We're the Only Ones Blameless Enough

A Hunterdon County undersheriff yesterday pleaded guilty to two counts of official misconduct and admitted that his boss, Sheriff William Doyle, unlawfully lent him the gun that accidentally discharged in a crowded private health club last October.

Hey, if it's the gun that went off, why did the "Only One" run? I mean, how much clearer could the "authorized journalists" make it in assigning the blame?

• gun that went off

• the gun that accidentally discharged

• the weapon misfired

• "My cell phone exploded" [I love it!]
  

• when the gun discharged

• the gun went off

So why is the undersheriff in trouble when it's clearly the gun's fault? And nice, how he's turning on his boss to save his own hide. Lying, running away, ratting out...this guy has just exhibited the highest character standards through and through. I'm so glad New Jersey deems creatures like him more trustworthy with a firearm than its citizens.

Of course, one could make the point that any population dumb enough to vote for the current crop of New Jersey legislators is too dumb to own a gun...

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

PS: There haven't been many responses so far for the new "Only Ones Carnival"--I need submissions in by Thursday night if you want to participate...

Vanishing Act

Yesterday, I linked to a post at Armed and Safe discussing the Snuffy Pfleger/commie nexus, and gave you the lyrics to a couple Songs of the Revolution pledging to murder the middle class with knives and guns.

No wonder these wretched, demonic creatures want us helpless.

I also said I'd post a tangentially-related piece that I wrote about 10 years ago. Here it is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VANISHING ACT
Stalinist Propaganda Tactics of the Gun-Banners

Art historian David King's The Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin's Russia provides graphic evidence of a key disinformation technique used by the infamous tyrant, the erasure of disfavored individuals from the memory of the collective.

Quite simply, photographs were retouched to eliminate any evidence that a purge victim ever existed, the same picture being revised again and again as new unfortunates fell into official disapproval. In a macabre real-life version of Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians, the cover of King's book shows four versions of the same photograph, the number of people in it dwindling with progressive edits down to a solo portrait of Comrade Stalin.

The methodology for creating (or rather, obliterating) what Orwell called "unpersons" in his nightmare vision of totalitarian domination, 1984, reached new levels of bald-faced outrageousness under the Soviet despot's brutal rule. That is, until the advent of the latter-day gun grabbers.

It's not surprising that gun control advocates have adopted deception to cover their tracks and remove evidence of affiliations that could expose their hypocrisies. After all, these are the people who, as proven by Aaron Zelman and Jay Simkin in Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny, translated Nazi gun laws into the 1968 Gun Control Act–and do you really think that anyone who embraces Nazi laws would blanch from using Stalinist methods to get what they want? These are the liars who would corrupt the intent of the Constitution and disarm their countrymen. And these subversives deserve our contempt and resistance as surely as if they openly advocated the rest of the dictatorial agenda they are enabling.

Strong words? Aren't I being a little rough on people who simply hold a different political view than I? Let's walk through this and do a little experiment by examining an elementary question: How do you know if someone is lying?

Obviously, you look at what they say, and then you compare it to what they do. If there's a disconnect between the two, Bingo! Simple, right? So when Orrin Hatch or Trent Lott make noises about supporting the Second Amendment, and then turn around and endorse anti-gun legislation, you have every right to assume that you have just been betrayed. When they rationalize it as necessary to forestall even more draconian legislation, what they're really saying is they want to see how stupid you are, and how much you'll let them get away with. And when they tell you that a vote against them is a vote for someone who will really hurt you, they have committed the political equivalent of date rape, counting on your being too bewildered and powerless to do anything about it. Historically, they've been right 999 out of a thousand times, and by the way, you'd better put some ice on that.

The guy who is the master at this is Bill Clinton, possibly the most accomplished liar in a tradition dating back to the first shaman who ever duped his way into power. So when he tells you that it's paranoid to worry about the camel's nose under the tent, and that he only wants "to save kids' lives," you would do well to look at what his Justice Department argued in the current Emerson case, i.e., "it is well settled" that the Second Amendment is not an individual right. In other words, if you compare what he says to what he does, there's no other conclusion but the guy is lying to you and rejecting your claim to an unalienable right–by denying it was ever a right in the first place. Could any but an idiot or a lying apparatchik zealot characterize the motives of someone who would do this as benign?

If you're going to consistently deceive the masses, it helps to have the media on your side. If nothing else it's what they don't report that gives aid and comfort to the anti-defense lobby as much the outright falsehoods and naked socialist advocacy that they foist on the public as news.

Case in point: suppose (hypothetically, now!) that someone prominent in the "gun culture," say, Tom Selleck, murderously assaulted Charlton Heston and then threatened to return and finish him off. If I could document such an attack, do you think that anti-defense media outlets like The Los Angeles Times would restrain themselves from pointing out the "gun extremist" tie-in? Do you doubt that the association with "the culture of violence" would be exploited with fervor and glee?

So if the same thing happened on the other side, you'd at least hear about the connection, right? No? You never heard that WHEN HE'S NOT MAKING DEATH THREATS, LATRELL SPREWELL IS A LEADING SPOKESMAN FOR GUN CONTROL?

Contemplate the following that I wrote back in December, 1997, at the height of Sprewell's notoriety–which certainly made it timely and newsworthy. My writing limitations notwithstanding, all of the information was documented with referenced sources, and then made available to the aforementioned LA Times, which wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole. It's original title was "Catch a Falling STAR," but I now like to think of this as "The Story That Never Was" :

The Converse STAR Team Program, according to Handgun Control, Inc., "is the nation's PREMIER gun violence prevention program…designed to help youth…manage problems, such as conflict…non-violently without guns." Described as a "joint effort of Converse, Inc. and Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV)," STAR program materials are being taught in grades Pre-K through 12 "in over 70 municipalities nationwide, including…New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Dade County (FL)."

Leading the list of "prominent athletes [who] serve as spokespersons for the program" is none other than Latrell Sprewell! Spree (which my dictionary defines as "an unrestrained indulgence") demonstrated his ability to "engage in creative expression and leadership" by throttling Golden State Warriors coach P.J. Carlesimo, and, after being pulled off, returned to attack his boss again, this time threatening to kill him.

Describing himself as "a good person" who "never had a situation like this come up before," Spree insists that he is being treated unfairly. He complains we never see him smile. He doesn't think his punishment is warranted. Jumping to his defense is anti-gun San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who suggests that, "Maybe the coach deserved choking."

If this is true, might Mr. Sprewell still be an effective voice to teach our youth "gun violence prevention messages and strategies"? Actually, if you look at his past behavior, he seems to provide an excellent illustration of the need to carry a gun, if for no other reason than as a defense against himself.

Case in point– two years ago, he went after teammate Jerome Kersey with a 2-by-4. His reaction after being restrained? He threatened to return with a gun! Sounds like the perfect "prominent voice [to] highlight solutions to America's escalating crisis of handgun violence," doesn't he?

And in 1995, the same year he joined the Converse STAR Team, Oakland police officer Scott Fakuda reported that Sprewell threatened him over a traffic incident, telling him, "You can be shot real easy and people get shot out here." Charges were dropped only because the Alameda County D.A. believed the comments lacked "credibility and immediacy as a righteous threat." What is not known is if Willie Brown thinks maybe the cop deserved shooting.

Something else that's not known is why Spree's HCI connection has not been covered by anyone in the media. I compiled the information needed to write this piece in under two hours. Where were the major players? Could anyone credibly argue that, in light of recent events, Sprewell's endorsement of gun control is not newsworthy?

This is the astounding hypocrisy which the gun banners and their corporate, political, education and media accessories apply to everything they do. How dare CPHV and Converse hold this violent misfit up to our children as someone to be heeded and emulated? A group truly interested in the welfare of kids would have recalled the program materials after the incident in 1995. But apparently, the money this would cost takes precedence over doing the right thing.

Latrell Sprewell can teach my kids nothing– as a matter of fact, I don't want them subjected to his influence in any manner. It's time he and his promoters got sidelined from our schools for good.

Now here's the kicker–what ties this in with Stalinist propaganda of the first order: shortly after making this story available to the media, Sprewell's name was deleted from the list of STAR celebrities. I don't know if this reflects a tip-off or not, but the coincidence of timing is certainly curious. Also, were this simply a reflection of his being booted off the STAR team, as Converse publicly did when they removed him as a product spokesman, such a deletion would be legitimate. But the erasure did not occur until 1998, and the list they modified purported to be the roster from 1995 to 1997!

In other words, HCI went into their promotional materials and REWROTE HISTORY, removing someone who could turn out to be a public embarrassment from the record. The Commissar, I mean, the Converse STAR vanishes.

But then, deception has ever been the stock in trade of those who would take away our rights. And to mistake their core motives as anything but evil would be a grave mistake.

Consider the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the domestic arm of Socialist International (Stalin, you'll recall, led the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, whereas Hitler headed up the National Socialist Party). Basically, these are the folks who want to supplant freedom with a plague that has produced tyranny, misery and genocide since it first broke out. In another time, we would have called them "Nazis" or "Commies." Now, more often than most people realize, we call them "Congressman."

For affiliated with the DSA is an entity known as "The Progressive Caucus," 58 of the most rabidly left-wing politicians to ever menace the future of the Republic. These are people like David Bonior and Maxine Waters, Charles Rangel, Barney Frank and Henry Waxman. And importantly, one of the things they share with our former president is a contempt for the Second Amendment. Because they know that every tyranny that ever beat its subjects into dehumanized submission had first to disarm them, rendering them subservient and helpless.

And lest you think I'm overly alarmist, I'd like to offer a final bit of cheer from the good folks over at the DSA and their Progressive Caucus executors.

Do you like songs? So does the DSA, so much that they have devoted a page on their website to hymns glorifying their "struggle" (i.e., what Hitler called Mein Kampf ). The following in particular should be of special interest, since the people they're talking about, the "bourgeoisie," are you and me! And they really explain (better than anything I could say) why the socialists need to take away our guns. Ready? All together now:

Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie
Traditional American song, sung in rounds to the tune of "Frere Jacques".

Are you sleeping, Are you sleeping,
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie,
And when the revolution comes,
We'll kill you all with knives and guns,
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie

Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie, See How They Run
Usually sung in rounds after "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie". Sung to the tune of "Three Blind Mice".

Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie,
See how they run,
See how they run
And when the revolution comes,
We'll kill them all with knives and guns,
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie

Nice bunch, huh? Kinda makes you want to be a good citizen and register, better yet, turn in those guns?

EPILOG:

The Democratic Socialists of America have removed "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie" and "Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie, See How They Run" from their website. No evidence that the songs were ever posted remains. They have vanished without a trace, as if they never existed at all.

Buying a Gun For Your Son

My son, Johnnie, is only 12 years old but he has been pestering my husband and me for several years to buy him a gun. My husband had his fill of rifles in the army, and for a long time I told Johnnie that “I wouldn’t have a gun around the house. They are too dangerous."

Last summer Johnnie bought a pistol from one of his playmates at school and managed to find some bullets to shoot in it. The gun went off in his pocket, and badly burned the side of his leg but thank goodness didn’t actually hit his leg or his foot. Our physician made out a routine gun-shot wound report which was sent to the police station, and they sent a policeman around to check up on the “shooting.”

Stop right here a moment. You've seen these kinds of letters before, haven't you? You know where this is going, right?

Read on:

He is now a real friend to our family, because after seeing Johnny and talking with him, he bought us a copy of your magazine with a story on “When to Buy Your Son A Gun.”

I want to thank writer Harvey Brandt for that story. It has literally changed our whole lives and really opened my eyes to how harsh and unfeeling my attitude must have seemed to my son. He now has a gun, a proper .22 rifle and he is shooting on a boys team which is supervised by the Police Athletic League. He shoots well, and my husband has promised to take him hunting next year with a real rifle for big game. Things are going fine at home, and the rusty revolver he bought at school reposes in my desk drawer as a reminder—not a reminder to Johnny, but a reminder to me—of how serious our neglect of our son might have been, if the police officer and Harvey Brandt hadn’t knocked on our door.

Mrs. Jane P. Perkins
Los Angeles, Cal.

Yes, this is an actual letter. It appeared in the January 1956 issue of GUNS Magazine, now available for free download.

This is the world I grew up in (I was three going on four when this was published). These are the attitudes I remember.

Compare every event in this story, and the reactions of the people involved, to the likely outcome were this to take place today. I have never seen a more concise illustration of the gulf between the culture I was born in and the one I live in now. How many fundamental differences can you spot?

I’m delighted the publishers decided to continue posting old issues—I thought it was just going to be for the 1955 series commemorating the magazine’s 50th anniversary.

Be sure and read the other articles: Are Pistol Champs Alcoholics? Could Gunfighters Really Shoot? The Guns of Teddy Roosevelt...

Read the other letters. Look at the ads. That's a cool and informative article on the Luger! Did you know the Kentucky rifle owed its development to the German long Jaeger? So that’s the origin of the word “trigger”! And what’s this? Gun safety tips from Hollywood comedian/TV pioneer Sid Caesar?

Then go ahead and feel some rage at what’s been stolen from free Americans in less than a lifetime.

I also hope you give the current issue of the mag a try—and hope you like it well enough to subscribe, and maybe even tell the editor whether or not you think he ought to fire me and hire some real talent…

One more thing: I'm filing away the term "Jane P. Perkins Award" for future reference. It should be an honor bestowed upon mothers who love their children enough to see that they get the training needed to be free people. Compare her to the "modern" type, who would rush off to sue, and to found a local chapter of the Million Moms. God bless that noble lady, wherever she is.

Tags: gun

The Gun Went Off

[Use BugMeNot to bypass site registration]

According to law-enforcement officials and other gun experts, you could throw a gun with its safety on from a helicopter and it will not go off.

“I can tell you that we have never had a safety fail,” Atlantic County Sheriff's Officer Phil Tucker said. “If your finger is on the trigger and you pull the trigger the gun will go off. It doesn't just go off on its own.”

Now understand: he just got done explaining the mechanics in detail to "authorized journalist" Madeline Vitaly. He even dispels the common myth about Glocks being prone to accidental discharges. He explains it in terms a child can understand:

"[U]nless you pull the trigger, a Glock won't just go bang.”

So what does our intrepid reporter write in the very next paragraph?

...Detective Adam Brownlee's gun went off and his girlfriend Denise Foley, 22, was shot in the leg.

Killer Gun Makes Good It's Escape

Gun went off by accident as friends were drinking...

That's when the gun went off...

All by its own self. Nowhere does anyone imply the gun was fired by a human operator. And now:

The gun was not recovered.

When asked where the gun was, Rodriguez said he could not recall what happened to the handgun after the shot was fired, police said.

Obviously aware of the consequences of its deed, the murderous gun has decided to go into hiding and lay low for a while.

If this doesn't prove guns kill, I don't know what will...

Guest Essay: Armed Society is a Polite Society

Foreword: I received the following first-person account of armed self defense and thought it would interest WarOnGuns visitors.

Armed Society is a Polite Society
by C.S.

We closed the loan on our home here on August 12, 1996. The neighborhood, we knew, wasn't exactly "Beverly Hills" but we didn't know exactly what kind of experience we were in for.

We moved in shortly after closing and as it was summertime, we spent a few nights with the windows open. One night late, a sound woke me up.

*CRACK!!!*

I sat up.

"What was that?" I asked my husband.

"You know what that was" he mumbled. "A gunshot".

That sound and more was to be heard many times in the days (and nights) ahead.

We didn't have a fenced back yard, but we did put one up later. We found several things in our back yard as people crossed through in the middle of the night.

One day when I came home from work, my husband was in the back yard with my youngest son, Michael shooting his BB gun. They had put up some targets and were doing a pretty good job of knocking them down. I pulled up in the driveway and my husband said,

"Honey, I got you something for your birthday".

"What's that?" I asked. My birthday was in a couple of days.

He said, "Mike and I found this behind the bushes"

It was a 3-CD stereo and double tape deck. It even had a CD in it of Barry White.

Probably that shotgun blast I had heard he other night, I thought. Some ya-hoo was fleeing the scene and dropped his goods behind our bushes....just great. We live in da hood.

I kept it. Still have the CD. I like Barry White.

Another time we found a shotgun in the bushes. It was badly rusted and non-operable. No telling how long it had been there. The "Stereo Fairy" has turned into the "Shotgun Fairy". We called the police who came out and took a report. We also told him of the shot gun blasts we had been hearing and about the visit from the Stereo Fairy. We told him we kept that "gift". He didn't say anything.

We were aware of 8 gang members moving into the rent house across the street from us and we were not excited about it.

One afternoon, our teenage daughter Betsy was sitting on the front porch with one of her friends. A few gang members were out in their front yard and a couple of them came over, they said, to borrow our phone. Betsy said as they were standing at the front door, they kept trying to see into our front door presumably checking us out; see what kind of goodies we had they might like to get later on. This was before we got our dogs.

We had made more than a few phone calls to the police about noises coming from the little house across the street, loud music and such. Fighting in the front yard at all hours etc. The police would send a car our, but because they had police scanners, they all would bug out before the cops arrived. We had even seen drug deals going down in broad daylight. We'd call the cops, they'd show up, but nobody would be there when they showed up.

Then it finally happened.

One day my husband was home because of a migraine. He was lying down when two of the gang members knocked on the front door.

"Wonderful" he thought. He went to the door.

They stated they knew we were new in the neighborhood, and we didn't know how things went, but that they were there to let us know who ran things " 'roun' here".

"Is that right?" my husband asked.

They answered in the affirmative.

Further, they stated, it would go well with us if we were to cooperate with them and they would make sure nothing happened to us.

"Really?" he said.

Now you have to know something about my husband. He is a Navy veteran. He doesn't take threats very well, and has a very low threshold for BS.

Assuming they wanted money, my husband asked them to wait right there on the porch. Their eyes lit up.

He took a few steps to the bedroom, reached in the top nightstand drawer for the Ruger Blackhawk .357 magnum and poked it in waistband of his pants behind his back and grabbed the checkbook off the dresser. He went back to the door.

Taking the checkbook and the pen, he asked "How much were you thinking?"

Before they could say anything to him, he dropped the checkbook, grabbed the gun with one hand and one of the punks with the other, and shoved him against the side of the house, pinning him there. The other one started backing down off the porch making his way to the sidewalk.

The eyes of the one he grabbed were as big as saucers as my husband stuck the barrel of the gun under his chin, pointing upwards.

Coolly, he said, "Now I'm new in this neighborhood, and you don't know me. You don't know how I am or what I'll do. And when you start making the payments at (our address) you can start running things " 'roun' here". Get it?"

He indicated he got it.

The other one of them had reached the sidewalk by this time.

Not turning loose of him and keeping the gun where it was, my husband continued.

"Now if any of you guys over there get any bright ideas of doing anything to any one of us, our house or cars, or property, then I'm coming to find YOU. Not anyone else... just YOU. And you know I can find you too, because of where I work. You understand?"

He nodded.

"Now you tell your buddies over there exactly what I said, all right?"

He nodded again.

He turned him loose and he started backing as well until he reached the middle of the street.

It was pretty quiet around our neighborhood for about a month. We had a couple more noisy nights, but nothing major and didn't make any calls to the police. What was the use now? After two more months, they all moved out and we never heard or saw them again.

Who was it that said, "An armed society is a polite society"? They were right.

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/robertahe100989.html

C. S.
Arkansas

A Strong and Consistent Voice

"Congressman Chet Edwards is a strong and consistent voice for freedom and for defending the rights of Texas gun owners, hunters and sportsmen,” said Chris W. Cox, chairman for the NRA Political Victory Fund.

Yep, here's the rating and endorsement.

That must be why Chet supports this guy, you know, the guy we're told will be "the most anti-gun president in American history."

That doesn't even shave a point off the "A" rating?

And why does GOA give Chet a "D"? Some would tell us it's because they're NRA wannabe malcontents who exist by siphoning off funds from our true gun rights leaders. Is there any objective way we can see which rating should have more credibility?

Well, Chet's opponent, Rob Curnock (rated "AQ"*), is none too happy, claiming:

“The NRA gave Edwards a grade of A, but a few years ago they gave him an F,” Curnock said. “It goes up and down. If it’s an election year he does what he needs to do to make the votes to get their support. But, if you look at his overall record, Edwards consistently votes against many of the key values the NRA espouses.

“He voted for the Brady Bill, voted to restrict gun magazine clip sizes. That’s one of the perks of being a longtime incumbent, but his voting record is very spotty.”

Not quite. I'm not saying he didn't, but I can't find where he voted for the Brady Bill. But what kind of spots are on his record? How "strong and consistent" has his "voice" been?

He voted the Brady way:

• For final passage of "campaign finance reform."

• Against the "Pickering Amendment to provide exception for gun lobby campaign ads."

• Against "reducing the amount of time for law enforcement to conduct background checks on gun sales."

• For the McCarthy/Blagojevich/Roukema "Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act."

• Against "Final Passage of H.R. 2122...now including the weakened gun show background check amendment and the reinstatement of the pawn shop redemption exemption."

• Against "Repeal of the Assault Weapons Ban."

• For "The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, containing a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons and a ban on juvenile possession of handguns."

• For "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) that bans the manufacture, transfer, or possession of semi-automatic assault weapons. This measure is similar to the amendment to the Senate-passed crime bill, sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein."

• Against the "McCollum Amendment...to the Brady Bill...that would have preempted all state and local gun laws when the national instant check system went into effect."

• Against the Volkmer/Sensenbrenner Amendment, that would have deleted "a provision banning the manufacture of 22 semi-automatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (over 7 rounds)" from The Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1991.

That's some "strong and consistent voice," Mr. Cox.

See, NRA is into access. And they're into backing incumbents who look like sure winners, so they can claim electoral success in races they back. That's the only guarantee you have on how the dollars you donate to PVF will be used.

Does anybody seriously think Chet Edwards will deny President Obama's call to ban "assault weapons"?

But if we don't continue to follow along, it will be our fault. Besides, questioners are just "principle freaks."

And we wonder why we're in the mess we're in, and how we got to this point with such poor choices, as if years of this MO don't give us a clue. Is anybody else sick and damned tired of being played like this?

* (Federal Candidates Only) A pro-gun candidate whose rating is based solely on the candidate’s responses to the 2008 NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire and who does not have a voting record on Second Amendment issues.

"In Search of the Second Amendment"--An Interview With David T. Hardy

A growing body of serious research, led by eminent professors, historians, lawyers and Constitutional scholars, is providing overwhelming evidence that “the people” of the Second Amendment refers to you and me.

That introduction is from the March 2007 issue of GUNS Magazine, where I review attorney and author David T. Hardy's new documentary, "In Search of the Second Amendment."

My conclusion:

David Hardy has given us an important tool to use in educating ourselves and others.

Here's a brief summary about Mr. Hardy and his film:

David T. Hardy served as producer and director of In Search of the Second Amendment. He is an attorney and Second Amendment author, whose 1974 law review article, “Of Arms and the Law” played a key role in beginning the academic rediscovery of the Second Amendment.

Hardy is author of five books, including “Origins and Development of the Second Amendment” and the N.Y. Times bestseller “Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man,” which rebutted Moore’s slander of the NRA, Charlton Heston, and gun owners. He is also author of twelve law review articles, including one on firearms laws that has been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court and eleven of the thirteen U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.

“I spent thirty years researching the right to arms, and four years of my life creating this film. My purpose was to produce something not only educational, but compelling. There’s been enough preaching to the choir. I wanted to produce something that would win hearts and minds, that would convert anyone with an halfway open mind into someone who appreciates and values the American right to arms.”

And now on to the interview...

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

DC: There are plenty of books on the subject of the Second Amendment. Why do we need a DVD?

DH: There are indeed plenty of books on the right to arms -- almost all of them written by people interviewed in the documentary. If you want a thorough grounding in the Second Amendment, you can buy 2-3-4 of them, and spend a week or two reading them and trying to memorize their content. Or you can watch the movie, and learn all you need to know in two hours. And this time, you'll remember it all.

It's also great for educating your children, and winning over the undecided. A week's reading assignment will be a chore for the first, and laughed off by the second. Offer them an entertaining and educational movie, and you'll win them over.

I mean -- how many people have read a book on 18th century naval history, but watched "Master and Commander?"

DC: Give us a synopsis of your video—what should someone who is thinking of buying it expect?

DH: The *complete* story of the right to arms, beginning with the earliest Britsh law, moving forward to the colonies, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. From there to the earliest American legal commentators, all of whom said it was an individual right. Then the Black experience -- disarmed under Slave Codes, and then under the Black Codes, which led to the 14th Amendment (1868), which was meant to stop state disarmaments of people. Then the use of arms in the civil rights period -- "nonviolence" got the press, but a lot of civil rights workers survived because they were armed. Finally, the current value of the right to arms, genocide, preservation of democracy, 2.5 million defensive uses per year.

This isn't me talking (I do the narration, just to fill gaps) but twelve professors of constitutional law, attorneys, Prof. Kleck on the 2.5 million uses, two armed civil rights workers.

DC: What do you say to someone who says times have changed, that history is interesting but not relevant to the present? After all, it’s not like we have citizen militias any more.

DH: And we saw the impact of that in Hurricane Katrina. Organize people, and they're a pack. Don't, and in a disaster they become a helpless herd.

Several of the professors address just that question. At a practical level, Prof. Reynolds discusses how his idea of an international right to arms, to prevent genocide, is gaining some traction. Prof. Kleck discusses 2.5 million defensive uses. Two attorneys discuss how the police have no legal duty to protect you.

And Prof. Barnett points out that if people want others to respect their rights, they must be prepared to respect our rights to arms; any method that can be used to destroy the second amendment can be used to destroy any other right, as well.

DC: Who is your audience, or put another way, what’s your plan to get your message outside the circle of gun owners who agree with you, especially to people who have formed their opinions based on what they learned in school or picked up from the mainstream media?

DH: My first effort is to get it out there -- which means to activists. They can become an Army of Davids, to use Prof. Reynolds' book title. With this DVD, each gunowner can become a one-man or one-woman PR firm for the right to arms.

From there, I can try to expand, to radio talk shows, that manner of thing, and carry the message further.

To help them with that, I put a license on the website. After April 1, any purchaser can show the DVD on local cable TV without limit. The antis have no comparable tool. We can swamp them.

DC: You make a point of illustrating the role firearms played in the defense of civil rights. Why is it that today’s minority leaders not only don’t tell their followers about this history, but many actively promote citizen disarmament in the very communities where individuals are most at risk from violence?

DH: I suspect it's largely a matter of fashion. "Nonviolence" caught the media eye, and nobody is going to go against that tide. But the civil rights workers I have in the film said that, while the leadership back in New York or wherever was appealing to nonviolence, most civil rights workers went nowhere without a gun. One says that when he came into the office after being chased by the Klan, all the others asked him why he didn't use his gun, and he was startled when one pulled a revolver out of his pocket, gave it to him, and said it was a loaner, he had another one in the car.

DC: Do you think a bunch of academics are going to appeal to “ordinary” people?

DH: These ones will. All are incredibly articulate -- no eggheads here. Actually, law profs are rarely eggheads. They're training people to survive in a courtroom, not a library.

DC: Are you getting much help spreading the word from pro-gun organizations, gun magazines, websites, etc.?

DH: Some. NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund was very, very helpful. Gun Owners' Foundation helped, too. Paladin Press and Ruger helped as well.

Gun Owners and JPFO have ordered some to distribute, and some gun bloggers have helped to promote it. I've sent review copies to a number of gun magazines, but the only response has been from Gun Week, Soldier of Fortune, and you.

DC: What can supporters do to help you promote this documentary and expand its audience?

DH: Get one, or better yet two, and give the spare to your school or library. Show it on cable TV. If you have an email list, tell them about it.

DC: Assuming you recoup your production costs, what are your plans to grow your audience?

DH: If I can make enough, I'd like to start running ads (I had only enough for one to date) to get it out there. I'd also like to hire a publicist to lobby for radio talk show coverage.

I may this year start work on a followup that will deal with the history of the modern gun and antigun movements. I've got 30 years of research there, too. There's history there, and nobody's getting younger. We've already lost the two key players, Harlon Carter and Neal Knox.

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

I'd like to thank Mr. Hardy for participating in this interview, and for putting up with my playing "Devil's Advocate" on a few of these questions.

He has agreed to check in from time to time today to answer questions from WarOnGuns visitors. Please--it will be appreciated if everyone follows a few simple ground rules: Stay on topic, give others a chance, and keep your question brief. Just post your question below as a "Comment," and he will do the same--please also note that we don't expect him to be hostage to his keyboard all day waiting for queries to pop up. It's OK to ask a question if his answer to the previous one hasn't appeared yet--he'll get to them as he checks in.

I haven't established a cut-off time for this--he'll let us know when he needs to check out.

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

Here's how you can order your own copy of "In Search of the Second Amendment":

Send check or money order for 24.95, plus $2 s&h (Arizona residents add $1.52 sales tax) to:
Second Amendment Films
8987 E. Tanque Verde
PMB 265
Tucson AZ 85749

Or click on the "Buy Now" Visa/Mastercard icon in the left margin of the documentary website.

UPDATE: INTERVIEW OVER, THANKS FOR CHECKING IN, BUT THIS TOOK PLACE FOR ONE DAY ONLY, SO COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED.

Vanishing Point Reappears

FOX TV Movie releasing to DVD in March
By David Codrea

PRESS RELEASE:
“Charles Robert Carner’s action-packed remake of the cult classic 'Vanishing Point' roars onto DVD from Anchor Bay Entertainment, March 8, 2005. Viggo Mortensen (“The Lord of the Rings”) stars as Kowalski, the lone hero in the Dodge Challenger who leads an army of lawmen on a wild car chase across the American West…”

Viggo Mortensen in VANISHING POINT
Produced by Alan C. Blomquist
Directed by Charles Robert Carner
Screenwriter Charles Robert Carner
“Vanishing Point” also stars Jason Priestley, Christine Elise, Keith David, Steve Railsback, John Doe and Peta Wilson
________________________

HISTORY
Back when I was young and immortal, I fancied myself fast behind the wheel. But this was the era of muscle cars, and as proud as I was of my old Buick V-8, it fell short of the "gold standard"--it wasn't a Mopar.

As if to remind boys like me of our place in the food chain, the movie “Vanishing Point” came screaming into theaters, featuring Barry Newman as the pill-popping Kowalski, who leads police on an interstate chase over a bet. But for me, the real star of the film was the white 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T with the 440 Magnum engine.

“Vanishing Point” became a hit with a cult following, for many, the benchmark for car chase movies. There was no way for me to know at the time that a generation later it would bring a friend into my life, resulting in collaborative efforts on GunTruths.com and the Citizens of America national advertising campaign for gun rights.

When I first heard of Charles Robert Carner I was producing a newsletter for the Westside Los Angeles NRA Member’s Council, 2nd Amendment West, my first foray into gun rights commentary. Because he was a nominal member of the Council and wanted to publicize the film to gun owners, Charlie contacted me about his soon-to-be-broadcast television movie for 20th Century-Fox, a remake of the Newman classic.

“What is this guy,” I remember thinking to myself, “nuts?”

Besides, what did a car movie have to do with guns?

As it turned out, not that much--at least, not as it applies to We the People. But it had plenty to do with the main reason we have guns. It had plenty to do with freedom.

What follows is not going to be a “movie review” per se, as much as a series of observations. You can read a review I am told is good here. I informed Charlie I didn’t want to read it until after I had finished this article, to avoid any influence on what I wanted to say.
________________________

THE FILM (and why gun owners/liberty activists should care)
First impressions: Gentle guitar notes set a sad, serene mood. A horned toad establishes the terrain. Machine sounds invade—bulldozers, it turns out, doing what? Squad car lights are flashing. Helicopter blades thud. Other instruments have joined the guitar; the music is more urgent now, and ominous. A Man in Black directs activities. The bulldozers have formed a roadblock. A white Challenger appears over a rise, pursued by flashing police cars.

Protestors carry signs on the sidelines. One, just briefly visible, reads “Don’t Forget Mt. Carmel.”

This is a “mainstream” television movie?

“If you do not stay back,” a bullhorn blares, “you will be arrested.”

The Challenger stops. We see a close up shot of Kowalski, the driver. His face looks grim, determined, resigned.

It is Easter Sunday in Riddle, ID.

Basic Plot/Synopsis:
Former Army Ranger and racer Kowalski restores vintage muscle cars and delivers them to customers. While in transit to deliver a 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T, he learns his pregnant wife, who suffers from Lupus, has been admitted to the hospital and is gravely ill. Unable to schedule a flight at the local airport, he decides to take advantage of the awesome machine at his disposal and drive from New Mexico to the hospital in Boise. Cops stop him for speeding. They won't listen to him and want to take him in to process his citation, which will result in a long delay. Desperate, Kowalski takes off and the chase is on. And then the feds get involved.

In Carner's words, "The story is also a spiritual quest." It explores Kowalski's religious awakening, thanks to his wife, as well as the deep bond and commitment the two have made to each other. Faith and the sanctity of marriage--there are two concepts Hollywood doesn't beat to death.

Important Differences:
The car looks the same as it did in the Newman classic. There is a difference, we learn--the 440 Magnum has been replaced with a 426 Hemi.

One big difference is with Kowalski. Mortensen's has a first name (Jimmy), and unlike the pill-popper in the original, the new Kowalski has a purpose.

There's another big difference. This remake focuses its lens on the government's War on Freedom, and the evil tactics they employ.

"In the 25 years between Richard Sarafian's original and my remake," Carner writes, "the right and the left had switched places. It was deep in the Clinton era. The 'counter-cultural' 'anti-establishment' attitude of the original gave it a hip, '60's left-liberal-nihilism. In my remake, it's the small businessman (once the backbone of America) who has become the outcast - and that neo-fascist state is populated by Leftists. The FBI = the Gestapo. The theme - the individual vs the state - is the same; it's just that the state is now the former '60's radicals in power."

Memorable Characters:
That's why my favorite character in the new VP is The Man in Black, sinister FBI supervisor Warren Taftley, played as the Javert to Mortensen's Valjean by Tony-winning stage star Keith David. We first meet him when the camera pans down from portraits of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, as he is instructing a subordinate to tie Kowalski's flight in with drugs and guns.

"How do you figure guns?" the agent asks.

"Idaho. Extremists. Right-wing militias," Taftley replies. "That's our way in--domestic terrorism, high explosives, planning another Oklahoma City."

"It could be--but we don't have any evidence," the agent cautions.

"We'll get it," Taftley confidently assures him. "He's run across four state lines. It's gotta be something big."

In the minds of those corrupted by power, there can be no innocent explanation for a subject exercising freedom. We are all suspects. And evidence is just a formality.

Carner did something cool here in the casting, breaking away from sterotypes--having a black man represent corrupt authority to the point of being an enthusiastic persecutor. That had to be a very liberating role to play, and Mr. David does it well.

"We worked Keith's shooting schedule around a play he was doing," Charlie tells me. "He was great and he really enjoyed playing a guy who assumed his own righteousness to the point of absolute dictatorship."

There are other great characters as well--Kowalski is assisted in evading his pursuers by a happenstance ally, a libertarian/Constitutionalist talk radio broadcaster known as "The Voice," portrayed by Jason Priestley, in another bit of inspired casting that certainly helps break the sterotype of a Beverly Hills 90210 heartthrob.

Replacing the hip "SuperSoul" role Cleavon Little played so well in the original VP, The Voice warns Kowalski about his pursuers so that he can take alternate routes, all the while decrying tyrannical abuses and philosophizing to his listeners about liberty-oriented themes, and how "The Bill of Rights is as forgotten as the Dead Sea Scrolls."

"Once upon a time," The Voice laments, "the police would have given this man an escort, instead of trying to run him into the ground!"

Another good portrayal is turned in by Steve Railsback, playing Sgt. Preston of the New Mexico State police.

"It takes a Mopar to catch a Mopar," Preston explains to his deputy, abandoning his squad car for a black '68 Charger R/T in a subtle tribute to another great car chase film, Bullitt. (The Charger should have blown the doors off Steve McQueen's 390 fastback Mustang).

The rest of the cast acquit themselves nicely as well. Christine Elise as Raphinia, Kowalski's wife, provides a moral anchor and spiritual mentor for Jimmy, and the gorgeous Peta Wilson, as the Motorcycle Girl, plays a provocative temptress and then ally.

The Ending:
I won't reveal it here-- you'll have to get the DVD and see it for yourself. I will say that Carner doesn't let up on his freedom theme. We see the protestors more clearly now. In addition to the "Mt. Carmel" sign, there's one that reads "Remember Ruby Ridge."

How did he get away with it on Establishment TV?

"You can tell I had a lot of fun on the movie," he tells me. "When I wrote the script, I just ranted away - went for it. I figured when the network started whining, I could pull back a little and still respect myself in the morning. But when Viggo signed on - and was only available right this minute - that first draft got green-lit. And the network never squawked. I kept all the politics in the final cut."

Carner's is an important voice in the film industry for principles of freedom that are almost universally ignored. "Vanishing Point" is a good example of popular art we could use a lot more of.
_______________________

CHARLES ROBERT CARNER FILMOGRAPHY
Chicago-born Charles Robert Carner began working in the entertainment industry after graduating valedictorian of his class at Columbia College, where he directed the film Assassins, starring Joe Mantegna, which was named Best Student Film at the Chicago International Film Festival.

Carner then went to work as a story editor for director Tony Bill, writing screenplays in his spare time. His first produced script was Seduced, starring Gregory Harrison and Cybill Shepherd. He followed that with the action-adventure feature Gymkata; Let's Get Harry, with Mark Harmon, Robert Duvall and Gary Busey; and the telefilm Eyes of a Witness, starring Jennifer Grey and Daniel J. Travanti. Carner expanded into producing on the feature film Blind Fury, with Rutger Hauer. He then began realizing his lifelong dream of directing his own scripts. He began with episodes of "Midnight Caller", "Reasonable Doubts" and "The Untouchables", before moving on to such television movies as A Killer Among Friends and One Woman's Courage.

Carner's list of television movies continued to expand, with such titles as Vanishing Point, starring The Lord of the Rings’ Viggo Mortensen, and The Fixer, starring Jon Voight, both of which went on to win several awards. In July 2000, his film Who Killed Atlanta's Children?, starring Jim Belushi and Gregory Hines debuted on Showtime and became that network's highest rated movie of the year. Carner made a huge splash on basic cable when he wrote the TNT Western Crossfire Trail, the highest-rated cable movie in television history, starring Tom Selleck. He wrote, directed and executive produced the holiday hit Christmas Rush for TBS Superstation, starring Dean Cain and Eric Roberts, and directed Red Water, the highest-rated basic cable movie in history, starring Lou Diamond Phillips and Kristy Swanson for TBS Superstation. His last network directorial effort, Judas, aired on ABC Television in 2004.

Mr. Carner is a Life Member of both the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club, serves on the Executive Committee of Catholics in Media, and is a biographee in Who's Who in America.

You can read his gun commentaries here. (Click on "GunTruths Correspondents")

--Report compiled from various sources including Mr. Carner.

The Gun Went Off

Gun Went Off When Man Showed It To 2 Others...

When he was showing it to two other men, the gun went off. [More]

All by its own self, no doubt.

I hate it when that happens, don't you?

[Via Mama Liberty]

We're the Only Ones Off On Our Own Enough

...and the gun went off. [More]

Let me give you some other recent examples:

• Policeman dies in Gujarat after his gun goes off accidentally 
• Maine State Police lieutenant not disciplined after gun went off inside 
• Off-Duty Officer's Gun Goes Off 
• Aiyana Stanley-Jones Trial Begins, Prosecutor Argues Cop Error Caused Detroit Girl's Death  

If this can happen to highly-trained "Only Ones," imagine how dangerous it would be for the rest of us to be trusted with guns!

[Via Bear]

It Went Off

He raised his gun. He prepared to fire. And ...

BLAM.

Somehow, Emmons' gun went off...

"It accidentally went off, that's pretty much it," Emmons said...

"As I was starting to get on the trigger, the gun just went off," he said.

Maybe it was nervous?

At least in this case, he was aiming in the direction of a target and preparing to fire.

[Via MacEntyre]

A Bad Gun Show Experience

I received the following email. I share it here in the hopes of enlightening us all a bit:

Dear David,

Just a quick question, I hope you can help educate me.

My wife and I went to a gun show today in Austin, TX. I wasn't planning on buying anything big so I only took $120 with me. Then I found a particular model shotgun I've been looking for but unable to find, price $450. My wife (bless her heart) said we could put it on her credit card.

I told the dealer we wanted to purchase it, so he asked for ID. I gave him my driver's license, and my wife took out her credit card. He said, "Sorry, the person who purchases the gun needs to be the one to fill out the paperwork." Fine, my wife said she'd do it. Dealer then said, "No, I can't sell you the gun now because he [meaning me] already said the gun was for him." I actually didn't say "I" wanted
to purchase it, I said "we"; it just so happens that I handed him my driver's license instead of my wife's. I wouldn't say the dealer was being a complete dick, but he was... dick-ish. We just walked away.

I've purchased other guns in the past using my wife's credit card -- one time at a gun show where she filled out the NICS paperwork, another time at a local store where I did the paperwork but they took her card without saying a word. We've been married for 8 years, live at the same address, have the same last names, shoot together... we were simply dumbfounded. I don't have a single credit card in my name, swore off the damn evil things 5 years ago and haven't needed one since (until today, I guess...). The dealer made no effort to try to find a way to accommodate us. He clearly didn't want our business, so he didn't get it.

I understand that the first line on form 4473 is “I am the buyer of this firearm” and the purchaser must answer honestly yes or no in ink, in his or her own handwriting. Our stated intention was to purchase the shotgun for our home. Everything in our home is community property, as any divorce court would maintain, so if my wife answered "yes" on Line 1 she would have been telling the truth. We were not trying to pull one over on the dealer or circumvent the law.

I can also understand that dealers have to cover themselves from the feds who want to put them out of business for typos and punctuation errors on their FFL forms and all.. but was what we were doing in any way improper or illegal?

In the end, this whole episode left a really bad taste in our mouths, to the point where we've agreed never to buy at a gun show again and support our local dealers instead.

Thanks for any advice or insight you might offer.

----------

I've never tried to buy a gun this way, so I put it out to you for comment.

My response:

Unfortunately, the ATF has become so aggressive on "straw purchasers" that dealers are afraid to do anything that might cause scrutiny. With what Bloomberg did to gun dealers with his Mintz Group "investigative teams" is enough to trigger this type of response. He does not know you and for all he knows, you were antis or undercovers trying to set him up. You could very well encounter this same response in a store.

Whether or not his fears are legally founded is something I'd have difficulty answering without consulting a knowledgeable attorney, so I can see where he figured the profit he'd make on a $450 sale was not worth taking any risk.

Who has something to add?

Red's Under Fire: WarOnGuns Interviews Ryan Horsley

NOTE: INTERVIEW CONDUCTED ON APRIL 9. THREAD NOW CLOSED FROM FURTHER QUESTIONS. YOU CAN ASK 'EM, BUT RYAN WON'T BE AROUND TO ANSWER.

WarOnGuns has been reporting on the ongoing BATFE actions against Red's Trading Post in Twin Falls, ID, since we became aware of this story. I contacted Red's Marketing Director Ryan Horsley and he agreed to answer some questions about his plight, and also provided me with this brief bio to introduce himself to us:

Ryan Horsley is the fourth generation at Red's Trading Post "Idaho's Oldest Gun Shop" which was started in 1936 by his Great Grandfather. Horsley serves as Chairman of the Twin Falls Planning and Zoning Commission, President of the Twin Falls Downtown Business District, Board of Directors for the Twin Falls Chamber of Commerce, Public Relations Chairman for Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve and was appointed to the Selective Service Board by then Idaho Governor and Current Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne. He has brought Red's Trading Post from a local pawn shop to a thriving online specialty firearms store that has increased nearly 600% since Horsley's arrival. Ryan and his wife Miah have 3 small children.

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

DC: Tell me about Red's.

RH: Red's Trading Post was started by my Great Grandfather Lowell "Red" Kinney in 1936. We became at the time one of the biggest gun shops in Idaho for awhile. We are located in the heart of Twin Falls in a 95 year old building. In recent years the majority of our business is online. We specialize in consignments and specialty firearms.

DC: So what happened? And have you had you had these problems before?

RH: We were audited in 2000 and there were some minor errors found, that was when I just took over the role of manager. We were then audited again in 2001 and found in full compliance. In 2005 we were audited again and the agent found minor paperwork errors and other minor items. Yet we were told by the ATF Agent conducting the investigation that we were one of the "best small gun shops he had inspected". I was not worried because these were small items that could be rectified, most of the items that had been brought to our attention were items that other Agents never mentioned to us. He explained that each Agent looks for something different. The inspector went through about 10,000 forms, we have a success rate of 99.6%. Yet the ATF has to prove that these violations are WILLFUL, willful is a word that Reagan and Congress put in the wording to protect dealers but the ATF is now saying that if you were written up on violations in the past and then again...it is willful. I was stunned to say the least when we found that they were going to revoke our license.

DC: Aside from some paperwork glitches, what damage has been done?

RH: There were no missing guns, all of our sales were to legal buyers, there was nothing shady. The most severe violation that the ATF is touting is one in which a local retired Doctor came in to pick up a special order shotgun. My clerk called him in and had him fill out the paperwork. When my clerk turned around he grabbed the paperwork probably assuming that it was his. When it was discovered the ATF agent contacted his widow and verified that it was completed and that it was called in. Yet they have labeled this WILLFUL as well.

DC: What's the current status of your case? Does your lawyer think talking publicly about it could be used against you?

RH: We are currently in the process of seeking and injunction to allow us to acquire firearms. The ATF pulled a different tactic on us and said that through the Federal Court process we could no longer acquire any new firearms, we could only sell off our remaining inventory. I have kept quiet on several things which drives me nuts because I have always been open and upfront on everything. So that is why I try and focus on what is happening to our industry as a whole rather than our own personal case but that tends to turn into the focus sometime. People wonder who this can happen to an honest established dealer located in Idaho which is the most Republican state in the Union where our Senior Senator also sits on the Board of Directors for the NRA. Yet it proves if it can happen to us then it could happen to anyone.

DC: There are those in the gun community commenting on forums who aren't all that sympathetic to your plight-they basically say you had a job to do keeping complete records and your failure to do that brought your troubles on yourself. How do you respond to that?

RH: It is really easy to cast stones, I used to do it. I would hear of some dealer who had their license revoked and would assume that it was something really bad. I saw this happening to the individuals who had FFL's but really did not feel compelled to speak up. Just like the poem:

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Pastor Martin Niemöller.

We need to stand up for each other, we cannot allow them to tear us apart. There are so many other dealers who are hiding their head because most times in the court of Public Opinion we are found guilty. We need to stand up for one another and come to each others aid and not just throw our fellow dealers to the wolves.

DC: You say the BATFE is shutting down gun dealers, and imply that is part of an agenda. What makes you think that?

RH: Shooting Sports Retailer Magazine just reported that from 2001 to 2006, revocations have gone up nearly 6 times. The VPC reported that "the Number of Gun Dealers in U.S. Drops Almost 80 Percent—From 245,628 to 54,902—Since 1994 till 2005". That is why Congress put together the ATF Reform Act of 2006 which received bipartisan support in the House, but was ultimately held up in the Senate by Dianne Feinstein. Gun Manufacturers, Distributors, the NRA and other organizations are aware of this. Dealers are either having to fight this in Federal Court or if they cannot afford it they just close shop. We are easy targets. The startling fact is that the ATF's funding is increasing, yet FFL dealers are rapidly declining.

DC: Tell us about your petition, and what you hope to accomplish with it. Are you satisfied with the response?

RH: The petition is twofold, it is to educate gun owners to what is happening and it is also to be sent out to Congress. I have had some organizations ask if they can use it as well. I feel the response is OK but could be much better, there are some excellent comments on it.

DC: We reported on the commercials you produced. Are they being shown anywhere besides the Internet? What difference do you expect them to make?

RH: They are on our web site www.redstradingpost.com and are available to anyone to download as well. Some supporters have posted them on YouTube. I think they are a great tool to get Gun Owners attention, I am hoping people will contact their Congressional Delegates and show support to reform the ATF. Gun Dealers are becoming an endangered species.

DC: Does anyone from BATFE seem inclined to give you a break, or does it look like they're intent on destroying Red's? And do you think going public like this will make them more or less inclined to show lenience?

RH: It is all coming from the top, they cannot let you win, they have an unlimited amount of resources and it is a costly fight. When it became clear that they were not going to let up that is when I had to make a decision to go public about this. Honestly what is the worst thing that they can do to me...revoke my license? I have been told by others who have won in court that to expect more attacks. So I have to press on because the only true victory is to reform the ATF or severely cut their budget.

DC: Who in the pro-gun community has stepped forward to help you, either through publicity, with legal aid, etc.?

RH: ATFABUSE.com has been great with being very vocal, hitting the gun forums. JPFO has been wonderful as well and has requested pictures of our store for their upcoming video "The Gang", the NRA posted an ILA report on their website. Several small grass roots organizations have been great but the larger organizations are silent. One which we are a member of has ignored us and will not answer our e-mails. I have had individuals and other dealers step forward to offer funds for our legal defense but I have declined. This issue is not about Red's Trading Post and I do not want people to think that I am doing this for my own personal gain or to receive money, sympathy or empathy. This campaign is for all dealers and for gun owners, to protect our industry.

DC: Have customers, suppliers, and those who know you in the business community come forth with testimonials? Would they be helpful? Are you soliciting them, or do you have plans to?

RH: I have not sought any testimonials but I have asked them to speak out. Where we are in Federal Court, our case is up to the Judge. So it would not do much good at this point. Speaking out for us is a moot point but you can speak out for other dealers and against these attacks.

DC: What is the best outcome you can hope for, and what do you think your chances are of achieving it?

RH: We are confident that we will win this case and recoup attorney fees. But the best outcome is for reform because they will be back if we win or will just set their sights on another dealer. Reform, Cutting their budget or join JPFO's campaign to "Boot the BATFE". We have to be responsible taxpayers as well. If we saw our local Police department spending the majority of their time issuing tickets for littering and jaywalking when there is real crime being committed then we would be outraged. Why are we not outraged when we see the ATF spending the majority of their time going after honest gun dealers for petty violations when there are real criminals out there?

DC: What would you ask of people reading this interview? What do you want them to do?

RH: Stand behind your dealers, Contact your Senators and Congressman, do not let this continue to happen. This is your chance to fight back. Politically we are moving in an uncertain future, we have the ability to turn the tide against what seems to be a barrage of attacks from the new assault weapons ban, Bloomberg straw purchase entrapments, ATF shutting down dealers and so many that are happening at statewide levels. Our guard is down right now and this industry is taking shots left and right. This takes individuals, this takes men and women we have reached a point where we cannot compromise. Get involved and stand up!

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

Now it's time for you to ask questions. Ryan has agreed to check in from time to time today and see what you have posted for him to answer in the "Comments" section, below.

Please follow these very simple ground rules:

Stay on topic.

Keep questions brief and to the point.

Ask a question, don't write an essay.

Politeness, please.

Your willing cooperation with these expectations of conduct will help provide an enjoyable and informative experience for all, and will be appreciated.

UPDATE: Ryan tells me he's been asked to appear on Cam Edwards' program some time today. Hopefully he can give us the details so we can all listen in.

INTERVIEW CONDUCTED ON APRIL 9. THREAD NOW CLOSED FROM FURTHER QUESTIONS. YOU CAN ASK 'EM, BUT RYAN WON'T BE AROUND TO ANSWER.

Guest Editorial: Tribe of the Timid

By Robert R Hamlyn

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Thomas Jefferson

From The Declaration of Independence.

"We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

James Madison

From The Constitution of the United States

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

Abraham Lincoln

From the Gettysburg Address

We are the sum total of our inheritance. We are our own history made manifest. We represent everything our ancestors learned, developed, created, and destroyed. We are their progeny and as such represent all they will ever have had. We are the ever-expanding culmination of the wandering tribes, the nomadic bands, the hunters and gatherers, and the wayfaring peoples of all the continents and all the oceans of the globe.

Our progenitors have won wars, freed enslaved peoples, and stamped out tyranny all over the world. And here we are at this point in our history worshipping youth while simultaneously degrading the education system that would shape it, ostensibly adoring its unique individuality while concurrently denying its right of individual responsibility, replacing the notion of earned self sufficiency with the expectation of Federal entitlement. We are debasing individual worth with a communization of character, a socialism of the soul.

For far too long we have been standing on the brink of a voluntary surrender of everything we should hold dear as Americans. The values our parents tried to teach us were true; that’s why they tried to teach us: "There’s no such thing as something for nothing. If you want something you have to work for it. If it sounds too good to be true, it is." Yet notions such as self-reliance, self-determinism, and self-respect now sound impossibly quaint as if part of some wonderful pioneer spirit that existed prior to traffic lights, flushing toilets, and other necessities of contemporary civilization.

A mayor of a great Eastern city in the United States once said that for every benefit there is an obligation. He was of course talking about his city’s municipal dole and the expected program of participation the recipients would incur. For most of the people in this country he could just as well have been talking about the Bill of Rights. The public mood seems to be: give me 2.5% on my money market and you can have my social security number, give me universal health care and you can have fifty percent of my income, give me free community transit and you can tell me when and where and how I’ll conduct my affairs.

We have taken the heritage passed on to us by our parents, the children of the Depression, the World War II Generation, and we have collectively pissed it away. The whole country has become a mob, a flock of sheep, a name-brand conscious tribe of consumers with its character diminished. We have become the Tribe of the Timid. Even more alarming, we expect the source of all good things to be a benevolent government.

The documents that form the foundation of our society, the conceptual building blocks of our nation: The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, proclaim for us as citizens of this country a number of rights with which we were born; and each right demands a corresponding responsibility of good citizenship as well as the responsibility of eternal vigilance. Yet we have abandoned that responsibility in allowing ourselves to be lulled by the pleas of the statist politicians, their undisclosed soft-money donors, their unseen sycophants, and their ilk that would ban not only the private ownership of certain kinds of property (for example, guns) but the logic behind it as well, in return for which we would presumably be the beneficiaries of their wonderful philanthropy.

Since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934 American gun-owners have been besieged with an unending litany of appeals for "reasonable compromise", "common sense precautions", and "socially responsible restrictions". The republic, which the Constitution was presumed to have wrought, has endured an incessant encroachment of the constitutionally guaranteed right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." until now, as we stand at the brink of the "final solution". After seventy-four years of restrictions, and controls, and bans, and limitations that have yet to work what is the answer?

As Neal Knox asserted, the unfailing solution for a failed law is a tighter law continuing the cycle toward the inevitable: the total and irrevocable banning of civilian possession of all guns. Over the past few years we have seen the very same pattern in process in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and in the people’s republics of California and New Jersey. And what manner of catastrophic failure has bequeathed upon us this wondrous bounty of thousands of gun laws that somehow aren’t quite enough? Very simply put: the fallacy that people are not responsible for their own acts.

Nearly all of the gun control measures offered by those who would proffer them embrace the same philosophy. They are founded on the belief that America’s law abiding gun owners are the source of the problem. Wringing their hands and rending their garments, their media mouthpieces proselytize that with our profane appetite for guns we are ostensibly creating a society saturated in a sea of guns, thereby turning innocents to evil, and helping the underprivileged (read juvenile delinquents) become vested in their respective criminal enterprise.

When a six-year-old boy took a gun to school and shot a six-year-old girl, who was to blame? According to the prosecutor for that county that poor little boy was a victim. The child could not be held to blame because the child was six years old and incapable of forming intent. The father was not to blame because the father was in jail. The mother was not to blame because the mother was chemically dependent upon crack cocaine and had left the child with a relative while she went to work. So if no one was to blame are we to conclude that this was a victimless crime? Are we to conclude that the little girl was an unintended consequence in a series of actions for which no one was held to account? No, according to the county prosecutor the little six-year-old boy was a victim of the gun culture. The prosecutor failed to mention the fact that the gun belonged to the mother’s boyfriend and that the little boy found the gun in his mother’s bedroom.

In "A Nation Of Cowards," Jeff Snyder states: "This charging of moral blame for violent crime on the law abiding, and the tacit exoneration of violent criminals for their misdeeds, naturally enrages honest gun owners."

(Accurate Press, Lonedell, MO., 2001. "A Nation of Cowards" first appeared in The Public Interest, Number 113, Fall 1993.)

Indeed. Consider the 45 year old Washington man who, when visiting friends and relatives on the East Coast, was confronted with the demand to explain what possible good the presence of firearms served in a society in which someone could just go pick up a gun on the street corner and murder in cold blood a girlfriend made pregnant by someone else (a third party), and didn’t he (the man from Washington) agree that something had to be done about the gun problem? Why couldn’t he just be reasonable and agree to the solution that was best for everybody?

Unbeknownst to the man from Washington, that very scenario had played itself out the previous week in a major East Coast city. The man from Washington had no connection whatsoever to the murderer, the murder victim, the street corner vendor selling stolen guns out of the trunk of his stolen car, or the alleged father. Yet he was expected to defend in principle a murderer. The man from Washington was absolutely confounded by the notion that although he had owned firearms for the previous thirty years and had not ever killed anyone, let alone ever committed any crime, he was expected to agree to willingly hand over his property so that miscreants and lunatics, over which he had no control, could do no harm.

His retort to his erstwhile petitioners was: "You can’t legislate against lunacy. Why should I be punished for somebody else’s crime?" But his reply fell on deaf ears. He could not reconcile the level of their vitriolic hysteria with what he knew the gun culture to be and he could not help but wonder as to exactly where in the continent this rift of perception occurred.

It is not simply East vs. West, or North vs. South, but it is very literally Us vs. Them. We have let our society become striated. We have allowed ourselves to become a nation of the governors and the governed.

Liberal elite, conservative elite, ruling elite, the demarcation becomes frayed until one latches onto the defining term: elite. It is the mindset of our self-appointed privileged few who would do our thinking for us, make our choices for us, and keep us safe from ourselves and who understand that, like our elected representatives, laws are for other people. The self-interested elitist cadres who would exclude our voice from the highest councils of government would never be subject to their own handiwork. Rather, they would assemble myriad obstacles before us for the sole purpose of fatiguing us into compliance with their measures.

In Jeffrey Snyder’s "A Nation Of Cowards", he makes a brief summary of Plato’s Republic, comparing the proffered perfect society to our own... "The liberal elite know that they are our philosopher-kings. They know that the masses can not be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable -- and the liberal elite know how to fix things and they know what is right for us. The very notion of the private ownership of firearms is a refutation to their Utopian zeal

(A Nation of Cowards, The Public Interest, No. 113, Fall, 1993)."

The elite know these things because it is their professedly heartfelt contention that if we would just be reasonable and compromise our sadly mistaken notions of what gun ownership is really about and concede to their wishes for a disarmed society we would finally have harmonious communities safe for families and ensure the stability of our democracy. Our nation would finally be safe for our young and old alike. In fact we would at last enjoy living in the safest nation on earth. (May I humbly point out that the safest nation on earth is currently Communist China?) Indeed we would inherit Plato’s Republic, St. Augustine’s Utopia, the Global Village, the One-world Government foretold in a much-neglected book from long ago. And as the intelligentsia scoff, and the literati chuckle, and the Illuminati sneer, and the paparazzi take their pictures, the people in this country who are old enough and fortunate enough to have been raised in nuclear families nod in mute understanding.

It seems that what we sometimes tend to forget is that the Bill of Rights is not a list of ancillary privileges granted to the populace by a beneficial Utopian governing body, but that it is the enunciation of unalienable rights with which we were all born. Indeed, in the Declaration of Independence, those convened to sign it agreed:

"...That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

There is much talk now of repealing the Second Amendment. So what? If the Second Amendment were repealed, that in itself could not nullify a pre-existing condition. Like it or not, believe it or not, it is a right granted by God, and as such cannot be taken away. Just as you are responsible for yourself, you are also responsible to yourself. Inasmuch as your life is a gift from God it is not yours to squander. Indeed you have an obligation to yourself, your family, and your community as well as to your Creator to cherish and defend it and to guard against the greater evil of those who would deprive you of your God-granted freedoms.

"But wait!" You say. "What if someone doesn’t believe in God?" You ask. OK, what if you are intellectually incapable of believing in God: a Higher Being, a Force greater than yourself, because there is no proof, no empirical evidence for the existence of God? For you, these notions of God-granted gifts and God-granted freedoms would not apply, would they?

No problem. Whether you believe in God or not, you are still responsible for yourself. If you believe that all you have is you in this life, that nothing in the

Universe of known and unknown things can be greater than yourself, that there is nothing else after, no light at the end of the tunnel, no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, if you believe these things, why on earth would you abdicate your responsibility to safeguard your welfare and that of your family, to someone else: a "benign" government, a benefic state?

There are countries in the world in which their governments do not recognize the right of an individual to self-defense. Think about that for a minute. Now think about this: what is the first intrinsic and immutable drive of every living organism on earth?

Answer: self-preservation. Yet these governments of enlightened self interest would proscribe by legislation that which it is hard wired into our very DNA to do: protect ourselves. It is not by accident that the governments that do not recognize a right to self-defense also do not recognize a right to the private ownership of firearms. And it will happen here.

If we, the collective voting constituency, of every politician in the United States let those people in Washington D.C., push this nonsense of repealing the Second Amendment through, it will happen here.

Private ownership of firearms and the resolve to use them are the method and manner by which we as Americans keep our selves free. But the question that we have to ask ourselves is: in our heart of hearts, the place where we will admit to only ourselves that which we would admit to no other, do we have the resolve to use them?

We are closer now than at any previous time in our history of having the Constitution redefined by those who would re-engineer American Society according to the empyrean ideals they hold dear. We have the Bill of Rights and, yes, men and women have died to preserve it. If we are the culmination of the people that founded this country and let their fine and shining achievement slip away, how will our children regard us?

A citizen of any society must be willing to take upon himself the personal responsibility for the quality of the society of which he is a part. Just as one must vote to ensure proper representation in the legislative assemblies from school board and city council to the Congress and the Executive, and just as one must from time to time participate in jury duty, one must not shirk the personal responsibility of actively defending oneself and protecting one’s family from the fear of harm by cutting short the threat of violent crime at its root: the criminal. (Snyder, Ibid.)

Similarly, a government that would deprive its citizens of any of the basic rights upon which this nation was founded would be nothing less than criminal in nature. It is time to cut short the threat to our own liberty. Once we as a nation give into the agitprop proposed by the political elitists that only the state is capable of legitimate action, that only the state is the source of our earthly salvation, that only

the state can provide society's moral moorings, and that only the state can be trusted with firearms, we will have transformed ourselves from a nation of citizens to a nation of subjects and will, at that time, be subject to whatever treatment the ruling elite that forms the state deems proper to administer.

This is not a call to arms. It is a plea for each of us to examine our own conscience. We’ve all heard the tired rhetoric: "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands". Really? Tell your friends whatever you like but be honest with yourself. Will you really take your rifle and start picking off the confiscators as they come lumbering down your street with their trucks full of your neighbors guns? And who do you suppose those confiscators will be? Will it be some alien constabulary with vaguely European sounding speech? Or will they be the police officers with whom you grew up and who have served your community well? Do you suppose it will be some foreign division in oddly colored uniforms and blue helmets? Or will it be the local National Guard unit staffed with your own friends, neighbors and relatives? Are you really prepared to use deadly force against people you know to protect a noble idea? What are you going to do?

We need to take a brief respite from our universally shared virtual reality of Walter Mitty and admit some basic facts of life to ourselves. Some (most) guns will be easily removed. Some of us may put up a show of symbolic protest or actual physical resistance for the benefit of the cameras that most assuredly will be there. Many, if not most of us, will simply turn in our means of personal protection when told to do so. Perhaps a few of us across the country may actually take to arms and try to defend what we understand our freedom to be about.

But this is where you need to be honest with yourself. Will you count yourself among the rest of the good citizens who are too scared to oppose anything the government tells them to do and toss your guns in the back of the truck? Or, when faced with the certainty of losing your house, your job, your standing in the community, your means of support and self reliance, and even your family, will you stand in the way of a government that would proclaim itself as master redefining the role of it’s citizens as subjects? When the time comes you will know what to do--either you will, or you won’t do it. Bear in mind the words of

H. L. Mencken: "To die for an idea; it is unquestionably noble. But how much nobler would it be if men died for ideas that were true." How much of a sacrifice are you honest-to-God willing to make?

"...All experience hath shown that mankind are disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Thomas Jefferson

From the Declaration of Independence

Fortunately while we still have time, there is a weapon available to us for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone of legal age--the ballot box. Don’t throw away your opportunity to vote: the most morally challenged man in the history of the Oval Office was put there with 46% of the popular vote. We have before us the prospect of shaping the tone, text, form and content of life in this country for the rest of the century. In spite of the oft told proclamation that the two party system of American politics is as hollow as two empty whiskey bottles, and neither one of much substance, we have as clear a choice as can be made between two disparate views of government: that between the constitutionally prescribed tradition of representative government, and handing the reigns of government over to those who would continue to usurp our rights in a campaign of incremental expropriation. If we choose the latter, before you know it, the Bill of Rights will have been expunged by Executive Order. It is time for us to vote our convictions.

Until we resolve to once again define ourselves as a nation of equals defined by laws predicated on common sense and not on the unsolicited judgment of the upper echelon we shall remain the Tribe of the Timid.

*****

The essay above is from a forthcoming novel. Although it is taken from a work of fiction I believe it is relevant to the discussion in this venue. I thank David Codrea for his including the Tribe of the Timid in The War On Guns.

R Hamlyn


*****

AFTERWORD from David Codrea

I agreed to feature this on WarOnGuns with a caveat--here is what I sent to Mr. Hamlyn:

Very well written. Compelling in the first three-quarters.

Here's the thing--I disagree with some of your conclusions.

No one recomends a last stand against the national guard or police officers surrounding your house. That would be tactically stupid and self-defeating But make no mistake that some who feign compliance will take the fight to the oppressors on terms and at times of their choosing. Not many, true, but you don't need that many. I'd hazard 1% of the big talkers could have quite an impact. If the cartridge box is not the ultimate check and balance guarantor, we might as well just fold up the tents now.

I just don't see the ballot box being a reliable fallback--not in this election--not with this conditioned public. What majority rule giveth, majority rule taketh away.

That said, and no, I ain't goin' soft, I believe this essay is a good reference point for discussion, a nexus between irascible absolutists like myself and those who consider their approach more "pragmatic." Besides, I don't mean for this caveat to imply that I don't strongly agree with much of what he's written here--he is right about much, he makes his case well, and his arguments need to be heard and understood.

Feel free to engage in reasoned discourse, below. I'm sure Bob will be checking in from time to time, so also feel free to engage him directly.