This Day in History: September 7

On September 7, 1778, 400 Indians and 12 French companions appeared at the fort. After a couple days of talk, the attack finally came, and it was furious. The French and Indians attempted to set fire to the fort by shooting fireballs onto the roofs of the cabins. The plan failed because the women and children of the fort easily put out the fires and were aided by heavy rainfall. Next the attackers tried to burrow under the foundation of the stockade. The pioneers thwarted this scheme and the French and Indians retreated after a 13 day siege. "..we had two men killed, and four wounded, besides a number of cattle. We killed of the enemy thirty-seven, and wounded a great number" (Lofaro).

A Reasoned Approach

Next, how about we throw the 2nd Amendment into the trash heap of well-meant but stupid historical statements. There is no right way to interpret it, and we're just being intellectually dishonest if we pretend there is.

Of course there's a right way to interpret the Second Amendment, Mark. Just because you say there's not doesn't make it so.

Be intellectually honest and do some research before acting like you're an authority and obscuring the issue.

Start by getting a copy of attorney David T. Hardy's "In Search of the Second Amendment" DVD, which interviews leading Constitutional scholars and examines the historical record on how the amendment was developed and the intent of the Founders. If you're going to set yourself up as an authority with credentials to negate evidence presented by figures like Kates, Polsby, Levinson, Halbrook, Malcolm, Amar, Barnett, Cottroll, Kleck, Lund, Johnson, Innes, Reynolds, Volokh, et al., then let's party.

Educating yourself so you know what you're talking about would be the "reasoned approach." Otherwise, you just come across as another self-impressed dilettante with a fashionable opinion and a following of equally shallow and uneducated sycophants.

GUNS Magazine: September 1957

"WHY NOT Have A Pro-Gun Law," is possibly the longest article we have ever published. It may well be also the most important article we have ever published.

The "call to arms" which ends the story, urging all firearms enthusiasts to write to the Director of the Alcohol & Tobacco Tax Unit,Treasury, Washington 25, D. C., to protest new revised federal regulations in the gun law field is a little like Paul Revere's "one if by land, two if by sea." Only now it isn't the "British are coming," it is the bureaucrats.

There has been some serious thought among Congressmen and Senators as to the activities of this branch of the Treasury which administers the federal gun laws. Some congressmen have been outspoken in expressing the view that the Treasury has been attempting actually to alter law, to make law, which is a privilege jealously guarded by the Congress. In "Why Not A Pro-Gun Law," the author brings up to date the present situation in anti-6rearms legislation.

We are now at a crossroads. For decades shooting enthusiasts have been complacent while lawmakers, directed by people who are not all well-intentioned by any means, have been chipping away at the edges of American freedom. Restrictive firearms laws are but one face of restrictive federal interference into American private affairs.

We exist in a republic which is supposed to guarantee liberty under law. When laws become destructive of these liberties, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or to abolish those laws, and to institute new forms of law which shall best effect their safety and happiness.

Old militiaman Tom Jefferson would doubtless applaud this paraphrasing of his immortal document, the Declaration of Independence. Fortunately, it is not too late. The revised regulations are not yet in effect as of press-time. A public hearing on the new revised regulations is scheduled for Tuesday, August 27, 1957, at 10:00 AM, room 3313, Internal Revenue Bldg., 12th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D. C. Any protests can be made in person there, and Eastern-area readers of GUNS may find their interests best served if they obtain complete copies of the regulations, read and understand their implications, and appear to register their protests in person.

The September 1957 issue of GUNS Magazine is now online. Go to page 22 to read the entire article in question, which brings to light much information I had not previously been aware of (and some controversy, as you'll see when the topic of bearing arms is discussed.) Still, how much fault do we want to find find with an author who advocates eliminating all federal "gun control" laws? And the anecdotes about gun-controlling authorities breaking federal laws, the recap of "Big Tim" Sullivan's corruption, and the refreshing voice of radicalism in that era are just plain fascinating.

And let's not forget the classic period gun ads.

But just to show that even then some gun owners had their heads up...a creek..., there's this letter to the editor:
Good rebuttal, Mr. Mann!

BATFU and the Wide Open Spaces

The ATF has issued a new 4473 form, this is the form that you must fill out in order to purchase a firearm.

Ryan Horsley of Red's Trading Post gives us the lowdown on the lowdown BATFU Harassment Agency's latest incarnation of their damnable Citizen gun owner registration record.

If I was Ryan's lawyer, I'd be asking DIO Richard Van Loan under oath why they widened the "Yes/No" entry spaces on the form in 2001, after Ryan's 2000 audit where many of the "violations" were found. That's nothing less than an official admission that the old form didn't have enough room to comply with writing the words out, practically necessitating a "Y" or "N" entry, and it seems Judge Lodge ought to be taking that into consideration.

Still, seeing as how BATFU has nothing better to do than penalize businesses for not doing exactly as ordered, no matter how petty or ridiculous, I wonder if they could cite a dealer for a violation if they didn't ensure quotation marks around the "Yes" or "No," as specified on the form instruction?

And there's one other thing no one else seems to be talking about. Ryan presents three versions of Form 4473 beginning in 1997. The 2005 revision shows an interesting major change, one that I believe was introduced in 2001. (Unexplained is why the official sample presented on BATFU's website has a revision date of "10-2001". They demand perfect compliance, and this is the quality of their information resources?)

Why did BATFU start compiling statistics on what race a gun owner is? Of what relevance is that, and who authorized them to require racial profiling as a precondition to buying a gun? Could the federal government enforce the same requirement for, say, voting?

And here's one of the better illustrations of bureaucratic incompetence I've seen in a long time: In this time of the "war on terror," when Sarah Brady et al. are railing about Middle Eastern terrorists exploiting "the gun show loophole" to procure unregistered .50BMGs that can shoot down the Starship Enterprise, does anybody see a category on BATFU's new "racing form" for...uh...Middle Easterners?

If we're all going to be forced into the cattle car, why do they get a pass? Hey, if you're going to classify Semitic people as "White," why is there a separate Hispanic/Latino category? If I were a Middle Easterner, I'd be offended if someone tried to lump me in with Europeans.

But really--how, in post-9/11 America--can BATFU possibly justify documenting gun purchases by Pacific Islanders, but not by people of Arab descent? And is this just more stupid, or is it intentional?

What this means is, if you refuse to allow the government to register your race (unless you're a Sunni from Fallujah?), they can deny your right to keep and bear arms. Since when has BATFU been given authority to do that, and who has the authority to give it to them?

I smell a potential lawsuit here. At the very least, it'd be fun to monkeywrench the bastards and publicly force them to go through another form change immediately after going through the expense and hoopla of issuing their latest revision.

"Probable Cause"

They obtained a warrant, searched my bag, determined that unless I was planning on throwing my physics notes at someone (which reminds me I left a notebook on the desk in class…. I’ll have to get it tomorrow) I had nothing that was illegal in my bag.

Posting on gun forums can get you searched. And that's all the "probable cause" needed to obtain a warrant in the police state we have allowed ourselves to devolve into.

I applaud this guy's refusal to allow the cops to search his backpack without a warrant--that showed courage most don't have.

That said, I would have objected to a search of my person as well, and I certainly wouldn't be posting after the fact about how polite my tormentors were during my coerced ordeal--where enemies who outnumbered me were prepared to kill me if I didn't comply with their orders. I certainly wouldn't be apologizing "for making [their] jobs harder."

I'd also be demanding to know who my accuser was. Problem is, most college students don't have the money to pursue legal claims, and it's not like this is meat for contingency lawyers--so unless someone like the ACLU steps up to the plate, and considering their position on guns that ain't gonna happen--legal resolution seems unlikely.

[Via RuffRidr]

We're the Only Ones "Well Regulated" Enough

They call themselves the Regulators.

They wear tattoos of a skull-faced man holding a shotgun, fire screaming from its barrels. They refuse to testify against their buddies. They've been accused of extorting and intimidating those outside their ranks.

No, they're not members of a street gang. They're Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies at the Century station in Lynwood.

Uh, yes, they are too a street gang. And they're the "Only Ones" we need fear. The others we can repel by force, if necessary, and have at least a chance against the resulting legal consequences. If we defend ourselves from these thugs, the entire force and resources of the state will be brought down on us with a vengeance.

They've gone from "peace officers" to "law enforcement officers" to "regulators."

I can't think of a better example for explaining crime lord Lee Baca's insistence on keeping the populace his arrogant thugs "regulate" legally disabled from fighting back.

[Via Tony G]

A Lesson from the Environmentalists

Environmentalists sued the federal government Wednesday alleging it had failed to regulate emissions from oceangoing vessels that pollute the air and cause respiratory illness around ports nationwide.

So if this ends up working, how about we try the same thing over guns and sue against its failure to stop infringements that cause deaths and injuries nationwide?

If they win, this seems like it will also create a general duty to protect...

We're the Only Ones Too Pooped to Participate Enough

The city's pooper scooper law applies to everyone, even police officers on mounted patrol and K-9 unit duty -- but a new statute may allow them to start leaving the evidence behind...the change is meant to allow officers in the saddle or partnered with canines to patrol events such as University of Wisconsin football games without having to stop to pick up droppings like civilian pet owners.

I can envision the scenario now--a mounted "Only One" writing a ticket against a citizen pet owner while his patrol horse evacuates. Or maybe they could sic their K-9 partner on them right after its done with its business.

Either way, this seems yet another example of rubbing...uh...special privileges in our faces.

[Via WmH]

This Day in History: September 6

The General has no doubt, but that every man who has a due sense of the importance of the cause he has undertaken to defend, and who has any regard to his own honor and the reputation of a soldier will, if called to action, behave like one contending for every thing valuable; But, if contrary to his expectation, there shall be found any officers, or soldiers, so far lost to all shame as basely to quit their post without orders, or shall skulk from danger, or offer to retreat before order is given for so doing, from proper authority, of a superior officer, they are to be instantly shot down, as a just punishment to themselves, and for examples to others.

An Only Ones "Three-fer"

From Stan:

We're the Only Ones...Whoa...Dude...I have HANDS!!! Enough

Oldham County police Officer Gerald W. Colston has been charged with growing marijuana, the department said today.

We're the Only Ones Punchy Enough

Johnson City police arrest an off-duty Kingsport officer this weekend after they say the man punched one of their officers in the face.

We're the Only Ones on Official Business Enough

When the officer showed up, he inspected the bag and saw nothing had been stolen. He also asked Righi for his driver's license. Since Righi was not driving his father's car, he refused to give up his driver's license, but was happy to give his name and address at the officer's request. Not amused, the officer arrested Righi and booked him for 'Obstructing Official Business.'

[More from "The Only Ones" Files]

Penn State Library to Order Hardy 2A DVD

As I mentioned in a comment on your blog, I sent a letter to my university's law librarian, and today she responded, telling me that she will order the video. It never hurts to ask, and sometimes much is gained! Thanks for suggesting this course of action.

Nathaniel (Penn State)

Great work, Nathaniel. In addition to requesting that Netflix and Blockbuster update their catalogs with "In Search of the Second Amendment," approaching public and school libraries is a great way to help educate more people on the origin and intent of the Second Amendment.

I trust the numerous scholars interviewed in the video have ensured at least one copy resides in the library of their respective institutes of higher learning?

We're the Only Ones Evasive and Fraudulent Enough

Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne resigned Tuesday after agreeing to plead guilty to federal tax evasion and mail fraud charges after a corruption investigation uncovered crimes in his outside business dealings, federal prosecutors said.

What, the "authorized journalists" are just now figuring out this guy's a corrupt fraud?

Some of us have been telling people that for years.

Anybody see anything about his having surrendered his service weapon yet?

[More from "The Only Ones" Files]

A Question of Priorities

Mistakes by U.S. Air Force personnel left five nuclear warheads unaccounted for during a three-hour period on Aug. 30...

And the federal government is worried about Ryan Horsley?

Tom Gresham Responds...

...to this.

Hi, David:

Thanks for the head's up, and the defense.

I've been using that line for at least three months on the radio show . . . maybe longer.

I shot that YouTube video just as a lark. A listener kept bugging me, saying that I keep telling people to ask the candidates this question, so . . . "Why don't you do it yourself, Tom?" He was right, and I was on site, with a camera, and with Clint, so we just did it. It's not great, but at least it's done.

Each of us goes about this gun rights battle differently, but at least we are in the battle. I try hard to not get caught up in the turf wars of the alphabet groups or discussions of who is more pure.

We all just need to keep working on whatever it is each of thinks is important, in whatever way we think is effective.

I'm not Gottlieb, or LaPierre, or Pratt, or anyone else. I'm glad they do what they do.

I'm glad that Stephen put up that video. He put more effort into it than I did, and it looks good. What if 100 others did the same thing? That would be pretty cool, too.

Please feel free to use this on your blog. And thanks, David, for pushing the video. I have no idea what it takes to get CNN to pay attention, but if all this does is create discussion and make people recalibrate how they approach the concept of what we want, it's worthwhile.

Best,Tom

So--you've seen the video, right? And written CNN?

Open Letter to Amendment II Democrats

WarOnGuns regulars know we've been discussing the group "Amendment II Democrats." I received the following from correspondent "Peter," and received permission to share it:

Dear Sirs/Madams,

As someone who generally agrees with the Democratic side of things, at least to the point of being registered as one, I was interested in hearing about you from David Codrea.

It's lonely being a gun positive Democrat, and it gets lonelier as time goes on. I was hoping that I had been directed to a group of like-minded folks.

I was wrong. You refer glancingly to the Second Amendment, but you're really interested in electing Democrats, no matter what.

Let me explain where I'm coming from:

The American Revolution did not start on 19Apr 1775 at Concord.

Nor on 5 Dec 1773, the Boston Massacre.

Nor during the French and Indian War.

It started in January of 1629 when Charles I of England dissolved Parliament and commenced the eleven-year period of Personal Rule. At this moment in time, William Penn was an unknown landowner in the English countryside, although events would force him to emigrate and eventually found Pennsylvania, as a "for instance".

Over the next century and a half it was realized that certain things belong inalienably to the individual, no matter the government, and no matter what any government might assert.

Those items are pretty well enumerated in the Bill of Rights. A possibly heretical (to you) thought: the Bill of Rights is eternal and timeless, and would obtain even if America never existed. That means you and I have the right to worship (or not), assemble, speak our minds, and bear arms, no matter what. Period. No 'reasonable' restrictions without overarching societal need, hence the prohibition against yelling Fire In A Crowded Theatre, as one example.

You cite on your website the fact that you're not on the NRA's Blacklist. Rather than use that to establish your bona fides, I would suggest that you haven't made enough of a public splash for them to notice you. I expect that to be remedied as soon as someone over there tries to wade through the morass of nonsense you have posted.

You are partisan hacks who are trying to exploit one of the national conversations for your own benefit and the benefit of your Democratic candidates. I hold Free Speech to be sacred, so by all means continue with what you're trying to do. It won't work, and you'll be doing it without my support, and when I hear that your partisan side overrides your Constitutional side, I will work against you. Please note that I said 'when'; I have no doubt you'll toss my Second Amendment Rights over the side when it becomes convenient for you to do so.

It's not my intention to attack this group, as I've said before I believe their spokesman Daniel Barnett is sincere, but I disagree with the underlying philosophy of not supporting pro-RKBA candidates because of party loyalty. So Peter's blunt observations need to be heard and understood by them, as they reflect a sentiment we've heard before in comments on previous posts, and one they will certainly continue to hear by gun owners rightfully distrusting of the abominable record of the modern Democrat party as a whole on gun rights.

It's my hope that this is a catalyst for a more profound reexamination than the "tweaking" we got the other day. My hope is to see them come around to a more profound and vigorous defense of their namesake amendment, one that is transparent to party lines. As always, dialog is the order of the day, and Mr. Barnett is welcome to respond in "Comments," below, or by sending me a standalone post, which I will publish unedited and in full.

Related Posts:
2A Dems to Hold 8/28 Rally
Second Amendment Democrats Respond
2A Dems "Tweak" Position

This Day in History: September 5

Who is there without ambition, to share with them, the applauses of their countrymen, and of all posterity, as the defenders of Liberty, and the procurers of peace and happiness to millions in the present and future generations?

So, what do you think? Have "future generations" conducted themselves as worthy and grateful heirs of the Liberty procured by the sacrifices of these men?

"Freedomnomics" Review Now Online

“Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don’t,” reads the subtitle on the dust jacket.

So what? And what does that have to do with gun rights?

Like the saying goes, it’s not about guns, it’s about freedom. And Freedomnomics, by economist and author John Lott, Jr., does much to illustrate the relationship between free markets and liberty.

"Freedomnomics," my Rights Watch column for the October issue of GUNS Magazine, is now online.

We're the Only Ones Commiting the Grave Sin of Self Murder Enough

A cadet in the Vatican police force was found fatally shot in the head early Monday inside the barracks in what officials said was an apparent suicide over a breakup with a girlfriend.

I wonder if Snuffy Pfleger is going to lead a march to the Vatican and demand they set an example by giving up their guns?

[More from "The Only Ones" Files]

Hunters an Endangered Species?

Hunters remain a powerful force in American society, as evidenced by the presidential candidates who routinely pay them homage, but their ranks are shrinking dramatically and wildlife agencies worry increasingly about the loss of sorely needed license-fee revenue.

This was sent to me by WoG Correspondent and Red's cap donor "Sam," who satirically asks "Since the RTKBA is only about hunting, if the number of hunters goes to '0', does this mean we no longer have a need for the 2nd amendment?"

2A Dems "Tweak" Position

We had a bit of a brouhaha last week.

I received this in response, from Daniel Barnett of Amendment II Democrats:

I've tweaked the text somewhat in order to make our position a little more explicit. Any suggestions or input you might have will be appreciated.

The crux of the tweak appears to be:

Under no circumstances will Amendment II Democrats support anti-RKBA Democrats, but neither shall we support Republican candidates who run against anti-RKBA Democrats.

I know Mr. Barnett is trying, but I candidly don't see where this really changes much from my original assessment. If you think I'm wrong, I'm receptive to your criticism and attempts at tutelage, which is why we have "Comments."

Ryan Horsley for Congress?

It's a moot point unless he runs against the incumbent next time, since Gov. Otter appointed his lieutenant governor, Jim Risch to fill Larry Craig's senate vacancy. That means current Rep. Mike Simpson won't be going anywhere, and since GOA gives him an "A" rating, Idaho citizens seem to have pretty good representation.

Of course, Simpson could put himself in the position of hero to gun owners if he adopted the cause represented by Red's Trading Post--and became a champion of exposing BATFU abuse and harassment of gun dealers. We should discuss why he's not been vocal on this situation and what we can do to urge him to take a leadership position on behalf of his constituents who are being subjected to arbitrary official persecution.

As for newly-appointed Senator Risch, he's not afraid to tout NRA membership in his official biography, so that bodes well. Some of you may bring up the elk controversy, but the thing that troubles me the most is his unqualified enthusiasm and support for Mitt Romney.

A Clarification...

...to this.

I by no means meant that he "stole" my idea! I'm sure lots of people have similar ideas. I actually heard about doing that on his show... I just made it right after I heard about it and sent it to him. But I haven't heard anything from them. It's not a big deal really. I would just like *some* form of that question asked to the candidates.

That's a relief and I agree. The writer's name is Stephen Stamboulieh, and he's running for the Senate. Give his website (still under development) a look.

Mr. Stamboulieh tells me that if he's elected, his "first order of business" will be to "abolish the ATF."

What's not to like?

Oh, and by the way--you've done your part to ask CNN to play the question, as well as recruited other gun owners to follow suit, right?

Here, I'll make it easy.

This Day in History: September 4

September 4. 1775

A resident of Rhode Island presents to the Committee of Safety a proposal to build a submersible vessel for the purpose of destroying British warships.

Happy Labor Day

Why are you reading blogs?

And why am I up before 5:00 AM on a holiday?

Well, I've got several hours of my "job" work to go do, plus I have an article to write for the magazine. So no day off for me.

But that's no reason for you not to go enjoy the day.

I'll resume regular posting tomorrow. Have a safe one.

"The Color of Gun Control"?

Did the FBI, in the early 60's, create a coloring book they wanted people to think came from the Black Panther Party*, and was this part of a wider plan to scare whites into enacting gun control laws?

I received the following as a comment to a previous post. I'd seen correspondent "Madashell" talk about the coloring book in KABA Newslinks comments and asked him to give me more information.

Anonymous said...

Dear David Codrea;

Sir I believe you want info about the BPP coloring book created by the FBI. I decided to share this info with everyone.
Madashell

1) For a copy of the BPP coloring book
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/coloring.html
2) For US Senate report on coloring book
bookhttp://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIc.htm
3) For additional links including to the Senate report and more
http://www.perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=90600&forum_id=94&jump_to=3222755
4) Latest from Jeff Knox tying it all together
http://www.firearmscoalition.org/new/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=37

I present this for discussion only. Not having the time to track this down, my gut instinct says verify before accepting, and I do note the Knox piece addresses generalities of how the FOID was passed in fear of black armed rebellion, and does not mention this coloring book. On the other hand, though I had not heard of Paul Wolf before, he appears to have good legal credentials, and has done extensive research, but I have only given his pages a cursory glance and have no insights into what he is about.

I did find the coloring book on a University of Notre Dame page, but it doesn't mention an FBI disinformation program. You can find other websites here.

So caveat emptor. One would think this would have been a major news story--was it and did I sleep through it? If it's true and it hasn't been, "why not?" might be an appropriate question to start asking.

If anyone can help shed light, please do so.

And thank you, Madashell, for bringing this to my attention.

*UPDATE: It's not clear from the "Senate Report" linked above whether the FBI is alleged to have created the book or simply distributed it--the inference could be made they took an existing independently-produced book that was not authorized by the BPP hierarchy and sent it out to scare people, and that BPP leadership disassociated themselves from it when it came to their attention. Of course, the BPP could also have created it and lied when it became an embarrasment to them. Who knows?

From the report:

In an admitted attempt "to impede their contributions to the BPP Breakfast Program," the FBI sent anonymous letters and copies of an inflammatory Black Panther Coloring Book for children to contributors, including Safeway Stores, Inc., Mayfair Markets, and the Jack-In-The-Box Corporation.

On April 8, 1976 in Executive Testimony a former member of the BPP Central Steering Committee stated that when the coloring book came to the attention of the Panther's national leadership, Bobby Seale ordered it destroyed because the book "did not correctly reflect the ideology of the Black Panther Party . . ."

Hitching a Ride With Grace

Buddy Stieger saw my romantic sportscar ride with Grace, and decided moving in on my girl was more important than our friendship.

The thought strikes that "Hitching a Ride With Grace" would be a fun way for bloggers to show us what they look like so we can put a face with the name. I don't do tags, but if you want to join in, now that Grace has left me by the side of the road, I don't care who she picks up.

Let me know if you decide to do this, and if enough people want to play I can do a gallery next weekend with links to your site.


UPDATE: Just to make sure all are included, feel free to Hitch a Ride With Cary instead:

Thank You Aaron

A tribute site has been set up for Aaron Russo.

We're the Only Ones Legging It Enough

A policeman accidentally shot himself in the leg as he was getting into a car in central London.

Thank goodness. For a moment there, I was afraid this might be another case where an "Only Ones'" malevolent gun "went off" all by its own self.

In Denial

Schools, Children and Families Secretary Ed Balls denied there was a crisis of gun and knife crime among Britain's youngsters.

Yeah, what were people thinking to suggest otherwise?

In one important observation he's right, though, as is demonstrated in our own "hot spots." The problem with violence--via gun use and otherwise--is disproportionately represented by certain concentrated populations.

But we don't want to talk about that, because then the enabling factors guaranteed by our entire dependency and control system will become obvious.

OK, somebody in comments make a joke about his last name. You know you want to.

This Day in History: September 2

Washington wrote the following letter to the President of the Continental Congress several days after the Battle of Long Island. In that battle, Washington and his army were lucky to have escaped an even more devastating defeat than the one they suffered. In the aftermath of this battle, what is Washington's attitude toward militia forces? To what does he attribute the difficulties of using militia effectively? What arguments does Washington set forth for a standing army?

And more importantly, what parallels can we draw based on the actions and attitudes of most gunowners today?

An Excellent Idea!

LibertyPlease said...
I sent Netflix's purchasing department a request to stock "In Search of the Second Amendment" and included a link to Mr. Hardy's website. If anyone else with a Netflix account would like to request it as well, here is the link (also can be found under "Contact Us"):

http://www.netflix.com/Suggest?type=0&lnkctr=cu_tr

I like it. Please, everybody, take a minute to send a comment.

Take two: Here's Netflix arch-rival Blockbuster's contact link:
http://www.blockbuster.com/help/contactUs

Walkin' the walk here. Note I gave Blockbuster a fake phone number--there is absolutely no legitimate reason for them to ask for one.


UPDATE:

Which Three Laws?

From WarOnGuns correspondent (and Red's cap donor "Sam"):

In reference to the Gresham/Smith YouTube debate question you posted, I would like to see a post of your thot's on which 3 laws you think should go. I can't get my mind around the subject to answer. I need a more informed opinion.

This reminds me of the end of "The Time Machine," where Filby finds George has returned to the future after having taken three books from his library. There are many books, so it's impossible to tell which were taken, but they will be used to rebuild human civilization in a degenerate future.

"Which three would you take?" he asks Mrs. Watchett, the housekeeper (and, in effect, the movie audience).

I have a bit of the same dilemma with citizen disarmament laws, but since Sam didn't give me the option to say "all of them," here are my picks and reasoning:

GCA '68, which infringes on the majority of firearms transactions.

The Brady Act, and all requirements for a background check as a prior restraint to exercising a right.

FOPA '86 proscriptions against civilian ownership of full-auto firearms manufactured after May, 1986, and its redefinition of parts as a firearm. Why not NFA '34? Because I don't consider a tax as slammed shut of a door as an outright ban on ownership.

There are plenty of others--I'd love to get rid of the National Parks ban, gun-free school zones, Lautenberg...but these are the three I consider the ones that do the most damage.

Feel free to disagree in "Comments" and educate us all.

Looks Like Guns Aren't the Only Thing They Grab

The Illinois Auditor General released a 28-page audit of the CeaseFire violence prevention group detailing misappropriation of funds, receiving money outside of the parameters of payment agreements and having work started by its partners without written agreements.

Third Power has the details.

[Via Of Arms and the Law]

High Goon

That last post about "High Noon" got me to remembering Grace Kelly, possibly the most beautiful woman ever (aside from you, Honey!!!)

I was playing around the other day trying to give the family another reason to make fun of me and came up with this:



I trust you're laughing with me, not at me? No...?

Well, at least Grace adores me.

High Noon

Do NOT depend on me to save YOU.

Mike H reminds us of the lesson of Will Kane.

Because of its rarity, it's gratifying to see a "writer, actor, producer" who gets it. I've known four in "the industry" now, and one of them, sadly, is no longer with us.

"Real Solutions"

Rather than calling for new restrictions on law-abiding gun owners, the report should have focused its efforts on real solutions to preventing crime.

"Real solutions" like not infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms on all school campuses?

Because I haven't heard you call for that yet, Wayne, and your "few days" are up. I've heard you speak against people bearing arms on school grounds. I've heard you squelch those within your sphere of influence who've suggested changing that.

Is it still "too soon", as if demanding the right to defend human life can rightfully be deemed exploitative? Deemed by whom, and why should the opinion of anyone that evil or ignorant matter?

Your recommended "pause," you tell us, a "frankly...doesn't hurt anyone."

Are you waiting until it does?

This Day in History: September 1

Complaint has been made to the General; that the body of a Soldier of Col Woodbridges Regiment has been taken from his grave by persons unknown; The General and the Friends of the deceased, are desirous of all the Information that can be given, of the perpetrators of this abominable Crime, that he, or they, may be made an example, to deter others from committing so wicked and shameful an offence --

They're Ba-ack...

I'd forgotten about this screenshot I took a couple days ago because I've been kind'a busy lately...

They're ba-ack.

Yo, Snuffy-- do you think someone in Congress may be interested in you because of your use of St. Sabina's tax-deductible contributions?

At least the feds aren't checking up on Red's Trading Post this time...

A Caning in Steubenville

The president of the Steubenville branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and his girlfriend were charged with domestic violence Wednesday...Mayo claimed Smith beat him with a cane. Smith said she was using the cane in self defense.

Obviously, violence within "the community" can't be attributable to individual choices and lack of self control, so the totem of an inanimate object must be blamed.

I wonder if the NAACP is going to sue cane manufacturers?

We're the Only Ones Camera Shy Enough

What is it about "The Only Ones" wanting to keep their treatment of private citizens free from scrutiny and oversight?

[From The Other Side of Kim via Taking Time to Stop and Think]

Red's Updates

Ryan has two new posts for us:

"Does ATF Director Deserve to be Confirmed?"
My answer, of course, is "No." The office and the agency should be abolished.

"In Search of the Second Amendment" to Premier in Idaho
if you haven't seen this yet, you are denying yourself one of the most authoritative resources that can be found. Ryan tells me "We are going to be THE spot to premiere Gun movies."

He also told me "I just got word from one of my friends sons in Georgia with the Military that one of his fellow soldiers was wearing a Red's Trading Post hat. He was shocked to see it."

By way of disclosure, since I write frequently about Red's and have been extremely vocal in my support, I want to get this "on the record." I ordered a Red's hat, sent in the ten bucks, and to my pleased surprise got back two hats and two Red's coffee mugs. Thank you, Ryan, for your generosity. I did introspect on whether accepting swag and doing advocacy were mutually exclusive, and even entertained the idea of making the extras available as some sort of prize for WoG readers.

My decision: the hell with it. I'm selfishly keeping and enjoying them. I could have just kept mum about this and no one would have ever known. If anybody thinks I can be compromised with a few items of company logo promotional merchandise , the hell with them too.

And I certainly have deluded myself into thinking I look handsome in the cap, although my 16-year-old asked me if I was cheating on my cowboy hat.

"Even the Craven Gun Lobby"

Even the craven gun lobby should manage some shame over this absurd example of Second Amendment idolatry.

Pretty brave words for someone who isn't staking his personal reputation on them. Pretty bold for someone who will take no personal role in the evil physical disarmament he and his fellow effeminate subversives on The Times' editorial staff dream of visiting on the Republic.

Pretty slick the way he weasel-words his presentation to make it seem like "the gun lobby" is against mental health background checks--despite the NRA supporting the McCarthy bill (a position many of us disagree with).

You don't want to test whether or not organized American gun owners are "cowardly," pal. Especially not personally. Trust me on this.

As for being "defeated" and "vanquished," he's obviously insulated himself from the gun owners I know--people who visit this site every day and tell me they are just about at the end of their tolerance threshold. These people haven't even begun to fight.

Predictions of our demise--coming from the brilliant tacticians whose leadership and evolving marketplace savvy has resulted in a 47% decline in share value over the past 5 years (with their rating just lowered from "stable" to "negative", declining revenues, operating out of such desperation that they've been forced to reduce the size of their paper (and the amount of space available for "news", which is the whole reason for their existence, by 10%), and this after cutting 4% of their staff two years ago--are actually pretty funny.

A Big Success!

As if we needed any more proof that the Brady Campaign tells shameless lies...

Second Amendment Democrats Respond

to this:

Your article on Amendment II Democrats
by Daniel Barnett
Webmaster, Amendment II Democrats

Over the past few days, I've read quite a bit in the RKBA blogosphere in response to the call for a "Save the Second Amendment Rally" in Dallas by Amendment II Democrats. Much of that response, including those from David on the War on Guns blog, had more to do with our policy on Democratic candidates than on the rally itself. I decided to take a critical but fair look at both our current policy on Democratic candidates and at David's response, especially with some in the blogosphere declaring prima facie that Amendment II Democrats is somehow "anti-gun" or "anti-RKBA."

The statement on our website, under the "Who We Are" section, reads as follows:

Do you actively oppose Democrats who support sensible gun measures if they run for public office?

We are Democrats, and as such we will support our party's nominees for local, state, and federal office. During the primaries, however, if any Democratic candidate supports gun control measures that Amendment II Democrats oppose (such as reauthorizing the national ban on semi-automatics), that primary candidate is fair game, and we will encourage voters to support Democratic candidates who are in greater harmony with our outlook on Second Amendment rights. But once the primaries are over and the candidates for the general election have been chosen, it is important that all Democrats pull together and support our party's candidates as best as we are able. Under no circumstances will Amendment II Democrats support Republican candidates who run against anti-RKBA Democrats. We are, after all, Democrats.

David has brought up a few points in his earlier post that I'd like to address one at a time, starting with this:

Nu-uh, guys. It doesn't work that way, and don't think that bit about "sensible gun measures" went unnoticed--what the hell are those?

My point exactly. The term "sensible gun measures" is one that is frequently thrown around by the Brady Campaign and its Million Mom March satellites to denote the well-worn gun-control of paradigm of banning semi-automatics, banning handguns, and otherwise regulating gun ownership to the point where you're left with only a Lyman Great Plains Hunter - and that's for your hunting, shooting, and self-defense needs. Not that there's anything wrong with blackpower arms, mind you, but my own interpretation of the term "sensible gun measures" means not keeping the Tantal where the darned cat can turn the handguards into a chew toy. I only used the phrase in an attempt to challenge the frame that the Brady Campaign et al try to push, namely, that their approach to gun legislation is the only approach that could be called "sensible." I think most readers of the blog are intelligent and informed enough to know the score on this issue.

Next on the docket:

If you would pick an "F" over an "A" simply because of blind party loyalty, you have made yourselves part of the problem.

What this indicates is, ultimately, the Second Amendment is expendable to you, not as much of a priority as re-electing Carolyn McCarthy or Chuck Schumer, or electing Hillary Clinton.

If that were indeed the case with Amendment II Democrats, you'd be absolutely right. And part of that, I fear, is because the policy on Democratic candidates may not have been explicit enough. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. Although we do keep the focus on Democratic candidates, we have not and will not provide support to anti-RKBA Democrats who run for office, even if they win the primaries.

I refer the reader to the now-defunct Democrats for the Second Amendment, another pro-RKBA Democratic organization that predated Amendment II Democrats. Don Baldwin, founder of Democrats for the Second Amendment, once stated: "We will not endorse anti-gun Democrats or non-Democrats. We welcome friendly non-Democrats to join as supporters but require Democratic registration for full membership."

Amendment II Democrats has yet to issue any endorsements in local, state, or Federal races of any kind - we haven't quite reached that point, yet. We have invited Democratic candidates for Federal office to share with us their perspectives on firearms legislation, and we're still doing it today. And we thank those who have responded in the past. We have presented their responses in what we hope is a fair, impartial manner without further commentary or critique. It is our policy that a candidate's words speak for themselves, and you can read them for yourself on the Amendment II Democrats website and make your own decisions.

But even a cursory look at our issues papers and the posts on our MySpace blog should serve as an indicator of how we feel about HR 1022, S 1237, and other anti-RKBA legisation that is being proposed by our legislators. So if we try to solicit answers from anti-RKBA Democrats such as Carolyn McCarthy or Barack Obama, it's mainly for two purposes: first, to be as fair as possible to all Democratic candidates, and second, to leave no doubt whatsoever in the mind of the pro-RKBA Democratic voter as to which candidates are most in harmony with their own views.

And finally:

It means you consider other social and economic issues more important than my elemental right to defend my life and freedom, and will aid and abet those trying to strip me of the means to do so.

This is only an assumption on David's part, and one that I challenge most strenuously. It is true that many issues are important to me, including civil rights, environmental pollution and global climate change, the occupation of Iraq, and so on. But to insinuate that I am willing to sacrifice our Second Amendment rights just to score points on other issues - well, that just isn't going to happen. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is of paramount importance both to myself and to Amendment II Democrats as a whole.

I am a Democratic precinct chair and state convention delegate. I participate in our county party's semi-annual committee meetings - sometimes loudly. And if I hear anyone else at the meeting put forth a resolution that even hints at fostering anti-RKBA sentiment among my fellow Democrats, I will descend upon that resolution like a rock on an eggshell. And that means I'll have to take a lot of flak from anti-RKBA Democrats. I'm used to it. Bring it the hell on, already.

But on the other hand, take a good look at the makeup of the Senate in the 110th Congress. Of the Democratic majority in the Senate, there are no less than eight Democratic Senators - Max Baucus (MT), Bob Casey (PA), Russ Feingold (WI), Mary Landrieu (LA), Ben Nelson (NE), Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV), Jon Tester (MT), and Jim Webb (VA) - who will form a block against any attempt to resurrect a Federal ban on semi-automatics. Judging by the current makeup of the Senate, when it comes to gun legislation, these eight Democratic Senators may prove to be the gatekeepers, much to the constant frustration of Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer. My pro-RKBA stance may technically be the minority within the Democratic Party, but it is gaining in strength. And while Obama and Hillary Clinton may try their best to ignore us, other Democratic candidates do so strictly at their own peril.

So, if there is anyone reading this who is still upset that we will only throw our support behind Democrats, take a good look at our name - we are Amendment II Democrats. We have our own goals for transforming the Democratic Party from the group up. It will not happen overnight. And it will not be easy. But I think the majority of you who read this will agree that it will be a fine day indeed when you show up at the polls and realize that your choices for the White House are a pro-RKBA Republican, a pro-RKBA Libertarian, and a pro-RKBA Democrat. It's something to aim for.

In a way, David seems to have beaten me to the punch in one regard, for which I salute him. I've been mulling over creating another issue paper for our website under the working title And Now For Plan B which would cover how to deal with anti-RKBA Democratic primary winners while still nurturing the growth of pro-RKBA sentiment among the party's rank-and-file as well as other candidates. Like I said earlier, the goals we seek will not be easy to attain, but I am convinced that it is doable if enough people get on board. Within our own ranks, Amendment II Democrats currently boast military veterans, NRA members, gay rights activists, and other diverse sorts within its informal membership ranks. In other words, it looks a bit like a microcosm of the Democratic Party at large. Which means - well, you get the idea.

I'll try to field whatever questions you might have. Thanks in advance for your patience.

Molon labe!

Daniel Barnett
Webmaster, Amendment II Democrats

This Day in History: August 31

Samuel Mason, a Patriot captain in command of Fort Henry on the Ohio frontier, survives a devastating Indian attack on this day in 1777.

No Fair

I didn't know about this until it was too late to enter.

The world may never appreciate my artistic genius until after I am gone.

I think I'll go cut off my ear.

At least it looked like they voted for a worthy candidate.

Where else have I heard about encouraging people to vote for Number 6?

Hokie-Pocus

To save the cost of that valuable response time, which is always too long, is it too much to even consider letting law-abiding Americans carry firearms as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, in what I hope one day will be called the "formerly known as gun-free zone?"

Free Constitution has some thoughts on the newly-released Virginia Tech report.

Unless it includes a recommendation to educate and encourage students about their right to keep and bear arms, and another to shackle Larry Hincker in stocks on the commons for public ridicule and scorn, it's guaranteed to be nothing but a bunch of politically correct BS. And nothing in it will keep the next madman from doing the Hokie Smoky.

"Eat Dead Burnt Bodies"

I guess some people's "sick" is other people's "gifted." Anyway, the line didn't come from me.

I thought the Emotional Marketing Value Headline Generator might prove useful to fellow bloggers and others looking for a way to punch up post titles. Still, how any computer program could assign these words to the "Intellectual" category is beyond me--but I do understand how they'd appeal to people "in the fields of education, law, medicine, politics... "

It took me a couple tries to get my score over 50--I'd be curious to know what word sequence will beat 75, and wonder what a perfect 100 would look like. If anybody has the time...

The Apprentice

Donald Trump Jr. joined his famous father among the ranks of pistol packers this year after the NYPD issued him a permit to keep a handgun at his home.

As I asked at KABA Newslinks:

So how much of the Trump billions are going toward ensuring the right of ALL the people to keep and bear arms?

When the old man ran for president, he flat out showed us he doesn't have a clue.

What About True "Assault Weapons"?

Yuri Orlov doesn't know what to say about NRA Director Joaquin Jackson's arrogance and ignorance. Can anyone help him out via "Comments"?

In an update, Sebastian points us to the NRA Damage Control page, where Jackson tells us he didn't mean semiautos, and when he was talking about limiting magazine capacity to 5 rounds, he was talking about for hunting, not from general ownership.

That's not what I heard him say, and while I am inclined to forgive some people for speaking poorly on camera, Jackson still reveals an elitist bent in his "clarification":

In the interview, when asked about my views of “assault weapons,” I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms. I was not speaking, in any way, about semiautomatic rifles. While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously. But, as a result, I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Nothing could be further from the truth...

I can't find any other conclusion to draw from this than he does support banning full autos from civilian possession. I don't know what the hell Jackson thinks the Second Amendment is about, but he certainly hasn't demonstrated a competent understanding of the unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms to deserve a leadership position.

And here's the thing about NRA's professionally crafted introductory statement that we shouldn't let slide:

We will continue, as we have in the past, to vigorously oppose any efforts to limit gun ownership by law-abiding citizens as an unconstitutional infringement on our Second Amendment freedoms. These efforts include opposition to any attempts to ban firearms, including firearms incorrectly referred to as "assault weapons"...

Note they didn't say anything about firearms correctly referred to as "assault weapons."

[Via Paul Grant]

The Italian Rapscallion

The rumor that Sylvester Stallone was issued a CCW permit struck my interest as I had recently been made aware that he had attended a Los Angeles event sponsored by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The "Brady Bunch", as they are commonly referred to by gun-rights advocates, are one of the most well known organizations that are lobbying to take away our rights as lawful gun owners. I was also learning that Stallone had been quoted in the past saying some very anti-gun statements, even advocating door to door gun confiscations!

I've written about Sheriff Baca's corrupt celebrity suck-up policies before, as well as Stallone's (and other Hollywood Squares') astounding good-for-me-but-not-for-thee hypocrisy.

My hat is off to RifleGear.com for an outstanding piece of investigative reporting--I can't help but note that "authorized journalists," who look down on "amateur" bloggers, never bring us this kind of information.

In an update, we find the story has been picked up by Cam & Co. Anybody holding their breath waiting on CNN, CBS, ABC...?

[Via Of Arms and the Law, via Eric]

This Day in History: August 30

Sir: Your favor of the 21St Instant is duly received, inclosing Mr. Carters Information of the Capture of the Charming Sally; which from the Circumstances attending it, was undoubtedly collusive. I have received Advice that another Vessel belonging to one White at Marblehead; whose ostensible Voyage was to Casco Bay, was carried in soon after. Such Instances of Avarice at such a time and in such a Cause, call for a Severe Scrutiny and exemplary Punishment.

And the NEW Winner is...

I just got an email from George K, winner of the coveted Ammo Day Red's Trading Post cap (or I guess, more appropriately, "Ammo Day Jr."):

David,

I wish you worked for the lotto commission! Random drawing=George K. never happens to me. While it is an honor to have won the prize, I have to decline as I already own 4 Red’s hats (2 red and 2 orange, they change colors with each order). Plus, I can pick up another at any time as I visit Red’s about 4 times a week! If you would not mind, please draw another name for the hat. Hopefully someone far from Idaho wins it. Next time I travel back east to visit family, I would love to have a “Red’s hat sighting”.

Thank you for the hard work you do in supporting our rights, and for the help in regards to Red’s fight with the ATF.

George C. Kinslow II
Owner, Idaho Ordnance
http://www.id-ord.com/

I don't blame him--if I won a cap, I'd be afraid it would ruin my luck for the Power Ball or the Mega Millions or whatever it's called these days. So I replied to thank him for his generosity:

George, that is very gracious of you--thank you. The process was very scientific and rigorous--at the time I was ready to pick a winner we had 86 comments. I told my 12-yr-old to pick a number between 1 and 86, and counted down to you.

I'll select another winner using the same methodology from the current comment posts.

May I have the envelope please?

The new winner is:
SailorCurt

Hey, the kid picked "3" fair and square with no prompting. But we're up to 105 and still adding comments, which means we officially outnumber the rally in Maryland.

If they'd stopped with SailorCurt, we'd have already outnumbered the one in Seattle!

I'll be emailing you soon to claim your prize--and as I already mentioned, it is due to the generosity of WarOnGuns supporter "Sam," who suggested we do this tally in the first place.

A Great Question

Tom Gresham and Clint Smith nail it.

OK, you know I can't leave this alone, especially considering our success with the last call to action.

What, another assignment, already?

Yep. The Republican YouTube debate will be hosted by CNN in November.

So I wrote to them via their website contact form:



(Note I clicked the "Positive" feedback option, as I figure everybody, especially "authorized journalists," likes to read compliments.)

I got back this form reply:



Did'ja get that part?

[W]e pride ourselves in making the opinions of our viewers known to CNN senior management and producers. Your comments will be part of the Viewer Response Report provided to our news division on the next business day.

So what if they get hundreds of comments urging them to "Play Tom Gresham and Clint Smith's question in the YouTube Republican Debate"? What if they get thousands with just that simple message?

And what if gun blogs like this one joined in the call, and CNN knew it would be documented if they avoided presenting the single most relevant Second Amendment-related question I can envision being asked of a presidential candidate? How could they justify suppressing this, especially in light of their taking great pains to select the guy who calls his guns his "babies" in the Democrat debate, with the express intent of portraying gun owners negatively?

It will literally take you one minute to do this.

One of the problems we saw with our August 28 ammo buy is there simply was not enough time to mobilize a nation of gun owners between when the idea was proposed and "Game Day." Well now we have plenty of lead time--but that's no reason to put this off, because if we do, we'll forget about it.

I urge all WarOnGuns visitors to take a moment right now and contact CNN at the above link. I urge my fellow gunbloggers to get their readers on board.

One caveat--I'm not trying to horn in on Tom and Clint's great idea, so I'm not asking for anyone to link to this post. Just pass the YouTube video in the title link and the CNN contact link along to gun owners and the mission will be accomplished. But I would appreciate visitors to this blog to leave me a comment telling me you took a minute to do this.

[Via RuffRidr]

We're the Only Ones With Gun Rights Enough

The complaint is not addressing the disciplinary action against the officers, but the confiscation of their personal guns. Christopher Taylor, the attorney for Officers Jason Bailey and Matt Williams, says the Rockford Police Department violated their civil rights by taking them away.

Wait a minute. We have a right to own a gun in Illinois?

Or do only "The Only Ones"?

[Via Third Power]

We're Number One!

The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

And it's your and my job to keep it that way.

[Via 1894C]

We Get Press

Gun owners should therefore do what we can to counter this protest. Buy a box of ammo, some targets, or some other gun-related items Tuesday. If we vote with our wallets, we will send a powerful message.

Way to go Drew!

Red's Sets Ammo Sales Record

Thank you this has been the most ammunition that we have EVER sold in one day.

In your face, Jesse, Sarah and Snuffy!

And all you gun stores that couldn't be bothered--how would you like this to have been your Tuesday traffic?

Amendment II Democrats...

...wish to clarify their position.

I've promised to give them the space, but advised them to be prepared to stand by for questions and comments.

And the Winner is...

George K.

Shoot me an email and I'll make arrangements to get you your cap.

And the losers are Jesse, Snuffy and the Bradys.

How do I figure? With all the foot stomping I've been doing trying to draw attention to this, and considering how many visitors come to this site each day, finding only 86 comments awaiting me this morning (with more coming in as I compose this post), the reality is, only one in 20 of you even bothered to respond--meaning the overwhelming majority, at least in this case, sat out from something so simple and self-beneficial as buying a box of ammo.

That's no way to win a rebellion. What are you sideliners gonna do when necessity presents real demands that you can't avoid against a foe that is purposeful and mean?

That's why the name of our winner is so appropriate. Most gun owners have been content to do little more than gripe, and when it comes to making a contribution or taking an action, adopting the "Let George do it" philosophy.

And spreading the word to gun stores was just pathetic. A few of you got out there and hustled. But most stores were clueless. And in truth,I blame them--their survival depends on knowing the winds and the currents of their trade. It's really their job to inform themselves of happenings affecting their business. In a rational world, they would be leaders and educators of their customers. By insulating themselves, they've pretty much assured they'll stand alone when the wolf appears at their door.

Jeez, we're pretty negative this morning. So why do I say our enemies are the ones who are the losers?

Because they did even worse. We did this with no free publicity from the major media. They had world famous names like Jesse Jackson and Sara Brady prodding their respective constituencies with shrill and desperate urgings. They had church "leaders" and their congregations in the communities they selected to demonstrate in, to get the word out "in the community." They had a budget (tax deductible in many cases), to pay for fliers and buses and press releases and website announcements and billboards and Jesse's hotel suite and airfare for himself and his bodyguards and entourage and child support payments, along with feeding him in the style to which he's accustomed... They saturated newspapers and TV newscasts throughout the land, which announced the upcoming events and sent reporters to cover them when they happened (in some cases, as we shall see). They sent out paid press releases promising "In Communities Across America, Huge Crowds Protest Gun Violence."

And they fell flat on their face in the delivery.

Here are the cities the Bradys touted. I've entered the names of the cities into a Google News search along with the words "gun" and "protest."

First, let's look at Chicago/Lake Barrington (the Brady site said "Evanston"), which was The Main Event--the one led personally by Jesse and Snuffy. Per ABC News, "about 150 marchers took their message to the DS Arms company plant..."

That's it? With all the hoopla and resources put into this, with all the free media exposure, with national names and a free ride to and from the protest, that's all the troops our mighty enemy could muster to the field in a fight they picked? Based on the comments left in this obscure blog, we managed to put together an opposing force of almost 60% of that number--and our volunteers paid for everything themselves. And we did it with no budget, no media exposure, no requests for donations...and that's just what's been reported on this blog. I note many visitors at Kim duToit's place pledged gun and ammo buys, and I look forward to a report from The Firearms Coalition.

OK, what about the other Bra-inbow PUSH cities? Remember the news search terms, "city name" and "gun" and "protest".

Newark: No after-the-fact stories appear. If there had been thousands do you think that would be the case?

Maryland: There are plenty of stories--let's link to one:

About 100 protesters rallied outside a gun shop in Maryland just across the District of Columbia border.

100? That's it for the nation's capitol?

Dallas: There are plenty of stories giving free PR to announce the rally, but not much reporting on the actual event. This CBS TV "report" does its best through selective camera angles and cuts to make a few dozen people look as large as possible, but for some reason reporting the actual number of protesters didn't strike "authorized journalist" Steve Pickett as newsworthy. If we are to believe the Brady's press release (and why wouldn't we?), "the news media said [the march] attracted hundreds..." but the source I found said "about 60 people marched." Hmmm....I wonder why the discrepancy...?

Denver: No after-the-fact reporting. It must have been glorious.

Duluth: Apparently matched only by Denver...

Evanston: I guess everybody figured out it was in Lake Barrington?

Ewing: Hey, at least they got mentioned in the Brady's paid press release.

Houston: Apparently, if we are to believe the demonstrably credible paid press release , some people hung some signs from a bridge.

Minneapolis: "Thirty-two people staged a 'lie-in' - [appropriate use of a term--DC] lying down on a north Minneapolis sidewalk." Y'know when I read about these and see the pictures, the first thought that comes to mind is Evel Knievel is never around when you really need him.

Philadelphia: "Dozens stage anti-gun rally"--well hold the presses.

Phoenix: In your face, Denver!

San Diego: A strong contender for edging out Phoenix...

And then, of course, 32 each for all the ridiculous "Protest Easy Guns" cities listed in the Brady announcement.

That's it. In spite of the enormous amount of advance pre-billing for this circus event by the mass media, and despite the money, power and names behind it, it turned out to be a dud. The fire in the belly seems to be mostly for self-promotion by Jesse and Snuffy, and a desperate search for relevance by the Bradys. Of course I have no scientific way to validate this, but my sense is that the stated goal here at WarOnGuns was achieved: That between (admittedly unvalidated) reports of ammo sales on this site and elsewhere, we probably came real close to buying a box of ammo (or spending equivalent dollars on guns or other gear) for every anti-gun protester that showed up.

Which means all the citizen disarmament mobs managed to do was produce the exact opposite of what they wanted: thanks to them, there are now tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition in private hands that would otherwise not have been bought on August 28. And they got meager after-the fact publicity for their failure because it was just so damned embarrassing to show how ineffectual they truly are at motivating anything other than staged grass roots support. Even the authorized journalists couldn't spin it as a victory.

Not bad. Not bad at all.

This Day in History: August 29

August 29, 1779
Battle of Chemung (Battle of Newton), New York

At what is modern-day Elmira, Continental forces are led by Generals John Sullivan and James Clinton and defeat a combined force of Loyalists and Indians commanded by Captain Walter Butler and Chief Joseph Brant. The Continentals are ambushed but manage to use their artillery to drive off the Indians. However, the Americans are criticized for their failure to pursue the fleeing Indians and gain a major victory. The Indians have many of their villages destroyed along with valuable supplies in retaliation for their continued raids against frontier settlements. Still, they manage to keep up the pressure on frontier settlements.