San Diego CA District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of the DC handgun ban but claims she is a "Strong Supporter" of the Second Amendment. If that is her idea of Strong Support, I'd sure hate to see what her Strong Opposition would look like!
As they say, with friends like her, who needs enemies?
Friday, February 29, 2008
San Diego CA District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of the DC handgun ban but claims she is a "Strong Supporter" of the Second Amendment. If that is her idea of Strong Support, I'd sure hate to see what her Strong Opposition would look like!
Five Questions about lamestream media coverage of Shootings at Universities by Dennis Prager. An excellent article that asks the following 5 questions:
- Question 1: Why are murderers always counted in the victims tally? The day after the mass murder of students at Northern Illinois University (NIU), the headline in the closest major newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, was: "6 Dead in NIU Shooting."
- Question 2: Which of these three options is more likely to prevent further murderous rampages: a) making universities closed campuses and increasing the police presence on campus (as the president of NIU has promised to do); b) making guns much harder to obtain; or c) enabling specially trained students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on campus?
- Question 3: Why are "shooter" and "gunman" used instead of "killer" or "murderer"?
- Question 4: Why is "murder" never used to describe homicides involved in these university massacres? And why is "murderer" never used to describe these murderers? Why has "kill" become the only word allowed for deliberate homicide?
- Question 5: Would the press note killers' religiosity if they were all Christian?
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Yesterday on Feb 27th, the ATF raided Cavalry Arms in Gilbert, Arizona. I have no details yet as to the ALLEGATIONS of federal firearms violations used to get the federal search & seizure warrant, but my first guess would be that this is yet another ATF abuse of power. In the video interview the ATF agent said they planned to TAKE the entire inventory due to ALLEGATIONS but did not specify what the ALLEGATIONS were. I guess the ATF plan of action is to take the inventory first, then spend years in court trying to prove the allegations. The ATF probably hopes to run Cavalry Arms out of business in the process as it may be difficult to continue doing business without any inventory. An estimate was given by ABC news of around 1000 firearms confiscated without compensation.
The ATF agent incorrectly called the mid powered AR-15 rifles they confiscated "High Powered" military type Rifles. What a moron. Shouldn't an ATF agent that commonly deals with guns know what a high powered rifle looks like? A common .30-06 hunting rifle is twice as powerful as an AR-15 5.56 mm round, and the .30-06 is not even the most powerful hunting rifle in use. Get a clue, an AR-15 is NOT HIGH POWERED! Enough with the lies & propaganda for crying out loud.
More from David, Red's Trading Post, Nicki, SayUncle, AnArchAngel, and ColtCCO.
Update 1: See this update.
What it could look like to order a Pizza in the future if we all had National ID cards (video from the ACLU - I don't often agree with the ACLU, but they did hit the head of the nail on this one).
H/T to Sebastian & Michael Bane.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Gun Control - Simple Solutions for Simple Minds
Ten Really Good Reasons To Ban Guns - a satire by Bruce Gold
1.) Guns are used in self-defense over 2 million times a year. However, this makes the attempted crime a "non-event," which necessarily complicates the Police investigation. Without civilian ownership of guns, these Police investigations would not have been compromised. Civilians should leave crime prevention to the Police, who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime's completion.
2.) Some .004 % (4/1000 of 1%) of guns are used in crime each year. This is way too high. All guns should be banned.
3.) Guns are unnecessary. In 98% of civilian gun defenses, no shot is fired. If you are not going to fire a shot, you clearly don't need a gun. This proves that the guns are unnecessary. Banning guns will prevent these unnecessary defenses.
4.) Guns cause criminal migration. In tough gun-law Washington, D.C., violent crime rates are very high. This high crime rate is caused by the migration of criminals from gun havens like Virginia. This migration is caused by the criminal's cowardly avoidance of armed householders and concealed-carry civilians. This criminal migration is detrimental to helpless unarmed citizens in no-gun areas and must be stopped. Guns should be banned everywhere.
5.) Most gun crimes are committed by inner city gangs and drug dealers. These relatively small and geographically restricted groups consistently commit the majority of gun crimes, which usually peak as turf wars erupt over Drug War changes. The best way to prevent this is by denying guns to all law abiding people everywhere.
6.) No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder. The Police will protect women by investigating the crime after the fact. Remember, Police paperwork is all the protection anyone really needs.
7.) Gun owners are disrespectful of authority. Good citizens should completely rely on the authorities. A failure to do so is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. Failure to completely and absolutely trust and depend on the authorities is excessive democracy and sends a bad message to children.
8.) Gun owners engaging in self-defense are taking the law into their own hands. This is wrong. Only the Police and Criminals have the right to take the law into their own hands. It should be kept out of the hands of citizens.
9.) Children and young people should remain ignorant about guns. Real guns and real gun knowledge dissipate the fantasies created by violent video games and TV. Ignorance, once lost, can never be restored and needs to be protected. Not to mention the lost sales of all the violent movies, TV shows, video games, etc!
10.) Guns reduce people's reliance on the Police and Government. This fosters a mistaken belief in "rights". No person has the right to question authority. No person should be less than 100% dependent on authority. This is fundamental to social order. Banning guns will help to establish the Order the authorities want. This is good.
I'm not sure why some National Park Retirees are worried at the thought of law abiding citizens being allowed to carry weapons into National Parks. I sent the following e-mail to the contact address listed on the site (email@example.com):
A few questions occurred to me after reading the following article: http://www.npsretirees.org/feature/fighting-keep-gun-ban
I don't understand the concern over allowing law abiding citizens to remain armed in National Parks who are already armed everywhere else they are legally allowed such as State Parks, camping grounds, crowded movie theaters, & shopping malls without incident? Armed law abiding citizens are not a problem in any region, so why will they suddenly become raving lunatics the moment they step into a National Park? It's the criminals that are the problem, not the law abiding. Criminals do not care about breaking a silly "gun free zone" regulation when they already ignore much more important laws such as the law against murder, drug trafficking, etc. They actually prefer unarmed victims in gun free zones as it makes their profession of crime safer for them - just look at Washington DC where the only people with handguns are the Police & the Criminals yet Washington DC is often called the "Murder Capitol" of the world.
Yes, per square foot or per visitor National Parks are "more safe" than the same ratios in many crime ridden cities, but that is no excuse to disarm the law abiding. Telling law abiding citizens that it is "unlikely" that they would need to defend themselves is not going to make a disarmed victim feel any better when they become yet another statistic of rape or murder in National Parks. It is unlikely that my house will ever burn down, yet I still waste money on fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, & fire insurance in preparation for the worst case scenario that will likely never take place. It's called "being prepared" - ever hear of the Boy Scouts? I am an Eagle Scout & I believe in being prepared. Being prepared to protect myself in the unlikely event that I were to need to does not make me a gun wielding crazy person that retired Park Rangers should be afraid of.
Every time a new law or regulation expands the locations law abiding citizens are allowed to carry weapons for their own protection we always hear dire predictions from opponents of blood & mayhem in the streets, yet it never happens. Look at Florida as just one example - those against allowing CCW carry (including many Florida Chiefs of Police) predicted wild west gun battles over parking spaces & blood running down the streets. It never happened, and instead violent crime levels actually went down in Florida after the law went into effect.
With your permission I'll be posting your response at the following URL once I receive it:
Update - as of March 10th 2008 it has been 2 weeks since I sent the above E-mail & still no reply. I guess they simply have no rational answer to my straight forward questions.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Good news for those who believe in the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms & defend yourself against attack by man or beast while in a National Park may soon be restored, at least in States that don't restrict the right to bear arms in their own State Parks or public areas. It's about time.
Arizona SB 1214 passed out of committee today by a 4 to 3 vote with recommendation to pass in an amended form. They had to remove K-12 portion leaving only College & University access for CCW permit holders in order to pass out of committee. I'm disappointed that K-12 was removed as I don't see any reason to leave those teachers, administrators, & parents out in the cold when it comes to their right to have a good option of self defense available to them (not to mention our children that could benefit from protection as a nice side effect), but at least this is a good first step for Arizona in the effort to get rid of "gun free zones"
This correction of the existing infringement on the right to bear arms for self defense could not come too soon, since yet another ASU student was raped just this week, making women students ill at ease.
This is the notice I received today from the office of Senator Karen S Johnson:
SB1214 just passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee! The vote was 4 to 3 along strictly party lines (Republicans for and Democrats against). The bill had to be amended in order to get it passed. The amendment provides that CCW permit holders will be able to carry on college campuses, but not on K-12 school grounds. The next step is Caucus … then Committee of the Whole, where they debate the bill on the Floor of the Senate … and then Third Read, which is the final vote in the Senate. Congratulations to all of you for your great lobbying efforts! This is only the first step, but it’s an important one. We’ll be in touch with notices and alerts, as will Dave Kopp and John Wentling. Caucus is not viewable on the internet, but I’ll let everyone know when that is scheduled.
Assistant to …
1700 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Friday, February 22, 2008
Check out the comments on this somewhat old USA Today article about guns on Campus.
Every time a bill comes up to allow CCW carry in a new area we hear anti gun folk ranting & raving about "the wild wild west" "gun shootouts" etc. It NEVER however comes to pass. No anti gun person can name a single example of their dire prediction coming to pass. It is all about their own FEELING that allowing law abiding adults to maintain their right to self defense will somehow make them less safe. No data to back it up, just wild imaginations.
Remember that "gun free zones" were invented less than 20 years ago, so we are not talking about trying something new, we're talking about ending a failed experiment. My own Father used to keep his shotgun in his locker during school so that he could stop to do some hunting for dinner on the way home. Mass shootings in gun free zones became frequent AFTER the gun free zone experiment began. Yes the shooter plans to commit suicide, but mass shooters still prefer to have no opposition until Police arrive so that they can rack up a high victim count before they are done to increase their chances of the Media providing them with 15 minutes of fame. Victims in Gun Free Zones are like fish in a barrel - nobody to shoot back.
The facts prove that gun free zones are dangerous for the disarmed Americans that go into them (just look at all the rapes, murders, & mass shootings that take place in so called "gun free zones"). I'm not saying everyone should be armed, I'm simply saying that those who CHOOSE to be armed everywhere else, usually between 1 & 3% of adults depending on the given State, (shopping malls, traffic jams, sporting events, crowded movie theaters, etc) should NOT be disarmed simply because they cross an imaginary "gun free zone" boundary that does not keep school shooters or criminals from crossing it armed.
This is not only about mass shootings, it's about rapists & other criminals who seek after defenseless victims. They ignore the gun free zone boundary, so why should the rest of us be forced to be defenseless just because there are some Americans who would like to live in a crime & criminal free Utopia that simply does not exist? Naming a location "gun free" does not make it so. It would be more correct to call them "defenseless victim zone" - mad men & criminals love them, but I don't.
This is not about guns people, it's about freedom of CHOICE by law abiding citizens. If someone wants to choose to be prepared to defend him or herself via a concealed weapon, a silly "gun free zone" rule should not block them. It certainly does not block the criminals, and all of the weeping & wailing of the anti gun folks will never keep ILLEGAL guns off of a campus. Remember the great prohibition against Alcohol? Alcohol was illegal yet it was still rampant. How well did that work out? At least in that case it did not force anyone to be defenseless.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
If any of my fellow gun owners have been wooed by Obama's smooth talk (normally lacking any substance but it does sound nice doesn't it?), please see this list of Obama quotes as well as his voting record. He believes it is OK to ban handguns in "inner cities" like Washington DC, and he believes it is OK to ban semi-automatic rifles that have a barrel shroud & an adjustable stock length to make it easier to share a gun for an entire family. What exactly does he have against something that protects my hands from getting burned on a hot barrel, and why does he want me to be forced to buy separate rifles of different sizes for each member of my family when we're happy sharing one or two (truthfully there are never too many guns in my gun safe, but what exactly does he have against a family who can only afford one)?
I don't really don't care who you vote for, so long as you choose wisely, and DO NOT vote for Obama. He wants to turn our Country into a Socialist Nation. He wants to raise taxes, increase spending, provide free healthcare, support all out gun bans, and that is just the stuff he's admitted to so far. If that's the kind of CHANGE he wants to bring to our country I'd prefer he go fly a kite.
Look folks, if you want to live in a country with free healthcare, move to CANADA! If free healthcare is so wonderful, why do so many Canadians & Europeans come to the US & PAY for care here when they can have it free at home?
Nothing is for free folks. There is ALWAYS a price to be paid. Obama is a pied piper selling a pipe dream. Fall for it at the peril of us all. We can only have one President, choose WISELY.
H/T to Sebastian.
Friday, February 15, 2008
I have received this update & request for support of SB 1214 (Bill to remove the current ban on CCW permitee's from carrying concealed on School Campuses) from Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson:
Hello all you supporters of SB1214 –If you can't come to the meeting, you can watch the hearing live via the Internet. Select Senate Hearing Room 1. Also be sure to sign up for the Arizona RTS (Request to Speak) system at either the Arizona Senate or House building via any of multiple kiosks. You'll be able to set a username & password that you can then use to enter your for or against vote as well as to submit a letter to be read during the hearing via the following Arizona RTS website: http://alistrack.azleg.gov/rts/login.asp
The bill has been scheduled for a committee hearing on Monday, February 18, at 1:30 p.m., in Senate Hearing Room 1.
I know it’s hard to get off work, but if any of you can come to the hearing, please do – the more the better. A good showing of supporters will impress the committee members.
If you can’t come, you will be able to watch the hearing live on the internet. I’ll send out a link in a few days so you’ll know how to do that if you’re not familiar.
In the next few days, there is a lot that people can do to lend support to this bill:
1. Email your own legislators and encourage their support for the bill.
2. If you haven’t already and can get up to the capitol, get signed up on the kiosk in either the House or the Senate. You only have to sign up once. Then you can send a message from home when a bill is heard and express your support or opposition to the bill. That will be read at the committee hearing, and your name and expression of support will become a part of the permanent record for that bill. If you can slip away between now and Monday and sign up on the kiosk, then even if you can’t come to the hearing on Monday, you’ll be able to list yourself as a supporter. If I’m confusing you, Dave Kopp and John Wentling can help explain.
I’ll be in touch in the next few days with some additional information. Thanks so much for your support for this bill. I really appreciate it and look forward to seeing some (many?) of you on Monday.
Senator Karen S. Johnson
Update 1: The turnout in support for this bill was excellent. I estimate that proponents outnumbered opponents at about 2 to 1. I also noticed that opponents listed made up "what if" scenarios but when asked could not cite a single example to back it up. Proponents listed actual examples & statistics to back up their arguments. Very well done.
Soon you should be able to watch a video of the proceedings in the archive. Here is a local Fox news report on it. Interesting that they included video of full auto assault rifles although it would be rather difficult to conceal carry such a weapon. Here is a local CBS 5 news report on it.
Update 2: The archive of the video is now available here. The video is titled "02/18/2008 - Senate Judiciary"
The first 10 minutes are for another bill. The SB 1214 hearing begins at roughly the 10 min:24 sec mark. Initially you'll hear an overview of what the bill does as well as thoughts from AZ Senator Karen Johnson. The testimonials from those against the bill begin @ about the 0hr:14min:30sec mark. They were not asked to avoid repetition so you'll find that each testimonial basically covers the same points over & over. You can sum up their talking points with the following:
1) more guns = more bad, more accidents, more death
2) Police will be too confused if there is more than one person with a gun at the scene (a bad guy or gal & one or more good guys or gals)
3) citizens with guns will use their guns to kill in situations that without guns would have ended in nothing more than a heated argument, yelling, or perhaps a severe physical beating.
When asked, none of them were able to cite specific events where the above took place. They simply went on about imaginary "what if" scenarios with zero evidence to support their arguments based on nothing more than their own fear of guns.
The testimonies of those in favor of the bill began @ 1hr:05min:12sec. Due to time constraints & the fact that there were so many there to speak in favor of the bill, those in favor were asked to only bring up items that had not yet been discussed by other proponents. Even with that constraint, we managed to speak in favor of the bill for roughly 1 hr & 19 min's until the 2hr:24min:30sec mark which is when they list people who have submitted their stance against the bill online but did not sign up to speak. At 2:27:50 they begin the list of those in favor of the bill that did not speak. All done by 2:29:00 where they move on to SB 1408.
Wake up people, how many of these do we need to see before we are willing to once & for all rid ourselves of the FAILED experiment called "Gun Free Zones"? No criminal or crazy person is going to see a Gun Free Zone sign & decide to go home because he doesn't want to break that law when he or she is willing to break a much greater law: Thou shalt not murder. It is long past time we end the failed Gun Free Zone experment that uses our children as the mice.
Say Uncle has a nice summary of responses to the latest Gun Free Zone tragedy in DeKalb, Illinois, at Northern Illinois University (NIU) that took place yesterday on Valentines Day no less.
Also check out this CCRKBA Press Release & this response from John R. Lott, Jr.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
If it were not right this very moment still available on the Arizona Legislature website I would not believe it. Liberal gun grabbing Democrats have sponsored HB 2833 - legislation that would require all ammunition sold in Arizona as of Jan 1 2009 to have unique serial numbers on both the bullet & the INSIDE of each cartridge casing of every single cartridge of all calibers of handgun and so-called "assault weapon" ammunition plus it also stipulates that it applies to all calibers of ammunition (I'm not sure why they even bothered mentioning handguns & assault weapons since they then used a blanket to have the bill apply to all calibers of ammunition). Arizona Citizens would be required to dispose of all existing ammunition that does not have the required serial numbers by Jan 1 2011.
Get a load of this nonsense:
How in the world is a manufacturer supposed to put a unique serial number on the INSIDE of a cartridge casing! Additionally, have these morons ever seen what an expelled bullet looks like after impact? They actually expect a serial number to be identifiable? Unbelievable!
(a) The base of the bullet and the inside of the cartridge casing of each round in a box of ammunition are coded with the same serial number.
(b) Each serial number is engraved in such a manner that it is highly likely to permit identification after ammunition discharge and bullet impact.
All environmentalists should be outraged at the fact that shell casings which are currently reused many times & then recycled would no longer be reusable since they would have a unique serial number on them that can not be removed or destroyed under penalty of law. Hello Arizona landfill from billions of unusable shell casings.
It would also add a 1/2 cent tax to every single round of ammunition sold. A 550 round box of .22 caliber handgun ammunition would have $2.75 added for this tax on top of the normal retail cost & the other taxes that we already pay. A case of 5000 rounds of ammunition would have an extra tax of $25! Of course that would be NOTHING compared to the huge increase in manufacturing costs if any manufacturer managed to comply with the ridiculous requirements.
Every vendor that sells Ammo to Arizona residents would be required to register with the Arizona DPS, record the date of each transaction, purchaser name, Drivers license number or Social Security #, birth date, serial numbers of all cartridges sold, plus all other information requested by DPS. With that open end DPS could also ask for my Mother's maiden name or for my mailing address or the names of all future unborn children. Seems fairly wide open to me. It would also require the Arizona DPS to create & maintain a database to contain all of this information. Vendors would be required to keep all of these records for a minimum of 3 years on the business premises. Manufacturers would be required to maintain records for 7 years on their business premises.
Listed Bill sponsors are Representative Martha Garcia (Democrat), Representative Linda Lopez (Democrat), Representative Manuel Alvarez (Democrat), Representative David Bradley (Democrat), & Representative Cloves Cambell Jr. (Democrat).
This bill is so absurd that it is obvious that this is simply a back door attempt to ban all ammunition sales in Arizona, effectively disarming all law abiding citizens, which would only leave the criminals armed with their black market illegal ammo. If you are an Arizona resident, please contact your representative to ask that they strongly oppose this ridiculous bill.
The NRA-ILA has issued a news release related to this bill.
1st Update: The source of this absurd legislation now being proposed in multiple States can be found here. It looks like the Bill Sponsors simply copied & pasted the sample legislation & then inserted Arizona DPS where required as it is a perfect match. Also be sure to check out this nicely organized list of all the bills that you should go fight.
2nd Update: I've contacted both of my Arizona House Representatives in addition to my Arizona Senator asking them to strongly oppose this and any future forms of this Bill. I just received the following response from Arizona State Senator Jack Harper:
Thank you, Dustin. I appreciate hearing from you. This bill will not even get a hearing as long as the Republicans control the House and Senate. State Representative Judy Burges and I will mail you some correspondence, soon.I received this response from Representative Judy Burges:
State Senator Jack Harper
You have my no vote. What a waste of money and time. JI will update this blog entry with further details as I receive them. :)
3rd update: An interesting twist:
Little digging and poking and I think we have the culprits.4th Update: Cam Edwards interviewed Russel H Ford on Feb 19th who confirmed the above. CCRKBA has issued this related press release requesting an official investigation, & Larry Pratt has this to say about the issue. You can watch the interview on youtube in following 5 parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.
The core legislation document was written by a person called Briahna Taylor for the law firm Gordon Thomas Honeywell.
As if by magic one of their clients is called Ammunition Coding System.
This appears to be a shell for a company called Ravensforge LLC
Ravensforge inventors of record are Mr Steve Mace of Seattle, Washington and Mr Russel H Ford also of Seattle
As if by magic they have a patent pending for this magical system
It is very interesting to see that as part of their About Us mission statement they boldly state that the implementation requires legislation.
Interestingly enough they also intend to charge a licensing fee for EVERY bullet sold as well.....
5th Update: Dec 2008 Update from NRA-ILA. More from the NSSF.
6th Update: Save $10-$50 by Joining the NRA TODAY to help fight this and other evil efforts!
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed their brief in support of Heller & the Second Amendment for the DC vs Heller Supreme Court Case. (also known as the Parker vs DC case as it was called in the DC courts) It is very well written & worth a read.
A few the many briefs in support of Heller & the 2nd Amendment:
- Second Amendment Sisters, Southeastern Legal Foundation, et al.
- Cheny, 56 Senators, 250 members of Congress
- Maricopa County AG
- Academics for the Second Amendment
- National Shooting Sports Foundation
- Buckeye Firearms Foundation
- Gun Owners of America
- Texas AG for 31 States of the Union
- 40 State Rifle Associations
- Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep & Bear Arms et al.
As of today there are 47 briefs in support of Heller & only 20 in support of the City of Washington DC. You can see all of the briefs both for & against Heller here.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Four More Senators Send Letter to Secretary Kempthorne Requesting the Interior Department Change Its Policy Regarding Firearms in National ParksThis is very good news. The idea of disarming all law abiding citizens in National parks with a useless gun free zone policy which criminals naturally ignore (by definition criminals ignore laws) has been a foolhardy policy that is long overdue to be overturned. All it does is set law abiding citizens up to be defenseless victims & is contrary to their right to bear arms in their own self defense.
Monday, February 11, 2008
As part of the ongoing NRA-ILA effort to change the National Park Service rules to allow Right-to-Carry in our national parks and wildlife refuges, four additional Senators have written to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne urging him to remove restrictions on the carrying and transportation of firearms by law-abiding gun owners. Senators Kit Bond (R-MO), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Roger Wicker (R-MS) sent the letter to Secretary Kempthorne on February 11.
Together with 47 other Senators who signed a letter (www.nraila.org/Media/PDFs/kempthorne_ltr.pdf) to Secretary Kempthorne on December 14, 2007, a majority of the U.S. Senate has now called for this policy change.
NRA-ILA has made the adoption of new rules to allow law-abiding gun owners with permits to carry their firearms for self-defense while traveling in our national parks a top priority and we have been working for nearly five years to change this policy.
Click here to see the letter to Secretary Kempthorne.
H/T to Sebastian.
Neither Obama nor Clinton support the Second Amendment & the right to bear arms as they are on the list of the 45 Senators who did NOT sign the Supreme Court brief in support of Heller. Where does your Senator stand? Make sure your Senator is NOT on this list. If your Senator is not on the list then they were among the 55 Senators who did sign in support of Heller & the 2nd Amendment.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Just to be up front I have nothing against either birds nor our neighbors South of the border nor those from South of the border or from any other country for that matter that have immigrated to our country via the normal legal immigration process. I do however have an issue with those who break the law to enter our country illegally. That said, I wanted to share the below allegory that was sent to me today in an e-mail. I'm sure it has been floating around for a while so some of you may have already seen it. I don't know who the original author was, if any of you do please let me know. It is very good.
Allegory of the Bird Feeder
I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it is, as I filled it lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.
But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue.
Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table ... everywhere!
Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.
And other birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.
After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore. So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.
Soon, the back yard was like it used to be ... quiet, serene and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.
Now let's see ....
Our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, and free education and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.
Then the illegal aliens came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; your child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English.
Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to "press one" to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than "Old Glory" are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.
Just my opinion, but maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.
If you agree, pass it on; if not, continue cleaning up the poop!
Posted by Dustin at 3:55 PM
Thursday, February 7, 2008
SAF, CCRKBA ASK CANDIDATES TO SIGN 2008 PRESIDENTIAL GUN RIGHTS PLEDGE
For Immediate Release: 2/6/2008
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today are transmitting to each of the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates the “2008 Presidential Gun Rights Pledge.”
In a letter to the candidates, SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb and CCRKBA Executive Director Mark A. Taff note, “It is not enough for a candidate for this nation’s highest political office to merely mouth ‘support’ for the Second Amendment. Whoever occupies the presidency must be someone who holds the Second Amendment to be as important to individual liberty as all the other tenets of our Bill of Rights.”
“We’re asking each of the candidates to sign this pledge and go on the record in stating that the Second Amendment affirms a fundamental, individual civil right,” Gottlieb said. “We’ve heard them all claim to support the Second Amendment, but an individual civil right should not be infringed, and 85 million American gun owners have a right to know whether people who want to be trusted with the nation’s highest office are firm believers in the concept of liberty and individual freedom.”
“Our Presidential Gun Rights Pledge,” Taff added, “gives each candidate a one-time-only opportunity to either unconditionally embrace the Second Amendment or reject it. There is no middle ground, no alternative position, and no second chance. We believe the candidates will have ample time to sign or reject this pledge by Friday, February 29.”
“It is time to cut through the rhetoric,” Gottlieb observed. “With a Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment due in June, every candidate has an obligation to tell American gun owners just where they stand on firearms civil rights. Gun owners deserve a definitive answer from the candidates so that they can make their own decisions on who best will respect and protect their rights.”
A sample pledge is available at http://www.saf.org/sample.2008.presidential.gun.rights.pledge.pdf
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
For those of you in the Super Tuesday States, don't forget to go out & vote today. I don't want to try to tell anyone who to vote for, but I do ask that you do your best to pick your best candidate for the issues most important to you & go vote. If you live in Arizona you can find out where to vote here.
If you vote for the best candidate & your candidate does not win, you have earned the right to complain about who everybody else picked. If you decide not to vote than you are giving up one of your important rights & you loose your right to complain in my book.
So I'll stop going on & on at this point, just go & vote. Choose wisely (remember nobody is perfect - you're looking for the best candidate, not the perfect candidate). :)
Posted by Dustin at 1:37 PM
Friday, February 1, 2008
The shooting sports are not just for guys. Girls like them too.
My wife loves to shoot too, and I’m sure my daughter will enjoy the shooting sports when she’s a bit older as well. The shooting sports are a lot of fun, and can be enjoyed by both girls & boys. It’s an equal opportunity sport.
H/T to Say Uncle, Countertop Chronicles, & Techyum.
You can find more info on current, myspace, or the official website: A Girl and A Gun.
In response to "Opinions: Aw Shoot", published on Thursday, January 31, 2008 in the ASU Sun Devil paper, an opinion piece they wrote in opposition to Arizona SB 1214 - a law being considered in the Arizona Senate that would decriminalize the act of CCW permit holders carrying concealed weapons on school grounds.
"Come on, fighting school gun violence with more guns? That's like fighting terrorism by adding more terrorists"Sorry, no link there. It would be far more accurate to say that fighting violent people with guns is like fighting violent terrorists with guns. Nothing wrong with that, I know I would prefer to take on terrorists while I'm armed vs being empty handed. Where we have the problem is where good citizens are disarmed & left empty handed to fight against armed mad men, rapists, or other criminals. Some students are highly trained in martial arts. Perhaps some of them may be able to get the upper hand against an armed or even unarmed robber or rapist with enough element of surprise or perhaps not. At VT everyone that tried to take the armed madman on with their bare hands paid with their lives as did those that simply hid behind their desks waiting for their demise. There are simply poor odds when your only option is to bring your bare hands to a gun or knife fight.
"Yes, National Rifle Association, you're right … guns don't kill people, people kill people. But they sure seem to do it with guns."Yes sometimes bad people kill people with guns, sometimes with knives, other times with baseball bats or automobiles. Sorry to break the news to you but yes there are bad people in this world who want to kill, murder, rape, drive drunk, & plunder with whatever tools are at their disposal. They will always have weapons. Look at Washington DC where handguns have been banned for the last 30 years. The only people with handguns in Washington DC are the Police & the criminals, and as a result it is the murder capital of the world where criminals have no fear of armed resistance from their victims & it is actually newsworthy when they go a couple of days in a row with no reported murders (no joke - I once read an article from Washington DC that they had a 2 day weekend that was amazingly murder free).
"guns on campus could frighten younger children in a place they should feel safe"Feeling safe & being safe are not the same thing. Besides that, what part of concealed don't you understand? The children will be able to feel safe by not seeing or knowing about the weapon their teacher has, and even better than that, they will actually BE much more safe than they were before. It is far better to BE safe than to FEEL safe. Utah is a state that does not ban concealed weapons on school grounds & there have been zero issues there.
"police will have a harder time responding to a crisis with more random gun-toting folks on the scene"This is a common argument by opponents of ending gun free zones but it has zero basis in fact. The truth is that the gunfight will most likely be long since over by the time Police arrive as most gun fights last less than a minute. Either the armed citizen will be on the ground in critical condition or the crazy guy will be on the ground either in critical condition or simply held for the Police. It is also possible although unlikely that the Police could arrive during the gun fight. In any of these situations the Police will arrive & will order everyone to drop their weapons. The good citizens will do as ordered. The bad guy will not drop his gun & will either shoot himself or will begin a gun fight with the Police. All Police officers are well trained in the fact that simply having a gun does not make you the "bad guy" - they always have to be on the lookout for off-duty Police officers, undercover Police Officers who have worked very hard to look like a common criminal, and armed citizens.
"most schools already have an armed officer on site"Many Colleges do, but most K-12 schools do not. Glendale Community College for example only recently armed their security officers - last year the only thing on their tool belt was Pepper Spray & a radio. Even if there is armed security, what good did it do the Columbine students to have an armed Security Guard on campus? The guard there simply stayed in the parking lot & waited for Police to arrive. Armed campus police didn't do VT victims much good either as the Police stood outside & didn't end up heading in until the shooting was already over. VT Police Chief Wendell Flinchum even stated: "We obviously can't have an armed guard in front of every classroom every day of the year."
An even greater risk to college students is rape. According to the FBI there were 2,006 & 1,941 REPORTED cases of forcable rape in Arizona in the year 2005 & 2006 respectively, which does not even include statutory rapes, rapes that end in death, nor the rapes that go unreported. If my daughter is ever attacked by a rapist while on campus I want her to have the option at her disposal to end the attack by aiming her gun at the guy & either shooting him or watching him run away (98% of self defense cases with a gun don't require a single gunshot - criminals usually prefer to live). I don't want it to end with him using her body before killing her to avoid leaving behind a witness.
"Under this proposal, 23-year-old Seung-Hui Cho, the mass murderer in the Virginia Tech shootings, would have been acting within the law until he pulled the trigger."Actually he would have been outside the law the moment he drew his weapon from its concealed location (it is called assault with a deadly weapon & is a Felony with Prison time) but what difference does that make? He broke the gun free zone rule for months & still committed his murder rampage (breaking the don't murder people law). The only people disarmed by the gun free zone rule were the helpless victims that he was able to murder without resistance thanks to the fact that VT had already disarmed all of them in an effort to make students & parents FEEL safe.
Any suicidal murderer is going to care less about a gun free zone rule other than the fact that they will seek them out in order to attack a location where they know there will be no armed opposition. After all, why would a crazed murderer be worried about going to jail for breaking the current law against having guns on campus when he or she is planning on ending up in a grave when the task is complete anyway? How about we simply have a law against using any weapon or even bare hands to assault, rob, rape, or murder people. Wait, we already have that. As a society we should not rob our 21 yr or older adult students & teachers of their God given right to have an effective tool for self defense, and today a gun is the most effective tool.
This isn't about guns people, it's about FREEDOM & our right to defend ourselves! May God Bless America, and may America forever stay free!
Update: Other responses to the same article can be found here & here.
Arizona Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (AZSCCC) president Michael Francher was recently interviewed about Senate Bill 1214, the Bill that would allow adults 21 or older who have gone through the process of obtaining an AZ CCW permit to conceal carry on school property.
His primary priority was to allow concealed carry on College Campus but I'm glad that the bill actually allows adults to carry on all school campuses, effectively eliminating the dangerous Gun Free Zones that currently exist in Arizona Schools. Below are pieces from the interview:
"Every major massacre-type shooting [in U.S. history] has occurred in gun-free zones," said Michael Fancher, a chemistry freshman and campus leader of the Arizona Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.There is a link at the bottom of the article to submit your opinion as a letter to the editor. I recommend sending one in as there will no doubt be those from the anti side as well. Feel free to also respond to this opinion piece by the same paper that is against the bill.
The massacre at Virginia Tech last April was the "straw that broke the camel's back" in bringing attention to the debate over campuses as gun-free zones, Fancher said.
"If one person had been carrying [a gun] that day, it would have evened the odds," he said.
Fancher and other members of the ASCCC met with state Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, a primary sponsor of the bill, when it was still being drafted to go over the wording . . .
Fancher said the Second Amendment gives students the essential right to defend themselves by carrying a weapon, even on campus.
"Gun-free zones are for law-abiding citizens," Fancher said. "The person who's going to carry a gun on campus to inflict harm on others doesn't care what the law is. What they know is: If it's a gun-free zone, nobody's going to shoot back."
Update: AZSCCC is the Arizona group of the national organization Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) - you can find the AZSCCC group in facebook.