Helmke Red Herrings

Ol' Wormtongue Helmke's at it yet again, I see.

Don't you just love how he takes the questioner's lively presentation and instantly jumps to gun violence?

Three words for ya, Paul: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

Apparently, being out target shooting and asking about gun control means that you will likely kill 32 people in a given day. Or maybe shoot people at a school. Or just plain shoot people.

2 + 2 = 9.

Huh?

Could you go over exactly how that works? Because I saw no indication from the questioner that he was planning to exact violence. Maybe you did. If so, can you point it out for me? I guess I'm a little slow.

And this bullsh*t line:

"...Will you support other common-sense legislation to strengthen our tragically weak gun laws?"

Because a criminal doesn't follow gun laws and kills someone, that means the law is weak?

No. It means he's a criminal and criminals don't give a crap about laws.

That's why they're called criminals!

I think we should put together the Buy Paul Helmke A Clue Fund.

(h/t: Uncle)

Local Gun Club Does Good

Gun clubs aren't evil, not matter what the anti-gun gollums* tell you.

gollum: a person who believes a gun is a magical object that turns people in monsters.

Gunnies: The New Troll

At least, that's what Kelli says (remember her from the Brady Blog?)

In a comment over at Huffington Post, she says to columnist Peter Smith:

I'm sorry to see, too, that you have a slew of gunnut "trolls" (& that's exactly what they are, BTW) whom I've encountered on a couple of gun control advocacy sites that I post on ~ like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ~ here ... knocking at your door.

Don't expect too much wisdom out of them!

I guess a "troll" is now someone who makes intelligent arguments against anti-gun PSH.

Cool! When do I get my membership card?

(h/t: Sebastian/PGP)

Selective Reading

According to this op-ed, the right to keep and bear arms as noted on the 2nd Amendment is, in fact,

a distortion of the Second Amendment. Also, that it reflects the twisted interpretation of the Constitution popularized by the gun lobby, one whose consequences are tragically manifested by the gun-related violence in this country every day.

It does?

This must be from the Bill of Rights: The Pick and Choose^TM Edition.

Brady Bunch Hijinks

Seems Paul "Wormtongue" Helmke has been up to no good--again.

This time, it involves some website destroy the evidence cover your ass damage control sleight of hand.

How cunning.

Campus Carry PSH

Ah, here it is.

Forget being restrained. This editorial seethes with PSH:

Guns being permitted on school grounds could have detrimental repercussions, including accidental firings, gun thefts and an increased risk of violent behavior because of provocation by peers or professors.

and

Putting students' and the faculty's lives in immediate danger by allowing student gun owners to carry their guns on campus is irresponsible, impractical and counterproductive. Instead of preventing a disaster, campuses would be vulnerable to chaos.

Emphasis mine.

The author espouses the use of "weapon scanners, security cameras and police" to promote campus safety.

Hypothetical situation: If another gunman smuggles a firearm onto a campus (meaning he or she snuck it past the weapon scanners--and kills several people, the security cameras can show the feed and the campus police can respond within minutes.

However, several people would still be dead.

Unless you can assure me that the security cameras will stop the gunman as soon as he produces his weapon or that a campus police officer is in the exact same classroom when the shooting begins and can stop the gunman, you are talking out of your ass.

Newbies at the Range

According to Greg at West, By God, there's a competition of sorts to see who can take the most newbies to a range and introduce them to the shooting arts.

Had no idea about this but it seems my recent post on the subject scored me some points in the contest.

And here I was, just sharing an experience. After all, according to other gunnies out there, one of the best ways to "convert" an anti-gunner is to take them shooting.

Covert Censorship at the Chronicle

Alan at Blogonomicon reports that the San Francisco Chronicle, one of my local papers, practices covert censorship.

Welcome to the Police State of Kalifornistan.

(See, I thought this only happened in totalitarian governments. Call me naive. I suppose now if we call a teddy bear the wrong name, we'll get sixty lashes.)

Dueling Op-Eds, Part Four

Jeff gives us a pair of op-eds from Paul "Wormtongue" Helmke and former Congressman Bob Barr.

One makes an good point.

The other says "Agree with me or you are a bad person and you make kittens and the Baby Jesus cry."

Guess which is which.

PSH Concern Over Campus Concealed Carry

Two examples of "restrained PSH".

I call it "restrained" because the authors try to come across as presenting reasonable concerns, as if we're all sitting around and taking tea in a Merchant-Ivory film.

But they succeed only in insulting anyone who has trained in the use of a firearm for self defense by impying they are irresponsible, remorseless, and eager to shoot anything and anyone.

Here are a couple of choice nuggets...

...we hope their aim is good. What happens if they hit an innocent bystander in the panic that such situations likely create?

I see. Armed citizens who've undergone training and practice in how to act in a dynamic defensive situation are just going to fire blindly into a crowd because, I guess, that's just what they do. They pack heat and suddenly they lose their mind.

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

We understand that college students may be concerned for their safety and we would urge universities and schools to do all they can to make campuses safe.

We're just not sure that guns is the right way to go in this case.

What do you propose, oh Great Ones?

I know! I know! Let's make all schools "Gun-Free Zones" so that--

Oh wait. The shootings happened in a "Gun-Free Zone."

um...

PSH and Toy Guns

ZOMG! Kids buying toy guns! We're all gonna die!

I wonder when they're gonna start banning yearly broadcasts of A Christmas Story because, as you know, little Ralphie Parker wants "an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle, with a compass in the stock and 'this thing' which tells time" and we can't be showing that to the kids.

How barbaric! To want an air rifle! Savage!

It's the kids, fer cryin' out loud. Think of the kids!

Oh, the horror! Oh, the humanity!

(insert PSH here)

Guns and Liberals

We'd like them, too, please.

In case you haven't guessed yet or didn't know, I'm one of those--gun owner and liberal.

(h/t: Uncle)

Media Bias Alive and Well

An interesting read over at Buckeye Firearms.

Of note was this bit:

[WLWT 5 News reporter Eric Flack] then asked me, "Wouldn’t it be worth making everyone at a gun show go through a background check if it would save one life?" I told him I rejected the argument. The Brady's had spoon fed that line to the press one too many times.

[...]

He seemed a bit flustered that I would not concede to his points and seemed mildly annoyed.

Flustered? Annoyed? What, because the interviewee didn't agree with your propaganda? question?

This must be that "fair and balanced reporting" stuff.

Inwood then makes a nice point:

The Brady Campaign’s original name was Handgun Control Inc. The founder, the late Pete Shields, made his goals clear in an interview in with the New Yorker Magazine in 1976:

We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily -given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of hand-guns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.

The name may have changed but the goal remains the same, even if they won't admit it openly today.

"Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence," my ass...

Celebs Speak: James Earl Jones

The voice of Darth Vader points out:

"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

From IMDB

Gun Control in Japan

Ran across this interesting blog entry about Japan's gun control laws.

The author notes:

Earlier this year, the government decided it was time to crack down on firearms crimes (the vast, vast, majority committed by yakuza and their rightist buddies) by making the strict firearms laws even stricter. Of course this impressed the yakuza who make a habit of strictly obeying laws.

Sound familiar?

The author then asks:

...with gun control laws already quite strict, just how will making these laws stricter reduce the number of murders among criminals for whom murder is an thing of honor?

We should ask the same of criminals here.

We can see Japan has strict gun control. And we can see that illegal gun crime is still being committed.

Who is committing these crimes? Criminals.

Are private citizens committing these crimes? No.

Who is affected by strict gun control laws? The private citizen.

Anybody else see a hole big enough to drive the Shinkansen through?

The NecronomiGun

Shades of H. P. Lovecraft!!


"Whoever is bitten by the GunBeast and lives becomes a GunBeast himself." (apologies to Curt Siodmak)

"One Gun to rule them all, One Gun to find them,
One Gun to bring them all and in the darkness bind them"

(apologies to Papa Tolkien)

(h/t: Sebastian and Breda)

"I Don't Carry a Gun..."

Courtesy of Syd.

Amen, sir.

Homeowner Shoots Intruder

From Michigan comes this heartwarming holiday tale.

And later, a Charlie Brown Thanksgiving Special...

(h/t: Zendo Deb)

Parker/HellerWatch: The Wall Street Journal Weighs In

A piece from the Wall Street Journal Online on Parker/Heller and the 2nd Amendment.

From the sound of it, the author is in our camp. Have a look here:

In recent decades, the Supreme Court has discovered any number of new rights not in the explicit text of the Constitution. Now it has the opportunity to validate a right that resides in plain sight -- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment. (emphasis mine)

And here:

Here's hoping the Justices will put aside today's gun control passions and look to the plain language of the Bill of Rights for instruction in this case, as Judge Silberman had the courage to do.

New Perspectives

Before October 2007
My good friends M. S. and J. M. are both anti-gun. In conversations, they both pointed out that they fail to see the merits of guns and/or gun ownership.

Not in those exact words. But the meaning was there.

After October 2007
M. S. joined me for a day at the range. A few weeks later, he commented that while he still disagrees with guns, he can see the value in having a gun for home defense.

J. M. went to the range with a gun owner friend of his and had the opportunity to try out a selection of handguns. When I last spoke with him, he was looking to buy himself a Glock 20.

Another Voice of Reason

An op-ed from an armed citizen.

Well said, sir.

Hillary Strategically Mum on Guns

An interesting bit on National Review Online.

"Carefully planned policy announcements."

Translation: "This is all we'll tell you. Nothing more because we might look stupid."

Kids Say the Darndest Things...

...and this kid makes a darn good point about the new microstamping law here in Kalifornia.

Editorial Takes Up Space

I always thought that newspaper editorials usually take a position on an issue and argue for or against it. But this recent editorial from the San Francisco Chronicle on Parker/Heller and the 2nd Amendment does neither.

Huh? Whazzat?

This might as well have been a brief blurb about the case. But an editorial? No.

Can anybody out there clue me in? Maybe I'm not reading it right.

To the editorial writer I ask: Is there more to this? Did they not print the rest of the piece?

Parker/HellerWatch: Continued

As reported on SCOTUSBlog, the court will rule on the meaning of the 2nd Amendement. As they phrase it:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

Other folks in the Intarw3bz have weighed in on the matter:

• SCOTUSBlog provides a round-up of of blogs and press with commentary.
  
• Uncle shares a few he's found, including this fisked editorial from the NYT.
  
• Sebastian, Fodder, and Sebastian all chime in with their take while Bitter points us to a good summary of Parker/Heller.
  

Post Turkey Day

I hope everyone had a good Turkey Day.

And now, back to our program...

Parker/HellerWatch: Update

From SCOTUSBlog:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced no action on a new case testing the meaning of the Second Amendment — an issue the Court has not considered in 68 years. The Orders List contained no mention of either the District of Columbia’s appeal (07-290) or a cross-petition by challengers to the city’s flat ban on private possession of handguns (07-335). The next date for possible action on these cases is likely to be Nov. 26, following a pre-Thanksgiving Conference of the Justices set for Tuesday, Nov. 20.

Guess the wait continues...

Parker/HellerWatch

Today's supposed to be the day.

Like my fellow gun bloggers, I'm keeping an eye peeled for the latest word.

Voice of Reason

Always nice to hear someone being rational, particularly at a campus newspaper.

I applaud you, Samuel Keane-Rudolph. Well done!

The Gun Cleaning Kit That Ate Baylor College of Medicine

Great Caesar's Ghost!

First, soft foam projectiles. Now this business. I'm telling ya--society's getting more and more dangerous. Last thing we need is some mutant attacking people with gun oil and a bore brush.

I'm certain multiple studies abound on the dangers and life-threatening consequences when an oily bore brush meets flesh.

(H/T: Uncle and West, By God)

Chicks With Guns (III)

From the 2008 Girls of S.W.A.T. Calendar, a special supplement to the November 2007 issue of S.W.A.T.

Should be out on newsstands now. Go buy a copy today!

Twisted Logic

I disagreed with Jeff earlier at his seeming suggestion of vigilantism.

Here's where I agree with him.

The editorial writer seems to side with the thief who stole the gun rather than the gun's owner.

So I shouldn't buy an iPod because some thug might steal it one day?

What the hell kind of logic is that?

Use Of Force

Sebastian responds to a post by Jeff over at Alphecca.

I'm going to have to side with Sebastian here. I believe in the judicious use of force. However, shooting a thief for taking my stuff doesn't fall within that definition.

However, if the thief went for or pulled a weapon during the commission of said crime, then yes, I will draw my weapon and shoot. if they invaded my home, I will draw and shoot if necessary.

Jeff writes:

By making the potential consequences of criminal behavior drastic and life-threatening, I believe many kids will be deterred from starting on the road to antisocial actions.

While I agree with the concept, I disagree with the execution (no pun intended). As much as I'd like to be Batman or Frank Castle (aka "The Punisher"), I am not. Our justice system--fallible as it is--decides the outcome and, hopefully, the punishment for such crimes.

Huh?

What the hell?

Wait a minute. If memory serves, guns are illegal in D.C. Given that, I fail to see the value of such devices--

Oh, I get it.

It's the criminals.

The criminals have the guns that they're "listening" for.

But hang on-- if guns are supposed to be illegal in D.C., why do criminals have them? Don't they obey the law? I mean, the anti-gunners keep telling us that when you make strong gun laws, even criminals shake in their boots and get rid of their guns.

(H/T: Uncle)

What's Next?

We, as a society, had better be careful.

Can you imagine the carnage that could be wrought from someone wielding such a weapon? The countless deaths and injuries due to (gasp!) soft foam projectiles?!

Oh, the horror!

(H/T: Arms and the Law)

Governor Feelgood

Nice to know that the Governator has signed off on a piece of "Feel Good" legislation.

I guess we can see how gun owners rate with him (i.e., we are scum).

That others have pointed out the flaws in the technology doesn't seem to make a difference. Makes me wonder if Arnie even bothered to research the issue (probably not--just call me hopeful and naive).

And of course, the bad guys are quaking with fear at the coming of this new and dreaded law.

Not.

The Return

We're back, we're married, and we're ready for more good blogging fun.

For the next several posts, we'll be playing "catch up" on all the news that's happened while we've been out taking care of life.

We are also in the midst of NaNoWriMo (National Novel Writing Month) so we'll try to update as much as we are able.

So kick off your shoes, relax and let's get this show back on the road.