Call the Secret Service!

This could be a threat against President Obama.......

Quote of the Day - Anti-Gunner's in a Nutshell

"Here's the thing. The admittedly tenuous connection between legal gun owners and gun violence exists only because it is you pro-gun guys who stand in the way of eliminating guns among the civilian population.

There is no one trying to ban cars or swimming pools. But there are people who want to ban guns and since you are preventing that from happening, I feel, you must bear some of the responsibility for the unhappy results."

Blogger- MikeB302000

Note the bolded parts in particular. Yeah Mike, I'm sorry we've got this silly thing called a Constitution that stands in the way of elimination of private arms.

According to Mike I am responsible for any and all gun violence because I won't roll over and eagerly yield my Constitutional rights. I mean hell, I guess those folks who like their 5th and 6th Amendment rights are responsible for the violence of criminals too, since those antiquated individual liberties make it harder to put folks in jail.

And you wonder why I find it hard to have any respect for anti's, or why I so often regard them as intolerant or bigoted.

Mike W. Has an "Oops."

Not this Mike W., the other one. Good thing he was changing his pants at the time. Otherwise he might have needed a new pair.

The really good thing here is that no one was injured.

So, More AWB Talk

How much do you think AR prices will jump by tomorrow?

I'm guessing $100 price increase on most AR lowers.

It's not as if we didn't see this coming. Obama's a gun grabber and he always has been. For now I'm more interested in seeing how Congress reacts to new talk of a ban.

Oh yeah, and how often were we all derided as a bunch of paranoid nutjobs for wanting to stock up on arms? Constantly. The media kept telling us bitter clingers to calm the hell down because Obama wasn't coming for our guns.

The liberal media was full of shit, just like Obama.

Quote of the Day - Liberals and Their "Feelings"

"You know, I'm less concerned about the technical definitions of a recession than I am with all the people I meet who are struggling every day and they have been struggling for many years, .....Even when the economy looked like it was doing well on paper and Wall Street was flush with cash, people feel that they're working harder for less."

- President Obama via newsbusters

*What is it with liberals and their "feelings?" I feel this, I feel that, but never do they rely on actual definitions or factual citations. It's always "I feel, therefore I'm right." To hell with pesky facts and definitions, Obama is going to govern the country based on "feelings." He's the President god damnit, and he won't be bothered with reality based discussion.

Also, why is the solution always "tax the rich?" Why can't we focus on reducing government spending, increasing accountability, and doing away with bureacracy? Why not burden the government rather than the people?

Edited to add

What the fuck?! CNN calling Obama the new Reagan! wow. Reagan called for self-reliance and personal responsibility. Obama says, "Don't worry, I'm the Government and I'm here to help." Drastically different message there folks.

9mm ammo test

Here's a link to some decent testing of several 9mm defensive loads.

He tests my two primary carry loads, which are 115 gr. Federal 9BPLE and 124 gr. Federal HST.  Both loads seem to have good results, and the 147 gr. HST's show some really impressive expansion.  I would carry Speer Gold Dot's, but I can't justify the price difference over the 9BPLE or HST.

What 9mm defensive ammo do my readers use?

I'd laugh, but it's kinda sad

As Uncle notes, one of Catherine Macivor's protege's "Skyewriter" has gone into a tizzy about some three percenters discussing revolutionary stuff. The irony here is oh so delicious. Skyewriter's blog is dedicated to "V" of V for Vendetta, yet she's absolutely flipping her lid about a few guys merely talking about the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment. Revolution.

Sadly, given the intellect she's displayed in her post I'm certain that irony is completely lost on her.

Hell, she called the secret service. All because of the discussions of a few guys on the internet, and despite no direct threats being made against President Obama. She calls these folks "domestic terrorists." I actually support the overall message of the "Threepers" I just don't think we're anywhere near jumping to the cartridge box quite yet.

One poster said the following,

"Political means are covered by The Three Boxes:
The soap box
The ballot box
The cartridge box
When all else fails, vote from the rooftops."

Is that direct threat against President Obama warranting a call to the Secret Service? Hardly. Our Founding Fathers certainly said far worse of King George, and there is implicit truth to what was said in the above comment. Hell, I basically said it back in this post, yet that doesn't mean I'm calling for violent overthrow of the government. I actually support the overall concept behind what some of the Threepers are saying. I wonder if Skyewriter would call the Secret Service on me for this post?

As for anyone who might want to comment calling her out on her blatant bullshit, she nips that in the butt from the get-go.

"your comments will be deleted. This post is not open for debate.***Comments, yes. Debate, no."

Oh look, "Reasoned Discourse!" How very surprising from an anti-gun leftist. Dissent of any kind in comments will be deleted. I suppose "comments, yes. Debate, no." means "only those who toe the line and agree with me will be tolerated here." As I told her buddy Catherine, why bother blogging and allowing comments if you're going to have that attitude? What we see here are the attitudes & actions of intellectual cowards. (A la Delaware Liberal)

She goes on to say,

"That gun looks illegal, too"

The pure idiocy of that statement is astounding. It's like me saying to Skyewriter "Hey, your blog looks illegal!" ....What with the 5th of November language and picture of "V." Hell, using Skyewriter's logic we could even go so far as to apply her own claim against her. Given what "V" and 5th of November stand for maybe her entire blog is a threat against the President?
Given her irrational reaction I wonder what Skyewriter thinks of something like this?
Is she one of those delusional folks who'd consider an "abort Obama" sticker a threat against the President rather than an obvious political statement?

Hell, given the level of rational thought she's shown us she'd probably have called the Secret Service over a sign or sticker that read "shave Bush. After all, that could be read as a threat to asassinate him.......or an expression of ones' preferred female grooming habits.

Heh, all comments on her blog are now closed. All I did was make a sarcastic remark. Oh well, such is par for the course for anti-gunners, and liberals in general.

Update

Catherine is moderating and deleting comments now too. Also, as usual she says she could provide proof to back up her assertions, yet she goes ad hominem and the proof never materializes. I'm shocked I tell ya, shocked.

And We're the Knuckle-Dragging Neanderthals....

Stupid like this makes my brain explode Mars Attacks style.

"The initial question was posed by Peter Valdez of Salinas, who wanted to know why gun locks couldn’t be enforced in the city – forcing gang members to lock their guns in order to transport them."


Hey Mr. Valdez,

H/T to Joe Huffman, who's site redesign looks badass.

Quote(s) of the Day

"If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

-Justice William Brennan - Texas v. Johnson (1989)

(If only we could apply the concept espoused by Justice Brennan above to Open Carry.)

And for those ignorant folks I've run across lately who continue to claim that the Constitution "grants" rights.

"The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to “create” rights. Rather they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting."

-Justice William Brennan (1982)

Making Sarah Brady Cry

I hope things like this make her sob just a little. You can already open carry legally, as free men, the way Jefferson and Madison intended, in most of the U.S. Expansion of freedom is never a bad thing, so I'm ecstatic to see this.

Now if only we could get unlicensed open carry in those liberal bastions of freedom and tolerance D.C. and Maryland. I'm glad to have that option as a free man in Delaware, even if I very rarely exercise it. God I wish Delaware would get with the times and go shall-issue for CCW permits, and drop their ridiculous notification requirements. (that's a post in itself given the recent actions of the Commercial Appeal)

They're Back

My P229R and P228 are back from CCR! Words simply can't do justice to the quality of Brad's work. When I get the chance to take some decent pictures I'll post them up.

"Change", But Not What They'd Hoped For....

Squeaky has the scoop on some Obama fans who've been hoodwinked.

They're Obama fans, so getting screwed should be no surprise......kinda like being an Eagles fan.

Weekend Funny

I know it's a few months old, but this post by Tom over at My Gun Culture made me laugh.

"The Right to Apply Directly to Forehead Shall Not Be Infringed."

I am SO happy that I haven't seen one of those stupid Head-On commercials in months.

Phoenix?

So Breda's post reminded me that the Blog Bash is only a few months away and I haven't done any planning for it yet. I'd originally assumed I wouldn't be able to make it, but I've since reconsidered. I should be able to get the time off work, so assuming I have the funds I can probably make the trip.

Last year was fun, but I didn't get the chance to hang out, hit the bars, etc. with my fellow bloggers. I crammed the Louisville trip in between class and finals and got back just in time to shower, take a nap, and ace my exam.

Jesus, rental cars are crazy expensive, especially once you tack on the ~$100 surcharge for being under 25. The flight + hotel cost is doable, it's the rental car cost that's killing me.

I also entertained the idea of driving to Phoenix, but that'd be far too much time off work, and you'd be greeted by a guy 10 times more haggard than the one some of you met in Louisville.

Where's everyone else planning on staying? Anyone have any links to super cheap deals?

Quote of the Day

"Contrary to the assertion that "thousands" of gun control laws are on the books, there are really only a few designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people"

-Paul Helmke

Paul Helmke is right. Most of those thousands of laws are designed to keep guns out of my hands. It doesn't matter that I'm not a "dangerous person," My hands are the wrong hands as far as Helmke and the rest of his ilk are concerned.

H/T to Weerdbeard

Shit Happens

Hecate's Crossroads reminds us all of a simple fact of life. Shit happens. Bad shit happens. It happens everywhere and to people of all ages, races, creeds, genders, etc.

Violent crime is always played off as someone else's problem, until it happens to you. Watch the news and you'll see people proclaim that "stuff like this doesn't happen around here" or "it doesnt happen to good people like Jill/Bob/Nancy. The very fact that they're even saying it is evidence that it does in fact happen. Unimaginable things like that don't happen, until they do, and anywhere they believe to be a "safe place" is, until it's not.

You can live in denial or you can accept harsh realities and be proactive. I'm happy every time I hear of someone making the latter choice.

Why am I posting this now? Because someone in my building was the victim of a strongarm robbery yesterday, in the middle of the afternoon and in a "safe" area of Wilmington. People in the office were freaking out, as if this event someone snapped them out of a mindless stupor. I don't get it, but maybe that's because I'm walking several blocks everyday into and out of what is generally regarded as a "bad" area of town. As such, I'm forced to be more acutely aware of my surroundings on a daily basis.

No place is safe and no person is safe, but those who take steps to ensure their own personal well-being are "safer." They've realized bad shit happens, and they're prepared. Now if only those people could recruit others to that basic line of reasoning. I continue to hope that my fellow American's will adopt that mindset before the bad shit visits them.

Bigotry? ..... Not so Much

So the media follows around an Arab woman at a NASCAR race to see how people react. Wow, stereotype much? I'm college educated, work at a law firm, and live in the suburbs, yet I've been to NASCAR races. Anyway, they're expecting bigotry, but she's not treated badly, not even once.

I thought the unenlightened, racist, cousin-humping bitter clingers were all intolerant bigots? Perhaps the tolerant, progressive leftists need to look in the mirror if they want to see bigotry.

But hey, I'm just a dumb bitter clinger. What do I know?

H/T to Uncle

I know I've said it before, but the concept of liberal "tolerance" is complete and utter bullshit. I've seen mostly intolerant bigots rather than tolerant intellectuals. Also, I've never seen people so grossly intolerant of differing viewpoints. Liberals on the far left are right up their with the extreme religious zealots they're so quick to ridicule.

Bolt Guns

Falnfenix gets a Mauser! ..... Now all she needs are some muffins.

I can't wait to see this K98 in person. It looks like a beauty.

More "Reasoned Discourse"

Boy, the bigots are just coming out of the woodwork recently aren't they?

I give you Mike Licht, who "edited" my comment because he lacks the intellectual ability to offer a logical counterpoint. Luckily I saved it and can repost it here later (tomorrow.)

The comment he "edited" now says the following.

"mike w. appended 697 more words he doesn't understand here. I'm sure you
can read them on his blog. This is not his blog."

You know, I've yet to see an anti who's been able to back up what they say. It's as ifthey have a mental illness that makes them incapable of looking at facts, weighing evidence, and presenting a rational and coherent counterpoint.

More on bigotry later. I've got a post in the works (in my head at least)

*in other news, we just had a cop at the house.

UPDATE - My original comment has now gone down the memory hole as well. Reasoned Discourse indeed. Mr. Licht and his blog are a joke.

UPDATE # 2 - Aww how cute! He blocked my IP address after maybe 5 comments. I'm not surprised. After all you can't post straight up lies and still allow comments. That'd undermine your entire blog and in fact your entire campaign of misinformation. There is a right and wrong to most every issue, and when you've got to lie to win you're on the wrong side.

Sad but Predictable

Apparently Rusty had the gall to offer a dissenting opinion on an anti-gunners blog posts. The response is precisely what I've come to expect from folks who seem stuck in perpetual childhood.

1. Lay out a flatly illogical, emotionally based argument and back it up with "facts" that are both easily disproven and from obviously biased sources.

2. Claim that you have proof to back up your assertions. Proof that somehow never materializes. Case in point.

"I could show hundreds of statistics on why tough gun control laws should be strictly enforced, but the best argument is that one child’s death is too many."

Where are these "hundreds of statistics?" They never materialize because they quite simply don't exist. The best she can come up with is to pull "facts" from the Brady Campaign website. How she would expect anyone to accept such "facts" at face value is beyond me. The same is true from any "studies" she cites, be it the often debunked Kellerman study or some piece from Chicago based & Joyce funded NORC. Those groups have an obvious agenda the data used for such "studies" contradicts their findings. It's blatantly obvious for anyone willing to look at the raw data.

3. Get pissed off and act like a child the moment someone dares post a dissenting opinion, despite the fact that you've allowed comments on your blog for precisely that reason.

4 . Respond with insults, deflections, and childish antics as everything said in your original post is calmly and logically refuted.

5. Throw a tantrum, claim you've been harrassed, insulted, and bombarded with malicious comments. Remember, to an anti having the audacity to dissent IS inherently malicious and insulting. Such a viewpoint seems insane until you realize these same folks will somehow recoil in fear and disgust at the very sight of a holstered firearm, or at times merely a picture of a firearm.

6. Remove evidence of your immature behavior.

Why do anti' s react this way? It's a simple defense mechanism. They know at some level that their arguments lack merit. They are incapable of separating reason from emotion. They live in a world ruled by their feelings. In such a world facts don't matter, reason succumbs to emotional outbursts, and logic is in short supply.

Just look at how this woman has reacted. She's repeatedly claimed that she could get into the legal technicalities of this discussion, yet she refuses to do so. She repeatedly claims that courts & case law somehow back up her argument, yet the best she can do is post an "interpretation" straight from the Brady website. She calls us "NRA shills" yet apparently is too lazy to read and analyze case law and founding documents on which to base her argument. Instead she links to a easily refuted Brady Campaign summary (that conveniently ignores the Parker & Heller decisions)

I know I've touched on this before, but if you've got a blog that allows comments you should be able to calmly and effectively argue your position. If you'd rather take your ball and go home than engage in some good, fun, civil discussion then I have two things to say to you. Number 1, what's the point in bothering to allow comments if you're going to act like an infant. Number 2 if you can't defend your position I say you're a coward (or your position is logically indefensible)

I used the term "delusional" to refer to Catherine not because I disagreed with the position she took, but because of her reaction to having her position challenged. Maybe the reason Catherine reacts as she does is due to the nature of what she must defend. It must be hard on the psyche to be challenged, have your entire belief system called into question, and have nothing concrete on which to anchor your defense. When your position is emotionally based you cannot allow it to crumble by admitting you're wrong.

Why? because for someone like Catherine, admitting she's got nothing would be far too emotionally damaging. For her it's more than just a basic logical, reasoned argument with facts, points, and counterpoints. She has to attempt to argue a factually indefensible position without tying herself in an emotional knot. Deep down she knows it's indefensible, which is why the progression of the discussion leads to evasion, projection, and self-inflating puffery via childish attacks on her dissenters. Such tactics, and then eventually running away from the discussion altogether are unavoidable given the mental gymnastics necessitated by her positions. There's a reason we see the same basic progression anytime an anti-gunner has their positions / beliefs challenged.

Update - Yup she deleted my comments. What a child, and very un-lawyerlike of her. You'd think a lawyer would be able to back up what she says.

Quote of The Day - Stimulus

"I can’t help it; it sounds pornographic. I suppose that's because every time the phrase comes up I automatically say to myself, “Oh boy are we gonna get screwed.”"

-Breda's Mike on the Stimulus Package. - That's quality stuff right there. RTWT

Bad Gunnie!

You know you're a bad gun nut when you....

1. Have never been to a gun show

2. Do not own a wheelgun

3. Do not own a shotgun.

I really do need to remedy some of the above this year.

Speaking of wheelguns and shotguns, either of those would be nice to add to the collection.

SPCA Armed?

The Pennsylvania SPCA will now start arming it's officers. It makes sense to me, though the talking heads on the local news said that this was needed "for the protection of the officers." Funny how the media never makes that basic connection when they're not talking about an agent of the State. When it's just average citizens they're all too happy to promulgate the tired old "blood in the streets" line the Brady's have been pimping for years.

I'll say if I were doing their job in Philly I'd sure as hell want to be armed to protect myself from violent animals, human and otherwise.

Update!
Fighting for Liberty has more. Note disgusting irony of the title of his linked article given what we know of the general attitude towards CCW and Open Carry in Philly.

Tam and Sebastian have also linked here and share their own perspectives.