Cluster

Read.

Dial 911 and Die

We've been focusing on gun "buybacks" lately because of the ones they held in Cleveland and Akron. While part of me says anyone oblivious enough to turn in a defense tool for a gift card has made their choice, another part wishes I could give them a copy of a book that's been part of my collection for over nine years, and is just as relevant today as when I first got it: "Dial 911 and Die."

Here's today's Gun Rights Examiner column.

Tell a friend?

One Classy Lady

hold up that f- - - - - - Cubs s- - - . . . . f- - - them

Jeez, lady, you eat with that mouth?

Patti Blagojevich said on the taped call that she believes she is qualified, and would take such a job immediately.

And I'm sure she'd be worth every penny of that $150K.

Patti Blagojevich got on the phone to say that Tribune owner Sam Zell can "just fire" the offending writers...

Wonder when the "Authorized Journalists" are going to wake up to the fact that their masters consider them expendable?

That's OK. Patti & Co, are going to find out how expendable their masters consider them to be.

Fun With Language

The federal statute making it a crime for a person subject to a domestic violence injunction to possess a firearm does not violate the right to bear arms.

They don't even try to pretend anymore, do they?

[Via cycjec]

I Missed Human Rights Day!!!!

Fortunately, J.D. Tuccille did not:

Beating the crap out of a few gay-bashing cops during the Stonewall riots accomplished more for the rights of gays and lesbians than the UN General assembly ever will.

Also fortunately, I had finished swallowing my coffee before reading that.

Vermont, SC

A South Carolina House member is filing a bill to allow residents to carry weapons without a permit.

Not to pick nits, but I'd prefer instead of "allow" that it read "A South Carolina House member is filing a bill to prosecute any government agent who infringes on the right of citizens to carry weapons."

But in the interest of not being an intractable three-percenter who doesn't know how to compromise, I'll give this a qualified pass.

Which, unfortunately, is more than the legislature will.

[Via Zachary G]

UPDATE: I've been sent a link to the actual bill and told it may not be as cut and dried as the AP article indicates. I'll have more tomorrow.

A Different Take

...on the Blago scandal from Amendment II Democrats...

Burka Abeam

[Click to enlarge, then read caption]

This was just emailed to me.

At first I thought it must be Photoshopped, but Comment #11 would indicate some kind of independent corroboration. If it's real, all I can say is "Good grief" and link over to my "Authorized Journalist" files.

Either way, it's funny. Anyone who can verify or debunk, please weigh in.

UPDATE: CONFIRMED AS REAL. The person who sent it to me is also the one who scanned it. He tells me "it ran in the Los Angeles Daily News on Dec 10, 08 on Page A21."

Dec. 16 UPDATE: Jay Leno talked about it last night (start at 10:43 into the show).



--------------

Be sure and visit my Gun Rights Examiner column.

We're the Only Ones Really Into Kids Enough

The officer lives in Durham. He's been charged with rape, criminal sex act, endangering the welfare of a child and official misconduct.

Every time I hear about "Only Ones" and their special love of children, I keep coming back to the same old question...

[Via Declan]

Well Within Police Discretion

[O]fficer safety was such a central concern in public encounters (especially at roadside) that a pat-down search for weapons should be considered well within police discretion. Heytens indicated that authority might even exist if the officer came upon someone changing a tire — if the officer had a notion that the individual was a threat to the officer’s safety.

Just what the government needs--more unaccountable authority for violating individual privacy.

And so much for the argument that "conservative" judges are our last best hope.

And remember: "They" hate us because we're free...

[Via Tom Z]

No Fence-Sitting Here

The reason I am sitting on the fence on this one is that, while I do not have a problem with our military or police aged 18-20 owning a handgun, I also do not feel that they are any better than non military or law enforcement aged 18-20. If we need 18-20 year olds to own or possess handguns, rather they be police officers, an Ohio Reservist or a college student, why don't we just change the law to allow all 18-20 year olds to possess handguns. Why do we need to create higher classes of citizens that are better than someone else because they were hired by a police force?

Your misgivings are right. Listen to them.

I don't believe in "Only Ones." Either we're all in it together or we are not equal under the law. This is no incremental step in the right direction. It's simply more elitism.

You notice once cops got nationwide concealed carry how many of them went to the wall to include the rest of us? Funny thing--once they have their place at the table, they don't concern themselves overmuch with those of us standing outside in the cold looking at the banquet through the window. Except maybe to pull the drapes closed.

That said, I absolutely support the right of these individuals to keep and bear arms without infringement--right there alongside you and me.

We're the Only Ones Déjà Vu All Over Again

WaronGuns Correspondent Jeet reminds me that this was not the first time...

I should have read the article completely through, because it's not exactly like we're strangers here to the Thames Valley Police. As a matter of fact, I'm obliged to them for a paycheck...

We're the Only Ones "To Catch a Predator" Enough

City Officer Kills Himself; Was Under Investigation For Child Porn

And Chris Hansen wasn't even involved.

I'm sure had they been taking a non-"Only One" into police headquarters, we'd have been armed, uncuffed and able to exit the patrol car, too.

[Via Avg Joe]

Weapons Check

The following is an email I received this morning. it should be evident why I'm posting it without identifying the author:

David,

Really enjoy reading your posts and the Examiner column. Keep up the good fight.

This is a little something that happened to me the other day, that struck me as a bit ominous.

The military, despite being an organization whose bread and butter is firearms, is one of the most namby-pamby outfits when it comes to personally owned firearms. If you reside on post or wish to bring your weapon on post to use the post range, all weapons must be registered by serial number with the Provost Marshall. When you turn this information in, the Provost Marshall will conduct a NICS background check on you to see if you are even eligible to own these weapons, and presumably to see if there are any serial numbers listed as stolen with local law enforcement. These serial numbers are now in a federal data-base that is maintained on the post where you reside and with the unit commander. If a soldier is E-4 and below and lives in the barracks all weapons must be stored in the unit arms room and are accounted for daily through the unit armorer's inventory inspection. If a soldier is E-4 and below and lives in government housing the commander may authorize the soldier to keep the weapon in his quarters, but often does not. Regardless of the soldier's rank, if there are allegations of domestic violence, the commander may order all personally owned weapons to be surrendered to the arms room.

Nothing too crazy here, this has all been policy for years. Yesterday, however there was something different that immediately made me take notice. Our squadron is preparing for a regimental command inspection, and as part of that regiment will be looking at the commander's list of all personally owned weapons. In preparation for this, all soldiers were ordered to make sure that all weapons were registered with the Provost Marshall, whether they lived on post or not. I asked for clarification on this and it seems the squadron commander (O5/LTC) wants all personally owned weapons registered regardless of where they are stored.

There are a couple of possible explanations for this. It may be that the SCO is being over-zealous in his efforts to show what a good scout he is. The army has a trend towards, "You can add to, but not take away from", any given procedure or regulation. You may have seen this effect in Alaska, where that knucklehead post commander banned the troops stationed there from any kind of concealed carry.

This directive, if it did not come from our squadron command, may have come from regiment or from the post commander. If it did than it is likely little more than someone's personal agenda being exercised. Field grade officers are funny creatures. Utterly convinced of their righteousness, they can come up with some downright goofy stuff. I once had a battalion commander who was convinced that the NRA was an extremist organization and soldiers were not allowed to be present at functions affiliated with them. Wow.

If however, this directive did not come from any of these sources then it came from higher up in the army, and I find that troubling. It seems like a minor point, but it would indicate a major shift in policy. I will let you draw your own conclusions as to possible motives, if this is indeed the case. I have made no more inquiries, but I am keeping my ear to the ground,

I cannot speak for the other soldiers in this command, or their on how likely they are to comply with this directive. As for me, I am moving from this post in a few weeks and will not bother with this. When I get to where I am going I will be residing off post, nor will I ever live on post again.

I may decide to never own a firearm again...but my wife is sure nuts about her gun collection.

Your experiences along these lines will be welcome. Please feel free to share them in "Comments."

And the Lightworker Said...

...Let us make a nation in our image, after our likeness...

Nice to see the religious ecstasy wasn't just a campaign ploy, and we can look forward to at least four years of eye-rolling idolatry.

Where's that "wall of separation" when you really need it...?

The Laws of War

"The question they want answered is whether we can build automated weapons that would conform to the laws of war. Can we use ethical theory to help design these machines?"

I think one of the reasons we may get into so many wars is we've convinced ourselves they have laws.

Enemies of human dignity and liberty don't recognize rules. The only way they've ever been defeated is when we've been so desperate that we had to do monstrous things to them, to utterly destroy their capabilities and their will.

That's why we should never get involved in war unless there is absolutely no other choice and our freedom depends on it. And unless we have the will to do whatever it takes to win.

It's a terrible thing to contemplate, isn't it?

Thing is, we can't avoid thinking about it and preparing for it if we wish to remain free. And we owe it to everyone involved, including aggressors and those abetting them, to understand how horrible it would be.

I would think our best hope to prevent such horror would be to amplify, not diminish that understanding.

[Via Lane]

The First Line of Defense

Officials are considering a plan that would have fourth- and fifth-graders trained to help fight off an armed gunman should one enter their elementary school.

Why does that remind me of this?

Not everyone is for it (naturellement).

In truth, neither am I--at least the way it's being proposed. It's not a child's job to protect adults who are too stupid and cowardly to do what it takes. Now if you want to require as a condition of employment that all teachers, administrators and staff be armed and undergo tactical training, and if you also want to include competent age-appropriate defensive training for children, including in firearms, we can probably do a lot to make schools less attractive and vulnerable targets.

But if we're talking some aging liberal arts major, who is essentially qualified to shriek and evacuate their bowels, telling kids to throw bookbags and trash cans, come on...

Do what you can to teach your children how anything can be a weapon, but especially how to escape. Because we've seen how well lockdowns, waiting to be rescued and listening to the "experts" work.

[Via Brian F]

This Day in History: December 11

...there Situation is such (being on two Peninsula’s very strongly fortified and surrounded by Ships of War and Floating Batteries) that we cannot get to them and they do not choose to come to us. This being the case we have spent the Summer in drawing Lines of Circumvalation round them – cutting of all supplies of fresh Provisions by Land; and, latterly by water; For finding no great prospect of a visit from them, I fitted out (in behalf of the Continent) Six armed Vessels; with which we have Intersected their Provision Boats from Nova Scotia & Canada, and taken some others from G. Britain & the West Indies with Stores for the use of the Garrison...