Anniversary

So which of these is the anniversary of the Waco raid? Celebration? Consecration? Commemoration? Perhaps, you may come to understand as I do, that it is a little bit of all three.

Mike Vanderboegh has written another gem, this time about an anniversary we discussed yesterday.

I have not been able to break away to do the formatting needed to post it, but see that Chris Horton has saved me the trouble.

Go on over and give it a read.

Cavalry Arms Assistance Plan

There's nothing new in the news, and still no word from the Cavalry Arms website on what is going down, but activists on AR15.com are being proactive about helping out. Follow the title link to see what the plan is, and how you can get involved.

A Utah BATFU Wannabe?

However, Van Wagenen and his attorney, James "Mitch" D. Vilos, believe that any errors discovered through the October 2006 audit by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives are innocent mistakes, not a deliberate disregard for rules.

"The Van Wagenen Finance Company has ... had hundreds of thousands of gun sales," Vilos said. "As far as I know, the vast majority have been absolutely legal and perfectly maintained. We're looking at the allegations closely, trying to figure out how some of those records were less than perfect."

Oh, you mean what BATFU calls "willful violations"?

"In order for us to pursue this charge, we need to establish that his conduct was done willfully and intentionally," Grunander said. "We are confident that we can prove this case at trial."

How predictable was that?

It looks like the Utah Deputy Attorney is tag-teaming with the feds on this.

With everything else going on, I don't see anyone else keeping an eye on this, so why don't we?

A False Alternative

No, you from "The Winning Team" may end up registering your guns, and you may even aid and abet the enemy in encouraging your countrymen to turn themselves in.

And what next?

What will you do when they order you to get their permission to own your registered guns in the form of paid licenses with arbitrary and mutable qualifying standards?

What will you do when they tell you that your license application has been rejected, that your registered guns have been banned, that you must turn them in or face arrest and imprisonment?

We know what "The Winning Team's" answer is: Surrender them, like "any honest, law-abiding American would do."

So register to vote and then do what?

Vote McCain?

You go right ahead if you want to. I'm sure some can even convince themselves they're being fierce and pragmatic freedom fighters doing so.

I'm taking a different route. If more did, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I will not register.

I will lose my rights only if I surrender them.

And I will not disarm.

I'll leave that to the men with nice offices and thousand dollar suits who have convinced so many followers that they are their leaders.

Shriek hysterically about losing and then stampede the cattle.

Let them lead, that is, herd you to surrender. I want no part of it and will lead myself.

It Is the Economy...

Clay tells us why.

Wayne to the Rescue

The day a gunman killed five students at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, it was more than an hour before Dr. Connie Catellani knew that her son Tony Skelton, an NIU senior, was safe.

So she's used her new-found indignation to presume to dictate on our right to keep and bear arms, and the ignorance, hysteria and distrust she employs are straight out of the Brady playbook.

And because she's a doctor, the media accords her more "authority" on the subject than they would if she were, say, a sex worker. Not (completely) meaning to be facetious, but would either of those professions be consulted for meaningful input if your TV was on the fritz, or your car had a funny noise coming from the transmission?

But because this person is an MD, we're supposed to listen to her on RKBA? Couldn't using that as a credential to give her voice special credibility be considered malpractice of sorts?

Someone who does have credentials, John Lott, was given the opportunity to present a rational alternative to "gun free zones." But what I found disturbing was that Dr. Catellani's most damaging argument against him, at least as far as the general public is concerned, came from someone ostensibly on "our side." Listen at 25 minutes 50 seconds into the recording (access via link on Lott's post--it's a big file, so those of you on dial up will need patience), and who does she cite? Not Paul Helmke, Peter Hamm or Sarah Brady, not Josh Sugarmann, but the biggest name in "gun rights."

And what does she cite?

This:

First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

We believe America's schools should be as safe as America's airports. You can't talk about, much less take, bombs and guns onto airplanes. Such behavior in our schools should be prosecuted just as certainly as such behavior in our airports is prosecuted.

[Via HZ]

We're the Only Ones Inadvertant Enough

A federal trial for a man accused of taking a police officer’s handgun ended in a hung jury this week.

What was this, another "takeaway" incident?

Authorities said the officer inadvertently left his duty belt under a street bench near Matt Talbot Kitchen at 19th and R streets the evening of Oct. 7. The belt included a police radio, a .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun and .45-caliber magazines. Police got a phone call a few hours later from someone who said Livings had a police officer’s weapon. Authorities found him the next morning with the gun and magazines at an apartment near 23rd and Q streets.

"Inadvertantly."

So the homeless guy is "The Only One" who faced charges? And the only one the "Authorized Journalists" chose to name?

[Via Blackshirt]

Nudging Northland News

Russ Stewart a former Duluth city councilor and gun owner says the new law is needed to give people adequate right to self defense.

Be sure and watch the video, as the narrative is a bit sloppy (misspelling "conscience," etc.), and yeah, I got the "give" part...

This is a follow-up to this and this, and I want to use it as an object lesson on how you, as an individual, can affect information the public sees and hears on RKBA--all by your own self, without any direction from anybody else.

When you see something grossly unfair in the media, take the time to contact them, challenge them on it, appeal to their sense of journalistic ethics and professional pride, give them correct information and press for a follow-up with their audience. We're always complaining we don't get equal time and reports are biased, but very few of us take personal action to fight back, or to do so effectively.

Here's a case where all Minnesotans would have seen on this is the "gun control" side unless someone took the time to do this. In this case, it happened to be me, and I was fortunate that Mr. Stewart then stepped up to the plate.

I'd also been in contact with Joel Rosenberg, one of the most knowledgeable authorities on Minnesota gun laws this side of Joseph Olson (who I'm told is up to his neck in things, because I tried tapping him, too) and the reporter spoke with Mr. Rosenberg at length, so we'll see if anything results from that interview. I suspect because it was over the phone she used it for background and to understand the issues, then opted for the guy who could give her face time with a camera.

My point is, every gun owner ought to be acting as a leader, and ought to be banding with his friends as force multipliers. Take it on yourself to take the intiative and challenge your local media when you see something that isn't right. Because if you're going to wait for some guy in a different state to get the ball rolling, it rarely will.

Good job, Russ. I know you had a lot more to say that was edited, and your time was limited by the format, but you not only made an important counterpoint to the original report, both you and Joel have established the credibility with these people to communicate with them on future stories. Both the reporter and her news manager now have a new awareness that this issue requires balance, and they now know where to get it. Plus, it's coming from local citizens, not from a funded lobby group that can be dismissed as a special interest.

Thank you both for speaking out on this. We all benefited from it.

This Day in History: March 1

The Articles of Confederation

...ratified and in force, March 1, 1781.