Why we’re winning

I heard an extremely inspiring story from Snowflakes in Hell indicating the proof that we’re winning the war in the fight for self-defense and firearms.

The other reason we win is a story told to me by someone who works for NRA about an NRA member who donated 450 dollars. The guy had been out of work for a few years, had two disabled children, but he wanted to do something to help preserve the Second Amendment. So he and his wife collected cans from roadsides and public places, until they had saved up enough money. And they were apologizing for not being able to give more. Really makes you realize why we all keep doing this, and need to keep doing this.

I’m trying to think of something to add, but wow. To collect that many cans and to part with the result when he could have very well used the money himself says more than anyone else possibly could. It does remind me though that the most common personality trait I see in the gun community is very giving and helpful. The first year I went to Boomershoot, 100% of the proceeds from the raffle went to Soldiers Angels. The prize winners just gave the cash back to Joe. Obviously we have something to offer that the other side does not. This still hasn’t gone above 20 bucks and I first saw it 2 weeks ago.

Qotd: Jacob Hornberger, 05172010

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.” –Jacob Hornberger

[Constantly there are adding new restrictions for “our safety” or our children’s safety. While it may appear to be good because of increased safety, there’s decreased life experience and learning. Frankly I’m with Scotty’s mom from The Sandlot: “I want you to get out into the fresh air and make some friends. Run around, scrape your knees, get dirty. Climb trees, hop fences. Get into trouble, for crying out loud.” Screwing up was one of the greatest lessons children ever got and we’re screwing it up. –B]

Yet another No-Knock Fiasco

A 7-year old girl has been killed by a police officer executing a no-knock warrant. What has been released to the press is the following:

But upon entering the house, the lead officer got into a struggle with a 46-year-old woman – the little girl’s grandmother – and the gun discharged, firing a bullet into Aiyana Stanley Jones’ neck.

I can think of a couple reasons the woman would resist officers, one of which is that she didn’t believe they were the police. I fail to see how a struggle resulted in a gunshot into the neck. An AD requires two broken rules to result in injury or a fatality. Obviously someone’s finger was on the trigger while not on target, and muzzle control was not maintained.

While I understand the claim of struggle that to me seems nothing more than an excuse given this video from another raid.

The Corgi was killed by a ricochet with the child behind the dog. It is a miracle the kid was uninjured.

Back to the new no-knock incident I would like to point out that the department is investigating one of their own. How do we know that this “struggle” actually occurred and it is NOT just that he didn’t properly verify the target prior to pulling the trigger?

And this is a bad thing?

I find that having more women shooting is a good thing. I also find that referring to them as “fanatics” detrimental. While if someone called me one I would just shrug it off, many prospective shooters may not be that thick skinned. The article didn’t really seem to be negative but the title sure is.

Qotd: Bertrand Russell, 05162010

“Freedom in general may be defined as the absence of obstacles to the realization of desires” – Bertrand Russell

[Currently there are many different obstacles to different desires in this country. The biggest of which currently is the theft of the compensation of my work to redistribute it to others to seek their own desires. This creates the illusion of freedom to some sheep, while revealing the bars to others. I am very annoyed at the amount of work I exerted to get where I am just to see it taken to be squandered by people who have no concept of work. –B]

Pullman’s prospective new police chief

So I just found out that the choice for Pullman’s new police chief is a Captain from Claremont California. I have never had any issues in Pullman with concealed carry; however I have heard from other friends that have had issues with the chief but not with Pullman officers however. I was not able to attend the meeting however I wish I could have so I could have asked what his stance on concealed carry and his views on self-defense.

As the police chief is mainly a bureaucrat I’m not too overly worried about it, especially with how the officers themselves act and conduct themselves. We shall wait and see; if I end up running in to Commander Tennant at some point I’ll make sure to ask what his thoughts are on the new chief. I must say though I really would have preferred for Commander Tennant to become the new police chief from my experiences talking with him.

As I no longer live in Pullman however it doesn’t affect me too much though I do still work there.

Qotd: Thomas Paine May 15, 2010

When all other rights are taken away the right of rebellion is made perfect. –Thomas Paine, “Dissertation on First Principles of Government”, 1795

[More specifically natural rights cannot be removed even by laws of man. As such when someone attempts to use force or the threat of force to coerce people into not exercising their rights, one should examine and determine if the time to act is now. –B]

I heard the tea party is dead

So a week ago I stumbled across an article stating that the Tea Party is dead. The author’s reasoning is as follows.

Take the recent series of storms and tornadoes that recently hit the South, causing so much death and destruction. When tornadoes swept across Mississippi and Alabama, and when severe flooding struck Nashville, the pattern was the same. Local officials, unable to cope alone, called for help. FEMA officials arrived on the scene. Soon thereafter, President Obama declared the most severely impacted areas of those states as federal disaster areas, making residents eligible for grants for temporary housing and home repairs and low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses.

Coupled with other incidents such as the Times Square attempted bombing and the police response, the gist of the article is that we are dependent on the government and we can’t avoid it.

All of which makes a mockery of the entire tea-party movement. When trouble comes, those who complain the loudest about big government are the first ones with their hands out for federal help. Until tea partiers are willing to tear up their Social Security cards and Medicare cards, and reject all help from the FBI, Coast Guard, EPA, FEMA or any other federal agency, they’re nothing but a bunch of phonies.

I find the above to be total bull crap since BP is covering the costs of the oil spill, FEMA didn’t respond immediately to all affected areas, there are still people waiting from Katrina, and national security is actually the job of the government. We never said that we wanted public services such as police, fire and ambulance destroyed. Our issue is with bailouts and entitlement programs that reward failure and redistribute the wealth from those who earn it to those who do nothing. The reason I am post this now is that I just stumbled across an article talking about how Tea Partiers are being courted for their stance on Kagan’s nomination.

Some conservative activists, including Curt Levey of the conservative Committee for Justice and Gary Marx, executive director of the Judicial Crisis Network, have said they hope the surging Tea Party will play a role in the Senate’s consideration of Kagan. “I think it could certainly give the Republican senators even greater backbone to push for a strong debate,” Marx said.

I find it quite ironic that some are claiming the Tea Party is insignificant yet their opinion is being sought. I would like to say though that supposedly there has been no opinion formed on Kagan by the Tea Party leadership.

Tea Party coordinators last week said they’re still assessing Kagan’s nomination, and it isn’t yet apparent whether it will become a priority for them.

She’s anti-gun, dislikes free speech, and is obviously a leftist judge. Obviously she doesn’t support the main crux of the Tea Party, limited government and fiscal responsibility. If they can’t figure out a stance on Kagan, it shows issues in the party. While it may not be a priority of contention, they still need to stand somewhere. What else do they really need to know to make a decision?