November 23, 2008
Two Gunned Down in Seattle-Area Mall
One man is dead and another is wounded in what
may be a
gang-related confrontation:
Shots erupted in a packed Seattle-area shopping mall Saturday after an apparent argument between a gunman and two other young men, killing one of the men, creating panic among shoppers and sending police on a store-to-store search for the shooter, authorities said.
The Southcenter Mall in Tukwila was locked down for six hours as police tried in vain to find the gunman. Officer Mike Murphy, a police spokesman, told The Associated Press there were "thousands" of shoppers at the mall when the shooting took place just before 3:45 p.m. He said the gunfire may have been gang-related.
"It's a possibility," Murphy said.
The two injured men were taken to Seattle's Harborview Medical Center, where one of them died. A hospital spokesman said Saturday night the second victim was in critical condition.
The gunman used a pistol and fired multiple shots, Murphy said. He said at least four or five people were detained for questioning, but none of them was the shooter and some had been released. He said some of those detained were witnesses.
My advice remains the same as it was after the Omaha, Nebraska Mall shooting roughly this same time last year.
- Get in.
- Get low.
- Get out.
- Keep moving.
The odds of getting shot in a mall shooting are extremely low, but you can reduce those odds even further by being in a self-aware, ready state (yellow, for Jeff Cooper disciples) and take these common sense steps if you hear or see a similar violent situation developing. There's no need to be paranoid, but after so many events like this in recent years, it is immature to pretend that such events can't happen.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:26 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.
1
These events can and will happen, the BEST thing to do is carry a gun yourself. Concealed Weapons Permits is the only self-defense against a person who is capable of firing shots in a public mall.
Posted by: Clay at November 23, 2008 11:05 AM (KFEe7)
2
if you live in a repressive society, such as California, always be aware of where the nearest dry chemical fire extinguisher is......
the powder has a longer reach then pepper spray, and strikes with more force. not only that, but although some people are pepper resistant, *no one* can inhale the powder and function.
besides that, you can whack the shit out of them with the canister while they're pawing at their eyes and coughing their lungs out.
Posted by: redc1c4 at November 23, 2008 02:47 PM (vLw7K)
3
Anti-gun rhetoric in 3...2...
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 23, 2008 03:45 PM (Jqe+A)
4
This shooting looks more and more like gang violence. The two that were shot were juvie criminals--one had just gotten out of jail, the other was going in on Monday for trial on a burglary charge. They are still looking for the shooter.
This particular mall appears to have a lot of gang-bangers and related violence occur there. I won't go there any longer--too many scumbags there.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 23, 2008 05:58 PM (JP1UC)
5
This particular mall appears to have a lot of gang-bangers and related violence occur there. I won't go there any longer--too many scumbags there.
Posted by: domxoz at November 30, 2008 09:43 AM (l58hg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 20, 2008
Only Supply is Dampening The Run On Guns
"I could sell a hundred ARs an hour, if I had them."
That was the word from the man behind the counter at my local gun shop yesterday afternoon when I stopped in. As if to put an exclaimation point on his claim, two men added their names to an ever-growing waiting list to purchase AR-15 carbines within minutes of my entering the store.
Two months ago, the first two racks of rifles to great you as you entered Fuquay Gun & Gold would be bristling with AR15 carbines, AK-pattern rifles, and a smattering of SKS carbines. Today, those same worn racks are almost bare except for misfits from the Island of Misfit Martial Toys—a pair of Saiga Ak-pattern shotguns, a .22 caliber AR-clone, and a nearly $900 VZ-58 with the ugliest stock I've ever seen.
Fears of an Obama administration attempt to raise prohibitive taxes and reinstate bans on so-called "assault weapons" and standard capacity magazines have led to rushes on many kinds of semi-automatic rifles and pistols, especially those with high capacity magazines. Until recently, Obama's transition website indicated his intention to reinstate the ineffective 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that passed under President Clinton and expired in 2004 under President Bush.
Local news reports from other gun shops across the country seem to indicate that a run on military-style semi-automatics and ammunition of all types may continue for months as long-time shooters and new gun purchasers stock up in preparation for what many expect to be one of the most divisive, anti-gun federal governments in years.
Update: Janet Reno's Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton years, Eric Holder, seems to be Obama's choice to be the next Attorney General. It wasn't until Glenn Reynolds highlighted a post at the Volokh Conspiracy that I realized how dangerous of a selection Holder is to gun owners.
Earlier this year, Eric Holder--along with Janet Reno and several other former officials from the Clinton Department of Justice--co-signed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief was filed in support of DC's ban on all handguns, and ban on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home. The brief argued that the Second Amendment is a "collective" right, not an individual one, and asserted that belief in the collective right had been the consistent policy of the U.S. Department of Justice since the FDR administration. A brief filed by some other former DOJ officials (including several Attorneys General, and Stuart Gerson, who was Acting Attorney General until Janet Reno was confirmed)took issue with the Reno-Holder brief's characterization of DOJ's viewpoint.
But at the least, the Reno-Holder brief accurately expressed the position of the Department of Justice when Janet Reno was Attorney General and Eric Holder was Deputy Attorney General. At the oral argument before the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson, the Assistant U.S. Attorney told the panel that the Second Amendment was no barrier to gun confiscation, not even of the confiscation of guns from on-duty National Guardsmen.
As Deputy Attorney General, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called "assault weapons" (cosmetically incorrect guns) by anyone under age of 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, national gun registration, and mandatory prison sentences for trivial offenses (e.g., giving your son an heirloom handgun for Christmas, if he were two weeks shy of his 21st birthday). He also promoted the factoid that "Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence"--a statistic is true only if one counts 18-year-old gangsters who shoot each other as "children."
After that, Holder's plans for gun owners gets worse.
And as "stace" noted in the comments, Obama's desire to reinstate the ineffectual "assualt weapons" provision of the 1994 crime bill is back on his web site as a goal for his administration.
Update: Even Better! I'm starting to understand why the protégé of a Marxist domestic terrorist would favor someone like Holder. He'd regulate the Internet as well.
Reasonable restrictions seems to be the only way these people can view the Constitution. For our own good, of course.
Final Update: Screening to keep gun owners out of his administration?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:52 AM
| Comments (45)
| Add Comment
Post contains 759 words, total size 5 kb.
1
I want one. I'm afraid of guns. They scare me. But some things are more dangerous than a gun in the hands of a free citizen of a democracy. Like a Marxist Socialist in the White House... because Marxists have killed 100,000,000 human beings and are the most murderous politicians in world history, I believe. But an armed citizenry is a protection against mass murder by Marxist Socialist politicians - the most genocidal politicians on the planet, perhaps.
See, I used to call those guns "AR's" for "Assault Rifle". But that's not really what they are. They're "C&BS". "Check & Balance Systems".
I think we need our Check & Balance Systems now more than ever here in the USA.
All sytems must operational and prepared for the exercise of our Constitutional Right.
Now, if the Founding Fathers wanted us ARMED against a Government that could go genocidal on us, did they really believe we were supposed to honor politicians in order to honor God?? Do Christians really understand that we are to view Marxist Socialist politicians, for example, as evil?? And protect ourselves?? Because they might try to kill us?? That's what the Founding Fathers were MOST concerned about... because they knew history... and they did not exalt politicians or believe that honoring politicians in office was necessary to be a good Christian. They thought being armed against the Government so officials wouldn't get all power hungry and turn murderuos... and having no trust in the Government... was being Christian.
I want a Check & Balance System because it's one of the most effective deterrant against politicians acting like they're God and deserve our worship and think they can take away our Constitution and our Rights... even to life.
Politicians are dangerous people that are most prone become very evil and dangerous when the people don't have those Check & Balance Systems against a Government gone Socialist, for example, which is a Government System responsible for 100,000,000 murders of citizens of it's own countries.
I pray my fellow citizens are armed to the hilt... and rise up to protect and defend the right to bear arms if this Government tries to take that right away. Because the next step by a Marxist would be genocide, imo, and Obama is a Marxist, imo, based on the facts.
Grace.
Posted by: ld at November 20, 2008 12:55 PM (tdrxf)
2
If I had more disposable cash laying around, I'd definitely be stocking up on ammo. Unfortunately, I live in NJ so any restrictive gun measures would probably put the rest of the nation where I'm at now, so there's none that I can buy now anyway that I feel are at risk. But the thought of the rest of the country being like NJ scares the daylights out of me.
Posted by: Mike Gray at November 20, 2008 01:41 PM (kZVsz)
3
Went to Georgia Arms (georgia-arms.com, ammunition supplier) yesterday (National Ammo Day), and couldn't get what I wanted - for example, they were all out of .45 hollow-point. Couldn't get 124 grain 9mm, they only had 115gr. Now, these people go to all the gun shows around, sell bullets by the thousand (go see), and they can't keep up with the demand in the last month.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
Posted by: Bill Johnson at November 20, 2008 01:50 PM (5LUFO)
4
Wow, man. You people are delusional.
I'm gonna go smoke some dope and fuck your daughter.
Posted by: The Fool at November 20, 2008 02:09 PM (CsI/m)
5
Fool, you are fooling yourself if you think you have a shot. Maybe what you meant is you will go fuck yourself, for that you are in practice.
To the decent folks above, you will find Saiga rifles are still a bargain and there is a .308 available.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 20, 2008 02:14 PM (LF+qW)
6
My daughter was taught to beat up smelly, greasy, unwashed hippies like you, Fool. So on that score, you are SOL.
I just picked up my FN-FAL in .308 yesterday, been wanting to add one to the collection. This gun is built like a tank. Feels much more "solid" than my AR in the same caliber.
Now just gotta start the handloading in earnest.
Posted by: DIAF at November 20, 2008 02:16 PM (M+Vfm)
7
Oh, you boys would be surprised what your daughters do when you're not around.
Bwahahahahaha
Posted by: The Fool at November 20, 2008 02:20 PM (CsI/m)
8
Dear "Id":
AR stands for "Armalite Rifle", the original manufacturers of the AR-15.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
by common definition, for a weapon to be considered an "assault weapon" it needs to be a rifle chambered for an intermediate caliber, capable of both semi and fully automatic fire. the media will tell you otherwise, but as usual, they are wrong.
it *is* possible to own an assault weapon here in the US, but you must pay all the taxes on one, and live in a state that allows them, such as Arizona. the vast majority of "AR's" sold in the us are semi-automatic only, and therefore are just rifles.
as for being afraid or scared of guns, does your car scare you? or your kitchen knives? guns are simply tools that are as safe as anything else in your house or garage, provided you are properly trained, understand how they w*rk, and treat them as you would any other useful but potentially dangerous piece of equipment, like a chain or skill saw..... call up the local shooting range and make an appointment with an NRA certified instructor for a weapons safety course. they are reasonably priced, and you're likely to find that you're a lot less scared when you actually know something about how guns are handled.
Posted by: redc1c4 at November 20, 2008 02:46 PM (vLw7K)
9
By all measn, follow redc1c4's advice and spend as much time as you can at the local shooting range playing make believe soldier boy.
And while you're at the shooting range, I'll be smoking dope and introducing your daughter to Mr. Johnson. She's gonna
love it.
Posted by: The Fool at November 20, 2008 02:59 PM (CsI/m)
10
Boy, you guys are just suckers. Running out and spending your very hard-earned dollars because the gun industry tells you to. Sheesh. Go ahead...buy all the guns and ammo you want. Knock yourselves out. But trust me folks...if the US Government comes for your guns (which they won't)...you don't stand a chance against a modern-day SWAT team. Obama is not a Marxist, or a socialist and raising taxes a little bit to dig out the economy is not the end of the world.
Posted by: Roger Goldman at November 20, 2008 03:22 PM (uabyl)
11
Forget you Mr. Goldstein, you're delusional if you think Obamamaniac isn't intent on taking my hard earned assault rifle from my cold dead pried apart fingers. Typical lie-beral nonsense, hey look over there, not over here, presto, the A.R. is gone! Poof! Then what are we to do? We're screwn. Concentration camps, that's what. You betcha!
Posted by: Kirk R. at November 20, 2008 03:28 PM (uabyl)
12
Kirk R. Your a moran! I voted Republican my entire life, like my father and his father. Do you want to live in a world without AR like we did from 1994 to 2004!!!11!! JUST WAIT. Maybe if you were in a concentration camp, it would help you think more clearly!
Posted by: Roger Goldman at November 20, 2008 03:33 PM (uabyl)
13
Roger it is seid that those who do not remember there history aro doomed to repite it. A lot tof pepole seid the same thing about Hilter!!!!!
Posted by: Rich in KC at November 20, 2008 04:30 PM (siQqy)
14
And while you're at the shooting range, I'll be smoking dope and introducing your daughter to Mr. Johnson. She's gonna love it.
Posted by The Fool at November 20, 2008 02:59 PM
Yeah, she'll love the stupified look you'll have on face when you see what does to Mr Johnson. But look on the bright side. At least the dope you were just smoking will help deaden the pain of being gelded.
Posted by: GTJ at November 20, 2008 05:36 PM (Pyq82)
15
Remember, when Barack's ATF or FBI agents come to the door in vests, you know what to do, right?
I still think we ought to skip the guns and go right to the fertilizer bombs.
I mean, if you really believe that the federal government is now going to be the enemy, why would you stop at these varmint guns? It's gonna take more than that to hold back the inevitable dictatorship that's a-comin' with Obammy in the White House. Right guys?
Posted by: TruePatriot at November 20, 2008 05:36 PM (k+bOm)
16
@GTJ -
Yeah, she'll love the stupified look you'll have on face when you see what does to Mr Johnson."
Dude, you are SO right. I got baked this afternoon and ran into your daughter at the Walmart. She took me out back behind a loading dock and boy did she surprise me when she began licking that thing like a lollipop. But what really left me with a stupefied expression was when she went for the totally gooey facial at the end, licked Mr. Johnson clean, and then swallowed the entire jism load!
Needless to say I was one happy hippie.
Posted by: The Fool at November 20, 2008 07:13 PM (CsI/m)
17
The Fool - in my admittedly limited experience, gooey facials are a fabrication of the pr0n industry, hardly the way a real-world male wants to expend himself.
Now, back to the point (so to speak.) I'm not a big gun type, but I'm figuring that it might make sense to pry open the depleted piggybank for that AR15 and that new CTS-V 'cause it's looking more and more like the Congressional loony-bin is going to stage a full-on assault on everything fun, the only question is whether the Obama administration will be out front cheerleading or passively acquiescing.
Posted by: mrkwong at November 21, 2008 12:38 AM (G8Eo0)
Posted by: Punkin at November 21, 2008 01:30 AM (dbXEu)
19
You're an idiot, Goldman. The organ's of state security are not sufficient to stand up against an armed populace in a state of rebellion, as history has shown in dozens of cases. Also, in the event of such a breakdown of constitutional rule in the U.S, a great deal of the army and police would be on the side of the rebels, civil wars work that way.
That's not going to happen today, this year, next year or ten years from now. But fifty years? A hundred? You honestly think you know what history has in store for the republic? Arms in the hands of the people are the final check against tyranny. The FIRST thing any would-be tyrant does is disarm his victims. READ SOME HISTORY, GENIUS.
Posted by: Amos at November 21, 2008 02:48 AM (ckdWX)
20
If one takes a look a the past, Govt's typically institute gun bans before the killing of citizens starts. Ask any Nazi concentration camp survivor how did it start. Secondly, with Mexico's drug lords openly killing their military, police,and citizens like its open season, what do you think they would do to the US if they knew citizens here had no ability to protect themselves? Wait- dont they have gun control there?
Posted by: BroomO at November 21, 2008 06:21 AM (XFksb)
21
That reminds me...I'll be first in line tomorrow morning when the local gun show opens for business.
Posted by: W-K-B at November 21, 2008 07:03 AM (6DvsC)
22
Goldman, You must get your information from the mainstream media. Or you are just ignorant. Obama has surrounded himself with America haters his whole life! I think you are a victim of the " Oh it's all just republicans lie" crowd.This guy has NO experience!And is the number one lib in the senate! I'm sure that he'll try to fill every judicial slot opening no matter how small with socialist's. And people like you will say" Oops ,guess we were wrong" TOO LATE THEN DUMMY!
Posted by: marine43 at November 21, 2008 07:41 AM (mS3ud)
23
Roger Goldman at November 20, 2008 03:22 PM:
"...raising taxes a little bit to dig out the economy is not the end of the world."
Yeah, we'll tax our way out of the recession. After that, we'll dig our way out of a pit, climb our way off of a tower, and eat our way to a svelte new figure!
That's the ticket!
Posted by: Troll Feeder at November 21, 2008 08:47 AM (iP3Ql)
24
A SWAT team is not made of Terminators or Aliens or Predators from a hollycr@p movie. It’s people with good training and good kit provided by the people they have sworn to serve and protect. And they don’t stand a chance against the people armed and in revolt. Just how many SWAT are there? And how many of them are willing to kill the people they swore to serve and protect? Don’t kid yourself and don’t drink the liberal-communist cool aid of the almighty state. Neither the state nor the security forces stand a chance of the people says “ENOUGH!!!” And you will see many LEO, SWAT included and many a soldier of all kinds joining the ranks of a revolution. They don’t live in limbo. They are Americans, too. Only liberal-communists entertain the concept that the people are powerless because that’s how they feel themselves and how they would want the rest of the people to be. Surprise!
Posted by: Jorge Banner at November 21, 2008 09:34 AM (qQL6L)
25
Bob, the AWB is back up on Obama's website now.
"They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/
Posted by: stace at November 21, 2008 09:37 AM (JO0c/)
26
Anyone that calls the current slew of gun buyers "alarmists" is only fooling himself.
The current Democratic party and most of the Republicans in Washington worship the toilet that Kofi Annan used to crap on. They love the UN. It's easy to pick out the ones that don't give 2 cents about your *inherent* gun rights. Its the ones that say, "I love the 2nd Amendment! I think you should be able to hunt!" Alarms should be going off on your crap detector big time.
Remember the 2A is there to keep government from making laws about an INHERENT right. A right given to you by your creator, whether that be God or some sort of primordial soup.
The 2A does NOT grant you a right.
Posted by: Buddy at November 21, 2008 09:52 AM (D+TTb)
27
In the current economic meltdown, it's not a SWAT team you need to worry about; it's the drug-addled poor people and crystal-meth zombies who are coming to take whatever you've got. We're planning to hug our own little armalite too, but sheesh; we're going to have to get in line along with millions of others. When we have to take all of our money out of the bank, during the run on it, we will need an armory to protect it. ;o}
Posted by: mountainaires at November 21, 2008 10:21 AM (vHTDa)
28
The only "hunting" I see covered in the 2A is the hunting of tyrants and their lapdogs.
Posted by: Claymore at November 21, 2008 10:33 AM (yUnwD)
29
Obama doesn't know his history. Even Fleet Admiral and Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy Isoroku Yamamoto understood America when he said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." There will be hell to pay if Obama and his administration even try.
Posted by: le comat at November 21, 2008 10:58 AM (7jRCm)
30
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the -
Web Reconnaissance for 11/20/2008 A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by: David M at November 21, 2008 11:18 AM (gIAM9)
31
SWAT teams tend to do very poorly when they meet with armed resistance. They rely on surprise and intimidation. When those don't work, then it the history of assaulting starts to play out -- you begin losing 4 or more assaulters per defender.
Just last week, a SWAT guy was killed by a housewife with a handgun who thought he was a burglar. If you watch for them, you regularly see SWAT getting shot by homeowners that they are raiding.
Homeowners who did not know that they were coming, and were completely surprised, often asleep when the invasion begins.
Homeowners who do not train regularly with their weapons. Homeowners who do not have a specific intent to defend themselves
from the police and are simply reacting and panicking.
If faced with the prospect of assaulting a home where the owner knows that they are coming, trains regularly with his weapons, and has a specific intent to protect himself from them, it would be the
SWAT guys panicking.
Posted by: Phelps at November 21, 2008 11:35 AM (m7Fyt)
32
" This year will go down in history,
for the first time a civilized
nation has full gun registration!
Our streets will be safer,
our police more efficient,
and our world will follow
our lead into the future!"
. . . Adolph Hitler, 1935
Posted by: flathead at November 21, 2008 11:56 AM (qkgvD)
33
Gun grabbing will never go far in this country because the effete, gelded wusses (e.g. Barack Obama) who think this is a great idea, will never be the people who have to carry it out. \
It will be people who believe in the Second Amendment.
And they won't do it and the geriatric hippies, pansy eggheads, slimy trial lawyers, race baiting poverty pimps, slacker college students and other drains on society who voted for Obama, aren't going to enforce it either.
Posted by: Brian at November 21, 2008 12:02 PM (YCShX)
34
I live in Virginia where gun ownership is high. That is reassuring to me on many levels. In the first place, if you have followed Australia's experience, crime has RISEN as gun ownership has fallen. Need I say more? Only those who are feeding on liberal pablum would deny that our nation is in grave danger from seditionists within and heaven-knows-what without. Personally, I'm happy to take responsibility for my own safety and freedom over a life of protracted and ever increasing subjugation!
Posted by: Gayle Miller at November 21, 2008 12:05 PM (zX5o+)
35
Obama can have my guns when he pries them from my cold dead hands.
Posted by: southerngrace at November 21, 2008 01:12 PM (m+wgi)
36
flathead:
That quote is a fake, IIRC. There are some other quotes about gun control by other members of the Nazi Party (as well as notables like Stalin) that can be verified, however.
(Old talk.politics.guns habit. I think it's still on the pro-gun FAQ for that newsgroup.)
Posted by: Patrick Chester at November 21, 2008 02:57 PM (MOvul)
37
i picked up a Ruger P95 about 2 weeks ago and 100 rounds for a starter gun.
it was only $360 and 47 for the amo
i used the economic stimulus check the Gov sent me to pay for it
i might send a letter to Plaosi and Reid thanking them for it
Posted by: insonh at November 21, 2008 05:48 PM (A2jkJ)
38
Goldman you don't know your recent history. An armed population can more than stand up to modern military power - remember Northern Ireland? Guns are illegal there but enough got into the hands of the IRA to cause the British Army many many casualties and the IRA wasn't that organized or that proficient with them either.
Our military has no idea how to handle an armed population - look at what is happening in Afghanistan now; the big Army is locked down on large bases while guys like me roam around the country at will because we are not hampered by the Big Army Stupidity Syndrome which strips away all initiative and common sense inside active combat zones. Get a clue mate - owning your own weapon is the first step to becoming a free man.
Posted by: Baba Tim at November 21, 2008 10:09 PM (2A4MS)
39
I have many guns, and boh can have them whenever he wants... bulletts first
Posted by: bite m at November 22, 2008 12:21 AM (I4yBD)
40
Seriously though, a lot of people better pray for my continued good health, or quick death, b'cuz if i ever am diagnosed as terminal, I will start on my own personal list of aesthetic deletion. that's people whom I think the world would be better without. the recent lists of nominees have made that list grow substantially, but i am up to the task...10 in the 10 ring at 200 yrds.
Posted by: bite me at November 22, 2008 12:29 AM (I4yBD)
41
I managed to get one of the last two boxes of .45 hollow-point, but most everything was sold out at Wal-Mart. They didn't have anywhere to send me because everyone else was out too.
Posted by: Karen at November 22, 2008 02:25 AM (47kZo)
42
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?
Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?
After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat.
Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur -- what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked?
The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!
If... if... We didn't love freedom enough. And even more -- we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! ...We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago."
Posted by: maximus otter at November 22, 2008 06:16 AM (plIbI)
43
I think itÂ’s considered
chic to refer to “Godwin’s Law” if comparisons to Hitler are made, and that is intended to show how just ridiculous such a comparison is, thereby taking it off the table.
But, that dude forecast, in his
own writings, just what he was going to do, long before he actually did it.
BarryÂ’s made his positions clear a long time ago.
As with his predecessor, people simply couldnÂ’t accept that he was serious, that he actually
meant it.
They probably still wont accept it, even while he does it. After all, he is practically worshiped as the leader of a revealed religion.
Perhaps, Jim Jones would be a better comparison.
(UPDATE - After posting this on another blog, with that line above, I just learned that someone named
Jim Jones is on ObamaÂ’s short list for National Security Advisor.
You just can't make this stuff up.)
-
Posted by: Paul_In_Houston at November 22, 2008 02:38 PM (VuVGB)
44
If faced with the prospect of assaulting a home where the owner knows that they are coming, trains regularly with his weapons, and has a specific intent to protect himself from them, it would be the SWAT guys panicking.
Not really. Because their doctrine says they won't be coming in after you. Depending on circumstances they'll just secure the perimeter cut off the water and wait, or if time is an issue they'll call in the Waco Killers (aka FBI HRT.)
It is true that armed citizens, singularly or even in small groups, cannot withstand the forces of the government. Offer resistance and you will be killed. The point of being armed is not to survive arrest it is to make your arrest difficult, problematic and very public.
The living John Brown was just another abolitionist crank. Dead by the hand of government he became something else entirely.
Posted by: ThomasD at November 23, 2008 12:11 PM (UK5R1)
45
European Resistance was able to stand up to the nazi machine. No SWAT or LEO or National Guard is going to do much better against the American people when the ENOUGH is given. Those who decide to obey the orders of the tyrant will be dealt with. Many won't and will join the ranks of the revolution. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." When Thomas Jefferson wrote that he wasn't talking about any foreign land, he was talking about America.
Posted by: Jorge Banner at November 23, 2008 06:46 PM (P5/sF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 19, 2008
Stripping Concealed Carry in the O.C.
The new Orange County, CA Sheriff doesn't like citizens having the ability to defend themselves, and may take almost half of the concealed carry permits presently issued from their legal permit holders,
for no good reason at all.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:16 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Lawsuit in 3...2...1...
Posted by: ECM at November 19, 2008 11:41 AM (q3V+C)
2
It's CA. . . you may get a sheep or two to BAAAA
but that is about it. Those permits are gone.
Posted by: JD at November 19, 2008 12:33 PM (VyXDV)
3
The big problem with "may issue" is the public interface, and creeps like this changing the rules ex-post-facto without notice or consequence.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at November 19, 2008 01:55 PM (VNM5w)
4
The old CCW permits were used as political favors by the previous sheriff who is under indictment. California makes it extremely difficult to get CCW permits but some of these may have been part of the corrupt favors regime. OTOH, the new sheriff is a woman and an outsider and may be extra PC. Most of us were pushing for a good guy named Jack Anderson to get the job (He was acting sheriff) but the pols wanted an outsider.
Posted by: Michael Kennedy at November 19, 2008 03:18 PM (xznvL)
5
Michael,
As far as I can tell every sheriff in California gives out CCWs to friends and cronies and for political favors; that's the problem with "may issue" CCW. The difference in O.C. was that Corona also gave them out to regular applicants who had no political connections. That is something both his predecessor and replacement wouldn't do.
Posted by: Greg at November 19, 2008 04:21 PM (KhioZ)
6
Some counties in California do have sheriffs who believe in the 2nd Amendment. Our sheriff even signed an amicus brief supporting Heller in the Supreme Court case.
I asked one of the undersheriffs why they're pretty liberal (in the classical sense) about giving out CCWs, and he said that the county is large and they can't always get to a troubled spot quickly. They'd rather that people have a chance to defend themselves if the law enforcement guys don't make it there soon enough.
Posted by: Anna at November 19, 2008 04:51 PM (LrtU7)
7
I think this process has been tried in other area's and shot down by the courts, but then you have to have a court system first. Having lived in Ca (Twice) I doubt they have one that cares about the citizens. One thing about Hussein O 'rule', females will have no power over anyone, so her job is gone.
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 19, 2008 10:04 PM (I4yBD)
Posted by: iconoclast at November 19, 2008 10:22 PM (ex0JG)
9
Here in Orange County we have a tradition of replacing corrupt public officials with complete idiots.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at November 20, 2008 02:54 AM (6HX0/)
10
Anna,
Which county are you referring to?
Just want to see if I'm in it.
Posted by: 1IDVET at November 20, 2008 10:49 AM (RqLIl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 12, 2008
Random Shots
Armed with a single-shot .22-caliber rifle, an eight-year old in Arizona ambushed his father, shooting him in head and chest, pausing to reload between each shot. He then methodically killed a second man who lived at the home, again with shots to the head and chest, again pausing to reload between each shot. Despite
blind and immediate media speculation of child abuse, there is nothing to indicate the father was anything other than a loving father and hunter who taught his son to shoot so that they could share his love of the outdoors. The moral of the story? Love your kids. Teach them to shoot if you want. But always lock up your firearms.
In Alaska, Gov. Sarah Palin's controversial helicopter-borne culling of wolf packs has proven to be life-saving for an Alaskan caribou herd in danger of extinction. At times, shooting even beautiful wild things is a better option than doing nothing. Her pragmatic approach to wildlife management offers a caribou herd a second chance. Don't look for the animal rights groups that attacked Palin for the culling program to congratulate her on it succeeding.
Advocating the shooting of people, however, especially the President-Elect, isn't a good idea, as some N.C. State students are no doubt learning.
State has what it calls the Free Expression Tunnel where students are encouraged to communicate controversial ideas and thoughts without criticism as an exercise in free speech. That free expression stops when racial slurs are spray painted, along with the graffiti "Shoot Obama." The NAACP is now involved, pushing for the students involved to be punished by the University since criminal charges will not be filed. The right to free speech is not a freedom from responsibility.
But what about shooting some friends of the President-Elect? Is that permissible?
Someone pointed out that Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and others in the domestic terror group called the Weather Underground formally declared war against the United States, but that they were not aware that the WU ever signed a formal peace treaty. If someone decided to take a shot at members, could they argue they were targeting known enemy combatants?
I strongly suspect that defense would utterly fail in court, so I'd advise not testing it. Besides, if someone was successful in terminating them as they planned to do to 25 million of us, what would President Obama do? He'd no longer be The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers.
And speaking even more of Obama and guns, it appears that his campaign and election have done wonders for gun and ammunition sales, even as his policies seem ripe to wreck the rest of the economy.
Gun shops across America are seeing a massive increase in sales of both guns and ammunition as a result of Obama's historic victory. His record of supporting bans on all semi-automatic firearms and all handguns, his stated desire to reinstate the ineffectual Clinton-era ban on assault weapons, and fears that a Democratic Congress may attempt to raise prohibitive taxes on firearms has led to a shortage of certain kinds of firearms and ammunition across the country. In particular, semi-automatic rifles that would potentially be affected by such a ban are difficult to keep in stock, and many retailers are back-ordered.
I only how much more sales will increase when Americans learn that Obama actively sought to undermine the Second Amendment as a director of the rabidly anti-gun Joyce Foundation.
Quite by accident, Barack Obama seems poised to do more to increase gun ownership by American citizens than any President in history.
If I wasn't so bitter and clingy, I'd be thrilled.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:49 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 607 words, total size 4 kb.
1
The gun blowback is a good example of the dialectic and another dollop of evidence for the wisdom of equanimity these days. If you believe in this conservatism stuff you have to also believe that there is NO way Barrytopia can in any sense succeed. Sorry Barack, American Presidents do not "rule". The American spirit and apparatus are hostile to the notion. Try it and you will find them hostile to you. Our experience tells us that Thesis will always bring Anti-Thesis so it should be no surprise that Compassionate Conservatism should leave in its wake Merciless Liberalism. Equally unsurprising will be the peals objecting to the Commier facets of Obamerica and that those beloved policies from the Iowa Caucuses will find themselves under the bus. With Ayers and Wright's rehabilitation in motion there is more room anyhow.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 12, 2008 11:16 AM (LF+qW)
2
"Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers"? Perfect!
Posted by: Toni at November 12, 2008 11:39 AM (OoGre)
3
Meg
You have the pendulum right.
As for Obama actually "ruling", I think that the natural division of power between our three branches of government will make any POTUS ruling a difficult thing. Imagine Pelosi and Reid giving up lots of power--heh, not so much.
Not to mention that the Presidency is a LOT larger than Obama--expect complete meltdowns on a regular basis as his cabinet and advisors repeatedly piss off friends as well as appease our enemies.
The press will cover for him quite a bit, but the MSM always needs some political blood to drink. With no Republicans or conservatives around that leaves---guess who? Not that it will change their blatant bias in the next election, but it will make it hard for Obama and the Democrats to get away with murder until the mid-term elections.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 12, 2008 01:22 PM (ex0JG)
4
Has everyone forgotten last June's SCOTUS decision on our right to bear arms? Not the President...not Congress can over rule that...DON'T PANIC!
as a side note. Does anyone really have a problem with a law mandating trigger locks on all guns kept in our homes? Yes I know many of us already do, however too many do not.
Posted by: nogopostal at November 12, 2008 02:23 PM (HHrdm)
5
Nogo, what you don't know could fill volumes.
Heller Vs DC does not in any way block Congress from attempting to ban handguns or semi-automatic firearms (two things Obama has supported in the past that are popular on the left) or his current stance in favor of re-instituting some sort of "assault weapons" ban.
Heller was narrow and focused in scope; obviously, it hasn't overturned a very similar handgun ban in Chicago, or similar bans in other metro areas. It only directly affects Washington DC.
As for mandating trigger locks on firearms in the home, I'm strongly opposed. As someone who sold firearms I strongly
advise using a safe or trigger lock
when conditions warrant, but they are not needed in every home, nor warranted in many conditions.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 12, 2008 02:56 PM (HcgFD)
6
Nogo just knows what the talking heads on MS-National-Barack-Channel tell him.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 12, 2008 05:41 PM (PnuiE)
7
What part of this decision leaves a loophole..
Specifics please..
Google the response to this important decision from gun owners and the NRA on yer own..
Can you cite ANYTHING that this important decision does not provide me and my family our rights to own my handguns/hunting rifles in Denver or where you live?
Yes..helmet laws save lives and brain injuries..yes seat belt laws save lives...
Yes lock laws just might prevent children from accidentally/or on immature kids killing themselves or others..
Not every law put in place to protect idiots from harming themselves and/others is a bad thing.
Love yer guns without checks?
http://www.gunguys.com/?p=3240
I am a gun owner..when we had our children back in the '80's we locked our guns.
When you sold/sell guns..was/is your real concern children in the house..or the sale?
Posted by: nogopostal at November 12, 2008 05:43 PM (HHrdm)
8
When you sold/sell guns. Do you provide locks at no cost? If not..why not..
do you at least provide this info?
http://www.ci.mtnview.ca.us/city_hall/police/services_n_education/free_gun_locks.asp
Posted by: nogopostal at November 12, 2008 05:55 PM (HHrdm)
9
Time to educate myself on guns and go get one.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Jason at November 13, 2008 06:01 AM (sQ3gH)
10
Time to educate myself on guns and go get one.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Jason at November 13, 2008 06:02 AM (sQ3gH)
11
I see Nogo made himself unwelcome at another blog.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 13, 2008 07:28 PM (PnuiE)
12
No one is worried about Ayer's past. It's his future involvement with Hussein O, and the lies Hussein O has told which were immediately absorbed by the mental retards on the left that should be of concern. The left already has buyers remorse but won't admit it. Q: Who is taken out in the first wave when a dictator takes over? A: The Elitest who claim to be educated. It might be worth losing the constitution to see that happen.
http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/ Future of the liberals who are by nature traitors to their country and government and will not be allowed to survive.
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 16, 2008 12:13 PM (GAf+S)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 06, 2008
Good News: Obama's Election Spurs New Appreciation For Constitution
Especially
the Second Amendment:
John Faulkner and his wife, Brenda, thought Wednesday was a good day to buy a handgun.
"I'm 37 years old, and this is the first time in my life that I am really scared for our future," said Faulkner, an oil field worker, as he perused the collection of weaponry in A Pawn Shop here.
At Aurora's Firing Line gun shop, Steve Wickham was also purchasing. "Anything I can get my hands on," he said as he cradled a $699 9mm handgun.
Same thing in Lakewood: "I was selling guns before I even opened the door," said George Horne, owner of The Gun Room. "It's gone completely mad. Everyone is buying everything I've got on the shelves. Sales have been crazy."
By midday Wednesday, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation's "Insta- Check" background check — required for the sale of a firearm and typically about 8 minutes long — was jammed with waits lasting more than two hours.
Gun-shop owners and buyers said the urgency was fueled by Barack Obama's presidential win and Democrats' increasing their majority in Congress.
"I'm here because of Obama," Wickham said. "I think he's misinterpreted the Second Amendment. It's not about the right to hunt. It's about the right to defend yourself."
These scenes are being repeated all across the country.
As severe the rush is now, it would be even worse if more Americans knew of Obama's attempt to corrupt Constitutional scholarship while at the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. Barack Obama is a gun-banner at heart, and there is every reason for Americans to doubt his campaign's more moderate rhetoric when compared to his actual record.
Buy guns, America. It's good for the economy, good for the development of our nation's moral character, and our last bulwark against tyranny.
While you're at it, consider hitting the Paypal link in the sidebar to the right as a belated blogoversary present. What, you think that SLR 106FR is going to buy itself?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:55 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 3 kb.
1
How pathetic you racists and Islamophobes are. Face reality. Allah (swt) has promised the entire world to His servants and the time has come for them to claim it.
The long struggle is at an end. Renounce your false religions and your corrupt man-made Constitution. Embrace Islam now and live in peace in submission to the will of Almighty Allah (swt).
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar!
Posted by: American Muslim at November 06, 2008 12:10 PM (Eb5Rp)
2
I always wonder about the wingnut gun fantasy on display here. If the gummint really does go fascist and Obama signs the US over to the UN (just guessing I'm not sure how this supposedly works), then the UN solders come to your city, and you are planning resistance to them, then I assume you are going to come out of your little bunker firing your semi-auto pop gun, then the Apache that is with the UN troops (the US military cooperates with them, I assume) fires a hellfire missile at your house and you vanish along with your basement full of cheetos and Guns & Ammo mags. Is that how this works? Makes no sense to me.
Posted by: toyboat at November 06, 2008 02:47 PM (cC3Yf)
3
Good News: ObamaÂ’s Election Spurs New Appreciation For Constitution
Some of us never stopped appreciating it, you dick.
Posted by: actor212 at November 06, 2008 03:36 PM (m7aVi)
4
And no doubt toyboat will be pointing out who in his neighborhood owns guns. Maybe he'll get double ration points. That ought to keep him happy until it's his turn.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at November 06, 2008 03:43 PM (1ii59)
5
toyboat, I am not worried about UN soldiers. I'll take Joe the Plumber over the Belgian army any day. I am also not worried about the US military firing on US civilians. They won't and Barry knows that.
That's must be what the Civilian Defense Force is for.
Posted by: George Bruce at November 06, 2008 04:34 PM (v4XVE)
6
No Steve, I'm just saying what the hell good does it do you to have any kind of handgun or any commercially available firearm at all? I'll even spot you a real-live M-60, an honest to gawd machine gun! WTF are you going to do against the UN/US goverment, or whatever weird fantasy hybrid of the two? If that really came to pass, I guess you die with a gun in your hand? Go out in a blaze of glory?
I guess the wingnut scenario is the definition of "self-righteous suicide."
I tease the wingers, but I really don't get this. If the scenarios I have heard (antichrist, UN takeover, use of US military inside US) really come to pass, no amount of guns or bullets is going to help you. Even small town SWAT uses armored vehicles, an M60 is useless against them. I guess logic just can't penetrate this fantasy.
Posted by: toyboat at November 06, 2008 04:43 PM (cC3Yf)
7
Buy your own gun you miserable handout begging socialist.
Posted by: CCFK at November 06, 2008 04:53 PM (xUtzc)
8
A hand gun is great for driving off theft and rape minded home invaders ... Obama supporting laws that make you a criminal for protecting your family in this way, not so great.
Posted by: Adriane at November 06, 2008 04:56 PM (wJlIy)
9
"What you think that SLR 106FR is going to buy itself?"
Here's an idea - GET A JOB, YOU LEECH!
And if you've got one, then TRY LIVING WITHIN YOUR MEANS!
Confederate Yankee? Confederate Welfare Junkie, more like.
Posted by: Colonel Shwarzkopf at November 06, 2008 06:14 PM (7pIuE)
10
Oh!...and don't forget that Obama and his dark(ie) overlords want to kill all the babies too! I'm leisurely sipping at a chilled 'amniotic fluid' martini as we speak.
Posted by: tontocal at November 06, 2008 06:23 PM (cWG7Q)
11
I never though I'd even consider purchasing a gun...but I am.
I've always believed in a person's right to own firearms for hunting and/or protection, but it just isn't something I ever wanted to own.
But something about this election (beside the obvious things) has got to me. I wonder if this election has ushered in the beginning of the end of our rights.
I surely hope not, but it could be. And we all need to exercise and value those rights, no matter what happens to them.
Plus, I'm just plain scared. I don't wanna be a fear-monger...but dangit, I'm kinda scared! If push comes to shove...I'd like to know I can defend myself.
~T the D
http://thedrunkelephant.blogspot.com/
Posted by: T the D at November 06, 2008 06:34 PM (Y+dgk)
12
toyboat and others like him would still bow before King George, while professing how glad they were to be second-class citizens instead of outright slaves.
Others in the colonies, however - less than 10-percent of the population - thought that freedom was more important that mere survival, and armed with little more than the small arms of the day, they began a rebellion against the most powerful and feared military force that the world knew at the time.
Unless our public schools have completely failed you know how that ragtag militia of civilians fared, and that the culture of rebels they established became the greatest force for protecting individual freedom and human rights this world has ever known.
Of course, a more practical explanation may be in order.
toyboat first makes the assumption that the U.S. military would unquestioningly side with the government in a conflict against U.S. civilians. I strongly doubt that this would occur. U.S. military leaders in training at West Point soldiers are taught to be loyal to "duty, honor and country," in that order. That would demand they first protect their fellow citizens against an abusive government, not become part of it.
But nor do I think all military units would abandon a corrupt central government, so let's assume some military units would size with the fascist government, and some would side with the patriots.
If neither side establishes clear military dominance, and economic, demographic, and other factors are roughly equal, then the side that has more popular support and more asymmetrical war-fighting capability typically wins.
There are around 3 million members of the U.S. military if you include active duty, guard, and reserve forces. Only a small fraction of these are frontline combat troops. Until someone provides me with a better estimate, I'll guess that there are less than 800,000 trigger-pullers.
If just 40% of the U.S. population owns firearms that is 120 million American gun owners (this is though to be a low estimate). If even a substantial minority of American gun owners - say 2-3 percent - were to actively join a conflict as irregulars, then it would effectively add 2.4 million-3.6 million low-level combatants to the mix and perhaps decisively influence a conflict.
Presumably, you can grasp the significance of this?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 06, 2008 06:38 PM (HcgFD)
13
Toyboat is one of those who will give up their freedom willingly in order to remain safe for a little while longer. If anything really serious were to occur, all the toyboats in the world would become either irrelevant or informers.
But, as tonto said so well, taxing firearms so much that people willingly disarm is much more the current leftist strategy. Sounds like some reloading equipment is in my future. I can sell rounds to friends as well as keep myself well-supplied.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 07, 2008 01:09 AM (TzLpv)
14
"That's a quotable one. So according to Liberal logic, if you own a gun then you must be a "wingnut".(his words) No exceptions."
I guess that makes Joe Biden a "wingnut", too.
Whodathunkit?
Posted by: Nahanni at November 07, 2008 01:26 AM (S4wMM)
15
This afternoon I'm driving over to the Civilian Marksmanship Program facility at Anniston AL to look at their surplus M1 rifles.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_promises_to_stop_americas
They sell Garands in several grades and I want to judge which I should buy. Prices range from $499 to $1400. Also, they have 30 cal military ammunition for 24¢ a round in lots of 400.
Will let you know what I find. The Garands are semi automatics, but they are far from pop guns.
Posted by: arch at November 07, 2008 05:49 AM (5XVEI)
16
Sorry about the wrong link. Try
http://www.odcmp.com/
Arch
Posted by: arch at November 07, 2008 06:00 AM (5XVEI)
17
Seems toyboat has never heard of the tiny, crude but effective Liberty Pistol.
Posted by: Joe Mama at November 07, 2008 08:30 AM (Fw0e9)
18
"While you're at it, consider hitting the Paypal link in the sidebar to the right as a belated blogoversary present. What, you think that SLR 106FR is going to buy itself?"
Buy your own damn gun, asshole.
Posted by: kefauver at November 07, 2008 10:23 AM (bWvXP)
Posted by: Jeff at November 07, 2008 11:36 AM (2O/GM)
20
Plenty of Liberals own guns including our local anti-gun activist and money-launderer CA President Pro-Tem Senator Don Perata who even has a concealed-carry permit - of course nobody else is allowed to have a CCW permit.
But on a Nationwide level: Waxman is coming. "Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is challenging Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., for the chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee." - So, Nancy Pelosi is going to toss the embarrassing four-rent-controlled-apartment John Dingell over, and with Waxman you get the ultimate left wing West Coast uber-liberal.
If Waxman wins expect the Consumer Products Safety Commission to have jurisdiction over firearms.
If Waxman wins, expect a gun show ban - if Waxman wins, expect a gun control orgy.
Barack didn't spend all that time cooking up and paying-for anti-gun judicial reviews at the Joyce Foundation for nuthin'.
Oh yeh, absolutely NO (no-no-no!) correlation between the Down tanking and Obama, but absolute correlation between skyrocketing gun-sales and Obama...
Posted by: DirtCrashr at November 07, 2008 12:09 PM (VNM5w)
21
Where the hell were you people when Bush started tapping our phones and ok'd searching our houses without warrants? Ok'd arresting us without charges? Ok'd imprisoning us indefinitely without trials? Ok'd using secret (made up? who could know?)evidence and secret witnesses to convict us. Took away habeas corpus. Where were you when these laws got passed? You do know that because of what you all supported Bush doing that Obama will now be able to do the same, right?
Oh wait- I remember- you were criticizing liberals for being paranoid and wanting to help terrorists. Take a look at the PATRIOT act that most conservatives wholeheartedly supported.
I fully support the second ammendment, but, damn- conservatives sure loved the intrusion on our rights when Bush whispered it into their ear. I support Obama but I don't want him, Bush, or anyone else doing it. Now?...Now?...Now it's time to tool up?
You fools on the right did a great disservice to your country when you goosestepped for Bush and screamed at your fellow citizens because they disagreed. Now most on the right don't even like him. Thanks for helping to erode our freedoms. The difference between the right and liberals? You'd be all too happy to have us punished by Bush. We'd never support Obama punishing you for simply disagreeing.
Ask that clown Hannity, who actually had his job saved by the ACLU before he was on Fox.
Posted by: Isaac at November 08, 2008 04:50 AM (wa6OX)
22
Interesting trip to CMP mentioned above.
They have a new facility just north of I-20. Apparently, they get newly rebuilt rifles every tuesday, so wednesday is the day to be there. I'm very glad I went over in person rather than ordering online. One word of caution. I-20 goes to 6 lanes passing Taladega and everyone thinks they are on the speedway. If you're driving 70, you need to be on the shoulder.
They have three basic grades all safe to load and fire - rack, service and correct.
Rack grade rifles ($495) are pretty rough since most went through WWII and/or Korea. Barrels are worn; wood is mismatched and there is some pitting and considerable wear. If you are looking for a museum piece they are authentic. If you look carefully and use a gauge, you can find one that should shoot pretty well.
Service grades ($595) are in much better condition. The barrels have less wear. Most were built after 1952 and saw no major wartime abuse. You can buy one that has all Springfield or all H&R parts but the looks tend to vary quite a bit. If Congress starts making gun-ban noises, I'll drive back and select two service grades. It saves me $20 on FedEx and I won't have to take the luck of the draw.
Correct grade pieces ($950 to $975) are what I really want. They look new. In fact, they are exactly like the ones we used to field strip at Culver every morning. The wood is new birch or walnut and they have leather slings. Little to no wear. It would be safe to order a correct grade online.
Depending on the damage my wife and 6 grandchildren do this Christmas and how the IRS treats me, I will probably buy one correct grade or two service grades in January 2009.
Posted by: arch at November 08, 2008 07:46 AM (5XVEI)
23
God and guns baby, God and guns!!
A man who police believe was shot and killed by his 8-year-old son had consulted a Roman Catholic priest about whether the boy should handle guns and had taught him how to use a rifle, the clergyman said Saturday.
The father, Vincent Romero, 29, was from a family of avid hunters and wanted to make sure the boy wasn't afraid of guns, said the Very Rev. John Paul Sauter of St. Johns Catholic Church. The boy's stepmother had suggested he have a BB gun, the priest said.
Romero taught his son how to use a rifle to kill prairie dogs, Sauter said. Police say the boy used a .22-caliber rifle Wednesday to kill his father and another man, Timothy Romans, 39, of San Carlos.
So, how'd that all work out for you Vincent?
Posted by: TheGigaShadow at November 09, 2008 04:39 PM (yqI+x)
24
toyboat, You are a subject, a victim. Go buy a cheap handgun and a box of shells, then shoot yourself in the head. It will be quick and painless compared to the endless and ever increasing suffering you will endure as a slave.
Posted by: lenf at November 11, 2008 12:35 PM (gHACb)
25
There is no way any size military force UN or otherwise that can take on Millions of the American people and win. Hell how long were we in the tiny country of Nam, look at our present situation in Iraq! Gorilla warfare on home ground is a no brain'er, we win they loose.
There is no equal to fighting in your own territory. Simple! I have no desire to shoot any of my fellow Citizens in uniform or otherwise. Just don't mess with my Family, Home or my Guns! That WILL get you Shot!
Posted by: Askjel at November 13, 2008 12:22 AM (hCfl4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 05, 2008
Bitter, Clingy, and Discounted
Fearing a gun-grabbing President-Elect and Congress, Ruger is issuing an "
Inaugural Special" on Mini-14 magazines.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:52 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.
1
CY: Congratulations! Your blog is one of my "must reads", and you've done some terrific original investigative work. Please keep up the great work.
Posted by: Paco at November 05, 2008 05:37 PM (QIA+4)
2
I just want to raise my son with values and moral aspects. I am concerned that the world is more about making things equal, than it is about teaching to strive harder for the material things. Working for mediocrity is only middle. We should strive to be the upper echelon.
Posted by: CliffTex1016 at November 06, 2008 12:31 AM (fNbQW)
3
Wow CliffTex. What would Jesus say to your idea that the world should striver harder for material things rather than working toward equality?
Posted by: Smarty at November 06, 2008 02:28 AM (cplqV)
4
"We should strive to be the upper echelon" ???
Upper echelon = elite
But aren't you right-wingers always banging on about the elite, and how bad they are?
What gives?
Posted by: Suilamhain the Observant at November 06, 2008 07:11 AM (VRb5p)
5
Hmmmmm .... Trolls!
It's what's for dinner!
Posted by: Dan Irving at November 06, 2008 09:16 AM (zw8QA)
6
Right Dan, I especially like how Shoolawan the Obfuscative had to redefine upper echelon in order to deliver his crushing blow with the Hammer of Hypocrisy™. Be careful what you wish for, troll, your scheme collapses if the upper echelon slides back into your mediocrity of non-achievement.
And Smarty: Jesus wants everyone to try their best, not wait around to have their gas and mortgage bills paid. It's the moochers who have failed to live up to their responsibilities. The only equality Jesus is interested in is when everyone finally gets up off their asses and fulfills their duties to earn their place in Heaven. Jesus' sacrifice merely opened the Gate. He can't make the moochers and the looters walk through it.
Posted by: GISAP at November 06, 2008 10:19 AM (g5kuC)
7
Thanks for the info and the link. Husband thinks I really do love him now that I told him about it and let him buy four (4!). He's a happy hubby now!
Posted by: P-3W at November 07, 2008 04:09 PM (wvIgD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 29, 2008
Increasingly Clingy Americans Finally Get Media Attention
You've got to hand it to the media... now they're only
19 days behind the curve.
These reports come via Drudge, from local Florida stations.
Obama is a proven gun-grabber who went so far as to try to subvert the Constitution by corrupting legal scholarship, and most expect he will rubber-stamp Congressional attempts to reinstate the free speech restrictions that Democrats like to call the Fairness Doctrine... I can't imagine why people would feel concerned about their rights.
If Obama wins the White House, and Democrats collect as many seats in the House and Senate as most experts predict, then we will have attempts to reinstate failed gun bans by the far leftists in charge.
Frankly, I'm only surprised that sales in Florida are just up 10-30-percent.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:03 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 2 kb.
1
The gun fondlers really dodged a bullet that you didn't nominate Giuliani. He went on a huge gun-confiscating bender in NYC. Good job!
Posted by: Toyboat at October 29, 2008 04:54 PM (cC3Yf)
2
There are enough of us gun owners in Tx that we will secede before letting the liberal northern dems tell us to turn our guns in. Also, they would have to find them first.
Everyone I know here except far left libs has at least one, and most many guns. There are a lot of ways to conceal guns and ammo. I believe it would be suicidal for Obama to push a ban and win. He wouldn't last a year. The reason for the 2nd amendment is precisely for this reason.
Posted by: Marc Boyd at October 29, 2008 06:06 PM (Zoziv)
3
Thank God for the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, otherwise I would be much more worried. But I agree with Marc Boyd, I'll bury my guns in the woods before I'll turn them in.
Posted by: Eric at October 30, 2008 02:11 PM (Eg+DG)
4
"There are enough of us gun owners in Tx that we will secede before letting the liberal northern dems tell us to turn our guns in. Also, they would have to find them first."
You tried to bring terrorism to the United States of America by seceding in the 19th century. Your State's
feeble attempts to hate failed then and your hate of the United States are less welcome now...
If you feel so inclined after Obama's election...you can always move to the Tora Bora region and join forces with bin Laden...He hates us too.
Posted by: nogopostal at November 03, 2008 04:14 PM (JL9w0)
5
Ummm, nogopostal, the Civil War was a conventional war, not terrorism. In fact, it was one of the last wars where civilians were not targeted extensively. The comparison between them and the Taliban is a big stretch. I wonder if you were the type to scream about Bush being a dictator these past years?
Posted by: OmegaPaladin at November 04, 2008 05:34 PM (xPID4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 15, 2008
Fulton Armory Promotes Election Ammo Sale
While the
sale prices on parts and ammunition, are nice, what kind of message are they sending?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:06 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Seriously, what kind of election sale is it when rifles are excluded?
Frankly, I think
Impact Guns has better deals, but that's just me.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 15, 2008 03:10 PM (HcgFD)
2
Maybe they're just saying that if Obama wins you better hurry up and buy your ammo before it's outlawed.
Posted by: Tim at October 15, 2008 04:40 PM (sp1sQ)
3
Thanks for the reference. I just order a thousand rounds.
Posted by: JerryT at October 16, 2008 05:23 PM (CHcTO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 06, 2008
Obama Slips, Admits He'd Favor A Gun Ban
In Pennsylvania for a campaign event before a hand-picked crowd, Barack Obama stumbled badly when thrown by a skeptical supporter with a question about his
noted anti-gun stance:
A woman in the crowd told Obama she had "heard a rumor" that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the "traditions of gun ownership" but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of "gang bangers and drug dealers" in big cities "who already have them and are shooting people."
"If you've got a gun in your house, I'm not taking it," Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.
So he tried again. "Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress," he said. "This can't be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I'm not going to take away your guns."
So Obama concedes that he wants to "take them away," but then he claims that he doesn't have the votes to push through a gun ban. Far left liberal Democrats control both houses of the most unpopular Congress in recorded history. Do they have anything to lose by trying to push another gun ban, and does anyone want to take the risk, knowing Obama would sign any gun control bill that crosses the President's desk?
Update: Several folks I respect are disputing my contention that Obama's comments amount to an admission of favoring a gun ban, and think I'm distorting what he said.
What do you think?
In my experience as a reader and author, the construct "Even if I wanted to do 'x'..." is an admission that the actor desires 'x' but merely lacks the means to obtain it.
Further breaking down Obama's statements, he says, "Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress. This can't be the reason not to vote for me." I read this as an admission that he desires a ban, but that he lacks the means so you should not hold his views against him.
Taken in the context of a politician that refuses to recognize the right of gun ownership for anything beyond hunting and target shooting on his own campaign web site, who has a documented record of working to fund anti-gun groups as a Woods Fund board member, who had called for the banning of all semi-automatic firearms and handguns, and who has attempted to zone gun stores out of business, is my interpretation illogical?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:19 AM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
Post contains 482 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I disagree.
""Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress,""
This is clearly a hypothetical, that even if he did favor such a policy it would be impossible to implement it.
Posted by: Dawnfire82 at September 06, 2008 10:31 AM (N27+H)
2
I have no doubt Obama would ban and confiscate all guns if he could (see links below), but I don't see this exchange as proof. It's a law professor's answer (or in his case, a senior lecturer's answer). He's conceding the premise in incremental steps and making the argument that "it's still no reason not to vote for me." Now it is a stupid approach and no doubt you could make the argument that he adopted the premise too easily thereby showing his true colors.
OTH, John Lott recently recounted his personal conversation with Obama when they were University of Chicago Law faculty colleagues, where Obama told Lott: "I don't think people should be able to own guns." Taken together with his earlier statements about gun bans, I think your conclusion is correct.
Mark Levin Link -- http://johnrlott.tripod(dot)com/levinshow082808lott.mov
Steve Malzburg Link -- http://johnrlott.tripod(dot)com/LottonMalzberg090108WOR.mov
Sorry for no direct links, your site wouldn't allow link to tripod(dot)com [remove and replace dot with .]
Posted by: capitano at September 06, 2008 10:52 AM (UsyG7)
3
The appropriate response, which you'll never hear Obama come close to uttering: "The Second Amendment explicitly secures (ed. note: not 'establishes') the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has affirmed that right. As president, I will take an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' Next question."
Posted by: Diffus at September 06, 2008 11:17 AM (IHmyy)
4
Of course he would take the guns away otherwise why even bring it up? He has to know by bringing it up it's going to hurt so why not just admit it in a "hypothetical" and say that what he wants can't get passed anyway?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 06, 2008 11:18 AM (kNqJV)
5
So he tried again. "Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress," he said. "This can't be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I'm not going to take away your guns."
Uh, oh! The Obabamessiah looses his composure, things are not looking good for him or the Dems.
Posted by: formertucsonan at September 06, 2008 11:27 AM (141qm)
6
"is my interpretation illogical?"
No, I don't think it's illogical. I think it's reading too much into that particular comment. I've no doubt that Obama is personally pro-gun control. But I think that viewing this particular instance as an admission of favoring an outright ban (which was apparently the topic introduced by the questioner) is incorrect.
Posted by: Dawnfire82 at September 06, 2008 11:30 AM (N27+H)
7
Oh, thank you so much, Mr. Obama, for agreeing not to take our guns.
Give me a break. Of course he wants a gun ban. He'd confiscate every gun tomorrow if he had the power. His entire campaign has descended into dissimulation, i.e., pretending he doesn't believe what he really does and to the degree he does (and has previously declared and demonstrated he believes) because otherwise he wouldn't be elected dog catcher. Isn't it interesting that Repubicans can shout their policies and principles from the rooftop, but democrats must conceal how they really feel to get elected.
Posted by: rrpjr at September 06, 2008 12:15 PM (uf8br)
Posted by: baslimthecripple at September 06, 2008 12:59 PM (hc5v2)
9
If he was sincere and firm in his resolve to respect our gun rights, why would he even bring this up (don't have the votes)?
Because - it is a Freudian slip!
Posted by: Lily at September 06, 2008 01:02 PM (gIQ7K)
10
I agree with your take on it. "Even if I wanted to..." is not the language of one who would never contemplate it. I've never heard a defender of the Second Amendment resort to that kind of language or turn of phrase.
Posted by: Proof at September 06, 2008 01:27 PM (j3K9W)
11
Regardless, reducing privately owned guns, particularly handguns, is something Barry has wanted for a long time. 2nd Amendment? What 2nd Amendment?
Posted by: William Teach at September 06, 2008 03:09 PM (cuTsc)
12
Even though he doesn't have the votes now, who knows what votes might be present in Congress after November 4, 2008. Don't trust him if you're a gun toter, bitter Bible thumper.
It's also funny that he brings up gang violence, but when he was an Ill. State Senator, and they brought out a death penalty bill to target gang bangers, then all of a sudden it was a racist bill because gang bangers were minority group members and to give them the death penalty would be akin to racist lynchings because minorities would suffer 'disproportionately' from enforcement of the statute.
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at September 06, 2008 03:25 PM (W88Qb)
13
BO does not outright state that he would or wants to ban guns. He does imply it.
On the other shoe, Obama diplays his utter ignorance of the Constitution. The Second Amendment, protects a right assumed be God-give. Congress has no power to restrict rights.
I don't know what BO taught. It sure as the heck wasn't constitutional law.
Posted by: DavidL at September 06, 2008 04:34 PM (AK8DM)
14
"I donÂ’t have the votes in Congress"
Oh, so youÂ’ve thought about it.
Many Pennsylvanians do "cling to their guns" the same way the the NOW/NARAL crew cling to their "abortion rights."
The argument that Obama gave could equally be used for the abortion issue by any pro-life candidate, so why the hell is Obama
running "abortion rights" commercials ?
ItÂ’s because he knows itÂ’s lame argument .. things can change.
YouÂ’d think the manchild of "Hope and Change" would know that.
The voters here in Pennsylvania do.
Posted by: Neo at September 06, 2008 04:45 PM (Yozw9)
15
By his standards, then, since Mr McCain and Mrs Palin personally oppose abortion, but the Congress would never permit an outright legislative ban, pro-choice voters cannot oppose a McCain presidency on those grounds?
Never mind that Mr Obama probably could be counted on to appoint judges of a statist, control-minded bent? Never mind that we can be damned certain he will appoint a raft of bureaucrats of similarly authoritarian views?
Okay, I'm not voting for McCain because Obama is anti-gun. I'm voting for McCain because Obama obviously put away the pakalolo and paid attention the year Harvard Law taught Upper Division Dissemblage.
Posted by: mrkwong at September 06, 2008 05:21 PM (G8Eo0)
16
B. Hussein Obama, Jr. is a Socialist thug who wants to abolish our 2nd Amendment rights...he is a danger to the Republic.
It's his diabolical plan to surrender our nation to Islamo Fascism (which he could even enunciate during his "interview" with O'Reilly), so they can attempt to build their world wide Caliphate...
Don't tread on me Barry; a despicable scumbag.
Posted by: Carlos Echevarria at September 06, 2008 05:42 PM (CsNoJ)
17
"even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress"
Just another reason not to vote a lawyer into public office.
Posted by: veblenschild at September 06, 2008 06:36 PM (o7kfF)
18
Since Obama did not simply state that it is a right to bear arms - then obviously he is in favor of more gun control since he adds the whole "not having enough votes". With that logic then the pro abortion people should not be upset since Gov Palin can say the same thing - that she can't overturn Roe vs Wade as it stands.
Obama and his ilk just dont get it that law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms for the protection of their home/family, for hunting etc. It is the thugs, such as in his own city of Chicago, who are using arms to murder their own kind. And he is worried about the war in Iraq being a mistake - he should look at his own city's lack of control and government.
Posted by: Krystal at September 06, 2008 07:29 PM (I4yBD)
19
OMG! Obama IS Kerry. He has no idea why someone wouldn't vote for him over a silly thing like the second amendment.
Posted by: joh at September 06, 2008 09:44 PM (1DPb/)
20
And if he needed a vote in Congress, that would actually mean something.
Instead, on Jan 21, Sarah Brady is named head of the BATFE. All of a sudden, the Federal permits that EVERY commercial gun and ammunition seller must have to do business start getting denied. "Oh, I'm sorry, Form Sucks2BU isn't filled out correctly; there's an i not dotted on page 1234." "Darn, we lost the paperwork; resubmit, please." "Oh, include these 5 new forms."
"NO, you can't sell anything until your paperwork is right."
Think I'm kidding? Right now, TODAY, if your form for the instant background check uses the standard 2 letter Post Office abbreviation for the states (e.g. TX), instead of spelling out the name of the state, that's an instant rejection. Fill it all out again and re-submit. And no, you can't buy the gun until that form goes thru, you bitter clingy gun-nut, you.
Posted by: SDN at September 07, 2008 07:22 AM (F2ojY)
21
Obama is a clone of Chicago's virulent anti-gun mayor, Mayor Richard M. Daley. Any Chicago political figure with ties to the city is going to be anti-gun, no matter what they say. I lived in Chicago for over a good half of my 48 years on earth, 3+ of them working for the city and know how the politics work. Obama's position is no different than that of Mayors Bloomberg of New York, Newsom of San Francisco, Villaraigosa of L.A. or the now imprisoned Mayor Kilpatrick of Detroit.
As they do every year, the idiot Mayor Daley and his police dept. recently had their annual "turn in your guns" day (no questions asked, of course) and in exchange they give $100 gift cards to the few gang bangers and other thugs who value getting Michael Jordan sneakers over their guns. But these same vermin will eventually find other ways to obtain another gun. They know the system. And of course, it's a huge joke.
So if you elect a black community activist such as obama to be America's CEO, this is what you will get if he has his way in Washington.
Remember, obama used to be a constitutional law professor in Chicago but professed earlier this year to have been in 57 states. Perhaps we can presume that if asked how many amendments to the Constitution are in the Bill of Rights, he might say 20 and that the right to keep and bear arms is in the 32nd Amendment (which to anyone who has read the Constition knows it doesn't exist).
This is your brain. This is your brain fried with obama nonsense.
Posted by: Nedd at September 07, 2008 11:57 AM (LJaTI)
22
Well said, Nedd! I just don't understand how so many otherwise intelligent people are being taken in by this impostor! CHANGE? Do you honestly believe that he is a "different" kind of politician? He spent about 130 days in the U.S. Senate before he started running for president! His 20 years of mentorship under J. Wright - and items in his own book, Dreams of my Father, show that he is a black separatist....his campaign "promises" are overtly Socialist...he has (when he thinks we won't hear about it!) made fun of we, "little people" who ARE believers in God....saying in front of his SF audience that we "cling to our ....religion" out of bitterness! Is that really who you want in the White House - directing this nation's policy. I wish I could find the video of his statement on what he's going to do to our National Defense....END anti-missile programs, get rid of all of our nuclear weapons...we will be so weak, we'll be like sitting ducks!
PLEASE AMERICANS! WAKE UP! You may not like McCain....but I honestly believe he'll listen to Palin on many issues...and he won't destroy this nation!
IF YOU WANT TO GIVE UP HALF OF EVERYTHING YOU HAVE - to give to thsoe who are too lazy to work....then go ahead and vote for Obama....but don't you DARE complain when he takes away your guns, your money, and half of your savings (which means YOUR retirement!)
Posted by: Litl Bits at September 07, 2008 01:23 PM (6lH59)
23
A more telling slip is that he said "I
don't have the votes" rather than "I
wouldn't have the votes". To me, that phrase is the one that takes it from the hypothetical to the dream denied. So the question has to be, if he were to find the votes, "WWOD"?
Posted by: MikeM at September 07, 2008 03:30 PM (7vlbD)
24
To repair the damage, the Dems need to get Barry decked out in cammies and stick him in a duck blind with a shotgun. That tactic worked marvelously for Kerry.
Of course, they'd have to make sure the shotgun was unloaded, since Obambi has a habit of shooting himself in the foot.
Posted by: Donna at September 07, 2008 06:57 PM (opjs7)
25
The word "sportsmen" concerns me. Is Obama talking about hunters? If so what about people who own hand guns for target shooting and protection? What about people who have a permit to carry a concelled weapon? These questions need to be answered.
Posted by: Frank at September 07, 2008 08:22 PM (zv5ji)
26
It's the difference between knowing what someone CLEARLY meant using your own, God-given, common sense, and making excuses for yet another unintentional peek into the REAL Obama because you're an Obamapologist.
Note that few are denying Obama's piss-poor record on the Second Amendment: They're attacking YOU. YOU'RE the problem, not his record, not his intentions, not his poor choice of words -- if that's what they want to call it -- (and WHY are we promoting someone who cannot choose his words wisely?): It's you, and I, and the rest of the unwashed masses that's to blame.
He slips up and it's OUR fault for saying, "Hey, wait a minute!"
Classic technique.
Posted by: DoorHold at September 07, 2008 08:32 PM (4iTOP)
27
Taken in concert with all that is known about Obama's views on guns, including his own recent comments on Heller, it would certainly be reasonable to characterize this as a Freudian slip. It surely comports with everything else he has ever said and everything political stance he has taken (when not voting "present") on the topic.
Posted by: Mike at September 07, 2008 10:13 PM (Ftgjp)
28
He slipped here. Had he said "wanted," it would make more sense.
He slipped when he spoke of Clarence Thomas' "exp..." (cut off "experience"). And I believe he slipped in that "my Muslim faith" statement in the ABC interview.
Posted by: Lee at September 09, 2008 03:19 AM (EHqdp)
29
At best it's highly ambiguous, at worst he is in fact allowing what he "wants" to do, even though he doesn't (currently) have the votes.
"Want" vs. "wanted" lends greater, not less, ambiguity.
It's the type of noncommital circumlocution and ambiguity used by politicians such that, after the fact, they can retrospectively take either side of an issue, "re-interpreting" a past statement, putting a new gloss on it, etc.
Posted by: Michael B at September 09, 2008 05:34 PM (5ATLX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 05, 2008
Texas Family Kills Guns Down Home Invaders With Their Own Guns
Or as Sarah Palin calls it, "
trash day."
With Kellie Hoehn clinging to the weapon's muzzle, her husband tackled the man who held the shotgun. She knocked the intruder in the head with a jar candle, giving her husband a chance to wrest the shotgun.
By then the tussle had spilled out onto the front lawn. Keith Hoehn shot one of the men who had a pistol, police said. Wounded, that man ran away.
Then the intruder who initially had the shotgun charged Keith Hoehn.
Kellie Hoehn told The Dallas Morning News that she screamed at her husband, "Shoot him, shoot him, shoot him."
Her husband fired the shotgun and the man fell to the ground. Then the shot man lunged a second time.
"Well, I shot him again, and I guess that was it," Keith Hoehn said.
Over at The Atlantic, a certain blogger just launched an "investigation" demanding that the Hoehn's provide DNA to prove that they are the parents of their children, and paperwork showing that the home is really their own.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:35 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Between this incident and the Joe Horn affair, I hope that would-be home-invaders get the message: if you invade someone's home (at least in Texas), you will probably be shot.
Posted by: Eric at September 05, 2008 09:58 AM (hZ8gX)
2
Thanks for giving us a glimpse into your simpleton neocon JEWISH/ZIONIST mind where defending yourself = right-wing.
Posted by: Yankee Poseur, Confederate not at September 05, 2008 11:38 AM (kq2Cy)
3
Seems like you've got your own trash to take out CY ...
Posted by: Dan Irving at September 05, 2008 01:46 PM (Kw4jM)
4
Seems like you've got Yankee community organizer problems.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at September 05, 2008 01:48 PM (LHaZf)
5
Wow. That was the first time I've ever had a comment from Olbermann. ;-)
Deleted it, lest someone get the idea I tolerate such things.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 05, 2008 01:53 PM (zqzYV)
6
Had a similar thing happen in Killeen TX outside of FT Hood when I was stationed there... two scumbags broke into a buddy of mines house and went after his wife... (we were in the field and they, the scumbags knew it) They chased her into the bedroom thinking they'd be having a 'good time' but when they got in there, she had been 'playin possum' and whipped out a .357 magnum that she knew and liked to use... score, Good Guys 2, Bad Guys, Zip. She shot 'em both DRT and the Chief of Police gave her a "Marksmenship Award" for saving him the trouble of a trial and jail... I
LOVED living in Texas for stories like that and this... Even the Libs should too... just think of the taxpayer savings on this!
Posted by: Big Country at September 05, 2008 02:44 PM (mhjyr)
7
Fabulous news, thank God that couple wasn't killed, and that there is one less piece of garbage in the world.
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
you may not defend yourself
guns are for criminals
just hope police show in time
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
prosecute citizens
when they kill home invaders
threatening their families
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
women shouldnÂ’t carry guns
their attackers and rapists
donÂ’t deserve their brains blown out
.
Philosophy of Liberty Cartoon
.
Help Halt Terrorism Today!
.
USpace
.
Posted by: USpace at September 05, 2008 11:47 PM (CbFii)
8
Kellie Hoehn said,"I am not happy that someone is dead....".
I am. Home invasions are vicious, violent crimes. The non-violent variation is called “burglary”. The reason these criminals armed themselves was to leave no witnesses. (My cousin his wife and 12 year old son were murdered in a home invasion in 1981.)
Exterminating this scum is, in my view, a public service. Does anyone believe that had the invaders been successful, they would have retired? If so, you are mistaken. The data in the NCVS and FBI murder statistics say they would continued until apprehended. Usually, they get caught trying to sell the items they have stolen.
As Americans we have the right to defend ourselves. If you are the head of a family, it is an obligation. I have flood lights, motion detectors, an alarm system and two large dogs (63 and 85 lbs). If intruders get past all of that, I will set off the alarm, call 911, and attempt to get my family and pets out of the house. Should someone try to stop me, I will empty my shotgun first then my Model 1911. My wife, who is a better shot than I, will also be armed. Lives will be lost.
Posted by: arch at September 06, 2008 07:10 AM (fKThr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 21, 2008
Why Are Snub-Nosed Revolvers Suggested for New Shooters?
One of the co-bloggers at Ace-of-Spades has
asked for advice on a handgun for CCH carry, and as a quick click over there will attest, there is no shortage of advice. Some of the advice provided so far is solid, most of it fell into the moderately helpful category, and some of it is simply ignorant or irrelevant to the question asked.
What was fascinating about the suggestions made was the overwhelming "conventional wisdom" recommendation of a short-barreled .38 Special/.357 Magnum revolver offered by many of those who responded.
A snub-nosed .38 revolver can be an excellent concealed carry gun—I currently have one in my possession that I've carried recently— but I don't know that I agree with some of the reasoning offered by those suggesting such a revolver for a new shooter with "little girly hands."
The basic snub-nosed revolver has great reliability, is uncomplicated, and in the ever-popular .38 Special, has decent stopping power when paired with modern defensive ammunition. That said the downsides are that it is thick through the cylinder (which can make it harder to conceal), and the short sight radius and heavy double-action trigger pull on most of those coming from the factory can make it difficult to shoot well, particularly for people with "little girly hands."
[FYI, my standard for "shooting well" is roughly defined as being able to put 5 shots in 9-inch paper-plate at 5 yards in less than 4 seconds from low-ready or a retention position, which isn't a very high standard, but is defensively adequate. Many people can do that in half the time.]
In contrast, good DAO semi-automatic subcompact pistols abound, and they can be far easier to learn to shoot to our "shoot well" standard, and often in a shorter amount of training time.
Whether you want to plug the merits of a Kahr, Springfield Armory XD, Glock, Smith & Wesson M&P, Kel-tec or something else is irrelevant to me, but the design philosophy behind these pistols seem to have resulted in numerous advantages over similarly-sized snub-nosed revolvers.
Most of these pistols are thinner than revolvers (at their thickest points), have a longer sight radius, a more manageable (typically longer and lighter) trigger pull, and a greater choice of ammunition (I'm thinking 9mm and .40 S&W in particular)that is less expensive and has a better reputation for stopping fights than the .38, without kicking as hard or with the blinding flash of a .357 Magnum. Semi-autos also offer a distinct advantage in reloading times and capacity, but as most shootings average 3-4 shots, this shouldn't be a deciding factor.
So tell me: why are snub-nosed revolvers so repeated recommended for new shooters, even by people who prefer semi-autos for their own use?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:54 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I don't carry (or even own) a functional firearm, but if I was going to get one (and I reserve for myself and others the right to do so) I might well consider a revolver (my uncle many years ago had one I think he called a "44-40" that I would like to have--not very concealable unless you ar 6 feet tall).
The reason: Not a semiautomatic or automatic--I see DC still won't issue a permit to Heller because has a "bottom-loader".
Besides, I just like the look of a revolver.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at July 21, 2008 01:21 PM (OmeRL)
2
I now know that .44-40 is a kind of ammunition.
I dunno what kind of a revolver it was, except to the little-kids-eyes my memory has to use, the barrel was in the range of 16 or 18 inches long and the men shooting it ended up pointing it skyward after each shot, and they were shooting a stuff on the far side of a cotton field.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at July 21, 2008 01:44 PM (OmeRL)
3
Might have been mor that 18 inches, it was pretty long.
And nickel (silver? chromium?) plated.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at July 21, 2008 01:45 PM (OmeRL)
4
I believe one of the major reasons is reliability and simplicity. I own both a revolver and an automatic- and anyone can clean and use a revolver easily, whereas dissassembling a semi-auto intimidates a lot of people and most people dont know how they work so if you are just starting out- it's one less item to worry about. just load ammo and squeeze the trigger. I prefer my semi-auto for it's high capacity and it's ease of reload, yet at a glance I can tell everything is working perfectly on my revolver.
Posted by: Scott at July 21, 2008 02:09 PM (P9kuM)
5
One reason is absolute reliability. A Smith & Wesson Chiefs Special is a five shot handy little gun that puts a new cartridge under the hammer with each pull of the trigger. Double action pull on the model 36 is smooth and even. The pistol is light and very accurate. Auto loaders are great for those who practice a lot as if there is a misfire they can quickly cycle the slide, loading a fresh cartridge. Charter Arms and Taurus also make quality stubbies. For my favorite a Colt Cobra at 14 ounces and a six shot cylinder.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 21, 2008 02:46 PM (J5AYY)
6
I would agree with the previous posters that reliability and ease of maintenance are in the revolver's favor.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at July 21, 2008 04:36 PM (TUWci)
7
In short, simplicity (primarily) and reliability in a package that can meet some minimal concealment standards and has a track record of being at least minimally effective.
Selecting a handgun for a specific purpose is subject to many constraints (cost, ammunition effectiveness, concealability, etc ad nauseum). Finding the optimum solution is challenging, and a basic snubby meets several criteria at minimal cost. Autoloaders would seem to be technical superior in combat situation (may have higher roundcount, faster reloads, etc), but a mechanical failure when the chips are down could be fatal to a shooter who chose not learn to shoot well or who didn't really bother to learn how the weapon functions.
Without knowing the depth of the individual's commitment to training, something that goes "bang" when you pull the trigger (or if not then you pull the trigger again) is an appealing recommendation. It's not an ideal solution: a 155mm howitzer has more stopping power, ninja training would make an Airsoft pistol deadly in 99 ways, and a Desert Eagle 0.50 of Cloaking would be easier to conceal. But a snubby covers many of these bases at a very basic level. It compromises on some, including accuracy, recoil, ammo capacity/reloads, and trigger pull (although single action is an option with hammered models), but finding something that is totally optimized is a null set.
All of CY's technical points are very valid (and align with my own personal views of what is right _for me_). Personally, however, I prefer to recommend snub revolvers for gunless folks new to shooting, especially those I don't know. Better still, IMHO, is for the gun buyer to handle and fire as many different kinds of guns as they can before purchasing their expensive tool.
Posted by: alphacharlie at July 21, 2008 06:05 PM (Ed7LL)
8
This sort of advice is a hangover from the 1970's when there were few semiautomatic pistols on the market, virtually all were full sized pistols, and virtually all had reliability problems. The revolver has always been the historical default handgun in America until the 1980's when semiautomatic pistols (hereinafter referred to as "pistols"), particularly the Glock, began to be available in great numbers. These weapons came, and continue to come in a wide variety of sizes, weights and configurations and are easily as reliable as revolvers.
I recall a gentleman of a prior generation who was advising a state law enforcement agency in the late 70's. His advice for choice of handgun for general issue was a five shot Smith & Wesson "snubby." He also recommended that only four rounds be carried in the cylinder and that the hammer rest on an empty cylinder for safety (!?) reasons. Bad advice for several reasons. I'll get into both shortly, but note that the empty chamber idea was valid for 1890's Colt single action revolvers because the hammer, if struck, could fire a round. Modern double action revolvers all have hammer blocking mechanisms to prevent this sort of accidental discharge.
Here are the facts about "snubbies." They were originally developed because of the obvious deficiencies of full sized revolvers which are large, heavy, hard to conceal, and sized for the hands of full sized American males. Snubbies are much smaller, more delicate in frame and grip, tend to weigh less, and are easier to conceal. However, there are substantial tradeoffs imposed.
Recoil: Recoil is a function of the energy of the cartridge and the configuration and weight of the handgun. There are two types of recoil: Actual and perceived. A given .357 magnum round will produce "X" amount of actual recoil in a given revolver. However, the recoil perceived will tend to be very different for a 200 pound man and a 135 pound woman. All revolvers tend to impart more actual and perceived recoil than semiautomatic pistols because the design of revolvers places the plane of the bore (the barrel) much higher above the hand than pistols. The higher the bore is above the hand, the more recoil will be experienced by the shooter.
Weight: Snubbies tend to weigh considerably less than full sized revolvers, particularly if their frames are made of aluminum or other light weight metals. However, lighter revolvers have less mass and will have more--often substantially more--actual and perceived recoil.
Accuracy: Snubbies tend to have only rudimentary, not adjustable, sights. Their shorter barrels, 2" as opposed to 4" or more on full sized revolvers, also result in less accuracy, particularly at ranges beyond a few yards. Short barrels also do not allow a cartridge to fully burn its powder charge, resulting in large and spectacular muzzle flash, which is a tactical detriment, particularly indoors or in other enclosed spaces. While working for a police agency that required all officers to carry full sized S&W .357 magnum revolvers with 4" barrels, we used to joke that even if we missed the bad guys, they'd be incinerated by the muzzle blast!
Action: Snubbies have double action trigger mechanisms. While safe and reliable, they tend to be heavy and difficult to manage, particularly under stress. Historically, police officers engaging in gunfights with revolvers had only about a 25% hit record, and this is at ranges of 6' and less! The lighter the revolver, the cruder the sights, the shorter the barrel, the more difficult it is to shoot accurately.
Capacity: Snubbies commonly hold only five rounds in .38 caliber. Some models are available with six round capacity, but these tend to be little more than full sized revolvers with 2" barrels and slightly smaller grips.
Reliability: Revolvers tend to be quite reliable. Pull the trigger, they generally go bang. However, they do malfunction (not jam. A jam requires tools to clear. A malfunction can be cleared in the field without tools). A bit of grit under the ejector star, for example, can freeze the action, rendering the weapon useless and can be very time consuming to clear.
Summary: Snubbies, while more concealable than full sized revolvers, tend to hold less ammunition, are harder to shoot accurately, have more recoil and muzzle flash, and while quite reliable, can malfunction and common malfunctions are difficult to clear.
There are those who argue that revolvers require less training than pistols, but this is inaccurate. Revolvers and pistols have differing manuals of arms. While pistols require more training initially, particularly in malfunction clearance, double action revolvers require substantially more training than pistols in trigger control. Yet, all common malfunctions in pistols can be cleared in four seconds or less. The same cannot be said of revolvers. And remember that 25% hit probability for cops? With pistols, it's 75%+.
One should not discount revolvers entirely for all people and all applications, but contemporary pistols are as accurate, and often more accurate due to longer barrels, better triggers and better sights. They are light, flat and concealable, have greater ammunition capacity and can be reloaded much more rapidly, it's easier to carry extra ammunition for pistols, they have less muzzle flash and recoil, and are not only as reliable as revolvers, but when they do malfunction, can be returned to service in the field within seconds. Oh, and they're much easier to clean than revolvers.
The bottom line? Choose an effective firearm/cartridge combination, receive competent initial and continuing training, practice regularly, and carry it. The old maxim that the man with one handgun is to be feared more than the man with many is true.
Posted by: Mike at July 21, 2008 06:17 PM (xm8w/)
9
New shooters get caught-up on the idiosyncracies of a semi-auto: safety, hammer drop, mag release, etc. Invariably they forget which is which.
That being said, any shooter should become well competent with their chosen firearm before deciding to carry it anywhere. Pick the gun that feels best, research it well (as this person is wisely doing) and then go with it and be comfortable in your choice.
Posted by: Fargo Refugee at July 21, 2008 11:01 PM (MQVqX)
10
"Hand guns are one thing. I think that it varies significantly for the individual. A woman would want a gun with a grip that is small and a profile that would conviently fit in a purse."
Purse carry is just about worthless. What is likely to be the first thing a bad guy takes? Guess what, if he was not armed, he is now.
Not purse carrying also gives you options.
Posted by: Matt at July 22, 2008 04:12 AM (rHW2R)
11
Semiautomatic handguns are more difficult for new shooters to use reliably and safely, as Manson disciple Squeaky Fromme learned when her .45 did not fire at President Ford, despite all her pulling on the trigger (she had not chambered a round after loading the magazine in the pistol). Snubbies on the other hand are harder to hit the target with, at more than conversational range.
The tradeoff between reliably firing, but maybe missing, with a snubbie wheelgun, versus the more complex requirements for gun handling before the bang occurs with a semiauto, is often resolved in favor of the more reliable "bang."
Practice practice practice....
Posted by: Mikee at July 22, 2008 09:34 AM (zN7nu)
12
Simplicity. New shooters may be intimidated by the mechanics of a semiauto. You can't get much simpler than a revolver. No magazines to deal with, just insert rounds into the cylinder. No slide to pull back to chamber a round, just squeeze the trigger (assuming your revolver is double-action).
Posted by: Eric at July 22, 2008 02:26 PM (BZsWa)
13
I don't recommend revolvers for new shooters - I recommend what feels good in the hands, is caliber enough for the use it will be put to, is able to be held and aimed so that it *can* be used for that use, and doesn't cost a fortune to buy or maintain (e.g. ammo cost).
All that said, if the buyer wants a revolver, fine! I have a S&W .357 revolver. But it's not what I would carry; for that I'm carrying one of my semi-autos. This is because of the sentimentality attached to the firearm, but even moreso is I have only a cheap nylon pancake holster that, while it has a thumb-strap, I wouldn't really want to carry the revolver in other than to the range and back.
Posted by: Lysander at July 22, 2008 04:43 PM (ShW/G)
14
Whatever you decide to carry, take it to the range, get competent training, and practice, practice, practice. There was a story in our local paper recently about a confrontation between an armed holdup man and a seasoned sheriffs deputy. The deputy fired several shots at close range and missed every one. Fortunately the skell didn't do any better but he did get away. Practice, practice, practice.
Posted by: glenn at July 22, 2008 06:27 PM (zp+Xy)
15
Matt,
You need to get to know more women. Most of the women in our area that carry keep the weapon in the purse. That is the only place available to a woman. As to taking the purse. A bad guy will certainly do that if he can get close. A good Southern woman will have her hand on the gun long before he is any where near.
Posted by: David Caskey at July 23, 2008 09:54 AM (H44J6)
16
"Matt,
You need to get to know more women. Most of the women in our area that carry keep the weapon in the purse. That is the only place available to a woman. As to taking the purse. A bad guy will certainly do that if he can get close. A good Southern woman will have her hand on the gun long before he is any where near."
Then you need to educate them as to the tactical disadvantage they place themselves at. And please do not tell me it is the only place they can carry.
Stress is a major factor regardless of the level of training they receive, and should someone get their purse away from them before they can react, they are done and over with. There are many other viable explanations as well. But I really do not care to go into them unless you feel you need the explanation.
Posted by: Matt at July 23, 2008 07:32 PM (rHW2R)
17
For an unsophisticated to average shooter: the snub-nosed revolver is still the best alternative. Light-weight, uncomplicated = reliable, EASY-TO-USE (without a huge amount of practice), and accurate (enough). Suggestions: Smith & Wesson 638/342, Taurus 851CIA, Charter-Arms Bulldog.
For a sophisticated shooter: A semi-auto would be a viable alternative. Many alternatives exist -- but initial and on-going practice are critical -- especially with double-action weapons.
Posted by: deMontjoie at July 27, 2008 06:44 PM (D4bPm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 10, 2008
Reuters Health and Science Editor Cites Well Known Gun Fraud in Heller Hit Piece
How incompetent can Reuter's Health and Science Editor Maggie Fox be that
she would cite Arthur Kellerman in a story about firearms?
She quotes Kellerman saying:
"A number of scientific studies, published in the world's most rigorous, peer-reviewed journals, show the risks of keeping a loaded gun in the home outweigh the potential benefits," Dr. Arthur Kellerman, an emergency physician at Emory University in Atlanta, wrote in The Washington Post.
Kellerman, a radically anti-gun doctor, has been discredited since 1986, when an article he co-authored with Donald T. Reay, "Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home" in the New England Journal of Medicine, created the oft-repeated fallacy that a person with a gun in the home is 43 times as likely to shoot someone in the family as to shoot a criminal. The authors arrived at the 43-1 figure by including 333 suicides in their total sample size of 389 firearms deaths.
Any competent person writing about firearms, public health and gun control should know about Kellerman's shoddy research and deservedly tattered reputation—Google certainly does—so why doesn't Reuters?
(h/t Hot Air)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:36 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 2 kb.
1
You asked: "so why doesn't Reuters? The answer is simple because it's Reuters.
Posted by: airedale at July 10, 2008 12:52 AM (NVjZv)
2
I forsee the objection from someone that the suicides SHOULD count, because the gun made them more likely.
So, this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml
Posted by: Foxfier at July 10, 2008 01:02 AM (3aOlt)
3
You expect the truth from the anti Constitution left?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 10, 2008 06:20 AM (kNqJV)
4
"According to the Justice Department, far more guns are lost each year to burglary or theft than are used to defend people or property."
Maybe itÂ’s just me but that could be a huge mistake by the gun banners. The logical conclusion from this is that crime guns are stolen guns. Not guns bought by criminals at gun shows or gun stores as they claim nonstop.
Posted by: Mad Saint Jack at July 10, 2008 06:31 AM (U+uu5)
5
The lefties don't want guns in the hands of the citizens for one simple reason: they don't want the proletariat to be able to overthrow the socialist government they're trying to build.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 10, 2008 07:23 AM (n8vfc)
6
They probably do know but disagree with it. Why would you expect them to be much different than any of the other anti-gun lobbies.
The question is what are their arguments for thinking Kellerman's argument is credit worthy as all they appear to have is nothing more than an appeal to authority defended by a bunch of appeals to authority, and a large part for them wanting us to believe their transformation from just another group of people with shared opinions to objective new organization speaking truth to power is the implicit suggestion that they will be skeptical of appeals to authority.
I really liked the three stooges arguments, better, than maggie's -- liked in a funny way, not a 'they were reasonable arguments' way. At one time "logic dictate(d)" doctors use leaches for just about everything and we know how well that logic stands up now. As for "research has shown", research has also shown there are two kinds of research -- good and bad -- so they have left me wondering which kind the good doctors are referring to.
Posted by: Dusty at July 10, 2008 08:40 AM (1Lzs1)
7
"According to the Justice Department, far more guns are lost each year to burglary or theft than are used to defend people or property."
I have a very hard time believing that, as last year firearms were used to defend people (just from muggings and robbery) 2.5 million times.
Are they trying to say that there were more than 2.5 million burglaries last year? Guess what? Last year there were 2.1 million burglaries. That would mean that over half of those would have had to have two or more firearms stolen during the act.
According to the FBI there were around 500,000 firearms stolen in 2006.
That dog don't hunt.
Posted by: Matt at July 10, 2008 06:40 PM (rHW2R)
8
"Maybe itÂ’s just me but that could be a huge mistake by the gun banners. The logical conclusion from this is that crime guns are stolen guns. Not guns bought by criminals at gun shows or gun stores as they claim nonstop."
Now, you are correct to a point. Many of the firearms used in crimes do come from legally owned firearms that were stolen. But not most nor all. IIRC, something like 40% were stolen, 48% were from either out of country smuggling and trade, or outer state trade, 2% were from gun shows and the small cracks in legal gun shops, and 10% were either unidentified, or personally produced.
I will check my facts when I get to work tomorrow.
Posted by: Matt at July 10, 2008 06:45 PM (rHW2R)
9
Matt- If you have some links I'd love to see them.
thx.
Posted by: Mad Saint Jack at July 12, 2008 01:01 PM (8Wz0Q)
10
http://www.youhide.com/nph-info.pl/000110A/687474703a2f2f7777772e67756e66616374732e696e666f2f706466732f67756e2d66616374732f342e302f47756e4661637473342d302d53637265656e2e706466
Posted by: Matt at July 12, 2008 05:24 PM (rHW2R)
11
Sorry that link didn't work.
Google gunfacts 4.0
Posted by: Matt at July 12, 2008 05:24 PM (rHW2R)
Posted by: at March 01, 2009 08:59 AM (+Xe1F)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 02, 2008
Liberal Blogger Shot During Mugging In D.C.
Liberal blogger
Brian Beutler was
shot three times during a mugging last night in Washington, D.C., apparently over a cell phone.
Let's hope that he has a full and speedy recovery.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:03 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I click on the Spectator link and get...
Reported Attack Site!
This web site at www.spectator.org has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences.
http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=Firefox&hl=en-US&site=http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp#13426
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 96 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 1 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 07/01/2008, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 04/05/2008.
Malicious software is hosted on 2 domain(s), including h25.6600.org, dns5.8866.org.
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at July 02, 2008 05:37 PM (yiMNP)
2
I am reminded of the saying that a neo-conservative is a liberal who was mugged. I hope that he recovers, and that the experience causes him to rethink a few things.
Posted by: Grey Fox at July 02, 2008 05:44 PM (7/1Sr)
3
Bob, clean up on aisle 2
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 02, 2008 05:45 PM (kNqJV)
4
That was quick, thanks
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 02, 2008 05:45 PM (kNqJV)
5
It's not possible, there are no gun dealers in DC.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 02, 2008 07:08 PM (VNM5w)
6
You can bet the thugs just obtained they're weapons 'legally' in D.C. Liberals can start becoming part of the solution or continue to be the problem.
Posted by: Scrapiron at July 02, 2008 10:26 PM (I4yBD)
7
Outside the beltway has a post indicating he'll be alright. Though I'll believe it if he survives the hospital infection. :-) I'll clog the connection with a few prayers, too.
The Spectator notes his spleen was removed and suggest the severity of that loss, but I know someone who lost it in an accident when 8 and has never had an issue in over forty years. Here's hoping he has the same post-loss experience.
Thanks for pointing it out to me, CY.
Posted by: Dusty at July 03, 2008 08:55 AM (GJLeQ)
8
But...but HOW can this BE???!!! Guns are outlawed in D.C.! This just ISN'T possible, as the guy who shot him would have had to break the law to have the gun in the FIRST place! The guy would have had to commit a crime to have it.
Oh YEAH, the guy who shot Beutler was a mugger and ALREADY committed crimes!
If Beutler recovers, MAYBE he'll learn the lesson that if you make having a gun a crime, only the criminals will HAVE guns.
Posted by: chiefpayne at July 03, 2008 09:30 AM (clifi)
9
I hope all ends well for him, and will say a prayer. But I wonder if he wished that he had a gun when he was mugged, or if he wished there were more gun laws?
Posted by: Matt at July 03, 2008 10:12 AM (rHW2R)
10
I guess we will find out in a few days how he reacts and if he learns his lesson. Perhaps this is a liberal intelligence test. See how he does.
Posted by: Johnnie at July 03, 2008 10:17 AM (onLkk)
11
Strange, a leading liberal blogger who hasnt put a post up in a month and a half? Hummmm
Posted by: web at July 03, 2008 03:26 PM (LMvXl)
12
May Brian have a speedy recovery and a steady aim after he buys some protection, goes to school and learns how to protect himself, his family and his property.
Washington DC, is not safe even for esteemed liberal Senators in SUV's with expense account gasoline.
Who, me worry?
Posted by: Typical White Person at July 03, 2008 07:13 PM (08Idx)
13
Smarty,
Maybe it is "conservative," not "neo-conservative." The basic saying is an old one, however. I am not old enough to have invented it. Bill Buckley might have...
Posted by: Grey Fox at July 05, 2008 01:42 PM (fLd3U)
14
Hope he recovers with no complications. Too bad the Supreme Court took too long to offer him the option of saving his own life.
Posted by: DoorHold at July 06, 2008 11:43 AM (VOAix)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 01, 2008
Reporting What They Want You to Hear
I've criticized ABC News on numerous occasions for their coverage of gun-related stories, but their coverage of the Joe Horn shooting incident in Pasadena, Texas is one of the
more irresponsible stories they've posted since ... well, since
the last one I saw in late April.
Perhaps equally unsurprising is that the Associated Press made the same crucial omission in a story that has gained national attention.
Joe Horn faced the possibility of being charged by a Texas grand jury after he shot and killed two men who had broken into the home next door. Horn had called 911, told the dispatcher he though they were going to get away, and despite repeated pleas by the dispatcher to stay inside his own home, decided to step outside with a shotgun after declaring his intention to kill them.
He did.
The shhoting seven months ago has inflamed ethnic tensions in the area, and raised questions regarding the ethical use of deadly force to defend property. There are all sorts of opinions on the story, but a key detail that may have significantly influenced the grand jury's decision not to press charges was completely ignored by ABC News and the Associated Press.
As noted in passing by some news outlets including the L.A. Times, plainclothes police officer responding to Horn's 911 call witnessed the shooting:
Ballistics tests suggested that at least one of the men had been shot in the back, raising questions about Horn's story.
But a plainclothes detective who witnessed some of what took place later told investigators that the men did not stop when a visibly nervous Horn pointed a shotgun in their direction, and that at least one man appeared to be moving toward Horn when Horn fired.
The Houston Chronicle likewise noted the presence of the detective:
Pasadena police have said a detective in plainclothes had parked in front of Horn's house in response to the 911 call, and saw the two men before they crossed into Horn's front yard.
Police believe that neither Horn nor the burglars knew an officer was present.
When Horn confronted the men in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, police have said. However, the men ignored his order to freeze.
Authorities have said one man ran toward Horn but had angled away toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.
The tape of Horn's 911 call, testimony from Horn, and forensics were no doubt key pieces of evidence weighed by the grand jury, but it is reasonable to suspect that the testimony of the detective that witnessed the shooting—a very rare occurrence in cases involving the use of deadly force—was among the most influential evidence heard by the grand jury.
Why, then, was the mention of the detective's eye-witnessing these events and no doubt providing key testimony that influenced the grand jury's decision not to bring charges whitewashed by the these news organizations?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:06 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 506 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Some people believe deadly force is never justified and that the criminal is always right.
In Maryland a criminal killed a policeman with his car. Taken into custody he was found dead. How he died is not yet certain. However this case is now being tried in the press.
While I would certainly wish an inquiry into the reasons and cause of death the press should not speculate nor allow it to be used as an instrument to cause tension.
In fact, I think we would be a better society if we followed the Uk's practise of not allowing coverage of a criminal trial until the verdict is rendered. The rights of the accused should always take priority over the press.
I doubt the media will cover ewither Horn's case or this one with any even handedness or fairness. Its time we stopped allowing the media to play advocate for criminals.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at July 01, 2008 03:41 PM (LHaZf)
2
I hope Mr. Horn policed his brass for reloading and properly cleaned his weapon after using it. I pray to have a neighbor living by me that is his brother's keeper.
Posted by: twolaneflash at July 02, 2008 08:20 AM (05dZx)
3
"Why, then, was the mention of the detective's eye-witnessing these events and no doubt providing key testimony that influenced the grand jury's decision not to bring charges whitewashed by the these news organizations?"
I've asked myself for years: Is the media malicious or just incompetent? The only possible answer is that they are both.
Posted by: Jabba the Tutt at July 02, 2008 08:33 AM (v9rJu)
4
Well, I have nothing against shooting criminals or illegal aliens in the back, but the apparant statements of the plainclothes officer don't really do much for the issue. While it is important that at least one of the criminals first moved towards, but then turned away, still they apparently got shot in the back. Now, in the old days, and Justice OConnor actually endorsed this belief, the police or anyone could use deadly force to stop any criminal; burglar, murderer, rapist, thief, etc. I think that is the point we should get back to. Widespread use of deadly force was one of the reasons crime was so low before the 60s. Really bad criminals just did not have very long lifes. Or they just did not commit crimes where there was much of a chance of confrontation with the public or cops. Getting shot in the back by a cop discouraged much crime.
Posted by: Johnnie at July 02, 2008 10:29 AM (onLkk)
5
I've always been fond of a "Bill of No Rights" which happens to include the following:
If a cop (or armed citizen) shouts something like "stop or I'll shoot", you do NOT have the right to NOT get shot if you don't stop.
Back - front - side - doesn't matter to me. They refused the order and got what they deserved.
Posted by: Mark at July 02, 2008 01:07 PM (4od5C)
6
WRT the the prisoner found dead in custody. You will be happy to know the ACLU is not interested in pursuing the issue. Why? Because everyone involved is Black.
Posted by: davod at July 02, 2008 01:40 PM (llh3A)
7
Texas Penal Code
§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Tex. Penal Code § 9.43 (2007)
§ 9.43. Protection of Third Person's Property
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
__________________________________________________
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud)
Posted by: George Bruce at July 02, 2008 02:41 PM (v4XVE)
8
I'm glad they dropped the charges, and not particularly surprised considering the location, but killing burglars who were arguably running away is a questionable act.
As for why important information was left out of the usual suspect's reports, I assume that was a rhetorical question as we KNOW why.
Posted by: DoorHold at July 06, 2008 11:54 AM (VOAix)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 29, 2008
ATF Takes Machine Guns From Blackwater in NC
22 fully-automatic assault rifles were confiscated by the BATF from Moyock, NC-based Blackwater Worldwide last week after a story was published in the Raleigh
News & Observer questioning an arrangement between the private military contractor and the Camden County, North Carolina Sheriff's Department.
Blackwater financed the purchase of 17 Romanian AK-47s and 17 Bushmaster Bushmaster XM15 E2S for the Sheriff's SWAT team as it was forming in 2005. The Sheriff's Department had requested both weapons systems for trial. After training, deputies determined that the AK-47s did not meet their needs for SWAT use, and since that time, the 17 AK-47s and 5 of the17 XM15 carbines have been stored in a weapons locker dedicated to the Sheriff's Department at Blackwater's training facility armory. The other 12 XM15s are deployed with deputies. The department does not have an armory of it's own. Both the Sheriff's Department and Blackwater insist that the arrangement made three years ago is legal.
Fully-automatic weapons have always been legal to own in the United States according to federal law, though they are prohibited or further restricted in some states. There are more than 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF as of 1995. Roughly half of those are owned by civilians, and the rest are owned by government entities such as police and sheriff's departments.
As a matter of policy the BATF will not comment on pending investigations, but the most likely cause for the confiscation was the determination by the BATF that the arrangement may have constituted a "strawman" purchase. On the most basic level, a "strawman" occurs when someone who is legally authorized to purchase a firearm knowingly purchases it for someone who they know or suspect cannot buy a firearm on their own. Additional scrutiny applies to the purchase, transfer and possession of machine guns under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA). NFA places a $200 tax on the transfer of firearms, and FOPA banned the possession or sale of machine guns to civilians manufactured after May of 1986.
The BATF may claim that the three-year-old arrangement, where the Sheriff's Department stores their weapons at Blackwater's armory is a violation of the transfer and possession requirements of NFA and/or FOPA. Anne Tyrrell, spokesperson for Blackwater Worldwide, argues that FOPA does not apply "because we never owned the weapons. The Camden County Sheriff's Department own them."
Tyrrell further claims that BATF agents have known of the arrangement with the Camden County Sheriff for an extended period of time, saying via email:
"All aspects of our contract with a local Sheriff's Department are valid and lawful. Some of the same ATF agents involved in the current inquiry have long been aware of this arrangement as a result of visits to our facility and audits of our firearms programs at Blackwater's request. As a company that is fully licensed to sell, provide training on, or even manufacture weapons---including machine guns---we have worked closely with the ATF to ensure we are in compliance with all applicable federal firearms laws. We look forward to cooperating with the government to resolve this allegation."
Pro-Blackwater blog Blackwaterfacts backs Tyrrell, claiming that the AFT did a full inventory of the facility in 2005, including the Camden County Weapons locker, after Blackwater alerted the ATF to two employees that worked in the armory were engaged in illegal activity.
If it is accurate that BATF agents had "long been aware" of the existence of the Camden County Weapons locker at Blackwater, but had not seen fit to confiscate them until now, it suggests that new details may have emerged. That detail may have been provided in articles from the News & Observer and the Elizabeth City, NC-based Daily Advance, which note that in addition to merely storing the Sheriff's Department weapons, they may have been used to train police and military units.
Blackwater, which also manufactures vehicles and airships, is the largest security contractor for the U.S. State Department and operates one of the largest tactical firearms training centers in the world. Critics of the company have attacked it as a mercenary army, and Blackwater security personnel in Iraq have been accused of using excessive force in numerous engagements, including a September 2007 incident in Baghdad's Nisour Square where 17 Iraqi civilians were killed.
correction: Moyock, NC not Mynock, as noted by "EC" in the comments.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:31 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 749 words, total size 5 kb.
1
I smell politics... specifically, lefty anti-war politics.
I could be wrong; I
hope I am wrong. But the way the anti-war lefties have treated Blackwater in the past makes the suspicion spring to mind.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 29, 2008 04:28 PM (Hc4y8)
2
Is it a legal confication? Probably. But WTF people. Now they don't trust State sanctioned LEOs with select fire weapons? You have got to be kidding me.
For the record. The weapons that were confiscated are not Machine guns by definition.
CCG, I agree I smell politics. Politics do not belong in either law enforcement nor do they belong in the military.
Posted by: Matt at June 29, 2008 04:39 PM (91A6Z)
3
I agree, I bet there is a Democrat Marxist Congressman in the mix somewhere. Payback, a Democrat speciality.
Posted by: bill-tb at June 29, 2008 07:02 PM (7evkT)
4
Bob,
Just a correction: BW is based in "Moyock, NC".
Mynock, I believe, is a carnivorous flying creature featured in "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back" that chewed on the power cables of the Millenium Falcon while she was put down for repairs in the belly of that huge asteroid worm.
Posted by: EC at June 30, 2008 10:30 AM (mAhn3)
5
Pat,
You're over 45, aren't you. That was back when Public Schools actually taught writing.
Posted by: Bill Smith at June 30, 2008 01:43 PM (IE/I+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 27, 2008
SHOCKER: Associated Press Gets Facts Wrong in Gun Story
In a story about the Federal ATF raid to confiscate assault rifles (real ones for a change) that Blackwater International held in a secure vault for the local Camden County Sheriff that owns them, Associated Press report Mike Baker twice claims that it is illegal for private citizens or companies to purchase automatic weapons.
Fair-use, non-lede quote:
Federal laws prohibit private parties from buying automatic weapons, but allows law enforcement agencies to have them.
This claim is absolutely and unquestioningly false.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) imposed a tax on machine guns, but did not make them illegal to own by private citizens or companies. While extremely expensive, one can legally purchase machine guns from a wide variety of vendors.
Due to a Clinton-era restriction, machine guns manufactured after 1986 are not available for private sale, but this has had the side effect of making these machine guns an investment, and they are being marketed that way.
The media's ignorance of the subjects they write about never fails to amaze me.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:35 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Actually that MG manufacturing ban was under Reagan as part of the compromise to get the Firearms Owners Protection Act passed. The hope was that it would be undone under a future Republican Congress. It hasn't happen, at least not yet.
Posted by: Dave Brown at June 27, 2008 12:17 PM (nUBV4)
2
I think you meant that machine guns manufactured before 1986 are investments, since they're transferable.
Posted by: Matt at June 27, 2008 02:26 PM (cXWnh)
3
“I hate them, I do hate them.”- Col. Kurtz
I was yelling at the TV a lot on Thursday.
CNN Lou Dobbs had a “legal expert” who said US v Miller was 170 years ago.
As to the MG ban remember MG were registered then the registry was closed. Also in DC handgun had to registered then the registry was closed. England and Australia had registration laws which led to bans.
The Brady bunchÂ’s view of Heller is that registration is allowed and they will start to push on all fronts.
2A supporters need to be able to articulate that the only thing that registration will accomplish is the confiscation and banning of firearms.
Posted by: Mad Saint Jack at June 28, 2008 03:24 PM (pTWVg)
4
The media get well over 50% of the stories involving firearms law wrong.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 29, 2008 07:42 AM (dcqty)
5
You mean that all those layers of fact checkers, editors, gimlet eyed and driven by their desire to print the facts, actually made a mistake in a story. I'm shocked.
Posted by: glenn at June 29, 2008 12:47 PM (zp+Xy)
6
The recent Heller decision talks about the M-16. If you haven't you should read it, search on M-16. The fact that the Second Amendment is an enumerated right makes encumbering it more difficult. Going to be lots of interesting suits in the future.
Who thinks the drive by media gets the gun stories wrong by accident? Who thinks they get them wrong to push and agenda? Thought so ... The AP is the worst of the worst as far as preaching the Democrat Marxist line.
Posted by: bill-tb at June 29, 2008 07:07 PM (7evkT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 10, 2008
Toddler Shot with CCH Holder's Gun
The sad story out of Columbia, SC, is an example of why I find some methods of carrying concealed
completely unacceptable:
A 4-year-old girl grabbed her grandmother's gun and shot herself at a Sam's Club store in Columbia, S.C., authorities said.
Police Department spokesman Brick Lewis said the child took the gun from her grandmother's purse Monday and shot herself in the chest.
He said the child's grandmother has a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon. She has not been charged with a crime.
While I'm sure to have folks disagree on this point, I simply don't find off-body carry to be responsible. If you have your carry weapon in a purse or a bag, you put yourself in a situation where you will, during the course of your day, willingly relinquish control of your weapon numerous times. No person on this planet keeps a purse, bag, or briefcase in hand at all times, often placing it in a seat, shopping cart, on a desk, etc.
For unarmed people this is not an issue; shoplifters, purse-snatchers, and other thieves aren't rampant at our homes or places of work, and the very worst that can occur as a result of someone else accessing a bag or case is identity theft. For those who chose to carry a firearm, you should be held to a higher standard of responsibility, and when you carry off-body in a bag, you create a situation where unauthorized access arms curious children or thieves with a lethal weapon.
Frankly, the grandmother in this case should be charged for criminal negligence (or something similar) and have her carry permit revoked. She knew she was going to be around small children, and apparently left a lethal weapon unsecured in a purse in a shopping cart with a small child.
I'm glad that the child looks like she will recover, but Grandma should not be allowed to make such an irresponsible mistake again, and I'd urge my fellow CCH holders to carry on your person, or not carry at all.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:28 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I only disagree with you in that she should have her carry permit revoked. I firmly hold that your CCH is embodied in the Constitution. That being said, I also believe she should be charged and convicted of something thus making her a felon and then ineligible to own a weapon. I don't mind reasonable restrictions.
Posted by: MAJ Gross at June 10, 2008 08:41 AM (Da6a7)
2
I agree with everything except charging the grandmother. She will have to live with the death of this child, her granddaughter, for the rest of her life. I really can't think of a harsher punishment.
Posted by: tracelan at June 10, 2008 09:04 AM (ZlXVq)
3
Sorry, I should read the whole story before commenting. Thankfully the little girl didn't die. Boy do I feel stupid.
Posted by: tracelan at June 10, 2008 09:08 AM (ZlXVq)
4
I'm afraid I must disagree. While carrying in a purse is not optimal from a weapon control standpoint, I know several women who do use that method of carry (not exclusively) and they pull it off well because they understand the potential dangers you outlined and take measures to keep control of their purses at all times. The point here is not that purse carry should not be allowed, but that it does require more attention to detail than other methods.
Carrying a concealed weapon at all requires changes in attitude, dress, awareness, intention, behavior and even association and movement. This lady apparently never had the opportunity to learn this, or, like all human beings, failed to be perfect. This is, of course, not an excuse. What excuse is there for this kind of failing? What words could possibly explain or justify it? And knows this better than this grandmother?
As a former police officer of nearly two decades of experience, I've seen many situations where decent citizens, through a moment's inattention, were the cause of great grief. Prosecute this woman? There is nothing the state can possibly do to punish her beyond the punishment she will render to herself each and every time she thinks of this incident, each and every time she sees her granddaughter or her daughter. Justice without mercy is a cruel and hollow thing indeed. And what would the lesson of such prosecution be? I think every possible lesson is quite clear already, certainly to this unfortunate woman and her family.
We should also keep in mind that the antis will leap upon this situation as justification for ending concealed carry and banning all weapons. We know that such situations are newsworthy because of their extreme rarity. Let's not give the antis any ammunition they don't already have.
We allow people to drive knowing that some percentage of the population is going to make mistakes and that people will die as a result of those mistakes. We also know that that percentage of the driving population will always be far higher than mistakes made by the percentage of the population that carries concealed. Something, perhaps, to keep in mind?
Posted by: Mike at June 10, 2008 10:09 AM (BUK9V)
5
I don't have a problem with carrying in a bag that one keeps with them--for some people, it's sometimes just not an option to have the gun strapped to their hip. However, with a small child around she should have known better than to keep it anywhere the child could reach and access it. The news story is sketchy on details, but it sounds like she was negligent--I'll be surprised and disappointed if she isn't charged with something.
Posted by: Matt at June 10, 2008 10:24 AM (cXWnh)
6
Prosecute this woman? There is nothing the state can possibly do to punish her beyond the punishment she will render to herself each and every time she thinks of this incident, each and every time she sees her granddaughter or her daughter.
Is that the new standard now? If you do something, but feel really,
really bad about it, then you don't have to face charges?
No, justice doesn't have anything to do with her feelings, but with treating her the same as anyone else who gave a child access to a weapon through an act of negligence.
I stand committed: in my opinion she should be charged.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 10, 2008 10:31 AM (xNV2a)
7
Sure the grandmother should be charged--but the law shouldn't try to restrict people's choice in the matter.
There was a news story a while back about a five year old being run over in his own driveway by his sixteen year old brother. I'm not positive on the ages but they're analogous. How then would the law handle this? Restrict parking in your own driveway? Restrict children under ten from playing in driveways? You see my point.
Accidents will happen no matter what. We'll *never* create a risk-free, accident-free society.
Posted by: Peter Grigor at June 10, 2008 10:39 AM (LO+ca)
8
Charge her; CC usually has some requirements. If she violated them, then the law was broken that way.
The kid could've reached in and got nail polish remover and drank that, many different things.
Smarty- most folks with CCP would have the gun out *before* the rapist has physical control of them.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 10, 2008 03:11 PM (3aOlt)
9
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it seems to me that there is very likely a law against negligence leading to injury or death, and the grandmother would seem to be chargeable under such a statute.
You are getting on CY for assuming there is a law that covers this, but you're making the same mistake in reverse, assuming that there
isn't a law covering it. Et tu, kettle?
Posted by: C-C-G at June 11, 2008 07:58 AM (X5vKa)
10
C-C-G-
Please note, I said to apply the laws as they relate.
Rather than hooting and hollering about how horrible it is that some people CC in a set way, and there otta be a law and it should be retro active, because the poor little kid could've killed herself.
Please, explain how "apply the law" is an appeal to emotion?
I see it as no different from the kid getting carkeys and hurting themselves with the vehicle.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 11, 2008 07:00 PM (3aOlt)
11
Interesting...my reply got eaten.
Short version:
CCG-
the only person who suggested NOT enforcing laws did not even mention CY, let alone "pile on."
Given that lack, you must have been interpreting any disagreement as "piling on" and since I'm one of those yelling "HOLD UP! just follow the laws," it's logical to respond as if you WERE speaking to me.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 12, 2008 04:27 PM (3aOlt)
12
I'd never heard the term "carry off-body" and I've used and owned firearms since I was a child. I suspect other gun owners, and that lady, may also be unaware of that aspect of your argument. The point makes some sense, but I can see that it could easily be debateable, eg., Why do they sell bags and purses explicitly designed for CC?
With at least one caveat (if she was grossly negligent under the law) I agree with the officer's posts that it was a horrible accident and should be treated as such.
Posted by: DoorHold at June 15, 2008 10:32 AM (2oa5y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 02, 2008
Edumacated
It appears that our education system is failing us once more, as a collegiate newspaper published an anti-gun editorial penned upon completely false information.
It is sad enough when one editorialist makes up the basic facts his story hinges upon; it's worse when editorial board signs off on this kind of ignorance:
In 2004, a federal ban on assault weapons expired.
Now, four years later, Mayor Michael Nutter and Governor Ed Rendell want to reduce violent crime nationally by convincing Congress to re-enact the ban.
The ten-year federal ban forbids the possession, manufacture, use and import of assault weapons. And according to a 1999 National Institute of Justice study, it reduced the percent of crime committed with assault weapons, including police murders, by a significant amount.
The only thing that the editorial board of the Daily Pennsylvanian got right in this editorial is that the ban expired in 2004.
As we well know, the so-called "assault weapons" ban in the 1994 Crime Bill:
- Did not ban the manufacture of semiautomatic firearms. In fact, companies that manufacture semi-automatic firearms, such as Bushmaster and Olympic Arms thrived throughout the length of the ban, and Kahr Arms was founded as a direct result of a market created by the ban;
- Did not ban the transfer of semiautomatic firearms. Sales of semiautomatic firearms actually increased during the 1994-2004 ban.
- Did not ban the possession of semi-automatic firearms. This includes weapons defined as "assault weapons" under the ban, as long as they had been manufactured prior to the law going into effect, and tens of thousands of semi-automatic firearms made and sold during the ban;
The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was irrelevant; if anything it had the unintended effect of making such firearms more desirable, increasing their popularity.
Sadly, this mythical view of the accomplishments of the 1994 AW Ban is common "conventional wisdom" in left-leaning journalism and politics. Unlike so many views held in the community-based reality, however, the perception has nothing to do with the truth.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:32 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Remember the great correction in the NYT from last week where a reporter stated that, since the US had committed biowarfare, the AIDS/CIA fable was a rational belief. Of course the Times had to later concede that there was "no evidence" of such an event. Obviously the MSMers, graduates of fancy schools of Marxist this and that know a universe of things that are not only untrue, but stupidly so and anti-American to boot. Remember this, friends, when your children are college bound.
Posted by: megapotamus at June 03, 2008 11:32 AM (LF+qW)
2
Let us not forget that the antigun forces, desperate to find support for their beloved ban, did studies which found that ten years of the ban had no effect on crime whatever. It did not reduce "gun violence," to say nothing of "assault weapon violence," because both terms were and are media/anti-gun inventions and exist only in the fevered imaginations of those who believe that the way to combat crime is to punish the tools used by criminals.
There was, however, another salutatory effect of the ban. Because magazines (yes, magazines; the only currently manufactured firearm in widespread circulation that uses a "clip" is the M1 Garand rifle) were limited to only 10 rounds, manufacturers miniaturized handguns to those dimensions, giving rise to my Glock 26 and a variety of other similarly small firearms. Unintended consequences indeed.
Posted by: Mike at June 03, 2008 07:30 PM (mSx64)
3
To anyone that is fighting the fight against the gungrabbers, try using this as a reference.
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf
Now, let it be known that of ALL the firearms crimes committed last year, only 2% were committed with rifles (this means any kind of rifle).
Now know that more people were killed last year by someone beating them to death with hands and feet only than were killed with a firearm.
The left really pisses me off.
Posted by: Matt at June 07, 2008 02:10 PM (qDnDT)
4
What's this? An anti-gun article that doesn't use the phrase "common sense laws?" I thought Soros made that a mandatory requirement.
Since the incorrectly labeled "assault weapons" are used in such an insignificant portion of crimes (not insignificant if you're the victim, I suppose) I can imagine a "study" finding a drop from, say, 2.01% to 2.00% being used to declare the ban a success. But that's just a guess as the studies I'm aware of found no association between that law and a drop in crime.
Doesn't matter, they're all living in another world where facts are irrelevant to their goals.
Posted by: DoorHold at June 08, 2008 09:24 AM (V/7GJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 31, 2008
Bitter and Clingy Bleg [Bumped]
Bumped to the top.
The M&P Compact isn't the only handgun I've got out on loan. Here's a stock picture of the very nice J-frame 637 CT (Crimson Trace Laser) I've been carrying. That little capsule-shaped bump at the top of the grip is the laser aiming module.
I've had some very nice items loaned to me in recent weeks for a long-term story I'm developing, including this one.
Nice, isn't it?
The only downside of this project is that while I've found the shooting industry to be very gracious and giving, there are still some out-of-pocket expenses involved, and finances are a bit tight right now as we adjust to the new baby, as you might expect.
If you can chip in a couple of bucks, I'd greatly appreciate it, and if you can't that's cool, too.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:09 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 4 kb.
1
I prefer a good ole chunk of American or Brazilian steel myself, but I've heard good things about the M&P. Did they give you money to feed it too? Seems the price of ammo goes up just about every day...
Posted by: the pistolero at May 30, 2008 09:22 AM (uNxV7)
2
S&W didn't give me money to feed them, but ATK and Winchester have me taken care of, ammo wise.
It's the "other stuff" that will start piling up quickly--range fees, targets, training (I'd love to get at least one more formal class in), etc.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 30, 2008 09:32 AM (xNV2a)
3
I see a removable (drop clip) in the weapon so if Obambi is elected you can expect the Peeeloshi/Obambi weapon confication police to be at your door. That is the first, (anything with a removable clip) weapons they have planned for removal from the hands of the 'American citizens'. Think they need a constitutional amendment to violate your rights. Forget it, they are the American Communist Party, aka democrats, and the constitution is simply a yellowed piece of paper.
Posted by: Scrapiron at May 30, 2008 06:11 PM (GAf+S)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 13, 2008
Killing The Zombie
On the morning of Saturday, May, 3, Philadelphia Police Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski was brutally shot down at close range by one of three bank robbers. Liczbinski was hit at least five times with bullets fired by a cross-dressing thug armed with a Chinese-made SKS. It was a horrific crime that left Liczbinski's wife a widow, and his three children to grow up without a father.
On Thursday, May 8, Governor Rendell sent out a press release calling for a reinstatement of the federal assault weapons ban, a 1994 law than banned the cosmetic features of various firearms, and several specific firearms by name. The features banned in the ill-fated law were insignificant to the function of these firearms, and lightly modified versions of these same guns (with the offending features removed) were already on the market by the time the law went into effect with no impact to the accuracy, rate of fire, or lethality of these weapons.
A MYTHICAL BAN
Pre-1994 TEC-9 made illegal by 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban(Left).
1994 and later AB-10 (AB mockingly meaning "after ban"
AB-10 already in gun stores before the 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban became active(Right).
Functionally, both firearms are identical, with only banned "scary looking" features removed.
The ban did have one unintended consequence, that of creating an entirely new class of weapons, sub-compact semiautomatic pistols, which now sell at brisk pace to concealed weapons permit holders.
The Governor's press release is replete with falsehoods, inaccuracies, and embellishments, betraying a sloppiness of thought on the part of the Governor as he spoke, and on the part of his staff in compiling a press release based upon wishes, but not reality.
For starters, and perhaps ironically, the rifle used in this killing is not an assault rifle. The ownership, selling, or buying of SKS rifles such as the one used in this shooting was not outlawed under the failed 1994 federal law.
All the same, Rendell claimed:
"The firearm used to murder Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski was designed for one thing only - the death of a fellow human being," Governor Rendell said of the Chinese-made SKI assault rifle fired at the officer as he responded to a bank robbery Saturday morning. "There was no chance that his body armor could have protected him from the power of this weapon."
To be fair, the statement is partially correct. The SKS was designed to shoot at human beings when created back in 1945. The popular intermediate-powered carbine is best known, however, for its reliability and economy. It is popular in the civilian market, used as a knock-about utility rifle for plinking, wild animal control, and brush-country hunting.
Rendell is also partially correct on another point: it is unlikely that the unfortunate officer's body armor had any chance of stopping the carbine's 7.62-caliber bullets, but that result would have been the same for nearly any centerfire rifle bullet. "Bulletproof" vests worn by most police officers are not bulletproof, but are instead designed to stop moderate-velocity pistol bullets. The relative power of the cartridge used in the SKS is similar to that of the .30/30 lever-action rifle on the lower end of the rifle cartridge power scale.
Rendell could perhaps be forgiven some hyperbole due to the emotional nature of the day as he stood with members of the fallen officer's police force and the city's mayor, but only if the emotion of the day was a valid excuse.
Emotion isn't nearly a valid excuse, however for the blatant lies in Rendell's press release. The sheer scope of Governor Rendel's fabrication was magnificent to behold, completely misrepresenting not only the essential nature of a law that governed this nation for a decade, but miscasting it's subtleties as well.
In 1994, Congress banned the manufacture, transfer or possession of semiautomatic firearms and large capacity ammunition magazines, as well as the import of automatic assault weapons not already banned under law.
In that one masterstroke of a sentence, the Governor's press rewrote the entire ten-year history of failed law to make it something it never was.
Contrary to what the press release stated, however, the so-called "assault weapons" ban in the 1994 Crime Bill:
- Did not ban the manufacture of semiautomatic firearms. In fact, companies that manufacture semi-automatic firearms, such as Bushmaster and Olympic Arms thrived throughout the length of the ban, and Kahr Arms was founded as a direct result of a market created by the ban;
- Did not ban the transfer of semiautomatic firearms. Sales of semiautomatic firearms actually increased during the 1994-2004 ban.
- Did not ban the possession of semi-automatic firearms. This includes weapons defined as "assault weapons" under the ban, as long as they had been manufactured prior to the law going into effect, and tens of thousands of semi-automatic firearms made and sold during the ban;
- Did not ban the possession or sale of high capacity magazines. The manufacture of "high capacity" magazines (arbitrarily set at 10 rounds by Congress) was stopped during the ban, but magazines of up to 100-rounds manufactured prior to the ban were available for sale and ownership during the entire lifetime of the ban, and were commonly featured in sporting goods catalogs. An entirely new class of subcompact semi-automatic pistols designed for concealed carry such as the Kahr K9 and Glock 26 were developed as a direct result of the 10-round limit, with manufacturer's competing to see who could make the most compact handguns under the ten-round limit.
Rendell's press release is an example gun-grabbing revisionist history, lamenting the "loss" of a law that never existed as he described it, ignoring the ineffectually of the law during it's existence in slowing or stopping the manufacture or distribution of semi-automatic firearms, and glossing over the fact that it was responsible for the "revolution" in the handgun industry to design ever smaller and more concealable firearms.
Sadly, Governor Rendell is not alone is this alternate reality, where a long-dead and failed law is remembered as being bigger, better, and more robust now than it was during it's lifetime. The 1994 "assault weapons" ban was a "zombie" law that only became stronger after its passing. Lies about the ban's reach and effectiveness are pervasive in the media, perhaps encouraged by their own biases and ignorances, and certainly encouraged by many politicians in the Democratic Party and in dishonest gun control organizations such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which I've exposed for apparently falsifying evidence before.
From ignorant local reporters to national reporters that continue to deceive readers about the ban after being corrected time and time again, to op-ed columnists that base their work more on felling than facts, to misguided and occasionally dishonest local, state, and national politicians, the power of the "zombie" ban on "assault weapons" continues as ignorance, bias, and inaccuracies breed mythology.
Let's kill this monster now.
The "Assault Weapons" ban provisions within the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 did not ban a even a single assault weapon, firearms that are capable of selective modes or fully automatic fire.
It only banned firearms that looked like military assault weapons, i.e., similar cosmetic features such as flash suppressors, threaded barrels, or bayonet lugs. These cosmetic features were removed, and the exact same firearms—minus the offending cosmetics—were back in stores and for sale before the ban went into effect, and were sold without impediment throughout the life of the ban.
So-called "high-capacity" magazines were never banned for anything other than new manufacture, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, were available for sale in catalogs, on web sites, and in retail stores. Likewise, ownership was not banned.
It is time for those cling to the myth of the effectiveness of the so-called "assault weapons" ban to concede that this failed law never accomplished its goal. It posed no impediment to criminals when it was passed, served as only an annoyance to law-abiding citizens during the life of the ban, and actually served to increase sales in semi-automatic firearms prior to, during, and after the ban died.
The "assault weapons" ban was an unmitigated failure, and trying to bring it back from the dead won't change that fact.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:52 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1365 words, total size 10 kb.
1
To put it another way: The 7.62*39 is designed to kill medium-sized mammals at short to intermediate range. It does a fair job of it, and is as unstoppable by common "bulletproof" vests as any other rifle round designed to kill medium-sized mammals. And yes, we are medium-sized mammals.
Posted by: Tully at May 13, 2008 11:31 AM (kEQ90)
2
Rendell is an idiot liberal. No brains at all.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at May 13, 2008 11:34 AM (M+Vfm)
3
If he doesn't like history, he can just rewrite it.
Posted by: brando at May 13, 2008 03:04 PM (qzOby)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
234kb generated in CPU 0.1394, elapsed 0.3493 seconds.
70 queries taking 0.3111 seconds, 397 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.