If you speak out against us…

we will raid your house, and destroy you.

I guess it’s positive they haven’t started loading people into train cars yet.

A Lesson in Proper Ventilation

Three thugs attempt to rob a jewelry store. The store owner responds with a tribute of hot lead providing excess ventilation to the lung cavities.

On my many different lists of rules, the one when dealing with men in general comes to mind:

Rule 1: Never fuck with a man’s family!

H/T to Uncle

Another instance of concealed carry for the win!

An off duty police officer was shopping with his girlfriend when a man opened fire in a cellular phone store.

Moore was off-duty and shopping with his girlfriend in the Commercial Drive store Thursday when 79-year-old Abraham Dickan entered and opened fire on the employees.

Moore used his personal gun to return fire, killing him, police said.

I love how it was his personal firearm that was used and he was out shopping. Only one person was struck by the attacker. After seeing this earlier today I just had to laugh:

Posted by Coran T at 6/1/2010 11:14 a.m.

You know Malichite, 

thats kind of the point. We as a society shouldn’t have to feel the need to carry all the time every where. I don’t begrudge anyone that choses to, but I myself (an avid gun owner) feel that stores are the last place that I need to carry one. You are right, no one knows when and where, but to carry one into Lowes, and then should Thug Joe walk in waving his around, I doubt I or anyone else would have the presence of mind and the requisite training to take him down without endangering others around us. And I can assure I have had extensive training in firearms use, but that was a different setting, not a local store. Lowes is not a controlled gun range, nor is it a competition urban range either. Those are controlled areas where everyone that could be harmed are moved into secure areas up range. This is a live area, with real bullets coming at you as well as yours going at them and anyone near them. So to walk into a store expecting to take the bad guy out in a grand display of heroism, is foolish at best for even the most avid of shooters. Another thing to take into account is that this is not a war zone. There are consequences for collateral damage here. This wasn’t some burned out hovel in the streets of Fallujah. This is an American store populated and operated by Americans, just like you and me. And when a bullet goes astray or off target because you squeezed one off while taking cover has far more dire consequences than taking out a Islamic extremist in Baghdad. So in short I would have to disagree with you on principal here. Disarming idiot thugs in this setting should be left to the professionals and not the weekend warriors with a penchant for Dirty Harry movies.

The whole incident was ended with only one innocent injured because someone was carrying a firearm while shopping. Very few people I spend significant time around do not carry. Those that do carry firearms all state the same reason for carrying everywhere, even for a trip down to the corner store, “It can happen anytime and anywhere and it benefits no one to be disarmed by choice.” Being an unarmed victim is a choice that can easily result in your death. My goal is self preservation of myself and those around me, if you see something wrong with that might I suggest seeking professional help. There are those who truly live by the scout motto, and those that just pay lip service. Guess where I live.

Also the comments regarding proper training are a joke. You have officers that screw up so badly they kill a 7 year old girl. Most officers only have to qualify twice a year and even then it’s a minimal course. I shoot more rounds a year than three average officers in Pullman PD combined. There are also many instances of civilian response with 0 innocent casualties due to civilian responders. If you don’t want to carry a weapon that’s fine. Don’t be bigoted towards those who are willing to do the job because you’re too cowardly to handle the responsibility.

Mayor Daley, your ignorance is showing

An officer was shot and killed during a robbery attempt today in Chicago. Mayor Daley is using this opportunity to say that a stricter handgun ban would have prevented the shooting.

The 30-year-old officer was shot as he left his father’s house on the South Side early Thursday morning by would be robbers.

“If this person didn’t have this, never happened,” the mayor said, holding up a handgun on display for the news conference.

Mayor Daley, how is it a criminal is going to obey your law? Aren’t criminals defined by the fact that they break the law?

“Access to guns in America, everybody can have guns, doesn’t matter who they are, doesn’t matter if they have a criminal record, or not, they have access to guns and that’s the most frustrating issue.”

They have access to guns in your view because they can break the law and steal them. How do you believe we should solve this issue? By making good disarmed victims for the criminals to prey upon. Smart thinking there, where did you get your degree, Head Up Rear University? Mayor Daley has a city with crime completely out of control with some of the most strict gun control in the country. However instead of blaming crime on his failed policies and admitting he was wrong, he just continues to create excuses.

It is most ironic that it was the officer’s father who carried a firearm that dealt with the threat.

In the Wortham case, the officer’s father, a retired Chicago Police officer, rushed to his son’s aid. Using his own handgun– retired police officers are allowed to legally keep their weapons– he shot two of the suspects, killing one of them.

It’s amazing what can happen when one is allowed to defend themselves. The retired officer was allowed to carry a gun. So instead of being dependent upon his phone and the police department; he was instead allowed to be self-reliant. As such, he survived and was able to shoot two of the suspects. Mayor Daley, I suggest you remove your head from a particular body cavity, stop acting like a bigot, and take a serious look around. Your policies are killing your citizens, not firearms. What are the real reasons behind your incessant disarmament of honest law abiding citizens?

That’s a California politician for ya!

Instead of fixing the issue that has caused people to open carry as a public statement, Lori Saldaña just wants to stop them from making their statement.

To some lawmakers, carrying around an empty gun seems threatening. In a quick response to this perceived but non-threat, AB1934 was drafted to make it a crime to carry an empty firearm in plain view. The bill’s author, Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego, is quoted as saying, “What I’m concerned about is people, who have no training, can carry a gun for no other purpose than to make a public statement.”

California is a may-issue state. Translation for the uninitiated; do you like kissing ass? Because if you want a license, start kissing your local sheriffs ass. People to protest this have been doing protests legally by carrying unloaded firearms openly. Instead of looking at the flaws in the process, she intends to further restrict and punish law abiding citizens. I find it interesting that some law makers are uncomfortable by firearms being in possession of their constituents, is it because they’re afraid that one day they may be held accountable for their actions?

New Jersey Senator loves criminal safe zones

Senator Lautenberg feels that it is better to expand the areas of an airport so murderers can work unhindered law abiding citizens cannot protect themselves.

“In the post-9/11 world, it simply defies common sense that it would be legal to carry a gun into an airport,” he said in a statement. “Our airports face threats every day and allowing someone to walk into a major airport with a loaded gun is a recipe for disaster. My legislation will ban guns in airports and make air travel more safe and secure.”

Already you cannot carry a firearm on a plane legally. What is changing is that when your family comes to pick you up from the airport they cannot be armed. Your husband or wife will have to leave their self-defense tools in the vehicle, to possibly be stolen, instead of carrying them with. Your family is just meeting you at the baggage claim and then walking back to the car, they’re not going anywhere near the “secured area”. Why would you need a gun though, all those security guards inside make it perfectly safe. Sure you feel safe inside, but what about all those people outside. They know you’re unarmed so instead the thug can wait to rob you in the garage where there are no security guards. Way to go genius!

Also, I love the use of the 9/11 crutch. I’m surprised I don’t hear more Pearl Harbor crutches currently to support internment of the Japanese. But we can totally trust the government. I would also like to point out the Democrat hero FDR interred the Japanese. Still trust those democrats?

Due Process, What’s that?

Evidently Child Abuse registries are much like restraining orders, due process is unnecessary to be listed. Many people do not realize how many rights are disrupted without requiring your presence in court. Merely being charged with a felony permanently disrupts your ability to purchase firearms. Well permanently unless you’re willing to pay money to the ATF and FBI. I was unable to purchase firearms due to a NICS black list for a year after the charges were dropped. I was not convicted of a felony, the charges were dropped, the State of Washington even returned the firearm I had in my possession the day of the accident, yet I could NOT purchase a firearm. That NICS hold did not even require my being found guilty in court, it was automatic. To this day that blip on my record still causes issues. I receive a week hold when purchasing firearms others can walk out with immediately. I’m delayed in background checks for other materials, such as when I got checked out to work for Joe. Once your name is placed onto any list, it is difficult if not impossible to remove. If you can remove it, they extort you for money.

It ends up that someone getting a restraining order also results in limited rights for the target without due process. If rights of an individual are going to be limited, substantial evidence along with due process is required. Some people may feel I’m being too harsh, but if you are so afraid of your Ex that you feel you need a restraining order and their rights should be limited, you need to be willing to go to court and testify in front of them. You also need to have evidence to show that your fear is well founded. No person’s rights should be violated, much less without due process. If you feel differently so be it, however I would like to point out the Fifth Amendment says otherwise (emphasis is mine):

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

While all these things are done with an effort to do good things, rarely do I ever see any real good come out of them. Restraining orders are often abused as well and used as a revenge tactic because of their hampering ability. For some it’s a way to “get even”. More often than not I hear about honest hard working people caught in the middle. Furthermore, if you’re that afraid of your Ex, I highly doubt a restraining order is really going to do it. I would suggest instead getting a hold of myself, Joe, Laurel, anyone in the gun community and ask, “Can you teach me to shoot and defend myself.” I do not know of anyone who would not take the opportunity to teach and help. The wonder of the freedoms we have in this country come with responsibility, if you don’t want the responsibility, you will inherit the risks that go with it. Because of that fact, any law that attempts to solve a “problem” and violates due process and hampers and infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens is not acceptable and not a solution.

When to fight?

On Joe’s blog today Joe posted another question from Mark Philip Alger to go along with the “Just One Question“.

To summarize here:

When is it proper, for example, to use force to stop a legislator engaged in unconstitutional actions? Indeed, when is it required of those who have sworn oaths to… protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic…?

This is a question I have often asked myself over and over, and it is a very critical item. There have been numerous comments made on the subject and many have different feelings. Ultimately I think everyone has their own independent tripwire of what will “set them off”. Joe’s page on Civil Disobedience serves as a good resource to those who have never pondered the question.

I read that new post just after re-reading the Declaration of Independence. Now if you’re wondering why I would spend my free time reading that, or the Constitution or any other numerous items regarding history, it’s because I don’t want to repeat it. A smart man learns from his mistakes, a wise man learns from other peoples mistakes. History gives you the ability to see events and what occurred because of them.

Back to the point however many only remember a few phrases, such as: “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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Many do not remember the laundry list of things that was done by the King that was presented as evidence. Now while many of these may not directly pertain to our present state of affairs, we should however also note other lessons that we’ve learned in the 20th century.

My personal thoughts on the subject is that the denial of the any specifically enumerated right of the people, most especially the right to keep and bear arms is a tripwire. Any and all attempts to prevent the people from being able to arm themselves properly for the defense of themselves, family, or property serve no other purpose to make us subservient to the state. This includes attempting to restrict ammunition by tax, or by requirements. A firearm without ammo is only an expensive club. While some would argue that you can stash weapons and use them at a later time, not everyone will be successful in stashing weapons. With restrictions on firearms, restrictions on travel and speech will exist limiting our ability to organize.

My definite words to live by are the lessons of the 20th century. When it came to New Orleans after Katrina, certainly shoot any soldier collecting weapons, nail the police chief, and the mayor too. At this point their sole goal is to be bigoted against us and kill us. To me it’s like negotiating with a terrorist who only wants you dead, what is there to negotiate? If it reaches this point you must trip and act. As for legislating it’s much harder to say. If someone actually starts collecting after legislation, they are definitely guilty, but who will hold them accountable.

These are just my thoughts on the subject, they’re very fluid and it’s a topic that is very difficult. It is not clear cut like someone attacking you in your house or stealing your property. However it is someone stealing your rights.