Archive for the ‘Gun Control’ Category

Warm and Fuzzy versus Fangs and Venom — Predators Know the Difference.

December 17, 2012
Coyote_arizonaWikipediaC1

Coyotes prefer prey WITHOUT fangs and venom, thank you, very much.

Rabbit_in_montana

Coyotes, the media and Progressive elites — pragmatic predators all — prefer THESE as prey…

Rattlesnake_Dance_01

… Over THESE, as prey, although both are edible. Do we know WHY?
Yes, we do, even if the wizards in the media-government complex do not.

Just as a hungry coyote understands the important difference between a rabbit and a rattlesnake, a would-be armed robber, or a glory-seeking spree killer, understands the difference between a victim who may be armed, and one who certainly is not.

Both the rabbit and the rattler can be eaten, but preying on rattlers involves considerably more risk than preying on rabbits. Why? Fangs and venom, that’s why. A coyote or a human predator that chooses the wrong prey is more likely to end up floating, face-down, in the gene pool.

There has been supportive chatter in the media-government complex  for decades, on the efforts of the UN and American “Progressives” to  get small arms out of the hands of individuals, and make them a government monopoly.

The media tend to chide Americans who cherish their Second Amendment right, for being afraid the UN wants to take away “their deer rifles.” Silly Second Amendment types! All the UN is concerned about, the editorials say, is “rocket launchers and machine guns.”

Of course, that’s a lie. The UN, whose membership is composed mainly of tin-horn dictatorships and bankrupt, socialist dis-utopias, and the Progressives, who cherish their own safety enough to hire armed bodyguards, want to relieve all of us of all of our firearms, down to the last pellet gun and antique flintlock. It’s for our own good, right?

Hardly.

The UN’s problem is that an armed populace is a terrible inconvenience to a would-be despot. Armed citizens may not go along with certain kinds of government excesses, such as pogroms, purges, gulags, concentration camps and slavery.

Armed citizens introduce an element of risk and expense to such ventures that discourages governments from undertaking them. Beneath their veneer of compassion and care for our collective safety, the Progressives share the UN’s concerns.

Armed citizens are also a nuisance to the dictator next door, whose stupid policies have wasted all his country’s resources. He must now prey on his neighbors to satisfy his needs, and “reallocating their resources” may be difficult, if his neighbors are armed. Charitable by nature, perhaps, they may not share the great leader’s vision for their future. Their privately-owned weapons may frustrate their acquisitive neighbors’ plans long enough for regular military forces to show up and end them altogether.

On a much smaller scale, armed citizens are also a nuisance to the individual predator, who dislikes assuming the risk of attacking a crowd of rabbits, only to find that one or more of them has hidden rattlesnake fangs and venom, and the will and skill to use them in his defense, or in defense of innocents around him.

America’s founders understood this principle of nature (and of human nature), and built the individual right to be armed into our Constitution.

Coyotes, armed robbers and dictators understand this principle.

Someone, please explain it to the nation’s media-government complex, and to our Progressive elite.

Advertisements

One Blog, One Vote. Not Wasting It.

August 31, 2012

I’m following the comments on the conservative blogs and social media since the Republican National Convention, and I see two, diverging threads of interest.

One is cautiously optimistic that Romney WILL actually be better for the future of the USA than four more years of Obamanation.

The other sees no differences between them, and sees the choice as binary — either Obama OR Romney — is a false choice. Somehow, they believe, voting for a third-party candidate, or sitting out the presidential race, or even sitting out the whole election, is the only honorable and/or Godly choice. Romney is simply too flawed to be worthy of their votes.

I can identify strongly with portions of both threads, but the appeal of the sitting-it-out option for me is purely emotional, and I’m over it. I was angry about the selection process that gave us Romney, but hardly surprised. The same backstage manipulators that gave us McCain were responsible for giving us Romney, and I’m angry about that, too.

Anger, however, is a dangerous motivation for any decision, but especially for deciding how, or whether, to vote, and especially dangerous this time around.

Alan Keyes, whom I admire and respect, seems firmly convinced that Romney is evil, and only trivially different from Obama. He thinks voting for Romney “just” to keep Obama from a second term is tantamount to selling his soul. Others, friends whose opinions I take seriously, believe that, as well, to one degree or another.

A subset of the above group think Romney is just this election’s John McCain, but I think John McCain was not only a RINO, but an abysmal candidate for President. He may have been able to convince enough Arizonans over the last hundred years to keep him in the Senate, but he was either utterly inept at running for the presidency, or actively defeating himself at every turn, because he couldn’t have done a worse job of running for president if he really didn’t want to be president.

Either way, Romney is far better as a candidate. At least that is my current assessment, based on his acceptance speech at the RNC and his actions in the first day after that.

Having vacillated in 2008 between Joseph Farah’s “None of the Above” position, and writing in Alan Keyes because I could not bring myself to vote for McCain, and because there was no way in Hell I was going to vote for Obama, I finally settled on writing-in Keyes. I don’t regret that vote, because McCain was, and is, as sleazy and success-driven a politician as Obama, but with more history to prove it.

Contrary to what some of my Republican friends say, I have no faith that McCain would have been a better president that Obama has been. Where Obama is ideologically driven to do whatever is worst for America, I believe John McCain would have done whatever his sycophants and manipulators could persuade him to do, and he was as much a chump for the global warming scams and other liberal pretexts for grabbing power, and for establishment Republican “inclusiveness” and “compassionate conservatism” scams as any RINO, and as most out-front Liberals.

While his motivations might have been portrayed as noble, his results would have differed only in degree from those of Obama. If McCain could rationalize any decision with his imaginary legacy, or his chances at re-election, or that coveted chairman-emeritus spot on some tax-money-laundering “non-profit” foundation, he would have done so, and the Constitution, “quote-Conservatives-unquote,”  and his country could be damned.

Any reasoned comparison between McCain and Romney will go in favor of Romney, but, who cares?  Romney isn’t running against McCain. McCain isn’t running, Gingrich isn’t running, Bachmann isn’t running, Cain isn’t running, and Santorum isn’t running.

Ron Paul is running, as always. But it doesn’t matter, because he is a reptile with not more than one view or belief in a hundred in common with me, so he might as well not be running. Ron Paul zealots did their best to steal the nomination, and failed spectacularly. It was a pratfall-on-a-banana-peel, slapstick failure – one that would embarrass into silence and self-imposed obscurity anyone capable of embarrassment.

I now know what another four years of Obama would bring, and I see voting for him, not voting, or voting for a write-in or third-party candidate as an absolute betrayal of my country.

With the huge effort at vote fraud Obama and his troops will undertake, and have already undertaken, including registering illegal aliens, registering dead and non-existent voters, busing union stooges from one polling place to another to vote multiple times, forging and mass-producing fraudulent absentee and early ballots, the living, legitimate voters may be outnumbered. (That isn’t hyperbole. In more than one precinct in 2008, actual votes cast outnumbered registered voters significantly. Vote fraud is a Democrat industry. Fraudulent votes are the one commodity they produce on a regular basis.)

I will be casting my one, legal vote for Romney.

Arithmetic is relentlessly non-ideological, and absolutely dispassionate. My one, legal vote for Romney will require two votes for Obama from the dead, and/or cartoon characters, and/or union thugs, and/or incarcerated felons, and/or illegal aliens, to put him back in the lead.

One vote is all I have, and I’ll be damned (with apologies to my friends who think I will be jeopardizing my soul) if I’ll give Obama even the slightest advantage by wasting it.

It’s About Time for a Reichstag Fire

July 10, 2012

The Reichstag burns, and Hitler decides “no crisis should go to waste.”

One of several reasons I am frequently annoyed with Glenn Beck, is his obsessive penchant for admonishing his listeners to disavow violence, utterly and unconditionally.

While I think I understand his motivation – to avoid giving the Obama administration any pretext to violence to “restore order” – I tire of the implication in Beck’s admonitions that his position is morally superior to that of ordinary citizens who acknowledge a rational limit to their willingness to submit to coercion from Muslims, Occupiers, union thugs or any other pressure group used by the Left as a weapon against us. .

It was obviously very important to Beck to discourage his listeners from any impulse to gather up the “pitchforks and torches” and march up to the Frankenstein castle, demanding that the authorities hand over the monster. I excused that the first few times, but after a few dozen, I started to resent the implication that I was some volatile, redneck Timothy-McVeigh-type who was a hair’s breadth from taking up arms in violent insurrection

I have not been recruited into revolutionary violence by Glenn Beck, McVeigh, or anyone else. I do not feel on the verge of becoming a serial killer, a guerrilla, a bandito, or a freedom fighter, toting RPGs and EIDs.

Thanks for caring, though, Glenn.

I do not, however, ignore the possibility that the Obama regime may metastasize on very short notice from a wanna-be socialist utopia to an iron-fisted, Communist dictatorship.

The magnificent socialist utopian experiments of the 1900s killed more people and wasted more wealth and resources in a single century than all the socio-political systems tried in all the rest of recorded history (with the possible exception of the first thousand years of political Islam – accurate stats on that are hard to come by). There is no reason to believe that this latest bunch of unaccountable, self-righteous, arrogant ideologues would do any less damage than their failed predecessors.

That would not keep them from trying, of course.

But, really, what makes anyone think an armed uprising among some serious believers on the Right would be necessary to provide the pretext for an Obama dictatorship? Have you not read about the Reichstag Fire?

One man could do it.

A lone Dutchman, Marinus van der Lubbe, was caught at the scene of the Reichstag fire, confessed, and described in detail his procedure for spreading fire in the old structure. British intelligence agent Denis Sefton Delmer,  wrote that he was on the scene at that fire in 1933. He reports reports his conclusion that van der Lubbe was plausibly the lone arsonist responsible for the destruction of the historic German parliament building. Delmer says senior fire investigators reenacted the attack following van der Lubber’s detailed account, and found that one man could have quite easily done the deed. Other evidence gathered after the fire tended to support the “lone arsonist” theory.

The truth became less and less important, even before the smoke cleared. The Nazis pounced on the event to accuse the Communists of committing the attack as the signal to begin a concerted, premeditated terror campaign, including “dynamiting, incendiarism and mass murder” all over the country.

The Soviet Communists fabricated and spread legends to convince the public that in the immediate aftermath of the fire, the building had been found to be crawling with Nazi Stormtroopers, who were supposed to have spread the fire so quickly, and, implausibly, hung around to watch it burn. Delmer, under his cover as a reporter in that period before open conflict between Britain and Germany, asserts that he entered the building in the wake of Hitler and his entourage as soon as the fire was under control, and that there were no Stormtroopers in evidence.

None of the Communists’ efforts to capitalize on the event  mattered, either, because Hitler and Goering, his adroit propaganda minister, successfully used the event to persuade the Germans to give the Nazis extraordinary authority over them — only for the duration of the emergency, of course – which his party used to round up the Communists and any other opposing political leadership, and to curtail free speech and opposition political activity nation-wide.

Hitler only had to invoke the Germans’ historic animosity toward Russia to justify his “conclusion” that the Soviet Communist political apparatus was on the verge of attempting a coup d’état. That van der Lubbe was a different brand of Communist – one with lasting hostility toward the Soviets – mattered not at all. The Germans reacted by allowing Hitler to stage his own coup d’état, without firing a shot. The Third Reich, and the War of Revenge, The Great Patriotic War, or World War II — depending on the version of history by which you choose to describe it – followed shortly.

History, as is often repeated, has a way of repeating itself. If the history presented by Mr. Delmer is accurate, one man, a small cadre, a group of government agents or, say, some “community organizers” could light the American Reichstag Fire, if the benefits seem to outweigh the risks, or – just for a bit of evil fun. The key factor in the succession of events isn’t the exact nature of the initial act, but the reaction to it by authority, and the willingness of the media to question or swallow the “official” explanation that best fits the political agenda.

With people such as Rahm Emanuel in positions of influence in the Obama White House, it’s unlikely that Emanuel’s maxim that, “[y]ou never want a serious crisis to go to waste” would be ignored for long.

All it takes is a crisis – real, imagined or staged. Is our Reichstag Fire smoldering at this moment?

Does it even have to be a “man-made disaster? Nope. How about a natural one that affects most of the country, like a New Madrid earthquake that crumbles every bridge over the Mississippi, or a huge solar flare that wipes out the national electrical infrastructure? Neither event would be unprecedented. Nature has served this continent both dishes before.

And, if nature won’t step up and provide a “serious crisis,” how about the Iranians, with their “peaceful” nuclear power, that, for some reason, requires the parallel development of Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs)? Those wacky, nuclear North Koreans can’t be counted out, either.

If so, then what?

Glenn, Rush and Sean will disappear from the airwaves, and we “sick, twisted freaks” will be on our own.

The Obama goons will exert whatever power they have, and the competing factions among them (Brotherhood Muslims vs. Communists vs. Old Left vs. Black Muslims vs. foreign agents and sleeper cells, etc…) will jump at the chance to flex their muscles, jockeying for position, with one eye on owning the ruins when the smoke clears.

The First Tuesday after the First Monday in November is right around the corner.  Will we have an election?

It forces one to think the unthinkable, doesn’t it?

A Kinder, Gentler Martial Law

May 29, 2012
A kindler, gentler martial Law

GOP senators have appealed to President Obama to soften the impact of martial law imposed before the national election.

Republican Senators Offer Alternative Plan for Martial Law

(Washington, October 29th, 2012)

In the wake of President Obama’s declaration of martial law last week, just weeks before the 2012 general election, moderate Senate Republicans have proposed some alternatives to the President’s executive orders authorizing indefinite detention without trial and civil asset forfeiture.

The measures were described as “draconian” by former talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who has not been heard from in several days. Senate Republicans Olympia Snow, John  McCain and minority leader Mitch McConnell came forward today with what they call “a reasonable alternative” to the emergency measures. They say they have met with Senators Harry Reid and Dick Durbin to negotiate the release on recognizance of several Republican senators, congressmen, and state governors, all of whom had been “very critical” of the emergency measures.

Senate Majority Leader McConnell spoke for the group:

“In this time of crisis, we must reach across the aisle to our colleagues and come to some sort of compromise on these executive orders. While we appreciate the urgency and severity of the situation that faces the President, we believe it is possible to deal with our unfortunate circumstances with a more moderate, measured approach.”

“We propose to allow those thousands of Americans being held incommunicado and without legal representation or charges being filed, to be released on their own recognizance from the detention camps around the country, after signing an agreement not to participate in political activity.

“They should be allowed to return to their homes, if they have not been demolished or re-assigned to needy immigrant families. They should wear a GPS-enabled house arrest ankle bracelet and keep authorities advised of their whereabouts at all times.

“Of course, we would expect the President’s National Stability Police Force to continue to hold anyone who is a real security threat, but we expect that such detainees would be tried and convicted or released within a reasonable period.”

Saying they were trying to reach missing Congressional colleagues to get a consensus in support of the compromise, McConnell expects to be allowed to meet with the President’s chief of staff to present the proposal “within the next few weeks.”

NEWTRALIZING OBAMA

February 23, 2012

The cement is still wet enough to scratch my initials in, but it’s curing around my vote for Newt, March 6th.

Best Candidate:

We need a thick-skinned, sharp-toothed junkyard dog to beat the Obama/Media-Pimp/Soros/KGB/Muslim-Brotherhood complex.

Romney is such a gone-over marketing package that I see him as more package than product. Yes, he seems conservative on some issues — maybe even most — but he is SO polished and marketing-driven that I don’t think he will have a hard enough edge in debates with Obama and surrogates, and in ambush interviews with the Obamedia to keep conservatives interested and motivated, and to make a bold contrast between himself and Obama.

Santorum is a little too Mister Rogers for me, and, like Romney, he doesn’t appear to be capable of confronting Obama aggressively, and establishing the stark contrast that will make softer 2008 Obama voters think, “I voted for ‘change,’ not for ‘destruction’, and not for turning this country into a phony-baloney, socialist utopia. And that doesn’t make me a racist, it makes me willing to admit a mistake, and CORRECT IT.” 

There is too a strong vein of McCain-style, smiley-face milquetoast in him, and it can come out at the worst possible moment (think Arlen Specter), letting ObamaCo make him look flatter than stale beer.

Ron Paul may be capable of the junkyard dog thing, but how can anyone be comfortable with the appallingly-large component of wackoid, hate-spewing, racist loons who are stuck to him? Most of them have more in common with Louis Farrakhan than with me.

He can’t win the election, because his foaming-at-the-mouth acolytes will alienate everyone but themselves from him, and then they will turn on each other, leaving a battered few to show up at the polls… probably on Wednesday, after they run out of pot.

If a man is known by the company he keeps, Paul is a guy who is comfortable with a live grenade rolling around in the back of his pickup truck — probably Obama’s dream opponent.

Gingrich has shown repeatedly, in the 327 Republican debates, and in multiple ambush “interviews” that he can stand up under tremendous pressure and articulate conservative principles both rationally and persuasively, even in the face of the most intense, lying, hate-filed attacks Obama and his jackals can muster. He can punch, but most importantly, he can counter-punch, hard — and that is critical.

Newt’s so-called “baggage” is all out there, and none of it matters up against the Obama baggage (make that a Chinese mega-freighter full of shipping containers dripping toxic waste) already in the public record, AND the many, as-yet-undisclosed skeletons in Obama’s closet, many of which will spill out by Fall, despite the Obamedia’s best efforts.  If Newt’s campaign goes after Obama as it should and could, the baggage will all belong to Barack.

Best President:

None of the Final Four will make an ideal, constitutionally-sound president. If that’s what you’re looking for, forget it. Now, back to reality:

Santorum and Romney are in a mushy tie, as far as being trustworthy in the Big Chair. Either of them seems capable of being persuaded to do outrageous things in “the best interest of the majority (read, “Romneycare”, and “Arlen Specter”, as above), or in some Marxist-theology-tainted religious appeal, even if those things are explicitly unconstitutional and wrong — as long as they have the right emotional hooks.

Ron Paul is a non-starter. What does his acceptance of the support of his bizarre fan base say about Paul’s judgment? Nothing that makes me want him in the White House.

Add to that, he is clearly, fatally, 180-degrees wrong about Israel and foreign policy, and the threat of Islam. That he sticks with those insane, immoral positions is all the evidence I need that he has a deep character flaw, defective judgment,  and/or a tenuous grip on reality.

Okay, Least-Bad President:

Any of them would require a continuous prod with a flaming, sharp stick, to move them toward constitutional government and away from New Deal tyranny.  I feel about 1.5% better turning my back on Newt for as long as two minutes at a time. Mitt and Rick, not for a second. Either of them could be swayed by a good sales pitch, even if intrinsically wrong, if the emotional appeal were strong enough. Paul? I shudder to think of him loose in the Commander-in-Chief’s chair, spinning and squealing, without adult supervision.

My instinct is that Newt has a hard enough core to send any pack of lobbyist jackals dressed as a sales team packing, and feeling as if they had just had their bark peeled.  I can’t say that about any of the others.

Newt is my guy, by default — at this second.

CPR for America — ABC!

January 25, 2012

Here is where we are:

We walk into the room, and find our country, the United States of America, down on the floor, unconscious, not breathing, and with no pulse. Death is imminent.

Triage is in order. Treat the immediately life-threatening conditions first. Then fix the underlying problems.

The mnemonic used in CPR training, “ABC” (Airway, Breathing, Circulation), focuses on the order of importance of things in first-responder emergency care. Rescue breathing, for example, can’t happen without an open airway.

Circulation, including cardiac compressions and stopping bleeding, is irrelevant if there are no airway and breathing  to get  oxygen into the blood.

Get the airway open, deliver some breaths if needed, and then do cardiac compressions, if needed.  After the ABCs are taken care of, tend to the bleeding.

Fractures, pain control, swelling, infection, and other, important, but less urgent conditions come later. They cannot be neglected, but they come after ABC.

Same with our country.

Yes, we need a conservative president, and the more conservative, the better. However, any president who is not an America-hating, hard-core leftist,  is a life-saving improvement over Barack Obama. He has our national airway blocked. He will kill our country in another four year term.

Elect a president who will fire the “czars,” sequester the insane spending on pointless, destructive bureaucratic regulations, and take the government’s choking grip off the economy’s airway.

Airway open.

Get the air moving in the lungs. Tell Congress to repeal the stupid laws that gave these bureaucracies imperial power over Americans. Make the Justice Department administer justice, and not the political whims of the White House.

Breathing established.

Elect succeeding generations of strict constitutionalists to the House and Senate, so that any president who wants to rule like a king is hogtied and impotent, and impeached and removed, if necessary. Federal judges who want to write law from the bench will be returned by a Constitutionally responsible Congress to the private sector, or to prison, if they have done wrong in office.

Stem the government’s endless appetite for power and property by stopping it from doing the endless things it has no business doing. Abolish unconstitutional agencies, and fire their employees.

Circulation restored, and bleeding stopped.

Then, fix the deeply-rooted, abusive practices of a government that have had generations to fester and swell.

This process will take several election cycles, but it can work, if we don’t turn our backs on politics after the next election.

A, B, and C. Each is vital, but none is enough, without the others.

The best president in history is only a temporary fix, without a Congress and a judicial branch that will do their constitutional jobs.

None of this can happen without an electorate that is educated on the founding documents, and involved for the long haul — not just for 2012, but for every election from now on, and for every day in between.

We may put off our country’s imminent death, but we will have done nothing to forestall its progressive, degenerative decline into third-world, bankrupt, crippled irrelevancy — and death is still the ultimate result.

ABC.

A presidential election is a beginning, but it is just a beginning. It’s not a long-term job; it’s a never-ending job, and it’s the voters that have to do it.

First, ABC.

“Legalize it”? Maybe It’s Time.

October 18, 2011

Dried marijuana "bud," Courtesy of Wikipedia. NOT my photo! ("Eees no' mine!!")

Let’s just say I know enough about smoking marijuana (having been college-aged in the late 60’s) to know how apt is the term “wasted” in that context… but let’s also say that I could have passed a random, pop drug test any time over the last forty years, and I could do so at right this moment.

While I am not chomping at the bit for the legal right to hit the pot store on the way home from WalMart, it is hard NOT to see the cost of the “war on drugs” on our Constitutional rights. And, no, you don’t have to be a Paulistinian, or even a classical Libertarian to see it.

“]”]”

Would you trust your rights to "Good" Attorneys General -- Ashcroft (L) and Thornburgh (R)

”]”]”]”]If we give government the power to knock down doors without first serving a warrant, and to seize private property without due process or even criminal charges (among a host of abuses justified by the “War on Drugs,” not to mention the “War on Terror”), we are giving that power not just to a John Ashcroft or a Dick Thornburgh; we’re giving it to a Janet Reno and an Eric Holder. That’s not just stupid; it’s reckless and destructive.

What have we given up from the Bill of Rights, just to ignore the inherent evil of no-knock warrants and civil asset forfeiture? If a government acting in our best interests can abuse these procedures, what can a government that holds us in contempt do with them?

Legalizing marijuana would break away the current markets for marijuana from their very close relationship with the markets for heroin, cocaine, meth, hot guns, stolen property, prostitution, human and drug smuggling, terrorism, etc., draining tens or hundreds of millions of dollars from that income stream, and diverting it into taxable income streams. It would also unclog thousands of slots on pending court case calendars and empty prison and jail cells of people who otherwise wouldn’t be there, making room for the people who really should be locked up.

The statists graciously accept all our offers to surrender our rights for alleged safety or other benefits, regardless of the “war” allegedly being fought — drugs, poverty, terrorism, income inequality…

They know from history that such rights, once surrendered, are seldom restored, except by force and the spilling of lots of blood. At some point, it will be too late to get them back without that terrible cost.

We’re not there just yet, but we’re awfully close.

With (Drunk Driving) Friends Like These, Gun Rights Advocates Don’t Need Enemies

October 14, 2011

Curry Todd's mug shot, which will be used by gun control advocates from now on as a poster for their cause. Thanks, Curry. Oh, and thanks for driving drunk, too.

Sometimes you just want to slap yourself on the forehead and ask, “WHAT WAS I THINKING?

Tennessee state representative Curry Todd should have a real sore forehead by now, having embarrassed Tennessee gun rights advocates by being arrested for driving drunk.  But wait! There’s more! He had a holstered .38 Special in the car with him. But, wait! There’s even more!

Curry Todd was the “driving” force behind the new state law that removed the prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon WITH A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT into a bar or restaurant where alcohol is served. And yes, Todd was also charged with the possession of a firearm while intoxicated.

You can be sure the irony of a gun-rights advocate being arrested for a gun law violation has not escaped notice among the foaming-at-the-mouth gun-haters. Take some anti-nausea medicine and read The Tennessean online, and the comments about the related stories, if you want to see anti-gun Schadenfreude on full display.

But, something is missing in all this coverage. Where is the outrage against a drunk driver?

While having a gun in the car when he was driving drunk was illegal and utterly stupid, there is nothing to indicate the firearm ever left the car, that it ever left the holster, that it was ever pointed at anyone or anything — and certainly — no evidence that it was ever used to harm anyone.

What could much more easily have resulted in tragedy that night was not the gun.

Forgive me if I sound a little strident about this, but the deadliest weapon in this story wasn’t IN the car; it WAS the car.  Thousands of pounds of steel that could have easily killed a whole crowd was being operated by a guy who was drunk, according to the police report. And, if you doubt the police report, check the mug shot, above. What is it about driving drunk that is not at least as repugnant to people on either side of the Second Amendment issue as the fact that a firearm was present?

Why do I seem strident about anybody driving drunk? It’s personal. Somebody very close to me was killed by a drunk driver, and it’s not something one forgets.

On June 6, 1994 (yes, the 50th anniversary of D-Day), I got a hysterical call from my mother-in-law, telling me between sobs that my 19-year-old nephew — her oldest grandson, and my wife’s oldest nephew — James Robert Anemone, had been killed, along with his 17-year-old serious girlfriend, by a drunk driver. It’s another story entirely, but James was as close as I have ever come to having a son, and I was as close as he would ever come to having a father.

James and his girl were both sober. The drunk was a minor with a history of driving drunk and public intoxication charges, and he was drunk enough that evening that his blood alcohol level would have put a non-drinker into a coma. But this guy was used to being drunk, and he was used to driving drunk and getting away with it — until he crossed the center line and hit two innocent people head-on,  and killed them. With his car.

Curry Todd’s gun was never a danger to anyone, but his car and his drunken state were a danger to everyone unfortunate enough to share the road with him.  Guns are used  hundreds of thousands or millions of times a year to prevent crimes, but I know of no reports of drunks using their cars to prevent a crime; and tens of thousands of deaths each year result from drunk driving.

Which will get more attention from the “mainstream” press in the Curry Todd incident — the gun, or the car piloted by the guy in the mug shot, above?

Now, what do gun rights advocates do about this ugly situation?

Do we all crawl into a cave and abandon the cause of gun rights? Not just NO, but, HELL NO. We can do what I am doing , here — we can offer Curry Todd the opportunity to redeem himself somewhat in our eyes by offering his resignation from the legislature.  At the very, very least, he should humble himself before the public with a sincere, deeply-felt apology, and a hard commitment to dealing with his alcoholism.

And, he needs to promise his constituents, his colleagues, his family, and methat he will never get behind the wheel drunk again.

Guns and Firewater — The Magical Bloodbath That Didn’t Happen

August 16, 2011

The Kinman Bar, courtesy of Wikipedia. What Leftist "Journalists" picture when they think about letting concealed carry permit holders carry into places that serve alcohol.

As Old Lodge Skins said in the classic movie, Little Big Man, “Sometimes the magic works, and sometimes it doesn’t.”

Remember those blood-soaked gunfights in places that sell alcohol, when Tennessee allowed us permit holders to carry concealed into them? You don’t? Perhaps that’s because they didn’t happen.

When Tennessee legislated to allow concealed carry holders to carry into places that sell alcohol, The Tennessean promised us that there would be a bloodbath because of voodoo. Yes, voodoo. The presence of two, inanimate objects in the same space — alcohol and firearms — was magically supposed to trigger carnage and wholesale death.

While Tennessean “journalists” may think alcohol is OK, we know that 99% of them find firearms to be inherently evil. Since we also know that these same “journalists” believe in magic, we are not surprised that they imbue inanimate objects with magical power.

We heard plenty about the “pouring gasoline on a fire” outcome that was clearly ahead, when we allowed law-abiding gun owners to carry their evil objects into public places. So, where are the stacks of reports of gun violence since the law passed?

Well, of course, not being dependent on magical thinking allowed the rest of us to understand that the predicted mass killing by firearm was no more likely before the law went into effect than after. As has already happened in dozens of other states, nothing new happened.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=334117

Guns are NOT inherently evil.

Alcohol is NOT inherently evil.

Objects are NOT inherently evil.

BEHAVIOR may certainly be evil (though it may be impossible for Tennessean “journalists” to wrap their tiny minds around that), but inanimate objects are… inanimate objects.

Irrational fear of firearms is… irrational.

Thanks for letting me clear this up. The “journalists” at The Tennessean may now resume their magical thinking.

It’s NOT the ECONOMY, STUPID! It’s the FREEDOM!

July 5, 2011

It's NOT THE ECONOMY!

Why does any public discussion of our stumbling, staggering, bleeding economy dissolve into accounting-speak — deficits, debt, bonds, seasonally-adjusted unemployment figures, tax deductions, accelerated depreciation, corporate tax loopholes, taxing the rich, oil-depletion allowances, big oil, big tobacco, jobs training, college tuition, blah, blah, blah, ZZZZZ?

BECAUSE IT’S SUPPOSED TO. Whether it’s the baffled and hackneyed vice president or the Decepticon-in-Chief telling us we need to blame some fictional Monopoly-man villain, or the super-caffeinated Congressman Paul Ryan speed-talking to us about the his budget plan, we are soon lulled into a haze of indifference by the “hate-the-rich” blather, or the “dismal science” jargon.

This is by design. The Left blames the “rich,” and the Right blames the Left. Neither side in the argument will dare a passing glance at the real issue behind all the class-warfare rhetoric and financial minutiae – the metastatic intrusion of government into every aspect of our lives, consuming our freedoms and transforming our country from a beacon of freedom into an addled, paralyzed, stupid, Euro-socialist dinosaur.

In short, the real issue is the loss of freedom.

When a whole country tries to move back into its parents’ basement, somebody has to pick up the tab, and here we are. A nanny-state is an ever-expanding expense, and the trade of freedom for an illusion of security always, always, always has the same result. The number of people willing to make that trade exceeds the number of those who refuse, and, as Margaret Thatcher famously said, “…sooner or later, you run out of other peoples’ money.”

Then, one of a small number of things happens. One has happened so often that no one should be surprised, but some always are: mass murder and mass graves.

In the Twentieth Century,  socialism — under its two major brand names, Communism and Nazism — took off its mask of compassion and equality of result, and showed the naked face of absolute dictatorship. It tried to reduce its operating costs and remove inconvenient political opposition by killing a hundred million or more human beings.

It never works, but don’t look for this cost-cutting measure to be abandoned permanently. Scrape the socially-acceptable, compassionate-statist veneer off of any socialist, and the dictatorial, mass murderer is always there, waiting for its moment in the sun.

Another approach is by simply printing “money.”  This doesn’t work either, as the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe have already proven, as if proof were necessary. Sooner or later, the rest of the world catches on that the “full faith and credit” of the officially-sanctioned counterfeiting ring is meaningless.

No matter how many zeroes the print shop adds to the bill denominations, they still buy less and less, and finally, they are worth more as paper than as currency. This is but another, intermediate step to the murderous dictatorship, or to chaos and destruction.

The rarest but most blessed outcome is an awakening of the people to the reality that they are better off trusting themselves and leaving themselves to their own devices and to the mercy of their friends and relatives, than to trust any government to provide for them.

Of course, this sort of awakening is also likely to be bloody, because the beneficiaries of “other peoples’ money,” and the people who maintain their positions of privilege and power by handing it out, do not often give up their free rides voluntarily.

Some of the calcified and impoverished European socialist states are now experiencing a tentative rebirth of freedom; they have hit the financial wall, and can no longer ignore the inevitable. The trade of freedom for security always ends the same — security and freedom both expire. Whether these states, currently teetering on the razor-edge between freedom and slavery, will fall toward freedom, or away from it, it is still too early to tell.

Which way our own, uniquely-blessed country will fall, will be largely determined in the next few months.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the issue, not the economy. Will we choose freedom, as our forefathers did over 235 years ago, or slavery? The economy is an effect, not a cause. The economy will heal if we choose freedom.

If we choose slavery, we will get the economy we deserve.