Anyone Else See These?

So some new-fangled gun control group with a catchy name has a new ad campaign out comparing what's banned at school and trying to gin up hysteria over certain things not being banned at school.

First, they trot out a bunch of little kids.  Probably no more than 6 or 8 years old, looking at the photos.

See, in the interest of pushing an agenda, it's OK to exploit children.  That they would first demagogue gun owners who post pictures of their children holding guns and threaten them with DSS and child endangerment charges and then turn around do something far worse is really no surprise.

Some of the commentors quoted in the article hit it right on.  Two questions that were brought up, first about why is it that only the Caucasian children the ones holding the guns, and that whoever took these photos and chaperoned this event didn't know doodleysquat about basic firearms safety.  In every single photo in the linked piece, the chirrens with the guns all have their fingers ensconced firmly on the bang switch.  Evidently, being a 'gun safety' organization concerned with gun control means never having to actually practice real gun safety.

But the larger question is this.  If a book is banned at one school district in one state but no other, and a common ball game is banned at one school in one state, and one toy is banned in school, we must make guns in schools illegaller than it already is.  Even though all firearms have been banned in and around schools since 1996 unless you have been imbued with the magical powers of the Law Enforcement Badge of Power.

Note to Moms Demand Action:  The NRA doesn't need to 'instill fear' of guns being banned or confiscated.  You're pet politicians are taking care of that all on their own.

Speaking Of Safety...

Locking your house/car is another aspect of safety.

I think the dumbest thing about this is the fact that people still leave their guns in unlocked cars. This in a town that could almost be called the northernmost suburb of Denver.

Sometimes, we are our own worst enemy.

Safety Never Takes a Day Off

Story here.

Bottom line, always wear your safety gear; glasses, muffs/foamies. You never know if or when a kaboom can happen.

You're Right. What Could Possible Go Wrong?

Do you ever get the feeling that maybe there's just too much technology out there? That sometimes, the human factor just can't be replaced?

Well, check this out.

The money quote?

'The new classification relies on data input when determining if an inmate is ready to be released in the community."

Right. What could possibly go wrong?

I Saw That Flick!

So the folks over at the CSGV have got their knickers in a knot over gun sales numbers. As usual, Thirdpower has been all over this like a fat kid on a cupcake.

But something ole Josh said in the last couple of lines struck a memory.

Faced with a stagnate customer base that has declined precipitously over the last 35 years-the gun industry has purposely and continuously manufactured firearms for one of its most important market segments: traffickers and prohibited purchasers (i.e. children, criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, domestic abusers, etc.). All in the name of profit.

Ooo! Ooo! Pick me, Pick me! I think I saw that movie. It was supposed to be good movie when it came out, heck it had Col Rhodes and John Cusack in it. Couldn't be all bad, right? Boy was I wrooooonnnnng. This was back before I got my 2A and evil semiautomatic rifle thing going. By the end of the movie, I was so disgusted I threw it away (brand-spanking new DVD chucked in the trash). Which was kind of odd for a John Grisham movie up to that point, he usually had some pretty good flicks.

I think that was the last time the anti-gun movement scored a victory in court. It's also the only way they can win anything at this point, and that is in the world of make believe. (Coincidentally this is also the only place those pie-in-the-sky anti pipe dreams actually work, such as ballistic fingerprinting.) They have nothing left. Trying to pass off the plot of a not-so-great lawyer movie as fact shows just how bankrupt their ideology really is.

Maybe Another On The List

So South Dakota is considering Constitutional Carry. This is a very good step for the fine people of the state. We're relatively free here. We're NFA-friendly, got one of the best permit systems in the country outside of AK/VT/AZ/WY in that a permit only costs $10 and there is no training requirement. Permits are good for 4 yrs and aside from the usual suspects that don't honor ANYONES permit, there are only a few that don't recognize ours.

I say good step because for a few years, in order to buy a handgun here, you had to have a permit to pick up your purchase at the time of sale. If you didn't have one, well, it was 3 days before you got to go to the range and fondle your new purchase. That changed, I want to say, back in either 2008 or 9.

The one thing that absolutely drives me up a wall in these debates is the argument that if we allow everyone with a clean record to carry a gun without a permit, then the criminals will too. I don't know how many times I've said to family, friends, and random strangers on different forums that 'Hell-oooo, the bad guys already don't have a permit. Why do you think they call them criminals?'

The other argument that holds absolutely no water in this discussion is the one involving background checks. The 'But' crowd (you know, the I'm a Gun Owner, but...-types?) love to point out that without the permit, how do you know if the person is allowed to have a Roscoe? Never mind the anal probing that filling out the lovely ATF form 4473 brings. Add another one on top of that, this time performed by the state in order to exercise a constitutionally protected civil right, and I can't really feel sorry for these guys who think this invasion of their privacy is anything other than begging permission to exercise said right.

I mean really? That act is the only time you'll ever be subjected to a prior restraint on your rights. At no other time are you forced to fill out a form to exercise a right. And in the case of a carry permit, you're paying for privilege. Try forcing a similar form at the voting booth, or public library, or hell even buying a computer and watch the so-called 'civil libertarians' heads rotate like Linda Blair in 'The Exorcist'.

So, let's get this done. I for one welcome being on the short list with VT, AK, AZ, and WY.

I Think They May Finally Be Getting It...

That gun control in it's basest form is racist.

That BET would give this piece space is telling. Our side is winning, and JFPO is starting to have an impact. It ain't every day that a piece talking about gun controls angry, racist past gets to appear there.

It starts out good, acknowledging the role the Klan had in making sure negroes stayed disarmed, even mentioning that Dr. King applied for a permit. I think he could have brought up the Deacons for Defense, though. I find it interesting that when the Deacons were around, the Klan wasn't.

The author gets going really good, only to loose it in the end with "And one has to consider whether winning the right to carry handguns everywhere was really that wonderful a victory."

Just when you think the lamp will finally light in this guy's head, it gets brushed aside as quickly as it occurred.

A Pox On America?

That's what the editorial staff at the West Virginia Gazette seem to think.

See if you can follow this line of thinking...Chicago, IL and Toronto, CA are roughly the same size. Yet one of these cities has a horrendous homicide problem. So the answer to said problem is to adopt the gun laws of the other city.

An interesting question arises: The city they would like to emulate more actually has less restrictive laws than the other.

After you wade through the whole 'Chicago vs Toronto' thing, we get to the crux of their issue: Them danged old American gun laws. See, if we had gun control laws like they do in Europe we wouldn't have...Oh wait. That happened in Norway. What about...Nope it happened in Finland, too. Germany? Nuh-uh. It happened in Germany. (I would bring up Japan, but that's a category all its own: Samurai Sword violence. Not really apropos to our discussion here.) All countries the anti-freedom crowd thinks we should emulate when it comes to OUR gun laws.

They then seem to be taken aback that the foundation of the modern pro-rights arguement can be traced back to the Radical Black Panters of the late '60s, and that the seemingly pro-gun NRA was very much anti gun when it wanted to be back in the '20s and '30s. (And even in the '60s. GCA 68 anyone? The NRA has had its hand in all the major gun control legislation in the last hundred years. It's only in the last 20-30 yrs that they have begun to take on the very legislation they themselves supported.)

They even get apoplectic when they find out that Martin Luther King, Jr applied for a carry permit (though he was denied). I bet what they DIDN'T know was that the good Reverend surrounded himself with a group dedicated to the defense of black people all over the South. Some of you may have heard of them, the Deacons For Defense. While Dr. King talked about non-violence, he had at his side good men who were not afraid to use a little to defend their cause.

It's always fun to see the anti-freedom crowd have their nifty little world view smashed like candy glass. That the narrative they've worked so long and hard to craft comes crashing down around their ears is a good thing, even if it is only for a split second. For we all know that nothing, absolutely NOTHING, can intrude on the narrative, not even those pesky little facts.

A Crisis Averted

Or in this case, manufactured to justify further encroachments on gun owners.

So, the Just Us Dept has, in effect, created a crisis involving multiple sales to illegal straw buyers, who in turn ran these guns all the way to Mexico. Against the judgement of the stores affected, against street agent advice, and in contravention of any moral or legal code known to man.

See here, here, here, and here.

And don't forget David Codrea and Mike V's coverage of this still unfolding scandal here and here.

Because of this manufactured crisis, Just Us has deemed that multiple sales of long guns will require the same reporting requirements used in multiple hand gun sales.

Great. How long do you think it'll be before weapons from other, unknown, 'Fast and Furious' -type operations running at various locations around the country justify this requirement across the board? I think the answer will be sooner than you would think or expect.

What Part of No Don't They Understand?

Via a link from WoG, comes this little gem from Mercury news.

Setting aside the other obvious BS spouted by the author of this piece, I would like to focus on one part, the quote David used in his post:

"Gun Rights Activists did not immediately respond to phone calls seeking comment."

They didn't call David, or anyone else for that matter, and I'm pretty sure I'm so low on their list of names to call for a comment that I don't really matter much to them, but I'll give it a try anyway.

No. Nyet. Nada. Nein. Non. Mei. Nai. Uh-Uh.

For too many years, gun owners have been portrayed as knuckle dragging neanderthal hick hayseeds. For over 70 years we have given ground to a group whose sole idea of compromise is to give them everything they want in order to save, well something.

We hear things like compromise and common sense, all the while being portrayed as blood thirsty, willing to kill old people and babies to satiate our blood lust.

We gave in 1934, in order to pass the first real federal gun control act, to make sure that possession of certain types of vilified guns and accessories like a Thompson, or short-barrelled rifle/shotguns, and suppressors were made taboo and only available to the wealthy.

We gave in 1968, while more of our freedom and liberty were sacrificed in order to keep the Sirhan Sirhans and protesters of the day from getting their hands on weaponry. We stood by while easily affordable firearms were deemed too cheap to possess, while a petty tyrant sitting in a cushy office in a far away building decided for us what was 'sporting' and what wasn't with the stroke of a pen.

Even in our victories we've seen defeat. A bill to protect gun owners from an out of control bureaucracy (seems something never change, do they?) we got the shaft again, this time by a still controversial amendment that banned future manufacture of fully automatic weapons thus ensuring that only the truly wealthy can afford them.

We stood by in 1993 and 1994 while tragedy after tragedy was laid at our feet and more restrictions were placed upon us. Magazine capacity bans. Bans on cosmetic features. Bans on names. None of this did anything to stem the tragedies, but it made the hanky-wringers happy. We could debate the effectiveness of this particular law all day long, but the long and the short of it is it didn't work. It didn't ban anything. Weapons specifically named under the ban were still available, only they had different names and offending features such as bayonet lugs and threaded barrels were removed. Standard capacity mags that were readily available before 14 Sep 1994 were still available after 14 Sep 1994, they just cost a little more.

The only bone thrown to us in this mess was a sunset clause. 10 years, if left alone, this law would disappear. It was a contentious issue, a president who touted his NRA creds baffled gun owners by saying that if the extension came to his desk, he would sign it. When that law failed to garner the support it needed, I cheered. And I waited. I got my first no-ban gun a month after the sunset.

In those 7 years and change since that law sunsetted, crimes committed with sport utility rifles, and other weapons with standard capacity magazines have not gone through the roof. The only thing that has gone up is the media hysteria over such crimes when the do occur.

The Virginia Tech shooter didn't need extended mags. He needed the standard capacity mags that came with his gun, because he had time to reload. The Tuscon shooter stupidly used a 33 rd magazine used by competition shooters and hobbyists that is known to jam, thinking he could do a lot of damage. He did some, but because his weapon jammed, because he was using a magazine known to do so, he was able to be subdued by bystanders.

So, mister editorialist, I leave you with these questions. What exactly is a 'high capacity magazine'? I mean, I have rifles whose standard capacity is between 4 rds and 100. There are belt fed guns, perfectly legal for us mere peons to own, that take belts of 5 rds up to 250 or more. I have had pistols whose standard capacity is anywhere from 6 to 19 rds.

If, as you all like to claim, no one needs these magazines, and that possession of same is evidence of a desire to kill as many people as possible, then why on earth do the police need them? Are they somehow protected from the urge to kill large swathes of people by the magical talisman on their shirt? Are they imparted with some power during training at the Police Academy that wards off this urge, this desire?

What say you, Mister Gun Grabber?

What The Hell Is Going On?

I've been loosely keeping tabs on the situation down in Tuscon. Not that one, the one where a SWAT team shot (60 times!) one Jose Guerena while executing a blanket search warrant.

Some of the news on the subject I've got from Radley Balko, here, and a link from Say Uncle, here.

I say loosely, as I've been aware of the shooting since it happened, and I had noticed the way the story has shifted since the raid on 5 May. Shifted. That's an interesting phenomenon here.

Story starts out with a SWAT raid targeting marijuana operations in and around four houses in Tuscon. Then, it was a home invasion ring. Then it was a drug rip-off operation. Who knows what it'll be next week, let alone tomorrow.

All the while, the Sheriffs office, the same one who blamed the other tragedy in Tuscon in January on radical, right wing rhetoric is all about people not jumping to conclusions about what happened in this instance.

Wait..............whuh?

The blatant stonewalling and cover-up being perpetrated in and around this incident is astonishing, even for a SWAT raid that had seemingly gone awry. That people, even innocent people, get shot during these high-adrenalin, high stress raids is sadly not surprising. What is, in this instance, totally astonishing is that the Pima County SD is going farther to paint those who criticize this raid as quacks than they were to deal honestly in the Giffords shooting.

What scares me most, is that in light of recent court decisions around the country, particularly the one in Indiana about the same time this raid took place, is that even when these parties knowingly commit the illegal act of breaking through your door in the middle of the night (or in the case of Mr. Guerena, middle of the morning) that you have no reasonable expectation of remedy through armed resistance to forcible, illegal breech of your personal, private property.

Remember, too, that criminals have used the guise of a SWAT raid to burglarize and kill their victims. That an increasing number of these high impact raids are carried out as 'No Knock' actions (meaning the cops do not have to announce their presence so as to surprise those inside who may try to get rig of 'evidence') means that the further this escalates, the more likely the end result will not be everyone walking away with a 'Sorry to bother you, sir' attitude. No, it will most likely end with the homeowner, at a minimum, and possibly one or more law enforcement personnel being taken away from the scene feet first in a plastic, zippered bag.

What has this country come to? When my Great Grandfather was town Marshall of Sundance, WY, he patrolled the small town of 1500 all by himself. (Matter of fact, we still have the Colt .38 Sp revolver he carried while on the job.) According to my mother, he never had a deputy, but got assistance every once in a while from a deputy sheriff. Now, that same sleepy town of 15oo has 3 cops, plus the Crook County Sheriffs Dept which I haven't been able to find an exact number of deputies. (It is interesting to note that when my GGF retired, it took 13 cops to do the job he did himself. What does that say about community policing standards?)

Now, instead of teaching you a lesson by having a speeding motorist sit in front of stop sign for an hour to teach them a lesson, or dumping out the beer at the high school party, we have full blown armed encounters where its more important for the cop to come home safely than it is for the citizen.

As Mike V notes over at Sipsey Street, this is not going to end well for any party involved.

Who Says Public Radio Is Biased?

Certainly not the fine folks at Minnesota Public Radio.

I almost laughed when I got to the part where they describe Tom Diaz of the VPC as an authority on gun industry operations. That would be like describing Jerry Falwell as an authority on the porn industry.

Seriously though, I could only slog through about a third of this before my stomach had had enough.

But don't tell anyone that public broadcasting is biased. No sir, not at all. We just won't mention that the Joyce Foundation is putting up the cash for the linked report.

Project GunWalker

With all the hubub caused by David Codrea and Mike V, it was time I wrote my congress-critters to call for investigations into what is becoming 'crass and dubious'. Below are the emails I fired off to them.

Senator-

In the last few weeks, a scandal has been brewing in the Department of Justice involving the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and gun smuggling operations in Mexico.

As you know, Border Patrol Agent Bryan Terry was shot and killed on the
Arizona border with a gun allegedly purchased by as straw purchaser in
Phoenix. It has been alleged that the BATFE knew of these operations and did nothing to stop this process, nor did they inform the Mexican government about an
operation they called 'Fast and Furious'.

It has come to my attention that Andrew Traver was scheduled to come up for
a confirmation hearing, but this was pulled by Senator Patrick Leahy.

In light of the allegations brought about by the murder of BP Agent Terry, and
subsequent murder of US government agent Jaime Zapata, serious questions need to be asked of both the DOJ and BATFE regarding what they knew, when they knew it, and why it was allowed to continue.

Senator Grassley of Iowa has taken the point on this, but he needs help in the form of more senators ashing the tough questions so the family of BP Agent Terry can get the answers they deserve.

Will you join Senator Grassley in calling for oversight hearings involving Operation Fast and Furious?

And this to my Representative in Congress:

Congresswoman-

In the last few weeks, a scandal has been brewing in the Department of Justice involving the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and gun smuggling operations in Mexico.

As you know, Border Patrol Agent Bryan Terry was shot and killed on the
Arizona border with a gun allegedly purchased by a straw purchaser in Phoenix.
It has been alleged that the BATFE knew of these operations and yet did nothing
to stop this process, nor did they inform the Mexican government about an
operation they called 'Fast and Furious'.

Senator Grassley of Iowa has taken the point on this, but he needs help in the form of more people asking the tough questions so the family of BP Agent Terry can get the answers they deserve.

Congressman Issa is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Along with Senator Grassley, oversight hearings need to happen not only in the Senate, but in the House as well. BATFE has asked for an increase in funding for the current fiscal year in order to combat so-called weapons trafficking into Mexico. If the accounts that have begun to appear on CBS news, the LA Times, and in the Associated Press are true, the BATFE is asking for more money to ensure more American guns go south of the border to kill untold thousands of Mexicans, and maybe even more American law enforcement personnel.

Will you call on Congressman Issa to hold hearings regarding this atrocious abuse of American sovereignty?

I wrote these emails 3 days ago, and as of right now, I have not received and response back from any of them. When I do, I'll be sure to post their responses right here.

Stand Up To A Bigot

I was going to post this as a response to this...I don't know what you'd call it, but I thought I'd drop it here. I may also post this as a response, but for now, I'm going to post it here.

A funny thing happened on the way to the 21st century. Guns got invented. That genie is now out of the bottle, and it ain't going back in. If you think that by banning guns all the ills of our society would go away, you are in dire need of some counselling. You cannot un-invent something, and you cannot make people forget the know-how to create it. Just because guns are banned, doesn't mean there won't be guns. In Chechnya for example, homemade guns abound. And not semi-auto guns. Full on, full bore, full auto machine guns. So you have to ask yourself this question. Would I rather deal with legal semi-auto firearms in the hands of law-biding citizens, or would you rather deal with backyard machinists cranking out Sten-type submachine guns for a group of angry partisans?

For those that think a few 'peasants' with spitballs couldn't possibly stand up to the best trained, best equipped, and most battle hardened army in the world, you don't know history, or current events, for that matter.

Our own history as a nation started out with a rag-tag band of patriots picking a fight with the most powerful army in the world. (I wonder how that one turned out?) A rag-tag bunch of settlers took on the second most powerful army in the western hemisphere in the 1830s. (Texas, anyone?) More recently, a rag-tag bunch of en-educated peasants took on the US Army, and WON! ( I can't remember what country that was, but the little guys wore black pajamas.) For the last 10 yrs or so, a rag-tag bunch of peasants has been kicking the largest army in the worlds' kiester. (Vladdy, phone please!) And lets not forget that rag-tag bunch of goat herders has been giving the most technologically advanced military the world has ever known absolute fits.

Now, as for registration, licensing, and means testing for a specific enumerated right, we wouldn't put up with someone telling us we had to have a permit and a background check to buy the latest Danielle Steele slobber book, nor would we put up with someone having us register and ask permission to go to church on Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, or any other day of the week. As a country, we abolished testing as a means of exercising the most fundamental right of any American, the right to vote. So why, in all that's right and holy, would we subject ourselves to registering that which our country was founded on? We have the right to be secure in our homes and papers. Why would we give up the means to that security?

So, we don't put prior restraints on civil rights. Same goes for our Second Amendment rights. That states currently use a permit system means it is nothing more than a revenue system to add even more money into the states coffers. No one should have to beg the government to exercise their rights, and we rightly don't put up with that in any other context.

That you (meaning antis) don't trust others with something like a gun tells me you don't trust anyone. Which is kind of ironic, don't you think? You probably drive a car or truck that weighs in excess of 3000 lbs. You probably drive in congested traffic, and trust those around you to not run into you. Much hay has been made about the number of people killed by guns, but what is the real, true killer in this country? That distinction falls to the automobile. It's been killing people in this country at rates that are truly astounding. Yet we don't blame Ford or Toyota when someone crosses the center line and plows into a crowd of school kids getting ready to catch the school bus. Nor do we blame Jack Daniels, Budweiser, or Zima when someone gets mind numbingly drunk and plows into the local senior citizens center. We don't investigate what caused the drunk to do what he did. We don't go blaming the radio station, we don't make excuses and try to blame everyone else but the individual for the carnage. We arrest them, charge them, try them, incarcerate them, and in the most extreme cases take their life. And nobody cares that he heard voices, his girlfriend left him, his dog died, or he caught his wife sleeping with the Maytag man. We condemn the individual, not the tool used to commit the carnage.

My point in all this? Law-biding gun owners are NOT the problem. Lawfully owned, lawfully carried firearms are NOT the problem. Criminals ARE. People who, by their very nature cannot be made to register any guns they have, as to do this violates THEIR fifth amendment right against self incrimination. Passing new, onerous gun laws will not do anything to stop murderers from plying their trade. It will however, ensure a large swath of the citizenry won't be able to do anything but sit back and take it.

Pisses Me Off

What really pisses me off are these letters and articles in newspapers around the country written by supposed gunowners. They all start off the same:

"I'm a gunowner, but I don't support..."

This statement is usually followed up by inserting whatever politically sensitive firearm is on the hotseat that particular week. It could be Glock, it could be DPMS or Colt. Or it could be an accessory that is on the block, such as standard capacity magazines.

Take, for instance, a commenter named 'Boo Hoo' over here.

Typical 'I'm a gunowner, but..." response. I own guns but I don't see the need for anyone to carry one. I own guns but I don't see the need for a gun with a magazine capacity of more than x rounds. I'm a gunowner, but I don't see why anybody would need (insert politically incorrect firearm reference here) for hunting, self defense, ad nauseum.

I'll tell you what we don't need. What we DON'T need is some jagoff speaking about crap he/she willfully knows nothing about. We don't need one 'gunowner' out of 80,000,000 trying to put the rest of us in a neat little box.

One thing he mentioned in his comment to the linked story (which was about the Brady Bunch picketing an open carry meeting, go figure, huh?) was that without a gun, the nutjob in Tuscon wouldn't have been able to kill 6 and wound 20. I got a news flash for him. 19 guys with box cutters took out 3000 10 yrs ago. A whackjob with a Ryder truck, some fertilizer, and some diesel fuel killed 168 in 1995. Nutjobs half a world away are killing that many and more with a rudimentary understanding of chemistry, some nails and ball bearings, and cell phone. Is he really that dense to think that mass killing in this country would magically disappear overnight if we could just get rid of those icky guns?

I got an idea. If you feel the need to post one of them "I'm a gunowner, but..." pieces in you local cat box liner, do us all a favor.

Keep your 'butt' out of it.

All This Talk Of Bans and Whatnot

In the wake of the shooting a couple of weeks ago, debate has raged from all over as to whether our gun laws are too weak or not.

The typical poo flinging monkeys (Josh squared and Paul) have stated that gun shows, magazine capacity, and an inefficient background check system (on top of all the rhetoric the shooter never listened to or heard) were all the reasons a deranged nutjob hell bent on killing the object of his desire needed.

A couple of other bloggers, Joe Huffman and Say Uncle, pointed out that when arguing about gun control with an anti-gunner, their responses pretty much run into the 'F/U' department. In a discussion on a report out of my home state of WY becoming the 4th state to allow Constitutional Carry, the discussion turned to magazine capacity. Several commentors finally got down to the 4 letter word of the problem, need. They argue that no one 'needs' a magazine larger than 10 rds for anything. I did manage to point out that when the conversation turns to 'need' the person making the argument has lost and is showing their intellectual inferiority by doing so. I believe I said 'Your IQ is at room temperature and falling like a stone'.

In this, they are technically correct. But where they fail is that 'need' has nothing to do with it. Almost all of my rifles were designed from the outset to shoot from magazines that hold 30+ rds so I would argue that it's not need, its a requirement. My pistols, not so much. 1911's generally shoot from magazines that hold between 7 and 9 rds, depending.

It reminds me of a silly rule that NASCAR has. In order to slow things down at the superspeedways like Daytona and Talledega, they install a smaller fuel cell. 13 gallons for the super tracks vs. 22 for the rest of the circuit. The reasoning for this is it's supposed to slow the race down by making the cars have to pit for gas more often. They haven't limited the speeds on the track, they've just managed to make it more dangerous for the pit crews, as they have to deal with pitting these cars more often, placing them in harms way on pit road more often.

See any similarities to the debate on magazine capacity? Makes about as much sense, doesn't it.

My Take On Tuscon

With all the nattering of the media classes so far over the last 3 days, has it struck any one of them the irony of what they are spewing?

I mean, they are decrying 'right wing hate speech', while engaging, and forgetting, hate speech of their own.

Michelle Malkin has a great round up of some of the more egregious examples over at her site, here.

Snowflakes in Hell has a great little reminder of the 'hate speech' that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership has conveniently forgotten, here.

And let's not forget our favorite bigots, the 3 Amigos of gun control at the Huffington Post (Horowitz, Sugarmann, & Henigan), who can't wait to dance in the still warm blood of the victims by trying to paint the firearms community as a bunch of blood-thirsty neanderthals and push for even more restrictions on That Which Shall Not Be Infringed. (As if any of the laws they push for would have stopped this. But I digress. That's a topic for another post.)

As the saying goes, I told you all that to tell you this. There was supposed to be a narrative of what happened last weekend. It has been reported that the One was in need of something, anything to save his reign, much like Clinton had Oklahoma City. You can tell there was supposed to be a narrative by checking out what the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSLSD, the liberal talk show hosts such as Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, et al have been saying.

Never mind that within 24 hrs of the shooting we knew the nutcase in question read Mein Kampfe and the Communist Manifesto. And that former classmates in both high school and college described him as a leftist pothead. None of that matters. Every single talking head from ABC to MSLSD has been trying to paint this loon as some kind of right wing whack job. Unfortunately, with the rise of the new media and sources such as Drudge, Politico, Michelle Malkin; and talk radio hosts such as Andrew Wilkow, Mike Church, Mark Levin, and Cam & Company, they are having a really hard time trying to push their narrative like they did 16 yrs ago. Too much information is out there and Pandora ain't getting that back in her little box.

Mike Vanderboegh has publicly stated there will be no more free Wacos. After Oklahoma City, there will be no more free narratives such as that perpetrated in 1995. There are too many eyes, ears, and witnesses with an avenue to bring what they saw and heard to light. There is no way they can get away with it. Just witness what is happening in the media since Saturday.

ACLU, Guns, and South Dakota

So, earlier this week, the ACLU has filed suit against the state of South Dakota regarding the requirement that one be a US citizen to get a concealed carry permit here.

I've had a couple of days to think about it, and I'm not really sure.

One the one hand, we have a guy who has lived in Sioux Falls for 30 yrs and has not gained his US citizenship. He is however, a permanent resident alien. Nobody is telling this guy he can't own a gun. They're just saying he can't carry it concealed.

On the other, we have a states rights argument. The state of South Dakota should have the right to dictate who can or cannot get a permit to carry. Since Congress failed to pass national reciprocity in the last session, it is still up to the states to dictate who gets what.

Where this thing gets sideways is this. With the Heller and McDonald decisions in 2008 and 2010, the courts have said that states cannot ban firearms. In regards to states like Illinois and California, these decisions were a welcome change to decades of precedent regarding guns. The unintended consequence is that states that are friendly to guns like South Dakota can be knee-capped when they try to pass truly sensible gun laws (unlike the 'reasonable' ones the Brady Bunch and the VPC espouse). But with these decisions, they have effectively cut the states out of the picture in regards to firearm law. This law will be hard-pressed to remain in light of those two decisions.

First thing that really pops out at me is that he was not able to obtain a renewal on his permit until just recently? Permits last 4 yrs. If the law was enacted in 2002, even if he got his permit right before the change, he has renewed it at least once, if not twice since then. Why is it that now all of a sudden this is an issue?

Then, there's the fact that the ACLU is involved in this. It wasn't too long ago that the ACLU was against individual rights for firearms. Hell, the national leadership is still hostile to gun rights. One has to wonder if the national board is out of touch with its member state chapters. More and more we are hearing about folks at the state level making court arguments about individual firearms rights. First it was Nevada, now South Dakota.

So where do I come down on this? I'm still undecided.

Party Time In Baltimore

It seems as though a group of folks have a problem with firearms in Maryland, and Baltimore in particular and are all upset that the owner of the oldest gun store in town didn't jump on the Bloomberg group Mayors Against You...I mean Illegal guns 10 pt plan. The hidden part of this 'plan' is to eradicate what they term 'illegal gun sales' by having the store record the purchases made by their customers and having that information run through a database kept by some lackey.

No invasion of privacy issues there at all. Not a one.

They tried to talk reasonable, but communications broke down over that pesky little invasion of privacy thing.

So the group decides they're going to picket said store.

How does our intrepid store owner respond?

By having a party, of course!

Talk about the ultimate counter protest, eh?

He's Hit Everything He's Aimed At, Carter

Bonus plug for an obscure western movie reference, that being John Cleese from 'Silverado' commenting on the fact that Danny Glover's character 'Mel', was shooting at a trailing possee not to hurt them, but to scare them away. He also says, after having his hat shot off his noggin, 'Today, my jurisdiction ends HERE!'.

Why do I bring this up? Well, there was an editorial in the Casper Star today talking about how great the One is.

From his 'landmark' health care legislation, to the 'financial reform', everything the One wanted, he got. Or as John Cleese remarked 'He's hit everything he's aimed at, Carter!'

Where I diverge from the letter writer is this. All those pieces of the One's legislative agenda were precisely what pushed the greatest mid-term turnover in over 70 yrs. Over 60 seats in the House of Representin'.

What the letter writer fails to comprehend is that this is not a left-of-center country. We are a center-right bunch who tend to think that the .gov needs to stay in the nifty little boundaries set forth in that 223 yr old piece of parchment commonly referred to as 'The Constitution of The United States', most notably the enumerated powers spelled out in Article 1, Section 8.

No where in this document does it lay out the foundation for the unprecedented power grab seen these last 2 yrs. Even under the most twisted of logic, these grabs don't pass the smell test. Personnal mandates to purchase? Uh-uh. Federal ownership of two car companies? Nope, not there either. Taking over student loans? Sorry, that ain't in there either.

Now, adding 4 million acres to the federal land regsiter? Can't quite see that either, as outside of post offices and military reservations, the USGOV can't own land.

See what these...folks...don't want to admit is, all of the cool little college/univeristy experiments that worked so well in the labs of their progressive icons don't work out so well in the real world. See California, where they're in the hole $40 million per day paying off pension liabilities. Or New York, where they've comtemplated a sugar tax to help pay for all those little entitlement programs that work oh so well.

Nope, they can keep all those little social experiments to themselves, thank you very much.