Quote of the Day

"Myself - I can just say. Who are the militia? If it is my home, my body, my freedom being threatened, then frankly, the militia is ME. The power of my weapon is not, at that moment in time, within the order of my life as it is lived at that moment, with the Government. It is where it should be always be, God willing, in my hands, trained and ready to defend and protect."

...---
-Brigid B. - Home on the Range

Considering her eloquent quote is a take on Tench Coxe I think the picture she posted is wonderfully appropriate.

French Military Shoots Women & Children During "Demonstration"

I guess that kind of thing can happen when your military is out of practice and your most commonly used weapon is one of these.

H/T to Sebastian for the link

Quote of the Day

"I think having a logical connection between the first and second parts of any sentence is a good thing, or else you get, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, …oh look, bunnies!” See how that could be a problem when you’re lining up to fight the redcoats?"

-Mike of Mike-istan

that made me laugh.

D.C.'s Gun Registration Pamphlet

Registering a firearm in D.C.

So now that the 2nd Amendment has been affirmed as an individual right we get to see what "reasonable restrictions" D.C. seeks to impose.

1. Registration - $13 per firearm + $35 fingerprinting fee. - Unconstitutional poll tax levied upon an individual right. Check.

2. Complete a 20 question multiple choice test - Unconstitutional literacy test. Check. If it's unconstitutional for voting it's unconstitutional for any other individual right.

3. Application, Driver's license, firearms test, several fees, passport photos, fingerprinting, eligibility statement. Hmmm, Obama and the Democrats claim requiring any form of state-ID for voting is unconstitutional. Voting and gun ownership are both fundamental individual rights, and Heller has now made the latter definitive. All of the crap I've listed creates a serious barrier to entry for the poor & minorities. Where are the liberals, where's the ACLU? (haha)

How detailed is the application? How detailed is the test? They could easily make it so hard that no-one could pass it, or doctor the results etc. The entire licensing and registration system is going to be purposefully inefficient and grotesquely corrupt at all level. This is D.C. we're talking about, so that can be pretty much guaranteed. Just wait and see how many people will actually be able to get a license.

They've said semi-auto's are still banned. This shows blatant disregard for Scalia's decision. How dumb is Mayor Fenty? Or is this just the blind hubrus of a tyrant? Of course if the words "The right of the people" and "Shall not be infringed" don't mean anything to him why would "in common use" mean anything?

What types of things disqualify a person from being able to register a firearm?

6. Must not suffer from a physical defect which would make it unsafe for you to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly.

What the hell?! Who's making that determination? The D.C. police department? Some doctor who's a anti-gun member of the AMA? I could see them using this for blanket registration denials. Now that the 2A is an individual right anyone denied under this provision could presumably sue claiming discrimination under the American's for Disabilities Act. I saw a guy at the range today who was missing a thumb. I bet he'd be denied by D.C. Hell, they'd deny me claiming my cerebral palsy and it's effect on muscle control and coordination. Breda's "physical defect" would disqualify her even though she could outshoot most D.C. police.

From the sidebar,

"All together, 23,776 children under age 19 died from a gun related injury during these years, which is equal to 13 children a day. The Metropolitan Police Department, with assistance from Project Childsafe, provides a gunlock free of charge for each gun it registers in the District of Columbia. The locks are simple and easy to install. Gun owners are strongly encouraged to use these locks to reduce the likelihood of accidental injury or death."

So the cutoff for a "child" is now 19? Sounds like Brady statistics to me. They're requiring gun locks and "strongly encouraging their use." Just how far will D.C. go to "strongly encourage" the use of locks? Remember they're registering all guns and providing the locks. What's to stop them from periodically checking up on gun owners to ensure locks are being used and then revoking firearms licenses on those grounds? I predict the intimidation factor of the MPDC is going to be huge throughout this entire process.

Someone needs to knock Fenty off his high horse.

P228 Range Report

P228 target (I have no shame in posting pics of my admittedly poor shooting)

Anyway, I like it, I really like it!

I did have one jam, a failure to feed on the 3rd round of the day. Other than that it was flawless, just like my other two used Sigs have been. I'm still not used to the long, heavy trigger pull, and that was evident from my target. I pulled a few shots high and right, then really low and right, and then middle right. By the end of my 1st magazine I started to figure out the DAO trigger and was able to put 7-8 shots just north of center. Rather than finish strong I put the remainder of that mag 4 inches low. Generally though I'm still shooting right. I'm jerking the trigger rather than maintaining a smooth, steady pull. I need to stop that.

I shot mostly COM with the P6. A little high and right (as usual) but altogether not too bad. I shot a mag worth of +P+ 9BPLE through the old P6 just to test it and it didn't feel any hotter than any of my Fiocchi FMJ stuff. As usual the P6 proved to be boringly reliable regardless of what ammo I used. (Blazer brass, Blazer aluminum, 9BPLE, HST, Fiocchi) The targets used were B-29 reduced silhouette.

It's quite sad just how infrequently I make it to the range.

Heller

I still need to sit down and finish reading the entire 157 page case, then I'll hopefully have a coherent post explaining my thoughts. I may split it up between the majority opinion and the various dissents.

I also have an unfinished post on incorporation that'll be up hopefully Sunday night.

This must really piss off the Terrorists

Murdoc shows us a female Iraqi police recruit firing an AK, and Breda has a heartwarming post up with a picture of a U.S. Marine teaching an Iraqi woman how to shoot a Glock.

The empowerment of women in the middle east threatens to throw a monkey wrench into misogynistic culture of the Islamic fundamentalists we're dealing with over there. The thirst for freedom and empowerment exists in all people, and in all cultures. Giving these women a taste of that, and teaching them that they're worth it is probably one of the most worthwhile things we can do for them. I'm glad to see us making a difference, one person at a time, even if the mainstream media will never cover it.

New Strategy: Repeal the 2nd Amendment

I think that angle is one we'll be hearing much more in coming months, now that the anti's have lost the battle over what the 2nd Amendment actually means.

The Chicago Tribune is already on the ball calling for repeal.

I left the following comment on their blog and I really don't think there's anything else that needs to be said.

"Repealing the 2nd Amendment doesn’t make it go away anymore than repealing the rest of the Bill of Rights would allow the government to kick in my door and rob, beat, imprison and torture me with impunity. The 2nd Amendment is inherent and inalienable just like the rest of the Bill of Rights. Words on ink & parchment don't "grant" me the right to keep & bear arms, they merely codify a pre-existing right. My rights, all of them, exist independent of the Constitution."

A Celebratory Photo

Click to magnify

(No, I was NOT drinking while taking the photo)

Nutter spinning Heller as a positive

Mayor Nutter on Heller

"As much as we are concerned about an individual's right to own their own weapon, we are more concerned with cracking down on activity that is actually illegal. "

In other words, we'll violate your rights if we want to.

"In limiting its opinion to the matter of self-defense, and in saying the right is not absolute, the United States Supreme Court decision today is an explicit statement of support for cities all across America who are creating reasonable measures to limit the ability of those who will do harm, who will maim, who will buy, carry weapons illegally.

WOW, talk about damage control and spinning the decision as a positive. Philly is bound to get sued at some point, and I think Nutter knows it.

This is for our Liberal Justices

Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer - You four are a disgrace and words cannot describe the contempt I feel towards you. You should step down from the Court and go read a book. You can start with the Federalist Papers and all of Jefferson's letters.

"Let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

-Thomas Jefferson letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823

Celebratory Pie!

From Brigid of Home on the Range Damn her blog makes me hungry, especially those brownies!

Will we see another clever pie reference from Breda?

Haha

My dad just called me at work and said "Congratulations, your guns are safe!" What a goof.

Another UPDATE -
On 2nd thought, my complaints about not striking down the licensing requirements are unfounded, since they were not at issue in this case and were conceded at oral arguments. I also have to consider that thet majority likely had to make some concessions in order to get Kennedy on board. As seems to be the case in almost every major decision, Justice Kennedy is the key vote.

Thank God they got this part right! Possess AND carry! Pre-existing right!

"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, ..., “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ...”

Reading the Decision

I'm going to forgo reading Heller until I'm home with a few beers in front of me. As far as the dissents, well I'm going to need a few beers just to get through them.

Update - Thanks Nikki

...the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

-Justice Stevens

Ugh. Looks like the dissents are going to be hard to read with bullshit like that. The Framers made a choice to limit the power of government, hence the Bill of Rights. What the hell else is "Shall not be infringed" supposed to mean? And how, using any level of logic, can regulation amounting to an outright ban be anything other than an infringement? Put down the bong Justice Stevens or at least pass it to me.

Heller AFFIRMED!!!

June 26th, 2008 - VICTORY FOR FREEDOM.

5-4 decision - Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens & Breyer dissenting. Just shows you how important Bush's SCOTUS nominations were.

I'm not all that surprised at the 5-4 split considering how poignant Justice Scalia's language can be. I figured we'd see a 5-4 or 6-3 decision from the beginning. Still considering the case concerned a blatant violation of a Constitutional right it's scary as hell that it came down to one vote.

Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens & Breyer - Constitutionalize your personal preferences much? Personally I think the dissenters should be thrown off the court. Hell, our founders would probably be calling for them to be hanged for treason right now.

I'm here at work, and just found a loose 9mm round in my pants pocket. Good luck charm I think.

Isn't it sad?

Here we are worried and waiting to see whether the men in black robes will put on their thinking caps or "bury language that is incontrovertibly there."

In the end does it really matter? If the Court said that freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet would we all just say "yes master" and shut down our blogs?

If the SCOTUS does come down on the individual rights side it'll be fun to watch the Brady Campaign, big city politicians, and the mainstream media collectively bitch and moan for the next 24 hours.

Quote of the Day

"In my darker moments, I feel like a guy taking a micrometer to a pair of crap sandwiches just to make absolutely sure the one I ultimately bite contains the minimal amount of crap."

-Mike of Mike-istan

that pretty much sums up my feelings come voting time. We have a few hundred million people in this country and these two bumbling idiots are the best we can come up with? It seems that in the political arena the shit rises to the top and then flows from the mouths of each candidate for months on end.

The Death Penalty

I'll have a post up about my thoughts on this soon, particularly given the fact that the SCOTUS just decided child rapists can't be given the death penalty. That's hogwash, and the Court's reasoning is pretty much nonexistent. A "national consensus" on the death penalty? Hardly. "Evolving standards of decency?" Who's standards? They certainly aren't talking about my standards, because I'd fry every last one of the sick bastards.

It seems to me like the Court couldn't find a way to base their decision on the actual Constitution, so they based it on their own "feelings" and decided that the nation felt the same way. Maybe Scalia is right and the Court really is "free at last." Needless to say, basing a decision on "evolving standards of decency" and "national consensus" sets a dangerous precedent whereby the Constitution can be ignored in favor of the judicial interpretation of the "national consensus" on the issue at hand.

I find this decision disconcerting, maybe even ominous coming on the eve of Heller.

WTF?

Nothing is showing up to the right of my posts. No sitemeter, no archives, no blogroll, profile link.

Is it just me or are readers also only seeing the site header, my posts and nothing else?

EDIT - Nevermind it seems to be working now.

Small World

So that little blog meetup in Indianapolis was at Broad Ripple right? Did these guys happen to play there by any chance? Dave Grodzki (guy in the striped shirt on the site) was one of my best friends when we were little, back in my elementary school days. He was a genius and musical virtuoso, so I'm not surprised he's a musician.

Any of you Indy bloggers ever seen them play?

Lucky Bastard

My brother knows a Magpul Rep and got to shoot a suppressed Masada last weekend. He also got a bunch of PMAGS for his AR, rail covers, VFG, light mount and a Magpul t-shirt all for free.

Figures I missed out on this. I would have loved to get some free stuff.

Quote of Tomorrow

"World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis, features which the author of this volume points out repeatedly and in many contexts. The doctrines of socialism seethe with contradictions, its theories are at constant odds with its practice, yet due to a powerful instinct--also laid bare by Shafarevich--these contradictions do not in the least hinder the unending propaganda of socialism. Indeed, no precise, distinct socialism even exists; instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach."

- Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn (in the foreword to Igor Sharavech's The Socialist Phenomenon

I haven't gotten through the entire book yet, but so far it's excellent. A must read. Hell, the entire foreword is full of quoteable parts.

Quote of the Day

"Should the people of the United States own refineries? Maybe so. Frankly, I think that's a good idea. Then we could control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out on the market."

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)

I know we've all seen and heard the video by now, and the one by Maxine Waters, but this needs to be remembered. Frankly it's almost shocking to hear Democrats advocating pure, unfiltered socialism. They've gotten bold enough that they won't even bother hiding their message behind contemporary liberalism. The fact is that nationalization would be downright moronic, disastrous, and not to mention flat out unconstitutional. (Takings Clause - 5th Amendment) Unless of course the Democrats actually plan on providing "just compensation" to every private company and all U.S. & Foreign shareholders in the entire industry. Even the Federal Government doesn't have the money for that.

P228

Because I have nothing else to blog about at the moment.

Pics as promised

Interestingly, the P6 and P228 are almost identical in size, but the double stack grip of the P228 makes it feel much bigger than it really is. In fact, I think they might actually be identical in size aside from grip thickness. It sure looks like it when you lay one on top of the other.

And man the trigger pull on this thing is really nice. If it were a bit lighter and a bit shorter it'd be perfect.

So Heller will likely be tomorrow

My predictions are simple.

1. The court will conclude that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and D.C.'s ban is an unconstitutional infringement upon that right.

2. The Court will leave open "reasonable regulation" of said right and will not define what is / is not "reasonable."

3. They will avoid stating what level of scrutiny should be applied to the 2nd Amendment

4. The question of incorporation will not come up.

5. D.C.'s ban will fall, but we'll need incorporation before we can make any serious headway after Heller. It may take decades before we get to that point, but we have to start somewhere.

A little taste of Hockessin

If any of my readers ever find themselves driving through Northern Delaware there's one stop they really should make.

My city has without a doubt the BEST ice cream you will ever eat. It's made fresh, and by fresh I mean you can watch the cows walking around while you eat.

Woodside Farm Creamery

I'm looking at the site thinking "My mom could paint logo's as good if not better than those, how come she's not a noted local artist?" I've been telling her for years she needs to quit her job and do a little marketing. Her work speaks for itself. Hell, she should start up a blog with contact info and samples of her work.

Quote of the Day

This one's going along with the theme of Peter's OOTD over at Firearms & Freedom

Via the Joyce Foundation funded "Gun Guys" website,

"Under current Delaware law, virtually anyone, excepting felons, may strap on a holster and carry a gun in plain view. You can even carry a rifle over your shoulder and walk around with it.

As Delaware's attorney general, I frequently passed upon applications to carry a concealed weapon. I never understood why someone making night deposits felt safer with a concealed gun rather than carrying a holstered gun in plain view. Common sense would suggest a robber or mugger would be less likely to tangle with someone visibly carrying a weapon. Police carry their firearms openly."

-Former Delaware Attorney General Charles M. Oberly III

(I've actually met Mr. Oberly many times, as well as former AG Jane Brady and several AG prosecutors including Ferris Wharton, who ran for AG and was beaten by our current AG Beau Biden. Mr. Wharton actually broke the basketball net at my house several years ago.)

I'd LOVE to have that statement on DOJ letterhead to keep with me should I ever open carry.

Wish I had my cruise pics from last year

Breda would so get a kick out of this. I went on a Caribbean cruise and ended up meeting a ton of crazy, awesome people from all over the world. One of them was this crazy Irish kid who was wearing one of those "ATF should be a convenience store" shirts. God that was a crazy trip. Lots of drinking and older women hitting on me.

Breda's latest post about Ireland reminded me of this.

A "Must See"

I'm not sure I'd characterize my meager little blog as a "must see" but I certainly appreciate the compliment and the linkage.

Damn, I'm getting quite a few hits from that forum.

I'm dumb

So I'm at my FFL's picking up my P228, handling it and dry-firing a bit in DA. I go to cock the hammer and it won't cock. Now I'm thinking "great, I bought a broken gun. I start field-stripping it and finally go "D'oh I'm an idiot!" No decocking lever. Why? It's a DAO of course.

That certainly explains why what I thought was the DA pull felt so smooth & light relative to my P6's.

Anyway, it's a KB date code. (1991) West German Sig. This gun has definitely been shot much more than anything else I own. Then again, that's the risk you take when buying used (and everything I own is used / police surplus) It only came with one mag, is missing a grip screw, has a gnarled spot on the underside of the frame, and the rear sights aren't very white anymore.

Oh and there's a tiny import mark on the frame that says (IAG Billerica MA) Is that anywhere near you Jay G?

Pictures will be up later. As long as it shoots well I certainly can't complain for under $400.

EDIT - I forgot to mention - As I've said before my FFL works out of his basement. Well the P228 came with no box so I just walked out to my car with it in my hand. A woman drove by and rubbernecked so bad she damn near hit a mailbox. I couldn't help but laugh.

Scalia or Souter?

Via New Jovian Thunderbolt it seems either Scalia or Souter was assigned lead opinion in Heller. Yeah, that certainly clears things up and makes me feel confident about a favorable ruling.....

"Yay or Yikes" is right!

The Waiting Game

According to USPS my P228 I bought was shipped to my FFL's house yesterday, but of course they came at 1PM and couldn't deliver it. Hopefully someone's home the next time they decide to drop by.

Spike's says my AR upper should be shipping "soon" whatever that means. I've been waiting since March so hopefully I'll get it in the next few weeks. Too bad I don't have a dedicated lower for it.

Some totally uncool finanical stuff happened literally right after I paid for the P228. I also lost my health insurance which I wasn't expecting. I suppose that makes it even more imperative that I find a "real" job in the next few months.

I hear the media is making a big deal about Cindy McCain criticizing Obamarama's wife. Look, if you start flinging shit around and levying criticizms don't be surprised when the opposing candidates wife stands up for her man. Michelle put herself out there on the campaign trail making speeches. That means she's open to criticizm just like the politicians themselves. She needs to quit playing the "strong black woman" card one minute and the "poor little victim" card the next. It makes me want to barf.

Two Classes?

John Lott on Chicago's Handgun Ban

via the Chicago Tribune

"But what's not often reported by the decidedly pro-gun-control media is that since Chicago's anti-handgun law went into effect in 1982, only two classes of people have had ready access to firearms:

The criminals. And the politicians."

I think it's safe to say they're in the same class, particularly in Chicago.

HR6257 - The Newest Assault Weapon Ban

You can read it here, thanks to Saysuncle (who unlike the AP won't try to charge me for this link)


It looks like it was introduced by my very own Congressman Rep. Mike Castle. I can't say I'm surprised given that he's a RINO and solidly anti-gun. Sadly he has about as much chance of being voted out of office as Senator Biden does.

Notice how they call it the "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act." Hell that title almost sounds like it could be a pro-gun bill. Of course a few lines down we see what they really should have named it. "Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008."

Hopefully we can stop this thing before it goes anywhere. On that note where is HR1022? Languishing in committee somewhere?

EDIT - For a little better idea of Rep. Castle's take on the AWB I'm posting his response to a letter written by Radnor, one of our members over at DelawareOpenCarry.org

Here's Castle's response regarding the 94' AWB back in 2004.

I have to wonder where Castle got his statistics about the 94' AWB reducing crime, since even the Clinton Administration has said otherwise.

Also, Castle is incorrect concerning the terms of the very bill he wants to renew. AR-15's and other banned weapons were still sold from 94-04 only without certain "evil" cosmetic features. Rifles manufactures "post-ban" fired the exact same rounds as those made before the ban. The AWB did not ban the possession of "assault weapons" nor high capacity magazines, and it did not even ban the transfer / sale of such weapons. The transfer / sale of banned weapons was completely legal provided they were manufactured prior to the bill's enactment. The only real effect the AWB had was to increase the demand for "pre-ban" weapons & magazines while restricting the supply (since there was no new manufacture.)

Then again, when have facts or having knowledge of the bills you propose or support ever mattered to an anti-gun politician?

Quote of the Day

"By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''

-Alexander Hamilton - Federalist #29

Any questions about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment have been answered quite clearly by our founders time and time again. All it takes to clear up ambiguity is to read what they wrote 200+ years ago.

A "Winnie the Pooh" foreign policy?

Seen via Breda's
The Breda Fallacy: pooh.

Here's the quote that I want to focus on.

"In a subtle break from Mr Bush’s belief that the war on terror can be won, Mr Danzig, who is a Pentagon adviser on bioterrorism, warned that while the West can defeat individual terrorist groups and plots, it can never entirely remove the threat posed by nuclear proliferation or the prospect of bioterrorism. "

I agree with Danzig's point that the threat will always exist, however I don't agree with the attitude that "Oh well, we can't stop the threat so let's just ignore it" should be official U.S. foreign policy. There will always be risks and threats, but ignoring them and placating those who would do us harm is disasterous foreign policy. Every time the U.S. has portrayed weakness to our enemies things have ended badly. Portraying strength & force doesn't always work either, but deescalating and taking force off the table from the get-go (I.E. the Obama approach) is incredibly stupid and naive. Diplomacy is great, but Obama damn well better portray force (and the willingness to use it) behind everything he says. Without that foreign leaders will walk all over him. Lord knows we've seen that happen before.

The world won't stop to hold hands and sign Kumbaya, no matter how many times Obama says "Let's play nice children."

Ignoring national security threats was the hallmark trait of the Clinton Administration, and it culminated in the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden tested us throughout the 90's with smaller scale attacks and our response was pussified. I'm not a big fan of Bush's foreign policy, but I don't want to go to the extreme left either. Obama' s message to America's enemies is "do what you want, friends." or at least that's how they'll interpret it.

Imagine if you will what the Cold War would have been like under Obama rather than Reagan. Does that image scare you? It should.

A "Credit Card Bill of Rights" Pt. 2 - Responding to Comments

Specifically I'm responding to this comment over at Uncle's by Nomen Nescio

"y’know, if you click through all the way to the original story and read it, you’ll see he’s actually proposing three specific laws to pass as this “bill of rights” of his. mind criticizing those specifics instead of just jeering at the very idea of passing laws to regulate the credit industry?"

Nomen- As I discussed in my original critique of the article, he wants to do 3 things that only punish the credit industry for the irresponsibility of consumers. He's ignoring the most important fact here. If it says "rate changes may occur without prior notification" or something to that effect well then you had fair warning and signed the contract anyway.

Obama wants to ban unilateral rate changes and says consumers should be able to opt out if the rate is raised. I might support requiring notification of said changes, but the original contract you sign does make you aware that such changes can occur. Also, you should be checking your account often enough to notice said changes.

The credit card companies should be able to decide the terms they wish to insert into their contracts without having their hands tied by the government. Likewise consumers should be free to enter into such contracts at their own risk without government holding their hand the entire way. That is the entire basis of my rant.

Obama wants to ban interest on transaction fees and explains,

"If you're late in making a payment, you have to pay a late fee. But you shouldn't be paying a fee for paying a fee."

Why not? If you'd paid on time you wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. You knew the consequences of late payments. (you did read the contract. right?) Again, who's fault is it that you didn't pay on time? Who fault is it if you didn't read the contract? Who's fault is it that you didn't talk to the company about not being able to make your payment on time. As I said before, talk to them and there's a good chance they'll work with you regarding payment and excuse the fee. Of course this assumes you haven't made a habit of missing payments. If you have then why should they reward you?

Obama says,

"We'll ban rate changes on past debt. If a credit card company wants to raise interest rates, then that new, higher rate should apply to the debt you add going forward, not what you already owe. The store can't change the price of what you bought after you bought it and neither should your credit card."

I agree that if interest rates are raised the new rate SHOULD apply to debt going forward. That's certainly better for the consumer, but if the CC company wants to say otherwise they can, and consumers can choose whether they want a credit card that applies interest in such a manner. Businesses exist to make money. They don't exist to be "fair."

Why am I continually amazed at rampant stupidity?

"No one in this world, so far as I know has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people."
-H.L. Mencken

Mencken was right. Never underestimate the stupidity of the average American. I set my standard for being shocked by such stupidity fairly low, and yet I continue to be surprised.

Via Rachel Lucas and Hot Air we learn just how frighteningly stupid American's really are, and Democrats fared even worse in the "is there anything going on up there?" poll.

"29% of voters favor nationalizing the oil industry. Just 47% are opposed and 24% are not sure. ...... A plurality of Democrats (37%) believe the oil industry should be nationalized." Just 32% of voters in Barack Obama’s party disagree with that approach."

HOLY SHIT is just about all I have to say! You've got to be an absolute dolt or completely brainwashed to favor nationalizing the oil industry (or any industry.) I guess I didn't realize just how pervasive socialism is in this country, probably because I rejected it outright despite my exposure to the "public indoctrination system" and "institutions of higher learning." I'm betting the 24% who answered "not sure" selected it because they don't even know what "nationalize" means.

Our education system, including colleges, actively advance socialist viewpoints. At the very least schools fail to teach the philosophy of great minds like John Locke, who's ideas are almost solely responsible for the concepts expounded in our Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. Sure, some of you may disagree with this, but I'm a recent product of the system and I can say without a doubt that it is getting worse.

If the next few generations of Americans grow up believing in the failed ideals of socialism this country will cease to be free in short order. We'll reach a saturation point where there simply aren't enough of us who still hold true to the beliefs of the founding fathers to make any meaningful difference. We won't be able to stop "change" and Rousseau's philosophy on government will become the accepted truth in America, as it is currently in Europe. When that happens a "free America" will be nothing more than a fleeting memory.

I hope I'm wrong, but I have a hard time being optimistic when I see what they're teaching kids (and college students) these days.

Occasionally I try to get through to college students, but liberals are hard nuts to crack...

In my time as a college student I was a libertarian, or maybe a conservative with libertarian leanings. That made me a distinct political minority on campus. As you might imagine, our school paper, The Review tends to be liberal. It does however allow comments, so I occasionally use those to point out bias and inaccuracies in certain stories. I figure that maybe someone will read my comment and it'll make them think about that particular issue.

Here are two such examples. The 1st is an editorial titled "Be considerate of others -stop smoking." It's little more than a rant by some woman who doesn't like smokers and goes on about how agonizing it is for her to encounter 2nd hand smoke while walking outside around campus.

Here's a gem of a quote from her article.

"Non-smokers have the right to inhale healthy, clean air. Cigarette smoke poses many dangerous side effects to non-smokers. "

She thinks she has "a right to inhale clean air." Haha. My flatulence after leaving taco bell or Quiznos in Trabant says otherwise.

Anyway, here's the comment I left. Sadly the writers of said articles rarely respond to comments.

"I don't smoke, but I have to agree with the 1st comment. There are a million things around you at any given moment of any day that could kill or harm you. Second hand smoke is extremely far down on that list.

Also, you live in Delaware. We dont' exactly have healthy air. There's a nuclear power plant not too far away. If you're driving in or near Delaware City with the windows down in your car that's probably far worse for your health than breathing 2nd hand smoke for a few seconds as you walk by someone on the way to class.

Life is risky, liberty involves risk. Live free and deal with it. If you don't like smokers don't associate with them, but don't ask them to change their habits because of how you feel.

By the way, you most certainly don't have a "right" to clean air. "

Another article was entitled "Walmart takes harsher stance on gun sales."

A quote in the article by one of our Political Science professors, Leslie Golstein, really irked me. She's a Constitutional Law professor, uber-liberal and generally known around campus as a man-hating feminist. I avoided taking a class with her my entire 4 years based on that reputation.

Here's is my comment taking issue with Goldstein

"Goldstein said to get to the root of the problem, the government must crack down on unsanctioned gun shows, where most anyone can buy a gun unlicensed."

"Maybe Professor Goldstein should do a bit of research on this issue before voicing her opinion. Most states (including Delaware) do not require a license to buy a firearm. Violent criminals are the root of the problem, and focusing on an inanimate object will not solve anything. (D.C. has banned guns and has no gun shops, yet it has the highest violent crime rate of any city in the U.S., and citizens have no 2nd or 4th amendment rights.) Criminals buy guns on the black market and steal them by burglarizing homes. If you keep violent offenders locked up you solve the problem.

If I buy a gun at a "gun show" I am required to go through the very same process I would if buying from a gun shop or internet transfer sale. At a gun show I'm still required to buy through a federally licensed dealer, fill out form 4473, go through the federal NICS background check and pay a transfer fee. In most "free" states no background check is required for private party purchases between residents of the same state as long as both buyer and seller can legally make the transaction. Why should there be, since all you have is a situation where two law-abiding citizens are transferring ownership of a product both can legally possess?

I will no longer buy anything from Walmart. There is absolutely no reason for them to record firearms purchases and quite frankly I consider it a violation of privacy. It is harassment of those who have done nothing wrong, and law-abiding gun owners like myself are already being blamed for the actions of criminals. What Walmart is doing has nothing whatsoever to do with firearms laws. If an individual doesn't pass the NICS background check they don't walk out with a gun. Period.

Would Professor Goldstein support such intrusive measures for everyone who buys a kitchen knife? A baseball bat? A tire iron? "

Quote of the Day

"I’ve never seen an asterisk on the First Amendment which states “except for Nazis”, although one can argue that there should be one thus labeled. We all know, however, that this is a dangerous precedent, because if you outlaw “hate crimes” like Nazism, the door is opened for any other -ism or philosophy to be likewise circumscribed.

It’s just unfortunate that in order to protect our general freedoms, we often have to take the side of the loathsome—and few are more loathsome than Nazis—in order to protect the principle. And the uncomfortable part of living in a free society is that you always run the risk of allowing the seeds of your own destruction to flourish, because, let’s face it, objectionable philosophies do not generally include “freedom of” anything in their principles. "

-Kim DuToit

I couldn't agree more with Kim. I see protection of vile speech by Nazi's, the KKK etc. as vital to free speech rights. The fact that we protect free speech rights of even the most universally objectionable groups acts as a buffer against government intrusion on free speech. Remove that buffer and you are greasing the top of a very slippery slope. If you outlaw "hate crimes," well how will they be defined? and by whom? They're amorphous just like "common-sense gun control." If you don't think that will lead to further restrictions you are hopelessly naive. Government always restricts personal liberties unless impeded from doing so.

Also, if the government can take kids from their parents for teaching them Nazism, what else can they take them for? Practicing a religion the state decides it doesn't like? What about having your kids read "revolutionary" or "insurrectionist" literature, or even the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights? If the State can take your children based on your teaching them "objectionable" materials, and they are the final arbiter of what is "objectionable" then do you really have any parental rights at all?

Never seen that before

This morning the police were getting ready to do a tactical entry 3 houses down from where I park for work. About 20 of them, guns drawn, vests etc. The weird thing though is it was the Delaware State Police, not Wilmington or New Castle County. It was probably a stash house or some other major drug bust. Drug use / dealing is pretty prevalent and open where I park, so I really can't say I'm surprised. This was bound to happen sooner or later. Too bad I had to get to work or I would have parked so I could stay and watch.

Obama - First a big stick, now a gun?

First Obama threatened Congress with a big stick if they opposed his nanny-state universal healthcare initiative, now he's threatening to one-up GOP weaponry. Yes, I know it's just a metaphor, but it's ironic coming from Barack guns are bad m'kay Obama.

At a Philly fundraiser on Friday Obama commented,
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

Wait! Didn't Obama have this to say about CCW earlier this year? Does it only apply to us citizens and not to "The Messiah?" Of course Obama is spouting the same tired doomsday bullshit that we've heard for 30 years regarding CCW.

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

So he's against CCW, but plans to "bring a gun" in order to threaten the GOP? Maybe someone should tell him he can't carry in his home state of Illinois or in Philly. Does he have a FOID card? Maybe he's just planning to snatch a pistol off one of his armed bodyguards?

EDIT - It's probably worthwhile to mention that this is the same Barack Obama who has promised a "new kind of politics" free of the usual dirty personal attacks etc. etc. The comments he's been making of late sure sound like politics as usual to me.

Obama - A "Credit Card Bill of Rights?"

Take a look at Obama's recent remarks in Chicago (h/t to Zendo Deb for the link)

Obama's sounding more and more like FDR everyday. Why not go ahead and add this "right," as well as others Obama has mentioned to FDR's list of "rights" that aren't actually "rights." A "right" bestowed upon you by the government is not inherent or inalienable. Such a "right" is conditional and can be changed at the whim of bureacrats. Here in the real world we call those things "privileges."

Obama says,

Now, don't get me wrong. We all have a responsibility to pay what we owe. But we have to ensure that the amount we're paying is fair. That's why I've proposed a Credit Card Bill of Rights."

Right, and it's the job of the federal government to determine what's "fair." Bullshit. When you get a new Credit Card you have a responsibility to know what the rates are, how and when they can go up, what fees you may incur for late payments etc. etc.

Obama explains,

"The contracts you sign when you get a card have gone from being one page-long a few decades ago to more than thirty pages-long today. And they're often filled with traps and fine print that only a credit card executive could understand. These companies have been crossing the line to boost their bottom line."

Really? 30 pages? I have two credit cards and neither had a contract that was more than a few pages. I read them, and I looked up a few things I was unsure about. (hell, I was a college student and had never had a CC before) Obama must be pulling this 30 pages crap out of his ass.

Obama continues to blame the credit card companies, saying

"But many more Americans aren't falling into debt because they made an irresponsible decision; they're falling into debt because credit card companies are pushing them over the edge."

Ok, but they wouldn't be in a precarious position at all if they hadn't racked up huge balances on several different cards. Do fees, late charges, and rate changes hurt them? Sure they do, but they were the ones who put themselves in that position in the 1st place. My cards have crazy high rates, penalties etc. I don't care because I don't default and I rarely carry a balance. Hell, Citi sends me rebate checks. The credit card companies are lending you money. If you bite off more than you can chew who's fault is that? Not to mention, if you do run into some trouble CALL THEM! They don't want people amassing huge debts that'll never be paid, so they're usually flexible if it means you'll be sending them money.

The article states that the average family is $10K in credit card debt. That's not the fault of the credit card companies. No, it's the fault of people living beyond their means. There are alot of stupid and / or ignorant people out there. There are young people who just don't get how a credit card works, and they get in over their heads. The solution isn't to blame the credit card companies, it's to EDUCATE people. Why not have a basic personal finance course for high school seniors instead of some useless "humanities" course?

Obama wants government to do all the thinking so that Americans won't have to.

"To help you understand the risks that are involved in signing up for a credit card, I'll create a five-star rating system. That way, Americans can compare credit card companies and avoid those that are stacking the deck against them."

I can already go online and compare cards in 5 minutes to find the one I want. Then I can have them send me an offer and I can read all the fine print. If I don't like it I don't sign up for the card. Sure, that requires you to actually read and think, but what parts of life don't require you to do those things? Some incompetent, bloated, government bueracracy isn't who I want compiling rankings and doing risk-analysis on my behalf. Do you really trust the competency of people who let things like this get into an official GOA report?

Civic Literacy Quiz

I got 13 wrong out of 60 for a score of 78.33%. Quite frankly I find that pretty sad, but I suppose I did pretty well considering the average for a college senior last year was 54.2%

You can take the test here. I'm bad with dates and not a great history buff, but I still think it'd be hard to fail this test. It's almost shocking how bad college students performed, but then I look back at school and realize how many truly stupid people I was surrounded by, and how many were "book smart" but were illogical and didn't have a bit of common sense. I used to edit papers for a few dormmates in college and they were so poorly written I didn't even bother fixing everything. Some were so bad I would have thrown them in the trash if I were doing the grading.

Of course here I am, probably the smartest kid in my family, yet also the one who consistently brought home the most mediocre grades. Funny how that works though. I knew kids in college who were honest to god morons. I'm talking the type of people who upon hearing them I'd think "how in the hell did they get accepted to U of D?" They seemed hopeless, yet somehow did well on exams.

For anecdotal evidence of the type of people colleges are graduating these days read this thread on sigforum These grads, despite impressive resumes, are doing things I would never dream of in a job interview. Hell, when I started at my current job I showed up in a suit & tie and dressed like that for the 1st week until I knew the dress-code. Some of the stories in that thread blew my mind. I mean, who the hell brings their dad to a job interview?

Ireland Gives the EU the Finger

Éireann go Brách.

Via Breda comes this piece of awesomeness from Ireland (the land of Guinness, which makes them that much more awesome.)

The EU is "shocked" that Ireland might want to actually retain their national sovereignty. I'm sorry but I have about as little respect for the EU as I do the UN. Imagine if Mexico, Canada and the U.S. were all technically sovereign nations but belonged to a huge international government bureacracy that told them how they had to run their own countries. Ireland damn well should give the EU the finger.

Also, the most important part of the article is as follows,

"Ireland is the only country to put the treaty to a popular vote."

citizens of european countries have been getting railroaded by governments who don't care about "the people." I guarantee there was strong opposition to the libson treaty in other European countries, but politicians and governments went ahead and signed it anyway, for the "common good" of Europe.

A Written Bill of Rights is a bad thing?

More stupidity from the UK, via Armed & Safe

Sadly, I've come to expect such mindless idiocy from the UK. Their minds have been poisoned by socialist nanny-statists. They now live in what pretty much resembles a police state. Rights? British subjects have no rights, although they do have a "patients bill of rights"via the National Health Service. Whoopty doo.

The truly scary thing is that there are many in the U.S. who share this man's view, and with our educational system spreading liberal propaganda that eschews the idea of inherent, inalienable individual rights such a perverted mindset is sure to grow.

This perversion of the definition of "rights" is in my opinion, the biggest danger we face today. Once this perversion is complete in the minds of the citizenry, government can take away rights (or render them meaningless) and the public won't even take notice. Think I'm crazy? Look at the UK. Only now are some people going "Whoa! what happened?" and protesting the loss of their freedoms. Sadly it's damn near impossible to get rights restored once the government has taken them. Sure, the citizenry can protest and petition, and the government can summarily ignore them. Not only that, but you can't fight in the courts if they're not on your side either.

Hell, why did we fight a revolution against the British? Because we wanted freedom! Because our protests and petitions were rejected by the British. Eventually, armed revolution became our only recourse. Then, because of the abuses perpetrated against the colonists by the British crown, a Constitution that protected the rights of the people was drafted in our fledgling nation. It specifically meant to protect and declare inviolate those very rights which the founders had been denied. They were written down, and their purpose made explicitly clear, so that they would not be violated by the new American government (nor future governments) as they had been by the British.

The Mr. Robinson says the following,

"America is governed by a written constitution. A series of amendments cast in stone - like the Commandments handed to Moses.The UK is governed by an unwritten constitution. The UK's laws are not easily changed, but if a law becomes archaic, out-dated or unworkable, it can be changed. You've got more chance of hell freezing over than you have of changing the US constitution."

Look at how useful that "unwritten Constitution" has been for UK subjects. Their Constitution sure means alot, and has yet to be trampled upon by the UK government. Looking at the loss of freedoms occuring across the pond I'd say our founders were quite prescient and did a damn good job drafting a Constitution with specific rights and powers. They made it hard to change because they didn't want individual rights violated, not by a tyrannous government nor an ignorant mob. They didn't want the government to be able to just disregard any Constitutional provision they didn't like. The Constitution wouldn't be much of a limitation on government power if they could do that. What good are rules if the people those rules are imposed against can change them on a whim?

And by the way, as Armed & Safe points out, we've changed the Constitution many times. There's a specific, Constitutionally outlined process by which this can occur. Oh, and Mr. Robinson, we usually amend the Constitution to expand individual rights and make them more inclusive. We don't amend the Constitution in order to take away rights, and even if we did that wouldn't change things, since those rights (like the 2nd Amendment) are inherent, natural rights that don't depend on parchment and ink for their existence.

Pirates! Arrrgh!

I know I saw this posted at Robb's recently but can't find the post.

Anyway, I'm reposting it here since Falnfenix will probably get a kick out of it.

Pirate selector switch

Government Incompetence

Last night I was watching Lou Dobbs (yeah, yeah, I know...) and he had a segment on the dismal state of bridges and roads in PA. Apparently some 6000 bridges and many roads are in disrepair and the Commonwealth just doesn't have the money to fix them. The proposed solution? Lease out the PA Turnpike to private foreign investors for the next 75 years!

Here's a novel idea. Use existing state gas taxes and toll revenue to fix the roads and bridges. Be responsible, be frugal, and find a way to make sure you have the money needed for maintenance. I mean how hard could it be to maintain a section of roadway with the toll revenue raised by said roadway? Then again, how hard could it be to make money running a brothel?

Do we really want to give people with that level of incompetence even more power and responsibility over our lives? At the federal level look at all gross incompetence of the Bush Administration that liberals point to as reason for "change." Why do they think such incompetence will magically disappear once The Messiah is in the White House? The Democratic Congress shares most of his liberal agenda, and look at the bang-up job they've done in the past few years.

Quote of the Day

"Barack Two All Beef Patties Special Sauce Lettuce Cheese Pickles Onion on a Sesame Seed Bun Obama is horrible on gun rights..... he's anti-gun but us gun nuts don't have to worry about it because the Messiah has to change water into wine first."

Robb of Sharp as a Marble

I just hope I don't have to sit down and break bread with the Obamessiah. After all, he's so full of shit I'm afraid it'd be more "breaking wind" than "breaking bread"

Something I've Always Wondered

Why do so many people do the whole marker / other item through the trigger guard when taking pictures of their guns? It ruins an otherwise good picture and in my opinion isn't really necessary. If you've confirmed it's unloaded and it's just sitting there being photographed and not handled why the need to put something through the trigger guard?

You Can't Choose Family

Breda had this to say in her post about family relationships.

"I hate drama, am a bit anti-social, and tend to avoid people once they've hurt me. I may always love them, and will help them when they need me, but that doesn't mean I have to let them walk all over me. And over the years, I've learned that you can't force people care about you as much as you care about them - sometimes you just have to stop trying."

She's just described me to a T. I'm the nicest person in the world if you respect me and treat me like a decent human being. I'm not a man of many (spoken) words, nor am I one to discuss my emotions with others. I'm not one who opens up quickly to others, and I detest drama and childish bickering. When people hurt me I have a tendency to just say "the hell with you," but deep down I still care, and that is where the problem arises. While sometimes this needs to be done, it has often left me with a feeling of emptiness. Not to mention I push people away to guard against opening up and being hurt again, at times even to my own detriment. "Standing up for myself" is seen as "disrespect" and makes certain family relationships that much more difficult.

My own problem has always been "how do I just stop trying / stop caring?" Not so much how do you stop trying to force them to care about you, but how do you stop caring about them when they clearly don't care about you, or at least don't act like it?

Enough with my rambling, incoherent psycho-babble.

Good luck finding peace with the loss of your grandpa squeaky.

According to my Co-Worker

- It doesn't matter that Obama was around Chicago politics his whole career because simply put, "he never got involved in it"

- Socialism is when the government forces everyone to be equal, but if they're just lessening the inequality gap it's not socialism. He stressed that Obama lessening the gap via taxation would only be temporary.

- It is "elitist" for the rich to hoard all the money while the middle class suffer, especially since the rich can exploit tax loopholes, but not elitist for a rich man like Obama to tell others they have to "sacrifice."

- It's not elitist for Obama to have 24/7 armed security while he denies his constitutents in Illinois the right (and ability) to defend themselves. Why? Because he's a "national figure" and incredibly important to the country, and because he's black and thus needs protection. He never did address my contention that this means Obama's life is more important than the life of an average citizen.

- Money is not property (I shit you not he actually said this)

- He also completely sidestepped my comparison of government taxation and redistribution to someone putting a gun to his head and robbing him of the cash in his wallet.

Liberals have a profound inability to stay on topic and go through logical progressions. At least my co-worker tries and keeps our discussions clean and respectful.

Have you used your "Government Bribe" yet?

I wasn't really planning on using mine quite yet, but I accidentally won an auction on Gunbroker.

Too bad it doesn't look like this (see pic #6 on the page)

Somehow I don't think this is what Obama has in mind when he talks about "stimulating the economy with our "stimulus checks."

Quote of the Day

"This Republic will not die in a cacophony of violence; it will creep away over the horizon driven out by the forces of ignorance, bureaucracy and self-entitlement. And when it does, there will be too few of us left that realize it is gone, raise the cry and too many who simply will not listen and not care."

Armed Canadian

I agree with this assessment. If this great country, the last bastion of freedom and liberty on earth, finally gives way I think few will even realize what's happened. A few will notice, but the ignorant masses will shrug them off and fail to heed their warnings. If you keep the people dumb and satiated they will gleefully hold out their hands to be shackled. Just look at the current election as proof. I sit and watch as the masses stagger, drunk with a thirst for "change," towards the mirage of "hope and change," so that they may see their own visions of "change" reflected in the Messiah.

They have no clue what awaits them if they actually get what "The Messiah" is promising. What's worse is that they don't wank to know the truth. They'd rather bask in their ignorance than face the sometimes harsh bitchslap of reality and history.

When the Republic falls it will fall just as we are seeing in the UK. We get to watch it all unfold just across the pond. The real question is, will we learn from the Brits and stop it from happening here?

Delaware has no Right to Bear Arms?

We don't have a State RKBA according to the article Rusty links to in this post.

In fact the Right to Bear Arms is protected by the Delaware State Constitution. The link on the State website isn't working at the moment, so I've provided a different link.

Article I Section 20 clearly states,

"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for hunting and recreational use. "

I just thought I'd clear that up.

And the wait begins...

I have to get a passport photo taken today after work so I can write out a check and send everything out to Utah BCI. Then it'll be 2-3 months of waiting for my permit to arrive.

The class was long, but I actually found it quite interesting, with lots of good discussion. I did have to shoot right handed at the range, which was no fun at all.

(and Breda, the "colostomy bag" subject actually came up in discussion)

He's Gonna "Whup" Em!

If seems that if the Obamessiah can't make them see the light he's gonna "whup" Congress with his big stick. What about democracy, mutual understanding etc? After all, when discussing Bush's foreign policy mistakes Obama says we can't just force people to do what we want via military means. I guess it's OK if he's the bully. It may be a joke, but I can't help but believe it's closer to the truth than some think, especially considering Obama's a product of Chicago politics. Chicago is the epitome of strong-handed thuggery and generally illegal action in politics.

I'm immediately reminded of an earlier post of mine, in particular the last paragraph.

"If Obama decides he wants to institutionally coerce me to fulfil that obligation (defined by government) then he's advocating a form of socialism. Remember, the only real difference between this and communism is how the government seeks to coerce, and how much force they're willing to use to ensure cooperation."

We keep hearing all this "hope, change, unity" BS with no real emphasis on how he plans to implement policy. I think we just got a glimpse of his plan, or at least his plan for dealing with those who don't follow him like good little sheep. The fact that he'll have Michelle by his side 24/7 only amplifies my concerns. The question is, how far is he willing to go to ensure cooperation?

One more thing. Could you imagine the media circus that would have ensued had Bush pulled a stunt like this in 2004?

Don't you just hate when that happens?

So for the last half hour I've been talking politics with one of my more liberal co-workers. He engages me in conversation, so I can't help but indulge him. I brought up Obama's naivety regarding foreign policy, Iran, and his plans to deescalate our ICBM program & nuclear arsenal. Somehow our political discussion dropped to a micro level analysis and came around to a discussion of guns. He knows I'm pro-gun and still engages me in discussion so I'm pretty sure I haven't scared him off......yet.

He believes Obama can change the thinking of someone like Ahmadinejad just by sitting down with him. I see this as naive, since I don't think you can change the mind of someone who hates you and actively advocates for your destruction and the destruction of your allies (Israel) He believes that by talking to Iran rather than projecting force we'll be able to make their government not hate us. This is the same at both micro & macro levels. Some people only understand force / threat of force and opening up a "hopeity, changity" dialogue only projects weakness. We got into a micro discussion on the use / projection of force via personal sidearms and hell, even open carry in Delaware. He's pretty level-headed for a liberal, so again I'm pretty sure I didn't scare him.

I brought up Kennedy & Kruschev but his contention was "that was a long time ago, it's not the same." This same basic sentiment was brought up several times on different issues, for example regarding the windfall profit taxes imposed by Carter on the oil companies. His response "that was a long time ago, the economy is different now." I suppose we should learn from history only when it suits our preconceived notion of how the world should be?

I'm still well liked by everyone in the office, and I'm not known as a "gun nut" so I guess that's a good thing. It's a shame, but you really don't want to be the office "gun nut" since you never know how people are going to respond. Hell, look what happened to Joe Huffman at his old job.

Church Shooting in Newark

A church leader was killed at a fundraiser in Newark, Delaware.

This is terrible reporting on the part of CBS. The headline reads "Suspect Arrested in Deadly Del. Church Shooting." The problem is, the shooting occurred at the Hilton Hotel where they were a fundraiser was being held to build a church in Elkton, MD. No one was shot in or near a church. How does that get past the editors?

Even more misreporting is found in the sidebar photo caption, which reads,

"Monir George, 58, was taken into custody in connection with the deadly
shooting of Malak Michael during a fundraiser for a Delaware church.

The article clearly states that the fundraiser was being held for a church to be built in Elkton, MARYLAND. With these kinds of factual errors I'm almost surprised I'm not reading an article from The News Journal.

The article states that the shooter had "two semi-auto handguns and 150 rounds of ammunition." Other than that there's no mention of guns or any anti-gun bias. Far better than the anti-gun drivel we'd see from the Washington Post or the Baltimore Sun Of course, had they held the fundraiser just down the road in Elkton this would have never happened, since you can't carry guns in Maryland. Had this happened in Maryland I'd bet they'd be quick to blame Pennsylvania's lax gun laws.

UPDATE - Edited because I forgot to post a link to the story. It should also be noted that two unarmed men were able to restrain the shooter, which probably saved many lives.

A Clinton / Obama ticket

All of the talking heads seem to think this would be the greatest thing for the Democratic party since sliced bread. They're all idiots. (surprise, surprise) If Obama has ANY common sense at all (and I have my doubts about his cognitive abilities) he will not take the Hildabeast as his VP.

What advantage would Obama gain by taking Clinton as VP?

Yes, it may help him in the general election, but does anyone really think the Clinton's can play the strong, silent, behind the scenes role? If we end up with a Obama / Clinton White House Obama will be merely a puppet, whether he knows it or not. Slick Willy will use all of his previous connections to run the show from the shadows. I certainly think he and Hills are capable of such action, and Obamarama is certainly naive, stupid, and inexperienced enough to have the wool pulled over his eyes by the Clinton's for 4 years.

It's all irrelevant anyway, since Hillary hasn't officially conceded. She has "suspended her campaign" but that sure as hell doesn't mean she's done fighting. This is her life's goal, and it was supposed to be hers. I just don't see her going out without a fight.

I'm not in much of a posting mood.

I really haven't been in the mood to sit down and compose any lengthy, well thought out posts, so all 5 or so of my regular readers will be stuck with small tidbits & commentary on things yanked from other bloggers for the time being. Maybe I just need to take a week off from blogging.

In other news,
-my .22 upper should be here by the end of the month. I bought some CCI velocitor to help break it in.

-I still want a P228, but most of the ones on gunbroker are beat to hell.

-$200 does not buy much ammo, but I "needed" more.

-Surfing AR15.com isn't good for your wallet.

-My Utah CCW class is this Saturday and I'm nervous.

- I'm going to admit something embarrasing. I sometimes have trouble racking the slide on the Sigs, particularly when I need to lock it back. I can do it just fine when I cover the ejection port, but that's a bad habit to start. I'm wondering if some 3M grip tape on the rear of the slide will help?

Quote of the Day

"I have a dog that sleeps by my chair. Whenever I hear a stray dog bark, I kick my dog. I've been applying this anti-barking program with ever- bigger boots and ever-harder kicks for years. It sends the right message. It hasn't actually reduced the barking, but you gotta give the program a chance to work ...."

-Commenter "Joseph Bloggins" from a surprisingly pro-gun Canadian article entitled "Basically, shooting is a fun thing to do."

H/T to Sebastian for the link.

I have no real title for this post

Expect to see a few Delaware related posts from me soon. I've been wanting to to a quick rundown of State firearms laws with my thoughts. I also want to discuss the local political climate here and the curious (but marvelous) lack of gun control laws we have considering our politicians & proximity to MD / Baltimore, D.C., and Philly.

What else? I've been wanting to discuss Biden Jr.'s "community prosecution" approach he's started in the AG's office, as well as my general ideas on crime/crime control. I really need to try to meet Biden one of these days since I've had the opportunity to meet the last two DE AG's.

Everyone should try to sit in on a murder / burglarly etc. trial once in their life. It's really quite interesting especially if you get to see the cross-examinations and opening / closing statements. If you're interested in such things try to find out who the top prosecutors are in your state and sit in on their trials. Being a trial lawyer is about so much more than just the facts. So much of it is about being interesting, engaging and theatrical and not just running through a boring, dry fact-pattern in the most monotone voice possible. I won't name names as to who I've seen take which approach, but I will say that the difference between an average prosecutor and a great one is all in the delivery.