A Meaningless Poll

I received the following email from KeepAndBearArms.com:

"Cast Your Vote In New Poll; Should gun owners and gun rights organizations support Senate Confirmation of Judge John G. Roberts to the US Supreme Court? If you have not already done so, go to KeepAndBearArms.com and cast your vote in the poll on confirmation of Judge John G. Roberts to the US Supreme Court. The poll appears in the left hand column of the web page. A number of national radio talk show hosts and leaders of gun rights organizations are monitoring this poll closely."

Poll results at this writing:

Yes 79.7% 534 votes
No 5.8% 39 votes
Undecided 14.5% 97 votes
Total Votes: 670

On what basis can gun owners make any kind of informed judgment on the Roberts nomination?

Can KABA point to any meaningful indicators on Judge Roberts' sentiments on the Second Amendment? Unless something new has been disclosed that I'm out of the loop on, even NRA, with all its Washington connections and insider information has been mum on the subject of Roberts and guns.

Here's what we do know:

Hillary is reported to be ready to confirm him. Feinstein is "impressed" with him. Schumer's only 2A-related concern is whether or not he agrees with a prior high court decision to overturn the "Gun Free School Zones Act."

Nearly all of the debate concerning the Roberts nomination revolves around Roe v Wade. On the gun issue, all we really have is that he voted in favor of the petition to rehear the Seegars case, and for some reason, that information has disappeared from the blog that reported it.

Perhaps gun owner support comes from some sort of innate trust for George Bush's judicial picks?

I know--Bush saying he was for the "assault weapons" ban was some sort of ploy to get elected. Bush AG Alberto Gonzales saying he also was for the "assault weapons" ban was some sort of ploy to get confirmed. And BATFU Gauleiter Lewis P. Raden, who works for Gonzales, who works for Bush, unilaterally, and without warning or prior communication issuing an edict to halt the importation of frames, receivers and barrels must be some kind of ploy to prove what, exactly?

How can any gun owner vote "Yes" in this poll and claim to have an informed opinion? How can they even claim to have a rational basis for wishful thinking?

Quick, Everyone, Stop Enjoying Yourselves: Rosie's Disgruntled Again

"Rapper Sean 'P. Diddy' Combs has angered celebrity neighbor Rosie O'Donnell after throwing an extravagant fireworks show that left her children in tears.

"O'Donnell is upset after spending all night calming her frightened puppy and consoling her four sobbing kids who were left terrified by the loud display."

Rosie, what are you doing to those children to where their reaction is one of terror instead of wonderment? How do those poor kids stand a chance with a self-admitted headcase like you as their primary adult role model? How have you described yourself? Oh yeah, “one of the haunted…with an absurd ability to deny the obvious.”

I don't suppose it's possible they were reacting to your reaction? Do they cry often in situations where other children do not? Do you?

It's also telling how something that leaves you inconvenienced and disgruntled also leaves you feeling entitled to trivialize true disasters like "a war zone -- downtown Baghdad -- a subway in London -- a hotel in Egypt and on and on and on," which in turn trivializes sacrifice and tragedy and horror. You hearing fireworks from your mansion equates with human carnage?

But then, it's all about you, isn't it, Rosie, and getting attention by letting everyone know how miserable you are? And making them miserable in the process?

A Snap of it's Fingers?

The Washington Post at its hysterical worst. The implication is clear: by bringing the frivolous gun lawsuit bill to the Senate floor, NRA sidelined a "critical Defense Department appropriations bill," endangering us all.

Suddenly, these subversives are for defense.

There can be no peace with these creatures. We cannot coexist. They won't let us.

This really illustrates the foolishness of those companies that cave in the face of legal pressure. They have bought themselves temporary respite at the cost of giving the enemy a beachhead from where it can fortify its position and threaten everyone.

Whose Side Are YOU On?

I designed this graphic over 10 years ago, back when I was active in the Westside Firearms Association, which became the NRA Members Council of Westside Los Angeles. It was originally produced on a t-shirt which we sold as a fundraiser. I also posted it on the old GunTruths.com website.

The only copy I had to date was pretty grainy--I discovered this cleaner version on an old floppy disk I found while going through some old stuff, and figured I'd better save it elsewhere before it was lost forever.

Consider it saved. Although maybe the best course of action would be to just redo it from scratch to produce something really clear...

I still have my shirt, but it's getting kind of worn. Maybe I'll make some more up.

Don't Mess With This Mom

From an anonymous correspondent:

Your piece on "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" got me thinking. I have a few images sitting around and I thought you might make use of them at some time or another.

The female in the images is my wife. She's not acting for these images. She was ambivalent towards firearms until a few years ago. She finally agreed to go to the range with me and the rest is history. She almost broke the bank last year with the number of handguns she purchased in addition to buying our 9 year old son his first .22 rifle. She's a wife and a mother of three. Unlike the "million moms," she has told me that our sons and daughter will not leave home until they have become thoroughly proficient in their defensive shooting skills.

My correspondent is quite an accomplished photographer. I'd like to see him start a website to post his portfolio on. He's also pretty fortunate to have such a rational life partner.

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.