Voter ID requirements

So the Supreme Court has ruled that it is Constitutional to require voters to present ID. Cool. I have no problem with that whatsoever. What's funny is that liberals are whining about how this is an "infringement on a fundamental right." They go on to explain how it will greatly impact the ability of poor, inner-city voters to exercize their rights.

Here we see a perfect example of the contradictions liberals face when they oppose the 2nd Amendment. When I buy a gun I need TWO separate forms of ID. I went down to the DMV and paid for a State ID card to use in conjunction with my Driver's License. If requiring one ID for voting is unconstitutional, why isn't requiring two forms to buy a gun? Not to mention requiring me to pay a transfer fee. That certain hurts the ability for poor folks to buy guns doesn't it?

Quote of the Day

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen,and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v. State (1859)

- Too bad historical case law in the area of the 2nd Amendment is such a clusterfuck. I've read decisions where the judges talk about the Constitution "granting" rights. They can't even get the basic concept of inalienable & pre-existing rights correct and yet they're sitting on the bench.

I Love It

I'm noticing more and more recently that my youngest sister is coming and home and uttering some rant to the tune of " Oh My God I hate stupid people!"

Welcome to the club sis, you're turning into me. (though I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing)

I find it quite amusing actually. My siblings and I don't really look anything alike, nor do we look that much like our parents, but spend 5 minutes with everyone and it becomes obvious we're all related.

Quote of the Day

"Authority without wisdom is like a heavy ax without an edge, fitter to bruise than polish."

-Anne Bradstreet

I just plain like this quote.

Blog Bash ?

Unfortunately it looks like most of the cool / fun stuff will be going on Thursday, Friday, and early Saturday. For those who have gone before, is it even worth it for me to go if I'll only be there Saturday evening and Sunday? Will other bloggers still be around?

Absolutely shocking news from the UK!

Knifings, Shootings, and Overall Murder Rate are all up

These statistics are "Shocking" says the article. It seems their cunning plan to disarm everyone but the government STILL isn't working.

As the article states, there has been a

14% increase in the murder rate from 98' - 07'
28% increase in deaths from "bladed weapons" (WAIT! You mean people kill eachother with weapons other than "evil" guns?!)

and the real shocker.....

"Most shockingly, there was a 57 per cent increase in deaths caused by punching and kicking."

You mean people don't need a gun or other weapon to kill eachother? All it takes is intent and brute force? How can that be? Sarah Brady tells us we'd all be holding hands and singing kumbaya if we'd just stop clinging to our guns.

"The most common violent deaths last year came from use of sharp instruments – up from 201 in 1998-99 to 258 in 2006-07. Second was hitting or kicking, with 140 deaths."

"gun deaths fell from 56 to 49"

We continue to watch the failed experiment of gun/weapon control in the petri dish formerly known as Great Britain. Unfortunately far too many on our shores fail to learn from the UK's experience and continue to blame the gun. They fail to see the overriding proof that gun control doesn't work.

Quote of the Day

“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”

- Plato

Ah kids...

Uncle's kids remind him "Butt" is a "bad word"

I just had a similar experience while visiting my nephews recently. They are 1, 2, 3, and 12, and the 3 year old had to keep reminding me not to use the "bad words" "butt" or "fart." Instead I'm supposed to say "heiney" and "tooted." I can't say either of those with a straight face.

I don't remember "butt" and "fart" being "bad words" when I was a kid, but maybe that's because my dad is the king of flatulence. (sorry dad) My mom however, hates the word "suck" and still repremands her "kids" when they use it.

Book Meme

I was Tagged by Squeaky

Here are the rules:

1. Pick up the nearest book of 123 pages or more. No cheating!
2. Find page 123.
3. Find the first five sentences.
4. Post the next three sentences.
5. Tag five people.

I'm at my computer having a beer after work (Newcastle Brown Ale) and the only two books I see are a Spanish Dictionary and Ayn Rand's "We the Living," so here's page 123 of Rand's 1st novel.

"He stood watching her. She did not think of the code of her parents' world. But that code came back once, for an instant, when she saw her skirt on the floor; then, in defiance, she regretted that her underwear was not silk, but only heavy cotton."

I think I'll tag Call Me Ahab Dirtcrashr Breda Jay G. and Ctone

By the way, this whole tagging thing is quite childish.

CCR

My slide for my '97 P6 came back from CCR yesterday. Their house black finish looks great. It's top notch work. I can barely see the import mark on the slide at all now, although I will say that this gun didn't need refinishing. In two weeks I should have the 2nd P6 slide back as well. That P6 is almost 30 years old and really does need refinishing, I just don't have the money to have the whole gun done right now.

Quote of the Day

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. "

"When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, "I'll be staying with you for the indefinite future"? I'm guessing it's been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you'd dust off your Third Amendment and say, "I don't think so, pal." And you'd be right."

Not only that, but you'd use your 2nd Amendment rights to back up your 3rd Amendment rights.

From this article - Why Liberals Should Love The 2nd Amendment

I think I'm going to have to dedicate another post to this piece. It's quite good.

Breda Aces her CCW course

The Breda Fallacy: A+
Congratulations Breda and Mike!

It looks like the live fire portion of the class was pretty involved. In addition to shooting standing unsupported they shot bench rest and one-handed with weak and strong hands all at 3 different distances. Sounds like they had a great time!

I don't know what the live-fire requirements are like for a Delaware CCW but I can tell you right now I couldn't do that. I can't even hold a gun on target with my weak hand. I've tried dry-firing my P6 with my right hand I just physically can't do it. Oh, and I always wear at hat at the range, since I'm a lefty and brass tend to be flung at / over my head.

Rob over at Delaware Stuff informs me that there's a Utah CCW instructor willing to do classes in our area. The overall cost & hassle is nothing compared to getting a DE permit, so I'm most likely going to be applying for my Utah Non-Resident permit when the time comes. I'm planning to get some practice in before then, since I certainly need it. (My current family situation makes getting a DE permit near impossible.)

Quote of the Day

This one is taken from Common Folk Using Common Sense

It's a quote from Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" (which is a great book, and fairly short. Everyone should read it. There are a ton of quotable passages from the book)

It never ceases to amaze me how things written well over a century ago can still be so pertinent today.

“The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system."

-Frederic Bastiat

"Justifiable Liberty"........

You really can't make this crap up.

From David M. Manes of politicalcartel.com, in comments to a post proclaiming we need to "ban assault weapons" (you know, that mythical term that has no actual definition)

"Any way that we can narrowly target laws to decrease the murder rate without sacrificing too much justifiable liberty would be a good thing to do. That is why we should target weapons, not for the number of times they are used in violent crimes, but for the incremental loss in legitimate liberty that is lost when we eliminate them. In my opinion, a new, more-comprehensive, less loopeholy AWB is one of the first and best ways we can target the misuse of guns without trampling on the legitimate rights of civilians in this free country."

I never thought I'd hear someone who calls himself an American use the term "justifiable liberty." Right, because clearly one must justify their "need" to exercize their rights. He also uses the term "legitimate rights" and "legitimate liberty." Just who determines "legitimacy?" The government, which is the very entity our founders saw as a threat to individual rights? or maybe an ignorant mob, who wouldn't know what "rights" are if you beat them over the head with a copy of the Bill of Rights.

I'm ashamed to be in the same demographic....

as retarted tools like this "college student."

“School is not a place for guns. We have campus police and Dallas police available for our protection”

-El Centro College Student President Ashley Holmes (how the hell does someone like this become Student President?)

Someone should tell her she has no right to police protection. The police have no duty to protect her. Even if they had such a duty they can't possibly be expected to do so.

See Castle Rock v. Gonzalez (2005)
See Riss v. New York (1958)
See Warren v. D.C. (1981)

Oops, there are those pesky FACTS again!

Continuing to Ignore the obvious

Joe Huffman has a listing of all of the school shootings, categorized by pre / post "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The list was compiled using a resource, the FBI Uniform Crime Report, which is full of these super cool things called facts.

As you can imagine, those in Academia, the bright young minds who are supposed to be the future of this country, would rather talk about "feeling safe" and continue to ignore inconvenient things like facts. The Real Gun Guys has an outstanding example.

The article even points out some fact, at the very end of an article devoted to the concept of "feeling safe."

The Pope

Upon hearing the Pope speak on the news last night my 1st thought was, "he sounds like the priest from The Princess Bride, but without the lisp." Sacrilege I know, I'm so going to hell.

Oh, and I loved Bush's "Awesome speech your holiness." It was such a regular Joe thing to say.

Castle Doctrine in Ohio!

Castle Doctrine bill passes in Ohio

I'm always glad to see these bills pass. People shouldn't have to worry about legal ramifications and convoluted self-defense laws when someone has broken into their home. This is a good day for Ohioans, and this is one of the few laws I'd really like to see passed here in Delaware. When someones home is forcefully invaded the law should be on the side of the homeowner. Castle doctrine ensures that it is, and sends a clear message to criminals.

Also, the prevention of civil lawsuits is a huge proponent of these bills. Here in Delaware even if you use lethal force to defend yourself you can be sued in civil court by the criminals family (or the criminal if he survived) I can't think of a single good reason why criminals should be able to use the court system to extort money from those they've victimized. Even if the case is thrown out, simply being involved in civil litigation can have life-changing ramifications for those who are sued.

Peace is the answer

Seen via GunPundit, "A kid punching a playground bully is a vigilante?"

From commenter "Naftali"

"Also, vigilantism in practice never, ultimately, adheres to the moralistic standards of deterrence held to by modern men.

So if you wish the people not to descend into tribalism and lawlessness, you would have to stop advocating ‘take care of it yourself’ for an official government law enforcement policy"

Another commenter "Mary Madigan" takes on this idiocy.

"Oh for pity’s sake. Is it ‘vigilantism’ when a kid punches a bully in the nose? Is it vigilantism when a customer who has been cheated goes to a store and demands his money back (and gets it)

Functioning human beings have the right to defend themselves and take care of their needs without the constant intervention of authorities. If we rely on authorities to protect us in every situation, our ability to provide for our own needs will fade. Pretty soon, we’ll lack the survival skills of a simple ameoba. We’ll be Europeans. You don’t want that to happen, do you?"

"Naftali" responds....

“Is it ‘vigilantism’ when kid punches a bully in the nose?

Yes, of course.

In my school we seek to ensure that he does not have to do so.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm probably one of the most non-confrontational people you'll ever meet. In my 22 years on this earth I can't say I've ever been in a fight, and I've only ever hit someone once. The kid had been bullying me for a while and I was sick and tired of it. One swift punch to the jaw was all it took and he never bothered me again.

Of course back when I was a kid if there was a fight at school it was investigated. If one party was obviously acting in self-defense they were not punished. Now schools have "zero-tolerance" and will suspend both kids with equal punishments. What this teaches kids is that fighting back against unprovoked violence is bad. Such a policy clearly encourages bullying and victimization.

Naftali says it is "vigilantism" if a kid punches a bully in the nose. "in my school we seek to ensure that he does not have to do so," he says. This is typical leftist speak. Naftali believes that "the system" will ensure that no child will ever be victimized by a bully. He ignores the "what if?" What if his school cannot ensure that a child will never be bullied? (and of course they cannot)

In his world, in the leftist world the answer is "tough luck kid." Self-defense is wrong regardless of the circumstances. The only legitimate actions are those carried out by the state/establishment and its actors. The State can have a monopoly on force and punishment, but individuals can't be entrusted to take action on their own behalf. If an authorized agent of the state (I.E. cop) uses force in self-defense that's perfectly acceptable, because he/she is no more than an extension of the State.

Take the recent shooting at a Fresno high school as an example. The student attacks a cop, hitting him in the head with a bat. The officer draws his back-up weapon and shoots the kid as he is preparing to take another swing at him.

Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer commented,
"The officer was fortunate that he was able to defend himself."

Right, because if you are violently attacked you have a natural right to defend yourself. This right is never questioned by Chief Dyer in this case because the man shooting in self-defense is an "only one." He is an agent of the State, authorized to use force, and he carries a sidearm because it is the most effective way for him to stop a violent attack. Had your average citizen been in the same situation he would have been disarmed by the State. The State would have said "tough luck" and the citizen would be dead.

If lethal self-defense is acceptable for those who "serve and protect us" why is it unacceptable for the rest of us who actually need protection? Why? because to a leftist like Naftali, use of force is only acceptable or legitimate if it occurs under the explicit authority of the government.

So Today is BAG Day

...... and I'm a bad gun nut. I didn't buy anything. Had I seen a nice used P228 in my price range I might have picked one up, but I didn't. I did consider a used Sig SP2022, but after looking at the assembly/reassembly procedure I figured that'd be a bad idea. My dexterity / fine motor skills aren't the greatest (thank you CP) so I get the feeling the takedown procedure would frustrate the hell out of me.

I suppose I could consider the .22AR upper I'm waiting on as my BAG day gun. Anyway, happy BAG day to all of you who did buy a gun today, and happy birthday to my Omi out in Colorado!

Quote of the Day

"If most of us do not, in fact, feel good about our country..., the source of that lack of good feeling stems almost completely from the results of liberal/progressive thinking and behavior. In other words, it’s people like Obama who make us feel bad about our country."

- Rachel Lucas

Rachel has it right. For most of us who refuse to vote for Obama race is NOT the issue. I don't care if he's black, white, green, purple, pink, or a goddamn Martian. I don't vote for socialists. Period. It's a shame really, because I'd love to see a black or woman as President.

Walmart teams up with Bloomberg

I heard about this over at Ahab's

I really don't have much to say, other than it's a bunch of crap. I sure as hell don't want Walmart videotaping my purchases without my consent and turning them over to law enforcement without my consent.

I suppose it doesn't matter anyway, since I rarely ever shop at Walmart (once every few years maybe) Walmart's around here don't sell guns as far as I know, and I have no need to buy ammo from them. I buy most of my ammo online in bulk and will occasionally pick up a box at Dick's.

I'll be sure to continue not shopping at Walmart.

Michelle Obama has a thing for pie.

I mentioned this topic in this post and linked to Breda's eloquent rant against the socialist wench we know as Michelle Obama. Here's the original article in question.

There are few things that piss me off more than some rich, elitist, politician telling me I have to sacrifice for others. First off, these pompus assholes aren't just telling us we have to sacrifice for the common good. What they're really saying that if they're elected they will force us, at gunpoint, to give up a piece of our pie.

Here's Mrs. Obama,

"They don't want the whole pie,"..... "There are some who do, but most Americans feel blessed just being able to thrive a little bit. But that is becoming even more out of reach."

Actually, I like pie, and I want the whole damn thing. I baked myself a pie, and it's MINE. I want every bit of that scrumptious deliciousness. If the woman down the street wants some pie she can bake one herself or she can ask me for some of mine. If I'm feeling charitable maybe I'll give her some, otherwise Mrs. Obama, the government, and everyone else can keep their greedy, thieving hands off my pie.

I'll tell you what, I'd feel much more "blessed" if the government weren't already taking a good chunk of my meager little pie, and if Obama weren't threatening to take more. I think I, and most Americans would be much better off if we could keep our pie. Of course that'd mean having to take personal responsibility for our successes and failures, and Obama surely can't have people thinking they're responsible for their own lives.

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

OK Mrs. Obama, I think we should start with you and every other politician who wants to "give" people things. If you and other liberal Democrats think "someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more," why not practice what you preach? Set an example for the rest of us. Downsize to one small house, a Toyota Camry, and give up 75% of your income so that "someone else can have more." After all, you and your husband are millionaires, so why not "feel blessed just being able to thrive a little bit?" You don't want to do that? That's not fair? Tough shit! Don't you DARE tell the rest of us to forfeit our pie when you're living in the lap of luxury.

Oh, and I forgot to mention this part of the article

"Kim Neely said groceries once cost $40 for a week of meals. Now it's triple that. Rising gas prices made it difficult to get to work. She and her husband work for the same company and worry outsourcing could kill their jobs."

Yeah, when in the hell have you been able to feed two people on $40 week? Groceries haven't been that cheap in decades. $40 / week won't even cover one person.

"Rebecca Allen, a registered veterinary technician, said her dog gets better health care than her family. "We'd like to have another child, but we have no maternity coverage and it would cost half of what I make in a year," said Allen, whose husband runs a small business."

Where do they get these stupid people? IF her dog gets better healthcare than her family she should probably go find a new doctor. And she's complaining that her economic situation just won't let her have another kid. Boo hoo, cry me a fucking river. If you're not financially able to pop out another munchkin then don't. It's not the government's job to ensure you can live a "comfortable" life popping out as many kids as you want. My tax money shouldn't pay for your bad reproductive decisions.

Obama offers a non-explanation

After the fallout from his comments I discussed in the post just below this, Obama is now trying to explain his elitist, ignorant, bigoted remarks. His idea of explaining or apologizing is to repeat them again.

What an asshole. Seriously.

He now says,

"I said something that everyone knows is true..... There are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my home town in Illinois, who are bitter. They are angry… So I said, well ya know, when you’re bitter, you turn to what you can count on. So people, ya know they vote about guns or they take comfort from their faith, and their family, and their community, and they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country, or they get frustrated about how things are changing. That’s a natural response."

What if John McCain came out and said that affirmative action is racist against whites (which it is) and said that we need to focus on uniting the black & white communites? What if he then went on to quote Dr. King to expose the racism of affirmative action, explaining that we need to look past racial differences and judge men "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character?"

He'd be saying something completely true and not insulting or degrading to anyone (unlike obama's remarks) but blacks, especially black leaders would go crazy. It's a sad fact, but a black man in America can make racist, insensitive, and untrue statements about whites and it's OK. A white man can't utter any criticizm, no matter how truthful, towards the black community without being thrown under the bus.

Let's talk about equality. If McCain made essentially the same types of remarks about inner city blacks how do you think it would play in the media? Does anyone think the media would defend him and try to explain away his comments? Hell no! He'd be crucified, and we'd have to hear Al Sharpton babble nonsensically for a week or more.

Obama's remarks are not only unacceptable, they are WRONG. Dead wrong. The fact that he's unwilling to accept this and apologize should tell us what he thinks of rural white America.

Barack Obama showing more of his true colors....

Obama : No Surprise that hard-pressed Pennsylvanians turn bitter


You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This man is so out of touch with reality and mainstream America it's almost hard to believe. California and California politics are NOT mainstream. They've never been. If you bring up California law during a trial or in a written brief here in Delaware (or any other state) you'll get laughed out of court because CA laws are so whacked they can't be used for comparisons.

Obama's words just reek of elitism and moral superiority, but I suppose we should consider the audience, since he was talking to California Democrats. Things change, towns die out, industries leave and people either adapt or they move somewhere else. That's been the case since the country was founded. It's not the government's job to save the industry that's the backbone of your town if that industry is unsustainable.

Let's consider the leap he's making here, from talking about job loss, moving to bitterness, and then throwing in a plethora of ignorant stereotypes about "typical white people" regarding how they "cope" with bitterness. He says that people cling to guns and religion because of dire economic outlook over the last 25 years. Did people not "cling to their guns & religion" prior to 1983? We've been "clinging to guns" since we threw off British tyranny. Guns are an integral part of the freedoms we enjoy in this great nation, which is why the right to own and carry them was enshrined in the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

When Obama says these things you have to remind yourself that he's a uber-liberal and doesn't live in reality. People "cling to guns," meaning they value freedom and the 2nd Amendment. They "cling to religion" meaning they have strong faith in god, something that's been normal throughout most of humanity. For Obama and other's on the far left, it's simply inconceivable that religion and respect for the 2nd Amendment might actually be strongly held values for the majority of Americans. Such ideas don't fit their world view, and thus there must be some reason why "unenlightened" folks hold such beliefs. Something must be wrong with all of us. We must be frustrated, angry, hopeless, and bitter, because we couldn't possibly hold such archaic, backward views otherwise. We are "typical white people" and he and Michelle must "fix our souls."

And it's not just guns and religion. Apparently we don't like immigrants and "people who aren't like us." Once again Obama is calling average white Americans racist. I won't get into the whole race issue, because that's another post entirely. As far as being "anti-immigrant," you're damn right I am! God forbid I don't like people who brazenly break the law to come to this country, then act like they're entitled to things and start demanding free shit from the rest of us. FUCK YOU. Get the hell out of my country if you're not willing to come in legally and don't want to fix your own 3rd world shit hole of a country.

How the hell did Obama think people were going to react to his bigoted statements? He attacked their way of life, their beliefs, and their values and dismissed them as products of economically induced bitterness.

Obama also said, "I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government."

They're cynical about government because they have common-sense. They understand, unlike liberals, that government isn't supposed to "fix" things, it's supposed to stay out of the way. Many of the people living outside of Marxist utopias can see right through Obama's "hope, change, I'm going to unite America" bullshit. You Mr. Obama are nothing more than an elitist, arrogant asshole. And your wife..... oh my god. What planet are you people from?

OK, I'm not sure why my posts sometimes format like this, with the fonts being slightly different sizes.

A Few topics I want to discuss...

This post over at Legions Fate covers a topic I've wanted to write about for a while now regarding CCW requirements (and Open Carry)

I also have a few things to say after seeing Breda's post about the latest shit coming out of Michelle Obama's pie hole. The crap she's spewing leads into a topic that really irks me. I still think she's the best thing that could happen to John McCain.

Racism - Yeah there's a topic I probably shouldn't delve into, being a "typical white person" and all. You may or may not see a post on that topic. My professor talked today about current "economic discrimination" against blacks when we were discussing race & slavery. God I can't stand this woman.

Yes, I know this blog is titled "Another Gun Blog" and thus should be about guns, but non gun related political stuff is too good to pass up. I'll have some more gun-related posts in the near future for my 3 or 4 regular readers.

They're "Gun-Safety Advocates" Now?

Saw this over at Sebastians

"That’s why there’s no time to waste for gun-safety advocates to resume lobbying lawmakers to pass real gun-safety measures that will protect taxpayers and help police put real heat on traffickers."

I guess they decided the term "gun-safety advocate" sounded better and less devisive than "gun-control advocate" or "anti-rights advocate." Typical. Kind of how when the term "liberal" took on negative connotations liberal politicians instead started referring to themselves as "progressives"

Gun safety is hitting your target and obeying the 4 rules. That's it!

BAG Day Update

Buy a Gun Day is Fast Approaching

In the above post I discussed the possibility of buying myself a P228. While that thought hasn't yet left me, I don't think it's going to happen. It's just not practical, for the reasons I discussed in the earlier post and because I should put that money to better use.

I could certainly use some more ammo, but I'm not sure whether to buy a case of Wolf for $169 from ammoman, or go with brass Lawman for $119 / 500. How sad is it that those are good ammo prices right now? I need a 2nd mag for the Firestorm (If I can ever find one) and I'd like another for the P6's before they disappear completely.

I've got a feeling I'll want to get the frame & controls refinished on the older P6 once I get the redone slide back from CCR. I also need to find a gunsmith in the area to install my AR rear sight. The older P6 came with blacked out sights. I should probably buy some factory Sig Night Sights for it. In fact there's a good deal over on SigForum for factory night sights right now. I also need to buy two new sets of grip screws.

So yeah, add the cost of all the crap above that I "need" and I think buying a P228 is out of the question right now. I'm also going to try and make more frequent range trips once I get the Sigs back. I will say however, that the thought of picking up a CZ-52 has crossed my mind.

ugh... check out this P228

Sig Sauer P228

That looks terrible!

Quote of the Day

From a UK article by Brendan O'Neill - "Defending Freedom"

"Charlton Heston, in demanding equal treatment for blacks in the 1950s and later calling for everyone to have the right to bear arms, was a better representative of the spirit of American equality than any of those gun control campaigners who turned him into their favourite redneck whipping boy. You don't have to be a friend of the NRA or a supporter of the senseless shootings in America's poorer communities to oppose gun control. You just have to have some healthy trust in the American people and some healthy distrust of the American state - both qualities that liberals in America and Europe seem to lack today."

The entire article is spot-on, particularly his discussion about the true origins of gun-control and how at odds such a policy is with many of the values today's liberals claim to stand for. They scream about equality, yet support policies that seek to perpetuate inequalities. They scream about government power and abuse, yet would gladly take power away from the individual and give it to the government. They could learn so much if they'd just open their minds.

Quote of the day

Oh the Irony.... via Saysuncle on the Brady Campaign being denied a protest permit at VT on the anniversary of the tragedy.

"In other news, Brady Bunch realized that registering and getting a permit to exercise a civil right kinda sucks."

- Saysuncle

Oil Companies having to justify profits to Congress...

I don't have a link to the figures, but if I remember correctly rougly 2/3 of the price of a gallon of gas is actually taxes. The Evil oil companies are making several hundred billion in profits selling a product that the entire developed world needs. They provide a product and people buy it, that's how the free market works. The government on the other hand rakes in over a TRILLION in taxes on a product that they don't own or provide and they have the audacity to chastise the oil companies for making too much money!

Seems to me that the government and not the oil companies are the ones screwing American consumers. The problem is that the government has no one they must justify their profits to. The American people won't hold them accountable, because they've fallen for the fallacy that government is the good guy. Most of the sheep don't realize just who is doing the fleecing.

And one more thing about people who rant about the "evil corporations." What power does a corporation, or any business have over the people? In a truely free market they have NO power, since they're at the mercy of the market and of consumers. If we don't like their product, prices, etc. we can simply buy it somewhere else. If an opening exists a competitor will fill it.

A business or corporation has no power over anyone. They can't force people to buy a product or to pay a particular price. The only power a business can exert over consumers and market competition is through government legislation and the coercive threat of force attached to the law. Any purported "evil" committed by a corporation or other business would not be possible without government involvement and regulation of the market. The government is the enabler, the evil-doer, and most often the one with evil intent based upon self interest.

Light(er) Blogging Ahead

I have a few topics I still want to discuss, and a few older posts I need to go back and update, but other than that blogging will be light for the next few weeks. That doesn't mean you won't see me posting, it'll just be a bit less.

Graduation is ~5 weeks away, I've been slacking a bit with schoolwork, yet still doing well, and there are other things that warrant my attention. My room is in need of serious cleaning (mostly just getting rid of accumulated "stuff." My car needs some attention (parking it where thugs, bums, and drug dealers/users congregate hasn't been kind to it) Oh, and I need to do the whole "look for a job" thing.... Mostly though, I just need to get out of the house, enjoy the weather, and start lifting & running for the next 6 weeks. Since most of my blogging is done either at work or on nights / evenings I figure I should have plenty of time for self-punishment if I cut back on blogging.

Maybe I should buy a State Park season pass so I'll have some incentive to go running. Running on the roads near the house gets boring, and asphalt is hell on the knees/shins/ankles compared to trail running. I think a Penn State hill workout is in order once my body gets used to the grind again.

Quote of the Day

Via Pawnbroker

"how dare government extort money from me to provide that impressive edifice stocked with thousands of portals to knowledge and other worlds, pay educated people who love books and knowledge and stand ready to help inquiring minds find information and enlightenment, and then turn it into a mission harboring many weak, decent, pathetic souls like Allen and a few demented, mental grenades waiting for some innocuous event or perceived slight or little voice to tell him to pull the pin...and then expect my wife and/or child to come enjoy what taxpayers have provided, and then whine and feign not understanding the reason why they don't...all the while providing public notice that no one in the building has the capacity to neutralize threats to their lives or safety, that constitution thing notwithstanding? who the fuck is running this monkey house anyway?"

Thanks for linking to him Breda, that was a great post

I've been asked to play .....

Mike: Always Laughing, Smiling, ... and Eating

This is the best I could come up with right now. I almost posted something else, but that would have meant a picture of my diaper-covered butt in the air.

Seriously, as a kid I don't think there was a time where I wasn't smiling and / or laughing about something. I had an expression similar to the one here in almost any picture taken of me. Even now, if I'm not posing for a picture and don't know ones being taken I'll probably be smiling or laughing. If I know you're taking a picture out comes the "dead serious, no hint of a smile" face. People think I'm always serious, but really I'm just a big goofy kid who'll probably never grow up.

Oh, and the eating thing. My friends nicknamed the "the bottomless pit" because I could eat more than any scrawny kid my size should ever be able to wolf down, especially pasta. I ALWAYS finish a good meal. I have no idea how I'm 22, 6ft and only 140 pounds. Must be genetics and sports.

Oops, I didn't follow the rules. I was tagged by Squeaky
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rules:

Here are the rules for this little task:
1. Write your own six word memoire.
2. Post it on your blog and include a visual illustration if you want.
3. Link to the person that tagged you in your post and to the original post if possible so we can track it as it travels across the blogosphere.
4. Tag at least five more blogs with links.
5. Leave a comment on the tagged blogs with an invitation to play…

Now I just have to find 5 of you to tag.
ok, fighting for liberty, Rachel Lucas (who is hilarious BTW), Bob G, Weer'd Beard and Sebastian you're it!

Since Everyone else is talking about this...

Sociological Images - Gun Ownership

I saw it a few days ago but haven't had the chance to post my thoughts. I must say my fellow gun bloggers are doing a great job educating people in the comments section.

Buy A Gun Day is fast approaching

April 15th. Thanks alot for reminding me Jay G.

That was one reminder I really didn't want. I have a pretty good idea what I'd like to buy, a Sig P-228. I COULD buy another gun, but I don't really need one, and it wouldn't be the greatest financial decision ever for a soon-to-be graduate with a temp job that could end at anytime.

I suppose I do have the money. I just put aside funds for the next 6 months of car insurance due this summer, as well as my cell phone bill. (my phone is lost right now anyways...) However I also have a pretty high CC balance at the moment. A new upper and current ammo prices will do that. A rant about ammo prices could fill another post.

Tax return + $300 election year bribe could cover most of the cost of a P228, but I'm reluctant to spend any large chunks of money right now.

We'll have to wait & see. Right now I'm leaning towards No. My goal come graduation is to have $3K put away in savings and I'm not sure I can accomplish that if I drop ~$550 on another Sig.

Maybe I was a bit harsh....

I commented on this girl's "paper" for her middle school English class.

My comment is as follows

I understand that you’re young, but to be honest what you’ve written is unacceptable, even for a middle school student. I’m only 22, but have writing standards really gotten so bad in schools that what you’ve written here would be considered acceptable?

Make a habit of citing actual factual data (from places like the CDC website, FBI UCR Crime report etc.) rather than citing facts from a random “study” like the Kellerman study, which is completely inaccurate.

Remember, you are writing a RESEARCH paper, thus it might be a good idea to do some actual research prior to writing your paper.

Back when I was in middle school a research paper was a big deal. It involved many library trips and varied and numerous sources. A proper bibliography was expected as were parenthetical references throughout the body of the paper. Proper grammar and spelling were also expected. A piece of trash like this wouldn't even receive a full reading before getting a big fat "F"

Home Invasion Scenarios

Squeaky tells us how she'd react

I'd like to discuss what my plan would be in such a situation and why, but I have to sleep, so I'll do this tomorrow.

I was watching Dateline (or nightline) recently with my parents and they were discussing a case in Long Island where a black man shot a white teen and was ultimately convicted of manslaughter. A group of drunk teens came to his house in the middle of the night threatening to kill his son. I immediately told my parents before the facts had been laid out on the show. "If he left the house with his weapon, he's screwed." Sure enough, thats what he did. He left the house carrying an old Beretta, and ultimately one of the teens was shot in the head at the bottom of the driveway. My parents used this to proclaim "SEE, this is what happens if you keep a gun in the house. Without the gun this wouldn't have happened, and 2 lives wouldn't be ruined. The gun only made things worse." The thing is, this case was the exception rather than the rule, and it was the decision to leave the house, not the GUN that was the problem. They just aren't willing to see that.

Anyway, back to the point of this post. How I'd react to a home invasion would depend largely on whether I'm living by myself at the time, or whether I'm living with my parents as I am currently. Obviously, it greatly depends on whether there are other people in the house.

First things first, If someone breaks into our house I am not going to investigate. If I'm home alone I'm locking the bedroom door and grabbing my phone and maybe a flashlight. The keys to my safe are on my person and in my room at night. The safe is hidden but easily accessible. I'd prefer a quick-open electronic safe with a keyed override, and if I can find an inexpensive one I'll buy it. Both the Sig & .22 Bersa are loaded w/ one in the pipe when they're in the safe. I don't bother ever using the safety on the .22, since the Sigs don't have one anyway.

As far as I'm concerned, the best thing I can do is stay put and get on the phone with the cops. I don't know the capabilities of the intruder nor whether he's armed. In Delaware we have no castle doctrine, and while I personally consider anyone who's forcibly entered my house to be a potentially lethal "threat" Delaware law doesn't see it that way in regards to my lawful use of lethal force. This extra legal burden on my makes it even more imperative that I don't leave the room to find him. I won't use lethal force until he breaks down that door and comes after me.

Having other family members home changes the circumstances drastically. If possible, I want to get everyone, including my dog into an upstairs bedroom. In this case we all stay in that room and my actions from the above paragraph apply. If getting my family into one room exposes me to danger so be it. That's a risk that needs to be taken.

Ohio hostile to Open Carry

"Open carrying gun not a crime"

One word. DUH! If it's not specifically prohibited by law then it's legal.

"An undercover agent with the Ohio Investigative Unit -- the police agency that enforces the state's alcohol, tobacco and food-stamp laws -- saw the gun and quickly ordered him against his truck with his hands on his head.

"He came up and treated me like a felon for absolutely no reason at all," Turner said. "There wasn't even a suspicious action on my part to warrant him taking this action against me. Had I been out waving a gun around the parking lot, (then) yeah.""

So the ATF (F = food stamp?!) officer sees a man walking around with a holstered gun, freaks out and orders the guy to stand against his truck with his hands on his head. Under what authority has he decided to do this? Carrying a weapon in a holster is NOT probable cause. Waving it around in your hand would be completely different, since that would be brandishing.

"After being detained for about 30 minutes, and after Hilliard police arrived at the agent's request, Turner was released without charges. An internal investigation that concluded this week found that neither Agent Timothy Gales, who had stopped Turner, nor his partner, Betty Ford, did anything wrong."

So detaining a citizen when no probable cause nor even reasonable suspicion exists is considered "not doing anything wrong?" If I ever decide to open carry and am stopped by police I want to know almost immediately whether I'm being detained.

But it wouldn't be unreasonable for officers to draw their guns until they know what the situation is, said Sgt. Rich Weiner of the Columbus Police Division.

"The first thing we need to address: This man has a gun," Weiner said. "We're going to pull our guns.

"As a police officer, we also have the right to protect ourselves and protect the public, so we do have the right to disarm him momentarily. Now everybody is a little bit more at ease. We don't have a potential weapon being used against an officer or anybody else."

If your open display of a firearm is causing panic, you could be charged with inducing panic, Weiner said. If you carry it onto private property, you could be charged with trespassing, he said.

I take issue with almost everything said above. The first statement says that it is "reasonable" for officers to draw their guns upon seeing someone open carrying. What if I, a mere civilian, see someone open carrying and my immediate reaction is to draw my weapon? Would that be a "reasonable" response? HELL NO! It would in fact be illegal for me to draw on someone who wasn't threatening me in any way. It is no more reasonable for the police to draw on a guy going about his daily business while OC'ing.

"This man has a gun, we're going to pull our guns" is not how the law works. Self-Defense laws are very specific as to when I may draw my weapon. Drawing on this man is a gross over-reaction given that his actions were completely non-threatening.

They state that someone open carrying could be charged with "inducing a panic"

Here's the applicable statute for Delaware, which is "disorderly conduct"

§ 1301. Disorderly conduct; unclassified misdemeanor.
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when:
(1) The person intentionally causes public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to any other person, or creates a risk thereof by:
a. Engaging in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or
b. Making an unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addressing abusive language to any person present; or
c. Disturbing any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority; or
d. Obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
e. Congregating with other persons in a public place and refusing to comply with a lawful order
of the police to disperse; or
f. Creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition which serves no legitimate purpose; or
g. Congregating with other persons in a public place while wearing masks, hoods or other
garments rendering their faces unrecognizable, for the purpose of and in a manner likely to
imminently subject any person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States of America.
(2) The person engages with at least 1 other person in a course of disorderly conduct as defined in subdivision (1) of this section which is likely to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, and refuses or knowingly fails to obey an order to disperse made by a peace officer to the participants.

So, if Ohio law is anything like Delaware law, this man would have to be intentionally causing public alarm, and the State would have to prove intent. Lawful open carry absent other aggravating behavior could never rise to the level of intent required for such a charge. Also, open carry is LEGAL, thus it could not be said to serve "no legitimate purpose." Self Defense is a legitimate purpose. If someone else is offended or alarmed by my totally LEGAL actions, tough luck. I didn't intend to alarm or offend you, and if your irrational & unreasonable fears cause you to panic at the mere sight of a holstered firearm, that is not my problem and it should have no bearing on my actions.