more frequently over the long term, an important consideration for a shooter on a budget. To be honest, if the XD had a reliable conversion kit available, I probably would have selected it, as it fit my hand just as well and I would have preferred the XDs fully-supported chamber.

Thoughts?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:10 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.

After the shootings at Virginia Tech and NIU, why not scare the crap out of everyone and shut down campus because you don't want to cough up a few bucks for a door you broke?

Matthew Haney did.

An Appalachian State University student who said he saw a gunman — setting off a campus-wide lock down Monday — made up the story, police said Tuesday.

Matthew Haney, from Durham, said he saw an armed man trying to steal his TV, but investigators said he lied. His apartment door was broken, and investigators said they believe he didn't want to report it to the management company.

That's Matthew Haney, of Durham, North Carolina, for all you future employers.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

That is the theory being floated by conservative blog Illinois Review, and frankly one I've heard speculated about before... but does that speculation hold water?

The theory goes like this:

Barack Obama has had questionable dealings (including the purchase of his home) with Tony Rezko, who is on trial on corruption charges, and who may have directed kickbacks to Obama.

Resko has had numerous business deals with Nahdmi Auchi, who once sold arms to Saddam Hussein and had other dealings with the Hussein regime.

Resko and Auchi also had business dealings with Aiham Alsammarae, a fugitive from Iraqi justice who allegedly stole $650 million from the Iraqi Ministry of Electricity, who is now apparently living in Chicago, despite having been convicted and sentence to 14 years in prison in Iraq.

All these questionable relationships. however, have not produced a "smoking gun," and there is no direct evidence of anything illegal transpiring between Obama and these three men (or any others) at this time.

His mere association with these men, however—men who have continually operated on the edge of the law, and sometimes over that edge into clearly illegal activity—is troubling, and peels off some of the veneer of a candidate who promises "change" but instead seems to be far less pure than the image he'd like to project.

I must wonder, however... will the same left-leaning blogs and news sites that so throughly flogged every questionable Bush/Cheney associate, association, and decision be as willing to investigate every nuance of Obama's questionable ties as they develop?

Frankly, I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:42 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

In rural parts of the country, it happens from time to time; a person appears uninvited on someone's property, and the landowner tells them that "elsewhere" is a better place to be. Typically these confrontations are benign in nature, even when on occasion either the property owner or the trespasser turns out to be armed.

Such was the case in Texas this past weekend when a Danish reporter wandered into the yard of an elderly Texas woman, and she shooed him off, a gun apparently in hand.

CNN's Ed Henry made quite a big deal out of the incident, promoting it as a near "international incident" writing in the lede that the Dane came "this close to getting shot."

He characterized the confrontation this way.

"I was just so occupied dictating my story that I didn't really see where I went," Svensson told me later. "I was just walking and talking."

What Svensson didn't realize was that he had stopped walking a couple hundred feet away, on the front lawn of an elderly woman. An elderly woman who looked through her window and didn't like that a strange man was standing outside her house. An elderly woman who had, um, a gun.

Next thing you know the woman is outside, no more than a few dozen feet from the journalist, demanding that he leave. "Suddenly she comes out and she says, 'Get off my property. You're trespassing,'" recalled Svensson.

Svensson was too preoccupied to notice the pistol, and was not aware that Texas law gives homeowners leeway on using a weapon when someone is trespassing on your property. All of us journalists across the street were too far away to see the pistol at first, until a Danish photographer with a telephoto lens announced to a bunch of us that there was indeed a weapon in the elderly woman's right hand.

Henry, of course, had no way of knowing if the journalist was actually in any danger, and he apparently was not. The citizen's interaction with the reporter seemed to have been limited to verbally warning the reporter off her property. She never raised the weapon or pointed it at the Danish journalist, and the one photo of the incident shows that the firearm was pointed at the ground. The journalist reported that he didn't even see a weapon when told to leave, according to Henry's own account.

And so it seems shocking to Henry that an elderly person has the right to be armed when confronting someone trespassing on their property, not knowing if the person wandering towards their door is a wayward Danish journalist, a petty thief, or someone with much darker intentions towards a seemingly frail victim.

That an elderly woman in a rural area warning off an intruder had the common sense to arm herself in case the intruder's intentions were something more than an innocent mistake never crossed his mind.

But, Henry, apparently, had the story he wanted. That being armed is a prudent decision for some in certain circumstances never crossed his mind.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:24 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I could tell stories about a certain "frail old lady" who was a dead-eye with an open site 30/30 and didn't like trespassers. She fired 'near' me on at least two occasions (this after I'd already called her letting her know I was coming out and why). Both times I was delivering appliances she'd purchased. This was before cell service was available in the area so I had to go all the way 'back to town', call her again to let her know who/why, and make sure she knew exactly what I was driving. Elsie was a very gracious lady... made excellent chocolate chip cookies... and could take the wings off a fly @ 100 yards. Moral of the story: always expect a rude welcome even if you have 'permission'...being absent minded is the reporters own damn fault.

Posted by: Mark at March 03, 2008 04:58 PM (4od5C)

2 Do you think those reporters are as outraged by the female suicide bombers? Me neither.

Posted by: Retread at March 04, 2008 10:10 AM (P/AfD)

3 One wonders where these reporters stand on the issue of women in combat.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 04, 2008 09:16 PM (43PDP)

4 I can’t help believing that even a preoccupied journalist would be perfectly aware that he was in someone’s front yard, especially being only a few feet from a large house as the photo clearly shows. Kind of rude, to my way of thinking. I suppose in Europe and even in parts of America journalists have become fairly cavalier about trespassing on private property. Perhaps a handout in the press kits given to foreign journalists would be advisable. It could say something like this: “Due to an American constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms journalists are advised to refrain from rudely wandering around in front yards unless invited by the property owner.” Reading between the lines gives the impression that the journalist took his sweet time leaving the property after being requested to do so by the property owner. No stupid old American is going to boss HIM around – right?

Posted by: Dale St. Clair at March 05, 2008 11:41 PM (fTuXu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The most incompetent CBS News headline in recent memory, or the result of too much wishful thinking?

Via HotAir Headlines.

Barack Obama/Deval Patrick could not immediately be reached for comment.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:32 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

I didn't think it was too much to ask the Barack Obama campaign to explain the candidate's position on firearms ownership prior to the Democratic primary in Texas.

Obama, after all, has a documented record of wanting to ban handguns, ban all semiautomatic firearms (rifles, pistols, or shotguns), and while he has been silent on the specific issue, would seem to be squarely against the right of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns (CCH) as well,a right that has been granted in roughly 40 states.

I sent the Obama campaign a short list of questions this past Friday, asking the campaign to clarify his current position on citizens owning firearms for self defense, a right he has never specifically recognized.

I asked the Obama campaign to explain his views on concealed carry. This is a very relevant issue in Texas, where almost 91,000 permits were issued in the 09/2006-08/2007 period alone.

I asked if Obama still favored an outright ban on handguns, which was his position in the past. I asked if he would still like to see all semi-automatic firearms including rifles and shotguns, a position he has also held in the past.

The Obama campaign has thus far refused to respond to these questions, even though they had plenty of time to send me multiple emails asking me to campaign for him.

At this point, we can only assume, lacking any direct response to these sensible questions, that Barack Obama would still favor banning all handguns and semi-automatic firearms currently used by Texans (and of course, all other Americans) for self-defense, hunting, target shooting, and other legal uses.

I suppose this silence shouldn't come as a surprise.

Suddenly recognizing the rights of Americans where he hasn't seen them before is obviously a change he can't believe in.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:10 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.