Second Amendment--Down But Not Out?

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership posted "The Second Amendment is Alive and Well" , in response to writer David Brownlow's opinion piece, "The Second Amendment is Already Dead."

Skip in Texas adds his thoughts in an open letter to Mr. Brownlow, posted here with permission:

JPFO's comments are correct in that your article is worth reading and discussing. Both you and JPFO had some very valid points in your arguments. As a retired military officer I believe that you far underestimate the capabilities of our Nation's civilians, especially those with previous military experience, to act in support of our rights should that need ever arise.

There are millions of us with a vast amount of military experience who remain capable of neutralizing or commandeering and using the superior weapons currently in the possession of the presumed opposition. Also, there are many currently in uniform, military and law enforcement, who still abide by their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Just as our founders fought and prevailed against superior forces, so is possible for us to do again, if needed. While the gov't can concentrate a vast amount of combat power into a small, specific area, it would be outgunned by a large margin should widespread revolution break out across the land, or even within an area the size of several states. I suspect that many more, in uniform at the time, would sympathize with those defending the Constitution and our Founders' ideals than one might imagine. This could happen in any of a number of ways, but make no mistake, happen it could.

Regarding your comment: "Sure, we might still have the ability to wage a little one-man revolution - for about five minutes!", I can assure you that anyone with any smarts what-so-ever could make things happen in their favor for much longer than that. An area that you completely ignore in your thesis is that of "leaderless resistance". Probably one of the best books on the topic is titled "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. If you have not read it, you should consider it. I'm sure there are other models out there too. In many of these scenarios, at least at the beginning, it would be necessary for a few dedicated individuals, acting individually or in concert, to get the ball rolling and then convince others to join in the action; or others would join in because of the ongoing actions. Our Nation is becoming more and more of a tinder box in this regard and I suspect that at some point a spark in the right place could ignite a wildfire throughout many parts of the country.

JPFO's comment: "History everywhere shows that a fire in the belly -- the will to be free -- triumphs over superior weaponry," is very valid, especially when that superior weaponry can be turned against those attempting to usurp the freedoms of another. Consider too that such an action by "the people" would only be required until those necessary factions of the gov't could be neutralized or disempowered, which would allow the freedoms to be returned to the people, perhaps without a complete cleansing of those in power. That would allow a Constitutional gov't to continue without the need to start up an entirely new gov't. There are a number of ways that this could happen but some of "the people" using the meager resources currently available to them could certainly start the ball rolling, should that become necessary.

Still, your article is worthwhile, if perhaps naive, in several respects. Keep up the good work.

Birds Do It

My sister sent me this after I posted the piece on how "charity" is destroying Africa:

I have to share one, and it's even true. On a goofy whim I bought a hummingbird feeder a few weeks ago. It is a complete hoot, but I may have to rethink the moral implications of this ornithological entertainment. I got birdie visits within 10 minutes of putting the damn thing up on my back porch, which is pretty interesting. But it took less than a day for the birds to completely stop foraging the hibiscus - too much work apparently when the Federal auto dispenser is so close by. Then the altercations started - alpha birdie [actually I think its a she] plops her butt on the perch, hogs and chases the others off. And just a couple of days ago the drive by peckings started up. So now I have fat, lazy, hostile birdies dependent on subsidies.

Of course, its pretty funny to watch, too...

Thompson In the Chips--Or Vice Versa

"Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson has volunteered to get an RFID electronic chip implant to show the world just how safe the new technology is. "

Tommy Thompson

"I wanted to get numbers tattooed on my forearm, but was concerned about the connotations," Thompson admits.

"And being from Wisconsin with all those dairy cows," he adds, "well, I did learn having my hindquarters branded smells something awful and hurts even worse."

Not to be daunted, the former Health and Human Services Director was determined to find a more efficient way to permanently install the mark of the beast.

"I was thinking about getting a barcode laser-etched on my lower lip, but then I heard about VeriChip," he recalls.

"They're not quite ready with Phase Two, where they surgically implant it in your forehead. But I've gone ahead with their interim Phase One Suppository and it works just fine," he says.

"Long as I stay away from that Wisconsin cheese," he adds ruefully.

Judge Roberts Needs MY Help?

I got a piece of spam on my Hotmail account from one "Robert R. Eberle, Ph.D.President and CEO, GOPUSA," telling me "Judge Roberts Needs Your Help!" and invoking the names Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin to convince me of my need to sign a Newsmax Petition.

I replied:

He may need my help, but does he deserve it?

What has he ever said or done to demonstrate he understands what the Second Amendment is about, and that he will rule properly on right to keep and bear arms cases that come before him--or that he will even support allowing them to come before the high court?

Not that I expect an answer. But I do find it curious that the only people scrambling to find out more about this--and there (intentionally?) seems precious little to be found-- are those of us in the hard core RKBA activist blogging community--the emphasis everywhere else appears to be focused exclusively on Roberts' potential to impact Roe v Wade.

At this writing, there is no news release from NRA--the folks with the beltway connections and ears to the ground in DC. They do link to two Wall Street Journal columns, "Introducing John Roberts" and "Roberts Rules," but neither piece says word one about guns.

Speaking of Links...

...which I do in the post below, I've been adding some as I discover folks have linked to WarOnGuns. If you have and I haven't returned the favor, it's because I haven't noticed it yet.

Drop me a line to let me know I owe you one, or if you'd like to establish reciprocal links with your site.

Button, Button, Who's Got the Button?

Kirk at Fun Turns to Tragedy has designed some more link buttons for top referrers to his site.

The guy is really good with graphics. I wish I could return the favor, but my artistic sensibility is pretty much limited to "I think red is purdy."

Still, I did find a graphic I believe expresses the essence of fun turning to tragedy--but I don't think it would lend itself to the rectangular format he uses and still retain its legibility:

I'm joking. Sheesh! Scary picture, though, huh?

"They Hate Us Because We're Free"

No doubt.

"We Suspect the Lawsuit is Largely a Political Move"

[Use BugMeNot to bypass site registration.]

From Philadelphia, home of the Independence Hall Un World Heritage Site, comes these latest bleatings by the heirs of liberty about yet another gun lawsuit.

Note how "the gun...took a tangled route." I wonder if it consulted PriceLine or Travelocity to get the best deals.

A pawn shop "allegedly" sold it to a gun trafficker, one who passed all government-required checks before he could take possession of it. It certainly seems cause to trace that "tangled route" back to the original manufacturer so they can be included in the lawsuit.

"We're not going to argue the merits of this particular case right now," the editorialist lies. Or maybe he doesn't. He doesn't care about the merits--and neither do the subversives backing this legalized shakedown racket. They just want gun makers and sellers sued out of existence so that you and I can be disarmed.

Here's my favorite deliberate understatement: "So even though we suspect the lawsuit is largely a political move..."

Egad, Holmes! How could you possibly deduce that?

They do make one point I agree with:

"Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum support the Senate bill. Maybe they want to explain that to the Oliver and Durham families."

I wish they would. I wish they'd explain it to all of their constituents.

I wish these politicians who come to gun owners for support and get NRA endorsements would stop hiding from the gun issue except when they're in front of a friendly audience, and start aggressively using their bully pulpits for Second Amendment outreach and education. I wish they would explain the importance of the right of the people to keep and bear arms every chance they get, in front of every media outlet that pays them notice.

Ludicrous, Indeed

"The people who brought you the oil-for-food scandal now want to get their hands on the Internet. On Tuesday, a U.N. organization called the Working Group on Internet Governance proposed that the United Nations take control of regulating the Internet's inner workings. Apparently, U.N. leaders think their failures in global security and humanitarianism qualify them to regulate the engine of the high-tech industry."

Well, that's one way to guarantee that I get more offers to transfer funds from Nigeria.

Rush Limbaugh cracked me up when he referred to the UN as "a Star Wars bar scene."

I haven't been able to give a damn one way or another about the John Bolton nomination, because the true solution is to quit the UN and melt this ugly thing down to make guns to defend a free America:


[Thanks to John Schaefer.]

DON'T SHOOT!

Anti-Gunner Recommends STABBING People Instead

Alphecca steers us to an opinion piece by Berserkeley Loony Tune Becky O'Malley, who thinks that guns are icky and you shouldn't have one.

He does a good job of dismantling what she thinks passes for reason, but to me, the most outrageous part of her theorem was in her opening paragraph:

"An old reprobate, a heavy-drinking veteran of many barroom brawls, once told me why he favored knives over guns when he needed to get out of a tight spot. Anyone who knows how to use knives, he said, knows that you can always put your thumb half-way up the blade, so you can just stick the guy, not kill him by accident."

Becky--do you hear yourself? The guy's a violent drunk, he knifes people in situations not requiring lethal force whenever his alcohol-impaired reptilian hindbrain deems he is in "a tight spot" (no doubt one of his own creation), and you believe this loser has the martial arts skills to safely wield a blade so he will only leave some sort of scratch because he puts his thumb halfway up the blade?

Becky, I have no words--I somehow just can't bring myself to believe that people as stupid as you exist.

Some day, your friend is going to find he's brought a knife to a gunfight.

50-50

CNN has a poll asking if NRA made the right move by pulling their convention out of Columbus:

How would you describe the NRA's decision to move its convention because of the host city's assault weapons ban?

A bullseye

A shot in the foot

At this writing, the results are 50-50.

Let's see if we can change that.

Go vote, and pass this info on.

Roberts on Guns

I'm sure I joined a lot of gun activists scrambling to find out where Supreme Court Justice nominee John Roberts stands on guns. I also felt pretty confident that the first insights into his record would come from Triggerfinger.

Ask the Expert

Richard A. Clarke, the guy who advised Madeline Albright on Rwanda and who later made sure the Bin Laden family got ushered out of the US within days of 9/11, is now being touted by the Violence Policy Center as an expert on the dangers of "50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles."

I should think so.

But what about .50 caliber rifles?

What About The Rest Of Us?

"With judges handing restraining orders out like popcorn, a federal law that disarms soldiers and police who have such orders against them is playing major havoc with their careers and lives."

Glenn Sacks has a point.

It's not fair that someone's career should be ruined over mere accusations and legal kneejerk boilerplate.

Sacks goes on to tell us:

"[A]ccording to Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association, restraining orders are doled out 'like candy' to 'virtually all who apply,' and that 'in virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had.'

"A study conducted by Massachusetts courts revealed that the majority of restraining orders did not even involve an allegation of violence."

That being the case, Mr. Sacks, why should someone's career be of more value than my life, and my ability to protect it? Why would that be fair?

How is liberty served by carving out special classes of super citizens, who enjoy privileges and immunites not available to all, in direct contradiction to the spirit and intent of equality under the law?

We don't need more elitist exceptions like "cops only" nationwide concealed carry. Show me where, once they have their place at the table, their unions or the FOP have lobbied to bring the rest of us in from the cold. More often than not, their mouthpieces are only too glad to get ink and camera time railing about the danger "guns on the street" pose to their constituents.

I can see the unintended consequences should Mr. Sacks get his wish: A cop who would have been denied a gun had he not been exempted arrests some poor slob who arms himself in spite of a restraining order.

Sorry, Mr. Sacks. If "the whole people" aren't invited, your government careerists can just share our pain. Maybe it will give them some incentive to work with us.

Goodbye, Columbus

"As a direct result of the Columbus City Council decision to ban semi-automatic firearm ownership for law-abiding citizens, the National Rifle Association (NRA) announced it will move its 2007 Annual Meeting and Convention from Columbus, OH...

"The City Council’s decision will have a negative economic impact on businesses in the greater Columbus area. Earlier this year, the Columbus Chamber of Commerce said it estimated $20 million in revenue from hotels, restaurants, entertainment and other NRA convention related spending."

Good for NRA. That's the right move.

Unfortunately, Wayne LaPierre didn't end his statement there.

“'The NRA is going to work with the people of Columbus and the Ohio Legislature to pass state preemption legislation and restore freedom to the people of Columbus,' continued LaPierre. 'When the Ohio Legislature enacts preemption, freedom will be restored to the people of Columbus.'"

We don't let the antis get away with naked hyperbole, and we shouldn't let it pass from "our side" without comment, either.

Preemption is, at best, a two-edged sword. True, having each and every municiple jurisdiction passing "gun control" laws could create a hodge-podge of edicts that would be impossible to comply with. But preemption, as practiced in states like California, results in statewide bans and edicts designed to stamp out gun ownership.

Preemption is not the Holy Grail of gun rights. Too often, it is used to codify and institutionalize statewide assaults against liberty.

Preemption will not restore freedom. Lobbying will not restore freedom. Legislation will not restore freedom. Judicial rulings will not restore freedom. Not unless and until they are backed up with a no-nonsense "or else" from We the People should government at any level usurp its powers and abridge our rights.

To believe otherwise is to hide from the harsh reality that you can't count on someone else, and a smooth talker at that, to take your turn on the wall. Only the unwavering resolve of free Americans determined to defy and resist tyranny at all costs will restore freedom--and there aren't even any guarantees that that will be enough.

No one actually thought it would be easy, and without personal costs and risks, did they?

The sooner we realize and accept that, the sooner we can quit deluding ourselves that evil--and that's what tyranny is--fears anything other than force sufficient to drive it howling back into the darkness.

Kennedy in Historic Sino-American Joint Space Venture

Please join WarOnGuns in wishing the senior senator from Massachusetts "Bon Voyage" as he boldly goes where no porcine gamete has gone before.

Think They May Be On To Something?

"Iraqis have begun barricading themselves in their homes and forming neighborhood militias in an effort to fend off relentless suicide attacks, residents in the capital said on Monday...

"'The plans of the interior and defense ministries to impose security in Iraq have failed,' Khudair al-Khuzai told parliament during a heated session following the latest blast. 'We need to bring back popular militias,' he said...

"In the Sadiya district in the south of the capital, residents have introduced a neighborhood watch program which involves men armed with pistols and AK-47s walking the streets from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. on alert for attackers..."

Militias providing security for a free state--what a novel idea! Where have I heard that before...?

Parker Update

Good analysis, as usual, from Triggerfinger.

Armed Unit to Crack Down on Fashion

"EDINBURGH'S first dedicated 24-hour armed response unit is set to hit the streets as new figures reveal another huge rise in gun-related crime.

"A crack unit of 25 specialist officers and three brand-new armed response vehicles will work in shifts from today providing round-the-clock response to armed incidents."

As it turns out, "gun crime" isn't particularly up, but "What we are experiencing is the culture of the fashion brigade to go out with an air weapon, an imitation gun or a BB weapon tucked in their trousers."

Sounds like a perfectly good use of resources to me.

I'd make a crack about the heirs of William Wallace being pathetic subjects of the Crown, but we're the heirs of the Sons of Liberty and we demand the same treatment in much of the Republic.

Serves Him Right

A man turns in a rare Japanese rifle worth $5,000 to a police "buyback" program, and now they won't give it back.

Hope he enjoys the voucher.

What do we expect? It's West "Hanging Chad" Palm Beach.

UPDATE:

They gave it back. Plus they let him keep the gift card.

I guess the media attention and his vet status made them decide this would be the best PR move. Funny how they can make exceptions to the "law" whenever they want? But we can't?