Open carry laws work (updated)

[Update] When I initially posted this, I missed a closing tag which prevented everything after the blockquote from showing up. I fixed it so now there’s more content, it’s not that I added the additional content later, I just fixed the tag so that what was there is now visible. My bad [/update]

It’s rare that an anti-freedom advocate so clearly articulates why they oppose free people being properly equipped to defend themselves, but a “Code Pink” organizer in Cleveland this week accidentally did so:

McCracken says she’s not sure why relatively few people showed up to protest in Cleveland, but she believes many were scared off by Ohio’s open carry laws, which allow people to carry firearms

You see…they know that if we commoners are “allowed” to defend ourselves against assault and injury, they have no power to bully people, harangue people and shut down free speech. In other words, laws that liberalize the ability of free people to be properly equipped to defend themselves against tyranny (governmental or non-governmental) ensure that freedom reigns supreme and prevents those tyrants from employing their oppressive tactics.

This is, of course, related to a couple of other points I and other gun rights activists have raised from time to time:

1. If gun owners were really as dangerous and prone to violence as anti-gunners accuse us of, there wouldn’t be any anti-gunners left by now.

2. Every time I’ve ever been involved in a public demonstration, meeting or other event that pitted pro-gun activists against anti-gun activists, it was ALWAYS the anti-gunners who acted angry, tried to shout down opponents, got in people’s faces and just acted violent in general. The pro-gun activists were always respectful of the oppositions speakers, calm, level headed and polite.

3. Which raises one of the possibilities as to why anti-gunners are so virulently anti-gun: they know good and well that they are not personally emotionally stable enough to even trust themselves with the tools of self-defense. They project that untrustworthiness and instability onto everyone else; thus assuming that no one should be afforded those rights.

4. And finally, it’s not about the guns, it’s about the control.

Attack in Dallas

I’ve got a couple of thoughts about the Dallas attack…fair warning, none of them are particularly “politically correct”.

I do feel sad for the families of the slain officers and hope for the rapid recovery of those wounded. There’s a good chance that those cops were good, hard working and diligent public servants.

But they were a part of a larger community and that leads me to my first thought:

You reap what you sow.

The Police, as a community, has been fostering an “us vs them” mentality for many years. They openly consider themselves “warriors” and place more value on “getting home safe” at the end of the shift than protecting the public or doing their jobs.

When you treat the general public as the enemy and publicly declare that occasionally killing innocents is an acceptable outcome when compared with officer safety, you are no longer a police force, you are an occupying military.

It should come as no surprise when some of the people you view as the enemy decides to view you in the same way.

“You reap what you sow” also applies to the Black Lives Matter people.

Details are still sketchy and we have no inkling of the motivations of the attackers, but considering that they killed none of the protesters and only cops, I’d have to say it’s a safe assumption that they were at minimum ambivalent toward the movement and were likely supporters of it.

Many of the BLM people, who have been actively calling for attacks on police and shouting down, harassing and intimidating anyone who had the audacity to counter with “all lives matter”, are now decrying the attacks and claiming that they never really MEANT all those times they chanted about killing cops.

Sorry, but this is what you’ve been begging for for over a year, acting all surprised now when you get it seems a bit disingenuous to me (to put it lightly).

And, of course, the inevitable blood dancing has already begun. Those who eagerly await any bloodshed they can use as a rationalization for advancing their agenda of control have already started doing so. We don’t even know who the attackers were yet, let alone how they got their guns, and Obama is already blaming the shooting on “easy access to guns”.

My sincere belief about this is that it’s been a long time coming and it’s going to get A LOT worse. The government has been abusing the people for way too long and way too many are seriously pissed off about it. With the Hillary fiasco demonstrating unequivocally that the laws are only for “little people” and that only we will be held accountable for our actions, while the “elite” can pretty much do whatever the heck they want with impunity, it’s only going to get worse.

And, in the face of rising unrest and discontent, they want to relieve us of the most effective tools we have available to defend ourselves against the coming mayhem?

I think not. In fact, that would be the quickest and most sure way of adding more recruits to the ranks of those ready to strike out against those who would try to control us.

Unless that’s the plan. I’m no conspiracy nut, but it sure would be convenient for Obama for things to go to hell in a handbasket over the next few months, thereby “requiring” him to declare martial law and “temporarily postpone” the upcoming elections…you know…for the public’s safety and all that.

At any rate, it doesn’t take a crystal ball to foresee what’s coming. Gun rights activists and patriots had better be prepared because the onslaught against our rights is about to reach a whole new level.

Grandstanding Democrats

As you’ve probably heard, the house democrats are holding a “sit-in” to protest the fact that Republicans won’t allow them to violate US citizens rights without the due process promised by the Constitution.

I get that most people who would visit this blog realize this already, but just in case I get any liberal readers stumbling across my humble scribblings, let me explain something that you won’t read in the liberal media.

What’s missing from the CNN report linked above (and pretty much any other main stream media report on the situation) is that the Senate Republicans offered a compromise bill (you know…compromise…that thing that anti-gunners always accuse our side of refusing to do).

That compromise bill would have blocked sales of firearms to people on the terrorist watch list, but would require the government to then “put up or shut up” by conducting an investigation and then proving to a judge that they have sufficient evidence of terrorist activity to warrant the block.

So, “terrorists” on the watch lists would be prevented from walking into a gun store and buying a gun, but the rights of people who may be on the watch list without justification (like, say, Ted Kennedy, or people with common names like Gary Smith, Robert Johnson, and John Williams) would have been protected.

The Democrats, eager to protect the lives of Americans by making it harder for terrorist to obtain firearms, jumped all over this bill and it passed the Senate right?


The Democrats filibustered the bill, killing it.

And now they’re complaining because the Republicans won’t bring gun control bills up for a vote in the house?

It’s a sham. They don’t want this problem “solved”. If legislation is passed, they don’t have the issue to harp on all the way up until the election in November. Any bill that comes up for a vote will have poison pill amendment after poison pill amendment attached to it to ensure that it could never pass.

To Democrats, as with poverty, the “wealth gap”, unemployment, etc, if the problem is solved, they lose a large part of their reason for being. They don’t want solutions, they want crises to exploit. They want anger to direct toward their enemies. They want us at each other’s throats because then we’re not at THEIR throats.

And they’re laughing all the way to the bank.

And the beat goes on…

Why do so many people who are so blissfully and intentionally ignorant about the uses, purposes and capabilities of guns insist upon trying to tell us what kinds of guns we “need” and what kinds are just “too much gun”?

First, she damns with faint praise “The NRA’s terror watch list suggestion” without ever mentioning what it actually is.

She links to an NRA-ILA release that basically reiterates the stand the NRA has taken on terror watch lists for quite a long time and then tries to imply that it’s a new policy in response to the Orlando shooting.

Basically, the NRA’s position is that using terror watch lists to TEMPORARILY halt a sale of a firearm would be OK, as long as there is due process…meaning there is an investigation and if the accused turns out to actually BE a terrorist, they should be prosecuted. On the other hand, if the investigation turns up nothing, the gun sale should be processed.

Of course this is not enough for the anti-gunners…it “doesn’t go far enough”. Why? Because the anti-gunners support violating the rights of US citizens wholesale. Damn due process, damn the constitution, damn the consequences, they want our guns.

Then the author proceeds to the obligatory stage of her post and demonstrates unequivocally that she knows nothing about the subject upon which she feels she should have the final say.

The AR-15 — the common name for similar, Colt-produced M16s for civilians, or the Sig Sauer MCX rifle, which was the actual weapon used in the Orlando shooting — can shoot about 40 rounds per second. Hunters can take out grizzly bears with two rounds.

40 rounds per second: hmm…basic math is HARD…let’s see…40 rounds per second times 60 seconds per minute: that’s 2400 rounds per minute. Here’s a video of an MG-42, which fires at a rate of 1200 to 1500 rounds per minute…which, by the way, is considered a high rate of fire for a single barreled machine gun:

What do you think? Can you pull a trigger twice that fast? (MG-42 is fully automatic…keeps shooting repeatedly as long as you hold the trigger down, an AR-15 is semi-automatic…fires once for each trigger pull).

The link she provides to demonstrate that, using an AR-15, “hunters can take out grizzly bears with two rounds” demonstrates no such thing.

It’s a field and stream forum thread where someone asks how many shots it takes to take down a bear. No mention of the AR-15 or .223…although one responder pointed out that it only takes a single .22 round to avoid a bear attack…just shoot your companion in the ankle and run…but I digress.

Of course, toward the end of her ignorant nonsensical post, she makes the inevitable plea: “It seems at least worth talking about”…but no comments are allowed on the site the article is posted to.

Apparently her idea of “talking about” means she gets to spout whatever vacuous nonsense pops into her silly head, but no one else is allowed to respond.

As usual.

Liberals smacked in the face by reality

A more descriptive illustration of why socialism does not, can not and will not ever work would be hard to find:

Grant Moran, 29, also quit, saying the new pay-scale was disconcerting

“Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the same as me,” he told the paper. “It shackles high performers to less motivated team members.”

Hmm…high performers quit working when they perceive that additional effort does not result in additional rewards. Who could have possibly predicted that?

The entire liberal mindset is predicated on the denial of basic human nature.

Just to recap how things work in the real world where most of us reside:

When actions or behaviors are rewarded, you get more of those actions or behaviors.
When actions or behaviors are punished, you get less of those actions or behaviors.

So when poor decisions, ineptitude and laziness are rewarded, guess what happens to those traits?
When good decisions, competence and hard work are punished guess what happens to those?

This isn’t rocket surgery here folks, but your basic liberal can sure find inventive ways to screw up what any average 8 year old could explain (prior to having the common sense indoctrinated out of them at government schools).

Gays, Genes and circular logic

I’m no scientist, but I think I have at least a passing familiarity with how science works.

Supposedly someone discovered a “gay gene”. A gene that supposedly causes homosexual tendencies in men. Yes…yes…I know that all these “discoveries” have been debunked and there are scores of other studies that disprove the idea of a “gay gene” but bear with me.

So, to discover this “gay gene” one would assume that they used standard scientific practice. They compared the genes of gay men against the genes of straight men and found a gene that is prevalent enough in one set and not in the other to declare that this must be the “gay gene”.

With me so far?

OK…So they discover this “gay gene” be determining that gays have it and straights don’t by studying some number of gay men and straight men and controlling for other factors.

But today, in the Drudge Report (which I’m beginning to get a bit tired of. He constantly suckers me into clicking on a story only to discover that the story itself has little bearing on the sensationalist headline he gave it, but that’s beside the point) I found a link to this story:

Around half of all people, including straight men and women, could carry “gay genes”, meaning that they continue to be passed down the generations despite the tendency of homosexuals not to have children, new research suggests.


So, they discover a gene that is predominantly present in gays, which causes them to declare it the “gay gene”, but then discover that it is present in about half the population regardless of their sexual orientation?

And their takeaway from this is that THIS is why the gay gene doesn’t die out through natural selection?

Grasping at straws here a bit I’d say.

How about this possibility: If you found the gene in half the population, straight included, then just perhaps your original contention that this is the “gay gene” has just been disproven by your own research.

Nah…can’t be that. We’ve got an agenda to push.

Respecting the Constitution is “going off the rails”

At least according to “one senior member of congress”:

[There is] a growing certainty that President Obama is planning to enact amnesty by executive fiat, blowing up the chances of legislation for the rest of his presidency.

“It’s going to happen. He’s getting a lot of pressure, and he’s already told some people he’s going to. He’s told a bunch of people. I think he will. I think he has to,” said one senior member of Congress who asked that his name not be used.

“I’m hearing that he will do it by August. When that happens, it’s poof! The right will go off the rails, just because it’s unconstitutional — and they’ll be right about that stuff. They’ll fly off the rails, which will then get the Democrats [to close ranks]. And then it’s a presidential election. That’s coming, and as soon as that happens, it’s over,” the lawmaker said. [Emphasis Added – ed]

Um…I’m sorry…I prefer to think that the President of the United States, in direct violation of his oath of office, legislating by fiat, is what should be called “off the rails”, not any potential reaction by Republicans.

If he actually does this and ISN’T impeached…that’s what I would say is the sign that “it’s over”.

Actually, it would only be another sign among many that it’s already over. Constitutional government in this country is over. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” in this country is over. The rule of law in this country is over.

This is why I haven’t been blogging lately. I really don’t think anyone is very interested in the daily happenings of my life and everything else is too depressing to blog about.

The United States of America as created by our founders is dead. I am no longer flying a US flag in front of my house as I have done for most of my adult life. The flag is really just a piece of cloth. The meaning is in what it used to represent. What it used to represent is gone. Done. Dead.

So much for our little experiment in self-governance. I think the founders probably realized it was doomed to failure from the start, but had to at least give it a try.

There is a large minority of people who want nothing more than to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. These people tend to stay out of other’s business and expect the same courtesy in return.

There is a very small minority of people who see themselves as the elite and believe that the rest of humanity is incapable of caring for themselves without being ruled over by that elite.

And there is the majority of people who are desirous of and suited only for slavery. They want nothing more than to be provided for by others, any important decisions made for them and held responsible for nothing. It is this majority that causes any society to revert to it’s natural state: despotism and serfdom. We had a pretty good run. It took roughly 100 years before the natural order of things really started to take hold and another 150 or so before it really became the prevalent state of being. But it’s here now.

This is pretty much as good as it gets for a human society in historical terms. The past 250 years has been nothing but a fluke, a mistake, an aberration. Without another revolution (the outcome of which is by no means certain…in fact historical precedent indicates that we’d be worse off after it than before) it can go nowhere but downhill from here.

I (literally) weep for our descendents. We had such a good thing going for a little while, and we just gave it up.



The Elephant in the Room

Perhaps someone has mentioned this before and I just haven’t seen it, but in the discussions I’ve seen about how evil assault weapons are the “weapon of choice” of mass murderers, no one seems to be mentioning the obvious.

I’ve seen mention that modern semi-automatic rifles are no different functionally than any other semi-automatic rifle.

I’ve seen mention that there are valid self and home defense purposes for modern rifles.

I’ve seen mention that there are valid hunting purposes for modern rifles.

I’ve seen mention that rifles are rarely used in crimes of any type.

I’ve seen mention that most traditional hunting rifles are more powerful than modern rifles.

But what I haven’t seen is this:

Modern semi-automatic rifles are, by far, the most popular rifles in the US. They are everywhere. Virtually every one at the rifle range has one with them, even if they also have a more traditional pattern rifle as well.

If 80% of the vehicles sold were blue, it would stand to reason that the majority of drunk drivers would “prefer” blue vehicles because they are the easiest to get their hands on just by pure numbers.

If, as a result, legislation were passed banning blue cars, would the incidence of drunk driving go down simply because the preferred color of car for drunk drivers was no longer available?

Silly isn’t it?

So why isn’t silly when we are talking about the cosmetic features of guns rather than the cosmetic features of cars?

Making it illegaler

What does a “lawmaker” do when he’s afraid someone may break the law?

Why…introduce a law making it illegal to break the law of course.

With the exception of any person who lawfully possesses a handgun, no person shall possess any weapon set forth in subsection A of § 18.2-308 while in the Capitol of Virginia or in any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly.

So if you are unlawfully in possession of a weapon, you can no longer unlawfully enter a a state government building…because it would be unlawful. Again.

Or something.

Hat tip to VSSA Blog

Quote of the Day

let me pose a question for stressed-out liberals. Why do you continue to vote to make the federal government and the leaders at its helm an ever-more present and powerful part of every part of our lives when you know there’s a chance every four years a guy you won’t like will be at the helm? If it’s going to stress you out this much who has the levers of power, perhaps you should work toward making the levers less powerful?

–Mary Katherine Ham at Hot Air