IN THE NEWS
By presidential executive action the USDA has been granted $1.2 million to enact a study on why Democrats never make a profit farming chickens.
It’s a mystery. :-)
KEEPING SENSATIONAL NEWS IN PERSPECTIVE
A lot of internet exposure about the guy that shot at police HQ in Dallas. Yes, he was white. He also killed NOBODY white or black before dying, but somehow ignited the race-baiters on the left to harumph a lot on the net.
Either way, kudos to the DPD for a job well done.
Meanwhile in the inner cities, life is so cheap nobody mentions the deaths unless a white cop kills a black guy. Then it is “news“.
Speaking of news, let’s talk for a minute on how they handle sensational murder stories.
INCREASINGLY USELESS NEWS CLICHES
“Hate Crime” – in general use this has devolved to simply mean either a white guy killed a black guy or a straight guy killed a gay guy. We realize some violence is motivated by hate of another’s race (or nationality, etc), but if a black crowd beating a Serbian guy with hammers is not a hate crime, don’t bother using the phrase just because the perp is white. I’m almost sure most murders, regardless of whether the participants are the same color/sex/etc, are not “love crimes“. At least try for some measure of consistency.
“Racist / Racism” – The simple act of disagreeing with someone of another race is not “racism“. Even violent conflicts between people of opposite colors is not automatically “racism“. If two guys start shooting at each other because their drug deal went bad or one cut the other off on the road, their respective colors are probably a superfluous factor. If the term is to have meaning, it should be applied only when a conflict is actually motivated by race. Throwing it out when it is not applicable ends the possibility of rational discussion.
“The suspect” – I gave a newsman grief on twitter for calling a guy that was killed inside a van from which gunfire was directed at a police station “a suspected gunman“. He was the only person in the van. The news guy replied he has not been convicted. Seriously? After he’s been shot with a .50 cal and baked in his van… It’s a tad late to worry about his civil rights. Just call him “the shooter“. Common sense, ya know?
“Disturbed individual”– When there is a mass shooting, news outlets helpfully point out that the shooter is a “disturbed individual“. Thanks a lot for differentiating this from all the mass shootings performed by happy and well adjusted individuals. It means a lot to us.
“Time for a national discussion…” – Don’t bother finishing. We KNOW what follows. Just say what you mean: “Hi kids, we’d like to use this tragic event to renew our objection to anyone but the politically connected having the opportunity to keep and bear arms.” If you have a problem with the 2nd amendment, see the methods noted in the constitution for removing that. Until you can accomplish changing it… Remember the words “shall not be infringed” are pretty unambiguous.
WHY MENTION THIS TODAY?
There was a shooting in SC yesterday. It very likely IS a true “hate crime“. The fact he shot 9 people tells you he’s definitely disturbed. And given that a white guy went to a black church he does not normally attend to shoot everyone present, he very likely IS a racist.
Hopefully he’s caught quickly. A good public hanging would probably discourage this type of behavior… But that’s not as politically acceptable to point out as is the “time for a national discussion” stuff.
But for the record… He does not reflect poorly on all white people any more than the plethora of black on black murders in Chicago every weekend reflect poorly on all blacks. He needs to be caught and hung, but so does every single gang-banger that killed someone of any color this weekend.
Nor does he reflect poorly on the NRA or all gun owners. We don’t have a “national discussion on car ownership” every time a drunk plows into a pedestrian.
Quit falling for the politicians and media’s use of every tragedy to promote their unrelated agendas.
Excerpt from The Guardian:
“The expedition’s science leader [identified in the report as L2] emerged from another tent. He grabbed the rifle and fired four or five times. On each occasion a bullet was simply ejected on to the ground leaving the rifle empty. The bear then turned on L2 and mauled him about the head, causing him to drop the gun.
“The mountain leader of the expedition [identified in the report as L1] did not know where the spare bullets were and shouted for help in finding them. He diverted the bear from L2 by throwing a stone at it. The bear turned on L1 and mauled him badly.
“Other team members were attacked by the bear until L2 found one of the bullets that had been ejected, loaded the rifle and shot the animal dead.”
The report says the trip-wire system, a kind principally used by gamekeepers to protect bird pens, was “defective in terms of missing pieces of equipment”. It says paper clips had been used to try to make the mechanism work, but these were not sturdy enough or the right shape for the job. The group knew the system was unsatisfactory because a team member had tripped the wire a few days before when he went to the toilet in the night but it had not activated the alarm.
Regarding the rifle, the report concluded it was stored with the safety catch in a position that disabled the firing mechanism, leading to the emptying of the magazine.
THE REAL LEAD: They tried to save him, but left safety ON while firing
They focused on a faulty tripwire, which of itself suggests the “leaders” were too stupid to be camped in the habitat of dangerous predators, but they buried the truly sad part. The kid died when leaders defended him by “firing” a Mauser 98 4-5 times… cycling the bolt and all… with the SAFETY ON. He just kept ejecting live rounds.
Seriously, you didn’t notice it wasn’t going “BANG BANG”?
The paper points out “the rifle was stored with the safety catch in a position that disabled the firing mechanism, leading to the emptying of the magazine”.
REALLY? The safety disables the firing mechanism? Who knew?
And do you normally store a loaded gun with a safety OFF where you live? Oh, that’s right, it’s gauche and primitive to know how to operate firearms where you live… you have evolved. Right?
This whole incident is sad. The bear was taken down with one shot once someone figured out how to operate the Mauser 98.
So basically you have people that are too smart to go to the beach without taking along sunscreen… going to the ARCTIC, where bears are the size of minivans, without taking anyone that knew how to set a trip alarm or handle a firearm.
CONCLUSION: The bears WILL eat those too ignorant to defend themselves
The entire incident is a microcosm of what happens to a society that “evolves” beyond owning AND knowing how to use tools of self-defense. When you are so weak you give over your own defense to others, just understand the bears WILL kill and eat you.
And for the record, the bears may or may not be furry kind, but you’ll be just as helpless.
Notwithstanding the insipid Syria platitudes last night that just added sprinkles on top of the president’s poorly orchestrated attempt to wag-the-dog… yesterday was a good day.
And not just because raging idiot Anthony Wiener got less than 5% of the vote in NYC, though that was admittedly a sign the people of New York City are getting tired of politicians pissing on their foot and telling them it’s just raining.
The big news yesterday was in Colorado, where voters summarily ousted two for two Democrat Senators recalled for their respective roles in passing over-reaching anti-2nd-amendment legislation.
The good people of Colorado did protest RIGHT:
They signed a recall petition, went to the polls, and unceremoniously removed two legislators who refused to listen to their constituents. THIS is how voters everywhere should deal with tyrants who think their ideas supersede our constitution.
There had never been a state senator recalled in Colorado. Yesterday two lost their cushy jobs.
Note to liberal lawmakers: Can ya hear us NOW?
With attention focused on his incoherent mishandling of Syria…
President Obama decided to slip in two more executive orders that ignore the separation of powers (see Executive Orders 101 – A Primer) and in general piss on the 2nd amendment.
-1- The ban on importing US surplus military weapons sounds like a magnificent move to gun grabbers until they figure out most military weapons built in the US in the last half century are already illegal to own for most individuals. About the most recent weapon it applies to is the WW2 M1 Garand, a semi-auto functionally no different than a typical deer rifle.
Of course this will nip in the bud all those mass shootings where the killer was armed with a vintage M-1. [oh wait, that’s never happened.]
Once again the president ignores the separation of powers (he cant unilaterally make law), ignores the bill of rights… And builds a bridge where there is no river.
-2- The other executive order affecting transfers of weapons with corporate ownership will call a screaming halt to all those murderous rampages committed by people that got around background checks because of their status as officers of the corporation that purchased the weapon. [Oh yeah, that isnt happening either, see paragraph above.]
So neither executive order will stop a single killing in the US
…and both affect law abiding citizens, not the people who are a problem. The first of the two mentioned above WILL however kill the century old Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP), a program that was administered by the US Army for most of its existence because when established, the government saw virtue in having a populace trained to defend itself. That was back when our government wasn’t afraid of its citizens.
If our congress continues to ignore these attacks on the constitution…
they have less balls than my little spotted cow dog, and she just had puppies.
“You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt deer”
It’s bad enough to see that in forums and on Facebook, but I understand not everybody pays attention to history. I know the 2nd amendment doesn’t actually pertain to a right to hunt game, but I’ll forgive friends that have been indoctrinated by the media to believe otherwise. That’s curable.
I do NOT however share that spirit of forgiveness when it comes to elected officials. I’ve seen variations on that statement from a lot of them lately. I’d like to think there was a time we held the people to DC to a slim standard of education, at least on the topic of the constitution they take an oath to uphold.
As recently as 1960 a presidential candidate (and soon thereafter, president) was not so misleading (or misled on the issue, and knew exactly why the 2nd amendment was created.
~ Sen. John F. Kennedy, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, April 1960
“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ the ‘security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
Kennedy, unlike members of his party today, was educated on the constitution. Sadly, that education seems to be in short supply lately.
SO… how did he KNOW that… couldn’t he be wrong?
Kennedy was not guessing, nor repeating what he’d heard. When our country was new and the constitution was as yet un-passed… the founding fathers of our country had to explain it to the public in order to get it passed. Lacking radio, TV, or the internet to address the public, they committed the information to documents written to the public, explaining the setup they had created for the country.
The collected documents used to sell the American public on the constitution were written by the same guys that helped create the constitution. The docs are available today in a collection known as The Federalist Papers. EVERY American should read them, and every politician should be tested on the topic before they are allowed to step foot into the House, the Senate, or the White House.
Never move a fence until you know why it was put there
The old saying above is not just pithy farmerish-sounding wisdom… it is sage advice. It is important to know why something was put there before you remove it. Our founders were just men, but they thought the process of building a nation through thoroughly. Most were firmly against a standing army, but they mention that should one be established later, and be loyal only to the federal government, it should not be able to exercise tyranny because the public was armed and vastly outnumbered said standing army.
So despite the conventional wisdom of today, people that say the 2nd amendment to the bill of rights is there to protect the others are NOT boorish redneck heathens… they are saying the same thing Kennedy recognized as being the intent of our founders.
But hey, the constitution is a 200 year old piece of paper
If you think the consitution is “outdated”, and today’s society calls for a new guideline where only the military (and everyone that is willing to disobey laws) should be armed, I disagree with you but you have every right to that opinion. That said, you do NOT, absolutely DO NOT… have the right to simply decide we can now forget about the 2nd amendment. Not you, not the men in Congress, not even dear Barrack H Obama.
The only way to remove a portion of the constitution is to amend it. PERIOD
If anyone feels strongly about doing away with the second amendment I encourage them to try and get the appurtenant legislation passed and ratified. Until then, it is the law of the land and it protects my right to bear arms. Lots of luck to you in your effort to get it repealed, but trying to get rid of it any other way is illegal. We are a nation of laws, and under no circumstance need we tolerate attempts to do an end run around the constitution.
So NO, you do NOT need an AR-15 to hunt deer
You also don’t need it to iron a shirt, change a flat tire, or watch TV… but it would be extraordinarily handy in the potential use the 2nd amendment presupposed. If you do not approve of that reason… take it up with the founders.
* I’ll keep it short and sweet *
For the millionth time… if you argue the 2nd amendment applies only to single shot muzzle loaders because after all, the founders didn’t have anything more… what argument do you plan to use when you’re told the first amendment doesn’t apply to the internet?
Please. Use the head for more than a hat rack fellas. Don’t undermine your own interests.
I got an email labeled “Self Defense” this week from my brother-in-law Michael… a Naval Academy grad who served his country two tours in Viet Nam. It started with a narrative of a guy being awakened by intruders in his own home. The man grabbed a shotgun and went out to see who the heck broke into his house and was soon face-to-face with two men in the dark… one wielding some crowbar-like weapon and coming at him.
The homeowner did the only thing he should have done, and let loose with the scattergun inside his own home. Both intruders went down, one died.
I immediately recognized the story as that of Tony Martin when the text turned to discussing how the owner was subsequently vilified in the press and the intruders, both of whom had a criminal history, were treated as lovable rogues who were mistreated by a vengeful old man who snuffed one out in the prime of young manhood and caused irreparable damage to the other by his unconscionable action.
The true story occurred in the UK, where gun laws slowly crept to the point to where there are just not very many legal ways to use them for self-defense. Granted, had the man NOT had the shotgun he’d have been in the news too (as a death statistic most likely), but in the true tale he was sentenced to life in prison.
How Did We Get Here
Slowly. That’s how. It CAN happen in the US too, despite the fact that our 2nd amendment was put there to eliminate the possibility. You cannot read the writings of Thomas Jefferson without agreeing that he felt the 2nd was there to enable us defend ourselves jointly and individually from whatever danger confronted us, including all forms of two-legged predators.
His writings included statements that an armed populace is a hedge against a tyranical government, and that laws disarming citizens only assured criminals of a safer working environment because those that’d break the law to hurt you would certainly break the laws saying they couldnt have firearms… whereas law-abiding citizens would be by definition disarmed under that circumstance.
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes….Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
Thomas Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting Cesare Beccaria’s of “On Crimes and Punishment”
Yep… TJ was the guy that wrote the statement that is the basis for “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Next time you call the guys in the NRA “gun-nuts”… try to recall they are in rather auspicious company.
Some will say that times have changed and the constitution must change with them. Well, for starters… if you believe that, then try changing the constitution, not writing laws that are in direct contradiction to it. “Shall NOT be infringed” has meaning. If you don’t like that part of the constitution, change it by legal means if you can.
Fine, You can Have a Flintlock ONLY
Gotta love that argument that says the 2nd should only apply to guns in existence at the time the constitution was written. Really? If so, are you prepared to only apply the first amendment to handset type… or would you assume it also covers the internet, newspapers, radio, television, etc…?
Most anti-gun people have to do cerebral contortions worthy of an Olympic gymnast to try to make their arguments seem cogent, but the simple fact is they try to interpret every amendment as broadly as possible UNTIL they talk of the 2nd… then suddenly things are different.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think those that want stringent gun control are *intentionally* disingenuous… I think they are a product of their times, as I am. I was raised by the WW2 generation. The men that affected my life HAD to carry a gun in their early days and it was the only thing between them and survival.
They knew it only performed on command, they were familiar with it, they knew it was a tool for survival. A huge portion of our country was involved in WW2, and their progeny were raised knowing the value of a firearm in keeping ones life.
The crop of adults coming into the world next were raised not by the guys that saved the world from the Axis powers… but by a generation much of whom spent their formative years dodging the draft and or protesting against it during the Viet Nam era. Their parents mostly did not go to war, they argued about it.
Where my parents grew up in a nation largely rural by nature and gun-friendly by design… the new crew grew up with little positive contact with guns. Guns were what criminals used and police had them to fight criminals. The end. Normal people just didnt own them.
Pardon me for not feeling their pain, but the simple fact is their perceptions that guns are evil do not change my constitutionally protected right to bear arms. In truth they are lucky the rest of us exist, because guys that’d do a home breakin don’t know which house I live in and which one they do.
How Does That Work in Reality?
Test it if you like. Put up a sign on your house that says “gun free zone”. Have a neighbor put up one that says “Protected by Smith and Wesson”. If one of them is gonna be subject to a home invasion… it aint gonna be the second one. People that do that sort of thing prefer NOT to get shot. Just works that way.
The media (whether we’re talking news media or entertainment) is also extremely anti-gun… for reasons we can only guess at. Their story is that it is because they are intellectually superior… though I personally consider Thomas Jefferson a helluvalot smarter than Rosey O’Donnell and her ilk.
If More Guns Cause Crime… Do More Spoons Cause Obesity?
Oddly that particular bastion of anti-gun fervor has her own armed bodyguard, and even if you ignore the hypocrisy (oh, it’s ok if somebody ELSE pulls the trigger to keep you safe) and accept the premise of her arguments about guns… you’d have to also accept that the answer to her obesity issues would be to outlaw spoons.
The effect of a media drenched society in which virtually everyone with an outlet to speak thinks guns are evil is that hordes of impressionable minds are led to believe people like Thomas Jefferson either didnt think firearms were appropriate or else the times have changed and NOW we have the police to protect us.
911 – A Great Way to Find the Victim
Police with any integrity will tell you that they cant possibly protect each and every individual. Most I’ve spoken to have taught their own spouse to fire a gun and have one in their home for self-defense. I’d also posit that it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that somehow you think you are clean if you call somebody *else* with a gun to accomplish what is necessary for your own defense.
There’s nothing wrong with calling 911…
But I’d suggest that in a home invasion scenario it’s highest and best use is to get the police there to remove a bleeding criminal from my carpet… not to find my own corpse. It’s my house. If the sumbitch wanted to live he shoulda knocked on the door like everyone else. Sorry, I have no compassion on that score.
You’re just a “gun nut” (aka: My Own Experience)
Actually, I own over a dozen or so, but I have only drawn a gun on a human once in my life. I didnt fire it, but I did convince him not to stab the guy he had on the ground who was helpless and in danger of losing his life. Guns do not always have to be fired to save a life, they’re remarkably effective visual aids, but then stories where somebody *saves* a life without taking one just aren’t newsworthy.
My guess is the guy that was on the ground is happy I had a gun in my car that day, and the attacker that was subsequently arrested after being held at bay (with what he didnt know was an unloaded gun) is probably banging the drum to get handguns outta the clutches of the populace. If you’re anti-gun… remember, so is HE.
The Tony Martin story may have happened in the UK, but it isnt far away here. In the UK, laws restricting guns were passed incrementally over about an 80 year period. Licensing requirements made it easy to ID and confiscate the arms of legitimate owners who would be criminals if they didnt give up their arms when subsequent laws made them illegal. As such I absolutely oppose registration requirements… those only give a government a way to disarm law abiding citizens… and my constitutional rights are only protected by the constitution… not GRANTED by it.
If that sounds like an extreme position… bear in mind it is also a paraphrase of something said by Thomas Jefferson. I’m not the least bit shy in suggesting the architect of many documents building the strongest free nation in the world was smarter than any of the people currently running it.
Anyway, didnt plan to write a thesis… but those are the thoughts that come to mind on this day when we honor those that’ve donned the uniform to defend our nation and to aid those oppressed. To them I say thank you. Those home safely at peace owe that condition to those that put themselves in harm’s way on our behalf.
God bless each of you, past and present. Thank you for your service.