Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Buy Remington!

Dismaying news.

Remington Outdoor, the second-largest U.S. gunmaker has suffered a “rapid” and “sharp” deterioration in sales and a similar drop in profits since January, and faces “continued softness in consumer demand for firearms,” credit analysts at Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings said in a report Friday.

Bill says:

The decline may be accounted for by a growing feeling among potential buyers that President Trump, unlike his predecessor, has no intention of trying to erase the Second Amendment and take their guns in the process.

From what I’ve read, gun sales are in fact down across the board since Trump took office, for most all manufacturers and types. Of course, that’s after years of record-shattering highs during the Obama regime, despite his professed deep and abiding affection for hunting and skeet shooting. Of course, shooters know a gun-grabber when they see one, and such phonus-balonus claims are always one of the telltales.

In any event, one truly hates to see Remington suffer, especially after this:

Remington announced a plan for a new state of the art plant in Huntsville, Alabama on February 17, 2014. Remington moved two production lines from the Ilion, New York as a result of the fallout from the New York Safe Act which restricted gun ownership. Huntsville is now building the AR-15/Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR) from Bushmaster, DPMS and Remington Remington R-15 and 1911 style R-1 pistols in the new AL plant which is an $87 million boon for Alabama’s economy. The new plant consolidates Remington’s production to promote efficiency and lower production costs. Experts in the gun industry believe that it is only a matter of time before Remington completely abandons its New York roots for states that are more gun friendly and pro business.

As Bill says, they did the right thing when it counted, as did Taurus back when Bill Clinton sent Albert “Second Shakra” AlGore to threaten them with undefined repercussions unless they started including free trigger locks with every product sold. Taurus, you may recollect, told Gore to get bent in no uncertain terms by including a free year’s NRA membership instead.

I always had a soft spot in my heart for ’em after that. In fact, one of the best guns I ever did own was a Taurus PT92, which I had for a decade or so and put literally thousands of rounds through without a single burp or hitch. I still have an affection for their Millennium .45, which is somewhat dampened by a rumor that their quality control has taken a severe nosedive of late for some reason.

At any rate, if you’re in the market for a boomstick this Christmas, please do consider Remington. They have a long history of making quality hunting and sporting arms behind ’em, and are deserving of our support. It’d be a damnable shame to see them lost as an unintended consequence of not having a gun-grabbing liar infesting the White House anymore.

Share

Bullets first

Schlichter sums up:

Show of hands. Who is up to give up your ability to protect yourself because the same people who celebrate us being murdered demand it? Anyone? Hello? Bueller?

Then, of course, the killing spree got stopped by the very thing that liberals insist doesn’t exist except for all the times it has existed – a good guy with a gun. A Texan exhibiting something liberals are unfamiliar with – manhood – took his rifle and went one-on-one with that walking chamber pot and put a round in him. The tubby terrorist, confronted with an armed American citizen instead of little kids, dropped his rifle and ran, gut shot. Let’s hope he suffered good and hard before he checked himself out like the coward he was.

So, let’s review. We’re supposed to demand laws that make it illegal for human suppositories like this to have guns, even though it was already illegal for him to have guns. We’re supposed to rely on government background checks to protect us even though the government keeps failing at that. We’re also supposed to disarm at the behest of people who know literally nothing about guns or existing gun laws. And we’re supposed to not believe that we have the ability to defend ourselves, even though normal Americans do so every day – here, an instructor from the NRA literally ended this bloodbath. But we should ignore that for reasons and because.

But wait, there’s more. We’re supposed to disarm in the face of people who celebrate when we are murdered. The Hollywood types, taking a break from molesting each other, didn’t exactly celebrate our deaths, but they couldn’t help spewing their hatred for our faith. I bet if we were disarmed, and a government controlled by liberals had a total monopoly on force, they’d be totally cool and respect our religious rights. I checked with Chet and he thinks so – it’s not like right now they want to bankrupt people for not baking cakes.

Here’s the sad fact – the people who want us disarmed don’t care if we get murdered. Not at all. Chicago has a slow motion Sutherland Springs every two weeks and the smarmy Democrats who run that hellhole don’t care. If they did, they would unleash the cops, who know exactly who the crooks are. Remember how liberals howled about “stop and frisk?” That took illegal guns off the streets, but progressive politics always take precedence. Our lives don’t matter except as a tool to be exploited when they want to take normals’ rights.

Our elite doesn’t want gun control. It wants us control.

Bingo, nailed it in one. But they have a big, big problem which, just as it always has, still boils down to this: from my cold, dead hands, bitches. I know they’d be fine with that as long as they could get someone to do it for them and all, but still.

Think I’m alone in that, or at best part of a tiny, statistically insignificant handful of radical, fanatical 2A extremists? Better think again, Poindexter:

In 2014, attorney and policy analyst Paloma Capanna filed suit on behalf of Rochester-based radio host Bill Robinson seeking data on NY SAFE Act compliance: specifically, how many assault weapons had actually been registered in the state.

Cuomo administration officials first ignored, then denied Robinson’s Freedom of Information Act request. But, on June 22, following two years of litigation, state police released the information based on a court decision which found that while the law forbade the disclosure of the actual registration forms, nothing precluded the release of aggregate data.

That data shows massive noncompliance with the assault weapon registration requirement. Based on an estimate from the National Shooting Sports Federation, about 1 million firearms in New York State meet the law’s assault-weapon criteria, but just 44,000 have been registered. That’s a compliance rate of about 4 percent. Capanna said that the high rate of noncompliance with the law could only be interpreted as a large-scale civil disobedience, given the high level of interest and concern about the law on the part of gun owners.

“It’s not that they aren’t aware of the law,” said Capanna. “The lack of registration is a massive act of civil disobedience by gun owners statewide.”

Oh, and did I mention their needing someone to confiscate ’em for them? Why yes; yes I did.

Opposition to the SAFE Act has been widespread across upstate New York, where 52 of the state’s 62 counties, including Ulster, have passed resolutions opposing the law. Upstate police agencies have also demonstrated a marked lack of enthusiasm for enforcing the ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. According to statistics compiled by the state Department of Criminal Justice Services, there have been just 11 arrests for failure to register an otherwise-legal assault weapon since the SAFE Act took effect in March 2013 and 62 for possession of a large capacity magazine. In Ulster County, where 463 assault weapons have been registered, there have been just three arrests for possession of large-capacity magazines and none for failure to register an assault weapon. Ulster County Sheriff Paul VanBlarcum has been a vocal critic of the law; he said he believed large numbers of Ulster County gun owners had chosen to ignore the registration requirement.

“We’re a rural county with a lot of gun enthusiasts,” said VanBlarcum. “So [463] sounds like a very low number.”

VanBlarcum said he had advised deputies to use their discretion when it came to making arrests for SAFE Act violations like unregistered assault weapons and he had no plans to undertake proactive enforcement measures.

“We are not actively out looking to enforce any aspect of the SAFE Act,” said VanBlarcum.

As I’ve mentioned before, I have friends and family who are cops; many of the customers at the Harley shop I used to work at are cops. And I can assure you based on my own conversations with these guys that there is absolutely ZERO enthusiasm among them not only for having to enforce these laws, but for the laws themselves in the first damned place. Their opposition to such laws, in other words, is based not on narrow concern for their own safety in enforcing an unpopular law, but on their personal firm belief in the right to keep and bear arms.

Too, they’re nearly all recreational shooters themselves; when I used to attend the bi-annual Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot every year, a goodly number of the attendees there were always cops. There are exceptions out there, of course, but on the whole these aren’t people who are going to be able to muster a whole lot of enthusiasm for personally going out to violate the Constitution on a door-to-door basis. In fact, they’re way more likely to refuse to do it flatly and without equivocation:

With more states passing stronger gun control laws, rural sheriffs across the country are taking the meaning of their age-old role as defenders of the Constitution to a new level by protesting such restrictions, News21 found.

Some are refusing to enforce the laws altogether.

Sheriffs in states like New York, Colorado and Maryland argue that some gun control laws defy the Second Amendment and threaten rural culture, for which gun ownership is often an integral component.

They’re joined by groups like Oath Keepers and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, both of which encourage law enforcement officers to take a stand against gun control laws.

Lewis, who is running for re-election this year, said sheriffs have a responsibility to push against what he sees as the federal government’s continual encroachment on citizens’ lives and rights.

“Where do we draw a line?” he asked. “I made a vow and a commitment that as long as I’m the sheriff of this county I will not allow the federal government to come in here and strip my law-abiding citizens of the right to bear arms. If they attempt to do that it will be an all-out civil war. Because I will stand toe-to-toe with my people.”

If our 2A rights are ever to be fully restored—or even maintained as is, without further watering down or sneak-thief encroachments on it—we’re going to need as many like Sheriff Lewis as we can possibly get to help with it. As for non-compliance, it ain’t just New York, either:

While the recent experience in New York is strong evidence of the American public’s unwillingness to comply with firearms registration, it is only the latest instance illustrating the futility of these types of laws. In Connecticut, a 2013 law required residents to register certain types of semiautomatic firearms, and individual magazines with a capacity greater than 10, by January 1, 2014. Out of an estimated several hundred thousand guns and 2.4 million magazines that were required to be registered, by the deadline Connecticut gun owners had registered 50,016 firearms and a mere 38,290 magazines.

In March, the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, assembled by Governor Dannel Malloy “to review current policy and make specific recommendations in the areas of public safety, with particular attention paid to school safety, mental health, and gun violence prevention,” issued its final report. The commission suggested that Connecticut “Prohibit the possession… of any firearm capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading.”

Similarly, in 1989 California enacted a law requiring registration of certain semi-automatic firearms. According to a February 17, 1992 Los Angeles Times article, in the years since enactment only 46,062 semi-autos were registered. The article goes on to note, “The state Department of Justice has estimated there are 200,000 to 300,000. Others have calculated as many as 450,000 to 600,000.” The authorities attempted to bolster the lackluster compliance with a 90-day amnesty period at the start of 1992; this program only netted another 13,470 firearms.

The results of New Jersey’s semi-auto ban were comparable. An April 17, 1992 New York Times article titled, “Owners of Assault Guns Slow to Obey Law,” notes, “In New Jersey, which enacted an assault weapon ban in 1990, 2,000 weapons have been surrendered, made inoperable or registered as collectors’ items, according to the State Police. The state Attorney General’s office estimates that there are between 20,000 and 50,000 assault weapons in New Jersey.”

And those are just the ones they know about. But hey, given our history and national character, only in America would such personal defiance of tyrannical edicts be likely to occur, right? Wrong yet again:

Canada passed a strict gun-control law in 1995, partly in reaction to a 1989 shooting  at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique with a semiautomatic rifle. The law required universal regulation of guns, including rifles and shotguns. Proponents said the central registry would give law-enforcement agencies a powerful new tool for tracking guns used in crimes. They also claimed it would help reduce domestic violence and suicide.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

The bigger lesson of Canada’s experiment, Mauser says, is that gun registration rarely delivers the results proponents expect. In most countries the actual number registered settles out at about a sixth. Germany required registration during the Baader-Meinhof reign of terror in the 1970s, and recorded 3.2 million of the estimated 17 million guns in that country; England tried to register pump-action and semiautomatic shotguns in the 1980s, but only got about 50,000 of the estimated 300,000 such guns stored in homes around the country.

All of which brings us ’round to this delicious 2014 press release, from Connecticut Carry:

To Officials of the State of Connecticut: Either Enforce or Repeal 2013 Anti-gun Laws.
It’s time for the State to enforce the tyranny they passed or repeal it entirely.

For years, Undersecretary Michael Lawlor, the upper levels of the State Police, and Governor Dannel Malloy have sought to disarm those whom they fear. The laws they passed show that they fear constitutionally and lawfully armed citizens. Despite thousands of gun owners showing up at each legislative session expecting to be heard by their ‘representatives’, government officials seized upon public panic related to the Newtown Massacre, as a means to exert legislative and executive fiats intent upon disarming gun owners who have harmed no one. The Connecticut Executive and Legislative branches showed their cowardice when they installed metal detectors and armed guards at the entrances to the Legislative Office Building (LOB) only for firearms-related hearings.

Gun hating officials now have their laws on the books in Connecticut. They dreamed up those laws, in their tyrannical dystopias, but it was NOT the majority of the public that supported such laws. Despite all the severe legal language that the government passed, there is still no open discussion of enforcing those tyrannical laws, as they stand. Throughout the Legislature and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP), there is only talk of “amnesty” and possibly boiling the frog at a slower rate.

As many media sources have pointed out, there is very little compliance with the new edicts, and there is absolutely no way for the State to know who is obeying the law or not. State officials have made their bluff, and Undersecretary Lawlor has made his position clear, that the State will enforce the laws. We say: Bring it on. The officials of the State of Connecticut have threatened its citizens by fiat. They have roared on paper, but they have violated Principle. Now it’s time for the State to man-up: either enforce its edicts or else stand-down and return to the former laws that did not so violently threaten the citizens of this state.

There is nothing that will so completely destroy faith in those edicts faster than the State-provoked chaos and violence that will be required to enforce the 2013 anti-gun laws. Connecticut residents should not have to live in perpetual fear of “the jack boot” coming down on them. Unenforced, frequently repeated threats fall on deaf ears. By passing laws that they cannot or choose not to enforce, State officials tell the public that this State is ignorant, immoral, blind, and impotent in its legal and decision making processes. The passage of such foolishly conceived, insufferable laws is an affront to every law-abiding citizen. Every official who supports such legal foolishness mocks our State and the Constitution they swore to uphold.

“From Governor Malloy, to Undersecretary Lawlor to DESPP, Commissioner Schriro, and Lieutenant Cooke of the firearms unit, and including Lt. Paul Vance, the state needs to shit, or get off the pot. The fact is, the state does not have the balls to enforce these laws. The laws would not survive the public outcry and resistance that would occur.” – Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta

I remind you, as incredible as it may seem, that this comes to us from…Connecticut. The state hasn’t repealed the abominable thing as far as I know, of course, but not for want of effort on the part of CC and Ed Peruta; good on ’em for slamming the dimestore dictators like this, valiantly continuing the never-ending battle for liberty in a region not exactly noted for being particularly hospitable to it. I can’t say I envy them their struggle; it’s one of several reasons I left NYC in the first place, although it pains me to have to acknowledge that where I live now ain’t exactly known for being bereft of liberals either.

Kudos, too, to all the doughty patriots there and elsewhere who defiantly—and courageously—rejected tyranny and upheld the spirit of our Founders by refusing to meekly surrender their weapons to an overreaching, grasping government. As I always make a point of telling each and every gun-grabbing liberal I argue the issue with: you’ll never get mine, motherfucker.

Who knows, if Trump can keep helping the Democrat Socialist collapse along, and the RINOs continue to offend red-blooded Americans with their now-exposed fraud and collusion, maybe the time may not be too far off when we can stop concentrating on merely holding the line and actually begin to roll the insidious project to deny the basic human right to defend one’s self, one’s family, and one’s home back.

Share

The real culprit

Once more for the libtards: your laws don’t work.

It should not matter if these incidences are occurring because of a political correctness stigma around mental health, or just dumb laziness. If federal employees cannot perform the simplest of tasks of enforcing laws already on the books meant to keep people safe, then those employees need to be released and their agencies eliminated.

The National Rifle Association and lawful gun owners are not involved in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. During the shooting in Texas, a former NRA instructor was instrumental in stopping Kelley’s rampage – a rampage that could have been prevented had our government not been asleep at the wheel again. But sure, let’s turn over our health care to the government now.

If our government cannot perform simple tasks like filling our criminal record forms and entering information into databases, then why in the world would we burden federal employees with new gun laws that do nothing but restrict the constitutional rights of citizens and vendors in full compliance with the law?

Start with enforcing the federal laws on the books before attempting one of those “conversations” about curtailing rights. When our government gets that right, then we can have a larger discussion about the Second Amendment.

Actually, no, we can’t. There is but one “discussion” of the Second Amendment, and it’s not particularly large, nor is it complicated or difficult to understand. It is merely this: SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED. Which can be translated, roughly, as: “you’ll never, ever get mine, no matter how many damned laws you pass.” Full stop, end of discussion—nothing more need ever be said.

(Via Insty)

Share

A comparison

Which yields a dismal conclusion. Several, actually.

In Vegas, there is no reason to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy tagged for it actually carried it out, because no one saw him do it.

In Texas, most of a church-full of people could tell you exactly who did it, and one of the people who saw him do it followed him with a rifle – after shooting him with said rifle – to the point when police finally arrived minutes later to take custody of the corpse.

In neither incident did the police do anything worthwhile in any way to deter, inhibit, nor end either shooting. Their sole contribution, as in 99.9% of shootings, is to unroll barrier tape, chalk outlines around bodies, and gather evidence and fill out reports for trials that will never happen. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Not one of 30,000 gun laws did one single thing to prevent or even delay either shooting.
Nor would any 30,000 more accomplish anything better.

The notionally presumptive Vegas shooter broke no laws until he knocked out windows and opened fire.
The Texas shooter broke every law imaginable, being legally prohibited from even so much as possessing any firearm. Shocking Every Clueless Barking Leftard Moonbat The Usual Suspects, a homicidal criminal breaks the law, exactly as the definition of the word “criminal” might imply to someone with an IQ greater than their shoe size. (Every politician with a (D) after your name, call your office…)

In both cases, those same Usual Suspects wasted not one moment before beginning their usual insane catcalls to punish everyone who didn’t do either crime, by banning more guns (again!), whilst gleefully dancing in the still warm pools of the blood of the victims to do so. Every one of them, from Congressbitch Shitweasel Gabby Giffords, to the retinue of Hollywood misogynist pedophile- and rapist-enabling celebutards, should be castigated verbally and egged  – by the dozen, please – physically, until they grow a verbal filter sufficient to shut their pieholes, pretty much until the grave takes over the task for them when they die of natural causes. They are shitlords of the lowest order, and there is no amount of public shaming – up to activating their dental plans, in a need for new implants sort of way – that goes too far in shouting them down and howling them into silence.

In both cases, the media engages in knee-jerk around-the-clock non-stop coverage, but only to gin up their well-deserved flagging ratings, and to service their own anti-gun agenda, while contributing nothing but ass-gas to the discussion, and shunting 50 more important daily stories into the dustbin, stopping just short of tying strings to the bloody corpses and using them as marionettes on live TV.

As I said, several conclusions are unavoidable here, none of them pleasant. But the most important one we can draw is an eternal one: liberals, statists, collectivists, fascists, whatever—your laws do not work. They have NEVER worked; they never WILL work. I ain’t just talking about gun control here, either. Your desire for absolute control over each and every one of us in order to engineer us into your ideal of a Perfect Man—itself a highly destructive, self-defeating absurdity—is a fantasy, a pipe dream. It isn’t going to happen, and the results you’ll get from the attempt are never going to be what you hope for or expect. Which failure is only to be expected from meager intellects pretending to superiority—from people who arrogantly deny God as “silly superstition” while trying to set themselves and their misbegotten Superstate in His place.

In sum: come and take them, you sniveling wretches.

I was in an e-mail conversation with CF friend and supporter Sam Sorenson earlier wherein I said that it seems as if liberals are smack in the middle of a sort of cosmic karmic comeuppance of late, suffering one humiliating pratfall after another as all their cherished shibboleths just keep blowing up in their faces one right after another. We were discussing it in the context of another issue which I’ll be getting into later, but the truth is I can’t think of a time when reality has bitten them harder than this:

Hero Who Stopped Texas Gunman: I Couldn’t Have Stopped Him Without My AR-15
The hero who stopped the gunman behind the deadly Texas church massacre said using an AR-15 enabled him to end the bloodshed. In an emotional interview with CRTV’s “Louder With Crowder” on Monday, Stephen Willeford described the gunfight and dramatic car chase that ensued to stop the shooter from slaughtering additional churchgoers.

“If I had run out of the house with a pistol and faced a bulletproof vest and kevlar and helmets, it might have been futile,” Willeford said. “I ran out with an AR-15 and that’s what he was shooting the place up with.”

“I hate to politicize that, but that’s reality,” he added.

A perfectly delightful pressing of nearly every gun-grabber button, that was: a heroic gun owner, who also happens to be a member in good standing of the perfidious NRA, uses an evil, deadly semi-fully automatic assault-weapon rifle gun to successfully halt a massacre all on his own, with no guidance, consultation, coordination, or permission from or with any State organ, bureaucracy, or agency—and shows no remorse for his inexpert and presumptuous audacity.

Meanwhile, the mad killer was in no way deterred or hindered by any of the more than 30,000 gun control laws already on the books and, as Aesop says above, would not have been stopped by 30,000 more. He got his weapons and gear in open defiance of them, after having eluded every legal and administrative roadblock the State could muster against him—after dodging every regulation, system, procedure, and doctrine designed to recognize, analyze, diagnose, persuade, re-educate, restrain, or otherwise neutralize him. He killed with perfect impunity until an armed citizen with a far more highly developed sense of responsibility, self-respect, community, and simple duty than self-righteous liberals will ever possess stepped up and did the necessary. This dauntless man didn’t “cower in place,” he didn’t wait until help arrived, he didn’t piss his pants or faint dead away, he didn’t tremble and quake in fear as they would prefer.

And he got the job done, where all their high dudgeon and legalisms failed miserably. Just as they always do. More, and worse, he did so in a most public way, so that the calm efficacy of his heroism and the relevance of his underlying beliefs cannot possibly be denied, and the futility and folly of their own was written in blood on the church-house floor. Worse still, the heroic law-abiding owner of this semi-fully automatic assault-weapon rifle gun had never heretofore hurt anybody with his deadly murderous man-killing machine of a weapon; it never once exerted its nefarious mind-control power to influence him to wantonly kill a single soul, and it never once hopped up out of his cabinet, rack, or safe to go out and do bloody mayhem on its own. Indeed, his legal ownership of this morally repugnant Weapon Of Mass Destruction would most likely never have been made widely known at all if he hadn’t used it properly to provide us all with such a shining example of toxic masculinity and the traditional manly virtues of courage, valor, self-reliance, daring, and selfless concern for his fellow citizens liberals despise so much, and have all but wiped from the shriveled souls and intellects of the weak, emasculated Pajama Boys they’re producing in job lots.

Making it all even more satisfying is the response their propaganda organs are even now being forced to report daily: all across the country, pastors with more concern for their flocks’ safety than for respecting the pious liberal mandate enforcing their cringing helplessness are declaring their intention to arm themselves, and are calling for their congregants to do likewise. The idea of these people taking the fundamental human responsibility of self-defense into their own hands by availing themselves of the most useful tool for doing so must have liberal “journalists” in a sweating, gibbering rage when they’re off-camera. Already, we have this lecture approvingly compiled by a gun-grabbing liberal writer who probably hasn’t seen the inside of a church in…well, ever.

“I think the religion of Robert Jeffress is not the religion of Jesus,” McBride told ThinkProgress in an interview. “I think it is becoming increasingly apparent that we have a practice of blasphemous Christianity by many so-called Christians. Jesus is the Prince of Peace in a world of war. Rather than continue to push for more instruments of death, which are unable to keep us safe, we must rather start to call for a more peaceful existence that limits the proliferations of instruments of death.”

“Unable to keep us safe”? Might want to ask the people who survived the slaughter exclusively because of the skillful wielding of one of those “instruments of death” how they feel about your so cavalierly condemning them to death by massacre instead, you addled-pated, despicable wretch.

He added: “Any faith leader that calls for an opposite of that…has a deep moral hole in their soul, and they should be ignored.”

Other critics of gun violence include Shane Claiborne, a prolific Christian speaker and writer who works with an initiative that literally melts down AR-15s–weapons similar to the one reportedly used by Sutherland shooter–and turns them into plowshares, in keeping with a biblical reference.

Note, please, that not one of these mass-murder events has ever been halted, disrupted, or forestalled by a plowshare. Not a single fucking one. But hey, you’re doing great work there, Rev. You’re really Making A Difference, you are. Guys like you are about as useless as tits on a boar hog. But hey, self-righteousness, egotistical preening, and pointless demonstrations of moral superiority are what Christianity is really all about, right?

“Jesus carried a cross not a gun,” Claiborne told ThinkProgress. “He said greater love has no one that this–to lay down their life for another. The early Christians said ‘for Christ we can die but we cannot kill.’ When Peter picked up a sword to protect Jesus and cut off a guys ear, Jesus scolded him and put the ear back on. The early Christians said ‘when Jesus disarmed peter he disarmed every Christian.’ Evil is real but Jesus teaches us to fight evil without becoming evil. One the cross we see what love looks like when it stares evil in the face. Love is willing to die but not to kill.”

Left unmentioned is the evil of failing to properly reverence and respect the sanctity of God’s gift of life by refusing to defend not only one’s own but that of others against the preventable or at least stoppable depredations of people who disregard it entirely. But it does dovetail rather nicely with the liberal clergy’s shallow ignorance, and the press’s cynical, willful, and underhanded misrepresentation of Jesus as a pacifist—a deception intended to undermine Christianity rather than honestly analyze or respect its teachings, from “journalists” who have spent a hefty portion of their careers railing against Christianity, insulting Christians, and demeaning religion generally (Eastern mysticism, Islam and a nebulous, adolescent, but specifically non-religious and undemanding “spirituality” excepted).

In any event, we can all expect more fawning reportage shortly from anything-goes urban liberal churches whose contemptible but insidious practice is to neglect Western theology in favor of proselytizing for “diversity,” “tolerance,” “outreach,” and a general supine pacifism to counter this crippling assault on their faltering narrative. Pastors whose enthusiasm for political correctness and whatever other thumbsucking sophistry is currently fashionable with Leftist “intellectuals” far outweighs their commitment to Christian dogma—and whose dwindling congregants will be heavily outnumbered by the “journalists” eagerly reporting on them—will be lauded for their courage as they launch various programs, marches, and councils to call for disarmament, understanding, openness, and “love.” These hapless sheep will be hailed as “heroes,” possessed of far more true courage and moral authority than the embarrassing rednecks who think self-defense is desirable, ethical, or even possible against the violent impulses of deranged lunatics whose madness has been exacerbated if not outright caused by the infantilization of the populace, the sense of futility and self-loathing it engenders, and the general social decay that are the diseased fruits of Progressivism. Steyn understands the rot, and what it must inevitably produce:

A republic requires virtue, and the decline of virtue is accompanied necessarily by the decline of the concept of evil, and its substitution by exculpatory analysis of the “motives” of evil. A more useful conversation would be on what it takes to remove the most basic societal inhibition – including the instinctive revulsion that would prevent most of us from taking the lives of strangers, including in this case eighteen-month-old babies. That inhibition is weaker in the dar al-Islam, because of Islam’s institutional contempt for “the other” (unbelievers) but also because of the rewards promised in the afterlife. Thus, violence is sanctioned by paradise. That is the precise inversion of our society, and yet the weakening of inhibition seems to be proceeding here, too. A church sealed off by yellow police tape: a shameful and astonishing sight, and yet one senses that it will neither shame nor astonish us for long, that something else will come along to make the records books and distract a couple of news cycles.

“Solipsistic psychos” and “feeble narcissism”: As I write, someone is on the airwaves promising that we will soon know the “motive” of the shooter. To dignify what drove this guy to do what he did as “motive” is to torture the word beyond meaning. But then our interest in the concept of “motive” is highly variable.

So, when a “Minnesota man” stabs mall shoppers while yelling “Allahu Akbar!”, the motive “remains unclear”: The befuddlement is nigh on universal …for years on end. But a fellow who thinks getting a bad-conduct discharge or falling out with your mother-in-law, or losing your job or being dumped by your girl or having your mom suggest that as you’re pushing thirty it might be time to move out of the basement, is a “motive” for shooting up a church or a schoolhouse or a movie theatre or an old folks’ home or whatever’s next, that guy we’re fascinated by, for weeks on end – and then months and years later on in all those “Inside the Mind of…”TV documentaries. They have church shootings in Egypt and Pakistan, too, but in service of cleansing the dar al-Islam of believing Christians, and leaving Islam king on a field of corpses. Our church shootings are in service of…what?

Texas officials now believe they have their “motive” – in their words, “a domestic situation going on in this family”; in my words, “the black void at the heart of the act”. It is a grim phenomenon, its accelerating proliferation is deeply disturbing, and it is not unconnected to the broader societal weakness in which Islam senses its opportunity.

Nope. And neither are those two things—sharing a connection made possible by the seemingly puzzling alliance of convenience between unchurched Western libertines and a primitive religion that would happily kill them all for their degeneracy—happening by accident, either.

Share

UNPOSSIBLE!

Yet another example of something the gun-grabbing, lying Left asserts never happens.

Today’s mass shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, was only halted after an armed Texan “engaged” the killer and put an end to the rampage, the Texas Rangers reported.

Freeman Martin, a major in the Texas Rangers and a spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety, says the suspect dropped his rifle and fled after being confronted by a local man who had grabbed his rifle.

I was out of town yesterday and today for a show, and didn’t know anything about this story until I got home earlier. As such, I don’t know if the liberal media has been trying their usual subterfuge and portraying this killer as a RightWingFascistNaziExtremist™ or not, but I naturally assume that they have—and that they’ll drop this one like a hot rock as soon as his Democrat-Socialist campaign contributions, fondness for Bernie!™, and photos of him at an anti-Trump or BLM rally wearing a Pussy Hat surface. Y’know, of course, and as usual.

For now, it’ll suffice as a reminder that the only way—the ONLY way—these crazed mass killers are ever stopped is when a good guy shows up with a gun. The longer that takes, the more people die. Each and every single time.

From our cold, dead hands, Libtards.

(Via Insty)

Update! Drip, drip, drip.

UPDATE:  There are several reports circulating on Twitter, based on purported screenshots of Kelley’s FB page, to the effect that he was a member of the Bernie Sander’s support group Together We Rise.  There are also rumors that he was an Antifa member/supporter.  Also, that he was interrupted and possibly even killed by an armed citizen with a rifle.

This would, if true, obviously be a nightmare for the alt-left in America.  But none of it has been confirmed, as of yet.

Nah, no nightmare. They’ll just ignore it, and get real busy pretending none of it ever happened.

Share

The ultimate National Conversation

Careful what you wish for, “liberals.”

I don’t agree with liberals often, because I’m not an idiot and because I love America, but when they once again say, “We must have a conversation about guns!” I still couldn’t agree more. And, since all we’ve heard is you leftists shrieking at us all week, I’ll start it off.

You don’t ever get to disarm us. Not ever.

There. It sure feels good to engage in a constructive dialogue.

Okay, I can see already that I’m getting ready to bend “fair use” over and give it the rogering of its young life. I just don’t see any way I can avoid lifting this most excellent of Schlichter rants almost entire.

Now, we should have this conversation because in recent years we’ve seen a remarkable antipathy for the fact that normal Americans even have rights among those on the left. We should have this conversation to clear the air before leftists push too far and the air gets filled with smoke. But we really don’t need to have a conversation about our rights to keep and bear arms. They’re rights. There’s nothing to talk about.

This goes for all our rights that the left hates, like the rights to speak and write freely, to practice our religion as we see fit, and to not be railroaded by liberal authority without due process. Leftists hate our rights because they hate us, and when we assert our rights it gets in the way of their malicious schemes to dominate and control us. It makes them stamp their little sandaled feet in rage when we normals just won’t cooperate and surrender our rights. But we love our rights – rights are wonderful things with which we were endowed by our Creator, and which our beloved Constitution merely reiterates. But the left, including its pet media, thinks that our rights were merely iterated, and that the left can take an eraser to the parchment and—voila!—no more pesky rights for you flyover people.

Nah. I think we’ll keep ‘em. All of them, unchanged. And there’s only one way we can lose them, unless a lot of leftists buy a lot of guns, conduct a lot of tactical training, and stop being little weenies. I’m not worried about any of those things happening, particularly the last one. So, as a practical matter, we only lose our rights if we allow ourselves to be shamed, threatened, whined, and lectured into giving them up by skeevy tragedy-buzzard pols, mainstream media meat puppets, and late night chucklemonkeys whose names and faces all blend together into one unfunny, preachy blur.

I just don’t see Jimmy Kimmel donning Kevlar to molon labe and risking his sorry carcass trying to separate normal Americans from their ability to defend themselves, their families, and their Constitution from the people who constantly tell us how much they hate us.

Well, not unless there’s about thirty of him surrounding one of us, as per the usual liberal-fascist MO. Otherwise, it’s doubtful he’d so much as lift a finger to prevent his wife and daughter getting raped and murdered in front of his very eyes. Probably by a gang of those “moderate Muslims” the Left is so enamored of, without ever being able to find a single living example of.

On the bright side, I DID manage to honor fair use by leaving out a few paragraphs there, which you’re going to want to go and read anyway. But then Kurt really cuts loose with the Clue Bat, fungo-ing huge, achy lumps onto those empty “liberal” heads:

So, let’s continue our important conversation. How about this? How about we continue to speak freely, saying whatever we want however we want, and you leftists just sit there and be offended? How about we practice our faiths however we want, even if that means some of us don’t end up validating every one of your preferred personal peccadillos (I checked under all of the penumbras and emanations in the Constitution and I can’t find anywhere that you have a right to have us high-five everything you do). And how about we insist that everyone accused of something gets due process and the chance to defend himself – or herself, or even xirself?

Yeah, we know that us having rights is inconvenient, but that’s too damn bad. Because we aren’t asking you for our rights. We’re telling you we aren’t giving them up.

See, we’re done walking on eggshells and playing your verbal minefield game. You’ll call us “murderers,” “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes” and every other kind of “phobe” you can invent no matter what we do anyway, and it’s all a lie. It’s also all meaningless. You don’t even believe it. It’s just a rhetorical weapon, and a lame one, but you’ve fired all your ammo. The chamber is empty. Keep pulling the trigger on your slanders, but we’re now woke to the scam and you’re just shooting blanks.

Anyway, let’s continue our conversation. You’re not going to pin the rampage of some scumbag on millions and millions of people who didn’t do it. You’re not going to leverage this spree into disarming us – which is your ultimate goal. We know how you hate the idea that we are armed and independent, that we hold a lead veto over your fever dreams of tyrannical rule over us. You know how important it is to us to be free citizens; you yearn to humiliate us by stripping us of our self-respect by taking away our means of keeping ourselves free from the tyranny of people like you.

You never cared that 59 people were murdered – some of you, as we have seen, cheered – and I gotta say, it’s a bad look to screech “I’m glad you crackers are dead, now heed my command to give up your guns!” If you really cared about 59 people being murdered, you’d demand that the Chicago PD flood the ghetto and stop and frisk until every punk with a gun was disarmed because 59 people get murdered there in a slow month. Oh, but wait – their rights! Gee, I thought that RIGHTS DON’T MATTER IF TAKING RIGHTS AWAY SAVES JUST ONE LIFE… I guess it’s really about whose rights, isn’t it?

So, let’s finish our conversation about guns. Where was I? Oh yeah. No.

BANGFUCKINGZOOM. I’m gonna leave out his conclusion too, which is another thing you won’t want to miss. I’ll close my own post here with a quote from the great Charlton Heston, directed at Al Gore at the time and still readily applicable to the rest of the gun-grabbin’ Left: from my cold, dead hands, motherfuckers. You jump on up and start the ball any time you think you’re ready to dance. We’ll be waiting.

Share

Just the facts

No wonder libtards hate ’em. But good on this one; hers is a remarkable story of true open-mindedness, of willingness to adjust one’s own beliefs when a careful examination of hard facts fails to unearth any evidence to support them.

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

All of which adds up to make this bird (yeah, I said it) the most rare of rara avises. My cap is duly doffed to her for her integrity, at the very least.

Share

Unpossible!

Don’t read this. Just don’t.

A man with a concealed carry license stopped a shooter after the latter opened fire on a crowd of people at a nightclub in South Carolina early Sunday morning, according to WISTV.com.

After getting into a fight with another person, the 32-year-old suspect pulled out a gun and began to fire at a crowd of people gathered outside of the club, hitting and injuring four, WISTV reports. One of the victims, who holds a concealed-carry permit, shot back in self-defense, hitting the suspect in the leg.

This couldn’t possibly have happened, because it never, ever does, or has. Hey look, over there: a squirrel!

Share

Manhood

Jesus H Christ, are you fucking kidding me? Seriously?

It felt to me like a bazooka — and sounded like a cannon.

One day after 49 people were killed in the Orlando shooting, I traveled to Philadelphia to better understand the firepower of military-style weapons and, hopefully, explain their appeal to gun lovers.

But mostly, I was just terrified.

Yeah, I could smell the piss drenching your Underoos from here, you simpering pusscake.

I’ve shot pistols before, but never something like an AR-15. Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection).

The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don’t know what you’re doing (bold mine, explanation unnecessary—M). The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

Even in semi-automatic mode, it is very simple to squeeze off two dozen rounds before you even know what has happened. If illegally modified to fully automatic mode, it doesn’t take any imagination to see dozens of bodies falling in front of your barrel.

All it takes is the will to do it.

Forty nine people can be gone in 60 seconds.

Well, unless ONE SINGLE OTHER MOTHERFUCKING PERSON who knew what they were doing and possessed at least one functioning testicle—and wasn’t a goddamned gutless, sniveling pussy like yourself—happened to be there too, prepared to deal with a situation that, thanks to cowards like you and the socialist scum you insist on electing to run our lives for us, will become more and more usual in this country. But being such a pathetic excuse for a man, you just GOTTA make sure everybody else is legally required to be as crippled and worthless as you are, right?

Here’s a hilarious dramatic recreation of this twerp’s AR experience. I doubt it’s much different from the sad reality.




If this is what most Americans are content to think of—and tolerate—as “manhood” nowadays, we are fucked all to hell and gone. Yes, I know the vid is a spoof, and it’s a good one. I only wish I could say the article itself was. Looks like Culture of Cowardice is another new category I’ll regrettably be getting a lot of use out of.

Update! Just to wash the foul taste out of all our mouths here.

His name may not be as recognizable as the late Chris Kyle, but Eugene Stoner is the man behind the design of the AR-15. “American Sniper” Kyle’s autobiograpy and motion picture, depicted Kyle using a sniper variant of the AR-15. It all began in 1954 when Stoner, a World War II veteran, became the Chief Engineer of ArmaLite. Today, not only is the AR-15 extremely popular, AR15 accessories can be purchased separately so gun owners can create a fully customized rifle. It has become a favorite rifle for militaries, sportsmen, and preppers alike.

The U.S. counterpart to Russian, Mikhail Kalashnakov, Eugene Stoner actually first invented the AR10 which was rejected by the U.S. military in favor of the M14 rifle. With the base design already down, the team at Armalite made some changes to the AR10 (the big one was changing the caliber from 7.62 X 51mm NATO to the 5.56 X 45mm NATO cartridge) and arrived at the final product of the AR15. This finalized design is what the U.S. military adopted as what most know as the M16 rifle. While at Armalite, Stoner also designed a survival rifle for the U.S. Air Force that was designated as the AR5 and was later upgraded to today’s AR7 Survival Rifle.

Stoner continued his work with firearms going on to work with well known firearm companies including Colt (who had purchased the rights to the AR15 from Armalite) and Knight’s Armament. He even co-founded the company ARES Incorporated where he had a few other successful firearm designs.

It is safe to say that while not only bringing us the AR15 platform of rifle, Eugene Stoner is an amazing contributor to the modern firearms industry, not only on the military side of things but the sporting side as well.

I gotta say, I have some small experience shooting subguns, and I’ve always much preferred the Thompson or the MP5 to the AR15. I broke the bolt on a Colt AR15 once during a competition, which ain’t exactly something that happens every day. But for an alternate take on Stoner’s genius design, you can always check out the Captain, who loves ’em, and knows whereof he speaks too. As for the Thompson, an excellent article on it is here, but it won’t let me cut and paste from it for some reason, so you’ll just have to click on through and read it all.

And I’ll just say it one more time, for posterity’s sake: come and take them, liberal-fascist fucktards.

Share

Dog bites man: Clinton tells the truth again!

No, really. Hillary said it, and said it well: “It’s not much of a right if it is totally limited and constrained.”

Of course, she wasn’t talking about any right actually, y’know, mentioned in the Constitution.

The Mariana Islands are a US controlled territory often forgotten, but now they have everyone’s attention. This small set of islands far off in the Pacific ocean passed a Senate Bill which is drawing a lot of criticism. As of April 11th, all new handgun sales are subject to a $1,000.00 tax. The governor of the islands, Ralph Torres, has since defended his position on passing the bill, and even suggested that this could be a model for others (referring to states in the U.S.).

This act has many repercussions for the residents of the Mariana Islands and us in the United States. For those on the islands, it essentially strips away the ability to buy a firearm. It makes purchasing a handgun a rich man’s game. You can no longer buy a Hi-Point out-the-door for $200. Now it’s $1,200! Many view it as economic discrimination. If you can’t pay the outrageous tax then you’ll have to find other means to defend yourself and your family.

Well, that’s okay, right? I mean, as long as rich liberals and politicians can afford to keep their armed bodyguards and all, that’s all that really matters here. After all, their lives are far more important and worth defending than yours will ever be. Meanwhile, in another province of an authoritarian tyranny:

Jamie Warren’s 4-year-old daughter looks forward to a music class at KRESA’s West Campus–a class parents are required to attend.

Warren’s husband sat in on the class.

“I think he attended two or three sessions before anyone noticed that he was carrying a gun,” she said.

By law, Warren’s husband can open carry his gun.

“Schools are gun free zones, and they tend to be targeted for mass shootings. He feels that he’s keeping her safer by carrying and having the ability to protect her,” she said.

But some parents at KRESA’s West Campus say no.

“This is not the way we live in a civilized society,” one parent said.

“There’s several hundred students over there and many of their parents have expressed very significant concerns and very frankly, anger towards us for doing this and I thought well, I’ve gotta respect their rights, respect the rights of the parents of children who have been traumatized possibly by violent situations,” he said.

But Warren says her family’s rights have now been violated.

“When he decided to not break the law, they began the process of bullying him. She saw him treated like a criminal for carrying the letter of the law,” Warren said.

I think that’s a good thing. Now the little girl won’t ever make any mistakes about what kind of country she actually lives in, no matter how much “land of the free, home of the brave” horseshit she has rammed down her throat every Fourth of July.

(Via Maet)

Share

“Liberal” gun-grabbers: you gotta love ’em

They’re so compassionate and concerned, don’t you know. If you don’t believe it, just ask ’em.

“The man who killed Trayvon Martin should have never had a gun in the first place,” Hillary Clinton declared to the crowd at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. The statement was pure, opportunistic political pandering. Clinton didn’t say why George Zimmerman — completely exonerated of homicide charges by a court of law — should have been prohibited by the government from owning a gun. That’s important to know, because, if elected, Clinton will be in a position to call for and sign “gun laws.” In a way, we ought to be grateful that, occasionally, totalitarians give us glimpses of their end game. Which doesn’t stop Hillary from doing what she does best, that is, lying…

I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns…

Hillary said that right before showing everyone her huge “but,” which includes a veritable wish list of citizen disarmament fantasies documented by On the Issues. She has also endorsed adding a 25% federal sales tax on guns. Add to that her assertion that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment.”

No one wants to take your guns? If everything Hillary wants is enacted, what difference does it make?

Of COURSE Zimmerman shouldn’t have had a gun. Then he’d be dead, just another nameless and unlamented victim of rampant and unchecked black thuggery, and nobody would ever have heard of him, and no liberal idiots would have had to trouble themselves with confronting the real issue and could just go right on with their various wet-brained campaigns to remake the nation into something it was never supposed to be, and everything would be JUST FINE.

No, Zimmerman most certainly should not have had a gun, according to liberals. And neither should anybody else. Excepting, of course, their squads of personal bodyguards, the cops, the Secret Service, and the security personnel at the gates of their tony neighborhoods who protect their obscenely rich politicians from their marauding, lawless constituents.

Read on to the end of it, where Codrea asks a most, umm, penetrating question.

Share

The final countdown

I’ve long believed that if there’s to be another American Revolution (the American Re-Revolution?), this will be what kicks it off.

Perhaps the biggest threat ever to the Second Amendment is working its way through the state courts in Connecticut.

A judge there is allowing a wrongful death lawsuit to proceed against Remington Arms Co., which made one of the weapons used by Adam Lanza to kill 26 children and staffers at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.

The lawsuit, filed by nine victim families, claims Remington is liable for making and selling to the public a rifle unfit for civilian use.

Clinton’s charge that gunmakers enjoy unique protection from liability isn’t true. All manufacturers of defect-free, legal goods enjoy a broad shield against damage resulting from the intentional misuse of their products.

Still, gun opponents compare firearm manufacturers with automakers, who are routinely sued when their cars and trucks are involved in a fatal accident. But those suits center around product malfunctions or design flaws. If someone gets drunk and plows an automobile into a group of children at a bus stop, the automaker is only liable if something was defective on the vehicle that contributed to the carnage.

The weapons used by Lanza were not defective. They were misused. Neither the manufacturer nor the retailer, who is also being sued, sold them to Lanza. The emotionally troubled teen took them without permission from his mother’s home. A negligence case could be made against the mother. She should not have allowed her deranged son access to her extensive arsenal; I’m all for holding gun owners responsible for properly securing their firearms.

Lanza used legal weapons that were sold within the strict confines of Connecticut’s gun laws, but taken without the owner’s permission.

If that becomes the flimsy standard for manufacturer and retailer liability, as both this lawsuit and Hillary Clinton hope, it will be the end of gunmaking and sales in this country. And that’s just what backers of this strategy want.

Of course it is. But they should be careful what they wish for. If there’s anybody at all left in this country who remain perfectly willing to stand and fight the Left to retain (or regain) their God-given rights under the old Constitutional order, it’s the gun-rights folks, who can count a lot of cops and military personnel in their growing numbers. If the libtards end up getting what they want on this issue, it just might result in their destruction…or at least in killing them in job lots.

Share

True American hero

Good on this guy.

According to Cleveland.com, police say two armed suspects, a 19-year-old Parma man and an 18-year-old Cleveland man, entered Suleyman’s Supermarket on Cleveland’s West Side just before 10 p.m. and demanded money.

The store owner gave the suspects around $300, and they turned to leave, only to see a police officer standing outside. Panicked, the two armed men ran through the store to exit in the back, but were stopped by a citizen with a gun.

The citizen, a friend of the market’s owner, “grabbed” one of the suspects and “slammed him into the wall.” The second suspect hid in a bathroom while the armed citizen stood outside the door saying, “My gun is bigger than yours.”

The police report indicates the suspect “surrendered and begged the man not to shoot him.” The armed citizen ordered both suspects to the ground and disarmed them.

THAT’S how you do it. Consider this your feel-good story of the day, although I suppose it’s a shame neither of the criminal scum got themselves ventilated for their predation. And remember, according to the gun-grabber pantywaists, things like this NEVER, EVER happen.

Share

Blast from the past

It’s a losing battle–and a worthy one.

The National Firearms act regulation of short barreled rifles and shotguns from 1934 should be eliminated. It made little sense when the primary purpose for the regulation was thwarted when it passed, it has become increasingly irrelevant, and it makes no sense at all after the Heller and McDonald decisions.

The reason for the ban on short barrelled rifles and shotguns had very little to do with the criminal use of such items. After all, criminals use handguns many, many, times more often. Short barreled rifles and shotguns are, in fact, as modified and used by criminals, expediently manufactured pistols.

The National firearms act of 1934 originally lumped in handguns with full auto firearms. It is clear that the Roosevelt administration wanted to subject pistols and revolvers to the same draconian regulations and taxes that machine guns were finally subjected to. Congress simply would not go along. It was a step too far for even the heavily Democrat Congress of 1934.

Once you understand that licensing of handguns to the point of prohibition was the major target of the legislation, the reason for including short barreled rifles and shotguns becomes clear. What is the point of banning handguns if any person can buy a rifle or shotgun, a hacksaw, and make a functional pistol in fifteen minutes from that rifle or shotgun?

Michigan had served as a blueprint for this action. First they had required licensing of handguns; then they made the possession of short barreled rifles or shotguns illegal.

The prohibition on short barreled rifles and shotguns was passed in the hope of making handguns so heavily regulated as to be impossible for an ordinary person to obtain. Without that regulation, the restrictions on short barrelled rifles and shotguns become non-nonsensical.

Well, naturally. And when was THAT ever any obstacle to retaining a law–or a bureaucrat, or an agency, or a government, say–firmly in place anyway?

It does nicely highlight how the gun-grabbers’ true intentions haven’t changed one iota in over eighty years, though. And it serves as a stark reminder, and a warning: they will never, EVER stop. Never. They’re worse than zombies that way, because even cutting off their heads won’t do the trick. And gun-grabbers have a patience completely lacking in your basic Mark-1 Mod-0 zombie, too. They take the long view in a way that zombies just can’t.

Beyond that, though, there’s not a whole hell of a lot to distinguish ’em.

(Via Maet and Herschel)

Share

Prescription: more ditches

You’ll have to click on through to see what my title refers to.

Obama’s gun-control executive orders today, and the left’s latest call for full citizen disarmament, are acts of desperation. The left feels its grasp of my life slipping from its fingers, causing their envy and resentment to reach levels of insanity. Their depression in these coming months will reach critical levels, and I hope their physicians will make the necessary calls to the government in order to stem the tide of lefty/jihadist lethal attacks against innocent life. People’s lives matter more than the survival of the Democrat Party.

Do they ever. But it’s increasingly clear that the two are antithetical, at least if the people we’re talking about intend to live in freedom.

Via WRSA, who also throws in this bonus image:

Obamacrying

Let him “cry” for all me, phony as his tears are. The more unhappy he is, the better off America will be.

Share

Metrosexual douche pickles

An excellent companion piece for Cooke’s epic 2A rant.

What Your Reaction to My NRA Sticker Says About You
OK, so I don’t have an NRA sticker. Although I’m an ardent gun rights advocate, I am not an NRA member. The NRA and I never really got along all that well. But nonetheless, bear with me here, because I’m about to explain why the NRA sticker says much more about the metrosexual douche pickle who wrote this column than it does about anyone who has that sticker on their vehicle.

I see you quivering in your panties about a sticker, and I snicker just a bit. I look at you and I wonder if you ever had any courage, any integrity, and any understanding of the laws and principles on which this nation was founded. And I wonder if you’re a threat.

A threat to my freedoms. A threat to my way of life. A threat to the Constitution.

Well, seeing as how they’ve done away with most of the Constitution already, I’d have to say that–despite their no-ball, gutless, bedwetting nature–why, yes. Yes, they most certainly are. They’re why the Second Amendment was written in the first place, in truth. And sooner or later, they’re going to have to be dealt with.

Read the rest of it. You’ll love it, I promise. And on the plainspoken merits of this post alone, into Ye Ol’ Blogroll the good folks at Liberty Zone go.

Share

The only good lion…

Maetenloch had a truly excellent, longer-than-usual post on l’affaire de Cecil in the ONT a couple of weeks ago, for which I had to hunt around a bit after realizing that Ace doesn’t have a danged search box on the ol’ HQ. But find it I did, and I’m glad of it. In the course of it–yep, read it all–he links to and excerpts from this:

Anti-hunting groups succeeded in getting Kenya to ban all hunting in 1977. Since then, its population of large wild animals has declined between 60 and 70 percent. The country’s elephant population declined from 167,000 in 1973 to just 16,000 in 1989. Poaching took its toll on elephants because of their damage to both cropland and people. Today Kenya wildlife officials boast a doubling of the country’s elephant population to 32,000, but nearly all are in protected national parks where poaching can be controlled. With only 8 percent of its land set aside as protected areas, it is no wonder that wildlife in general and elephants in particular have trouble finding hospitable habitat.

As Maet notes, Zimbabwe decided to allow controlled hunting, and this is how it worked out:

The numbers attest to the program’s success. Ten years after the program began, wildlife populations had increased by 50 percent. By 2003, elephant numbers had doubled from 4,000 to 8,000. The gains have not just been for wildlife, however. Between 1989 and 2001, CAMPFIRE generated more than $20 million in direct income, the vast majority of which came from hunting. During that period, the program benefitted an estimated 90,000 households and had a total economic impact of $100 million.

The results go beyond the CAMPFIRE areas. Between 1989 and 2005, Zimbabwe’s total elephant population more than doubled from 37,000 to 85,000, with half living outside of national parks. Today, some put the number as high as 100,000, even with trophy hunters such as Parsons around. All of this has occurred with an economy in shambles, regime uncertainty, and mounting socio-political challenges.

And then there’s this:

Cecil who? I wondered. When I turned on the news and discovered that the messages were about a lion killed by an American dentist, the village boy inside me instinctively cheered: One lion fewer to menace families like mine.

My excitement was doused when I realized that the lion killer was being painted as the villain. I faced the starkest cultural contradiction I’d experienced during my five years studying in the United States.

Did all those Americans signing petitions understand that lions actually kill people? That all the talk about Cecil being “beloved” or a “local favorite” was media hype? Did Jimmy Kimmel choke up because Cecil was murdered or because he confused him with Simba from “The Lion King”?

In my village in Zimbabwe, surrounded by wildlife conservation areas, no lion has ever been beloved, or granted an affectionate nickname. They are objects of terror.

The American tendency to romanticize animals that have been given actual names and to jump onto a hashtag train has turned an ordinary situation — there were 800 lions legally killed over a decade by well-heeled foreigners who shelled out serious money to prove their prowess — into what seems to my Zimbabwean eyes an absurdist circus.

PETA is calling for the hunter to be hanged. Zimbabwean politicians are accusing the United States of staging Cecil’s killing as a “ploy” to make our country look bad. And Americans who can’t find Zimbabwe on a map are applauding the nation’s demand for the extradition of the dentist, unaware that a baby elephant was reportedly slaughtered for our president’s most recent birthday banquet.

We Zimbabweans are left shaking our heads, wondering why Americans care more about African animals than about African people.

Well, it ain’t just Africans, if the abortion stats (sorry, did I say abortion? I meant the Women’s Right To Choose! stats) are any guide. Back to Maet for the bottom line:

So the bottom line is that if you actually care about the survival of lions as a species, you should support controlled trophy hunting. Hunters like Walter Palmer who paid $55,000 for the hunting permit have done far, far more to actually preserve real world lions in Africa than all of the hand-wringing celebrities and any of you reading this post. Ironically the weeping over Cecil and calls to ban all hunting of lions in Africa out of First World emotionalism may end up actually dooming them as a species. But everyone would still get to feel awesomely smug about their love of lions and general moral superiority from the comfort of their armchair .

Well, that’s all that ever really matters. As long as the Church Ladies of the Left get to remain all self-satisfied and comfy without ever having to actually do anything beyond attending the occasional Mostly Peaceful™ riot, all is well and the problem is solved, whatever it may be.

Share

Testing the waters

Think we won one when the ATF pulled back on green tips? Better think again.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on Thursday raised new concerns about surplus military ammo used in popular AR-15 rifles and pistols just days after pulling back on a proposal to ban the ammo because it could threaten police safety.

In a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, ATF Director B. Todd Jones said all types of the 5.56 military-style ammo used by shooters pose a threat to police as more people buy the AR-15-style pistols.

“Any 5.56 round” is “a challenge for officer safety,” he said. Jones asked lawmakers to help in a review of a 1986 bill written to protect police from so-called “cop killer” rounds that largely exempted rifle ammo like the 5.56 because it has been used by target shooters, not criminals.

His agency’s move to ban the 5.56 M855 version was condemned by the National Rifle Association and majorities in the House and Senate and as a result was pulled back though not abandoned. At the hearing Jones said that nearly 90,000 comments on the proposal were received, many negative.

As a result, he said that the ATF will suspend rewriting the “framework” used to exempt armor piercing ammo from sale or use. “It probably isn’t going to happen any time soon,” he said. Jones also said, “We are not going to move forward.”

The 5.56 M855 round, he said, is military surplus, typically has a green tip and was used in the M-16. There are several versions of the 5.56. The M855 carries a bullet that can penetrate police body armor, though shooters often debate that.

Just like every damned other 5.56 round does. Herschel cuts to the heart of the matter:

Banning green tip does nothing to prevent anyone from using a rifle round (shot from any weapon) to penetrate soft body armor, and wearing ceramic ESAPI plates protects against both frangible 5.56 mm ammunition and green tip ammunition. Furthermore, a so-called 5.56 mm “pistol” is nothing more than a SBR (short barrel rifle) with a barrel length of less than 16″ and no stock. It isn’t concealable.

So speculation of course ran wild as to the exact intent of the ATF. Are they stupid? Do they not really understand the technical issues they are dealing with? But today B. Todd Jones answered those questions. They are concerned about all 5.56 mm cartridges. Of course they are. But that .270 pointed soft point, shot from a necked down 30-06 cartridge from my bolt action deer hunting rifle? Yes, that’s the one. It will penetrate soft body armor too – lead ball, soft point, all of it. So will lead ball 30-06. So will lead ball .308. So will lead ball 7 mm. Virtually all rifle rounds (except .22LR and .22 WMR) will penetrate soft body armor because kevlar is specified to 9 mm rounds (as regards mass and velocity).

Jones knows that. The ATF at large knows that. What Jones is telling the Congress is that he wants their help in banning rifle ammunition. Rifle ammunition. All of it.

Bingo. And your rifles too, and, eventually any and everything that can be remotely construed as a firearm and can possibly be used for Constitutional purposes…which purposes don’t have a thing to do with hunting anything other than tyrants. Relax our vigilance even a wee bit in the wake of a supposed “victory” like this one? Not on your life.

Share

The tyrant makes his move

Everybody ready?

It’s starting.

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.

Wednesday night, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped in with a critical letter to the bureau demanding it explain the surprise and abrupt bullet ban. The letter is shown below.

The National Rifle Association, which is working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, told Secrets that 30 House members have already co-signed the letter and Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 fast.

Gonna take a good bit more than just that, I’m afraid. This reign of witches, pace Jefferson, is not gonna just pass over on its own. It’s gonna have to be pushed along.

“This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15…” said Goodlatte’s letter.

So? Why else do you think he’s going after them? He couldn’t get them banned by Constitutional means–not there ARE any Constitutional means for doing away with a natural right explicitly protected in the Constitution itself–so he’s doing what any omnipotent tyrant would do: issuing a decree. Now we’ll see who’s willing to stand up and fight, and how far they’re willing to take the battle.

I’ve said all along that if there’s ever to be a final spark put to the funeral pyre of liberty that will ignite the hearts of the liberty-minded and rouse them to direct action at last, it will be 2A issues that do it. The gun-rights folks are aware, awake, and deadly serious about their rights and beliefs; I never have expected them to just go gently into that good night, not by a long yard. King Hussein Obama just might have struck the match here that will end up burning not just him but the whole socialist edifice to smoking ruin.

The soapbox: in a cacophony of voices, all are mere babble. The ballot box: a rigged system, a false choice, a meaningless charade, a dog-and-pony show that changes absolutely nothing, bread and circuses for the marginally aware, life vest for a forlorn and fruitless hope. The cartridge box: now under direct attack, by the very government charged by our Founding documents to protect it. As our old friend MM says in this comment (NOTE: forgot the link before, fixed now): whatcha gonna do?

But frankly, I advise you to refrain from discussing your intentions here, or on any other website or blog. Because they’re coming for those too:

In a 3-2 vote today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to radically overhaul the way Internet service is regulated. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and the commission’s two Democratic commissioners voted to move forward with the rules. The agency’s two GOP-appointed commissioners opposed them.

Under the new rules, broadband providers, long classified by the agency as Title I information services, will now be regulated as Title II telecommunications services—essentially making them public utilities, like the phone system. The move is designed to allow the FCC to implement strict net neutrality rules limiting how much control Internet service providers (ISPs) can exert over what passes over their networks.

Today’s vote is the result of a lengthy process begun by Chairman Wheeler roughly a year ago, and that process came in the wake of two previous efforts in which the agency’s net neutrality rules were struck down in court. But the end result of the vote was largely set near the end of last year, when President Obama released a statement calling for the agency to implement the strongest possible net neutrality rules.

Obama’s statement, itself somewhat atypical in its attempt to publicly influence an independent regulatory agency, followed a long, secret effort inside the White House, in which administration staffers acted, as The Wall Street Journal reported, “like a parallel version of the FCC.” Wheeler had been considering less restrictive rules, but changed his course after the president’s statement.

They mean to control us–all of us, in every imaginable aspect. They will never, ever stop–they’ll keep coming, keep trying every way they can think of to slip the leash over our heads and around our necks one way or another–they will have to BE stopped. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

In the meantime, though, it means that the FCC has taken an unprecedented and fear-reaching step in order to make good on one of the Obama administration’s long-running political priorities—a step that solves no significant existing problem, but is instead designed largely to fend off hypothetical harms, and give the agency far more power over the Internet in the process.

As Commissioner Pai told ReasonTV, the move is a “solution that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist.” It is a solution, however, that is now in place, and is sure to create some problems of its own. 

It most certainly will at that, and maybe not in the way some people think. Hey, what’s that sad, withered, half-dead looking tree over there? Could be it just needs watering.

Share

To all sane people still living in California

All three of ’em, I mean: get out now, before someone maims or murders you and is given a medal for it by your deranged rulers.

I mean, after this, what the hell are you waiting for? The warning shots have been fired across your bow a bazillion times already.

Almost a month ago, I wrote about something amazing that happened in our Superior Court: the judge ruled against a prosecutor who sought a judicial indictment against James Simon, who had shot William Osenton when the latter followed Simon’s car for miles and then, after Simon pulled into his own garage, followed right into the garage after him, got out of the car, and headed for Simon’s house. Despite Simon’s warnings (both verbal and a warning shot), Osenton was undeterred, so Simon shot him twice in the stomach. Osenton survived the shooting.

The Prosecutor’s take  in the preliminary hearing was the same as that advanced by the Progressive: With a scary guy chasing you right into your garage, and then getting out of the car and storming towards the house, all that you are allowed to do is hide in the house, call 911, and hope that the police come in time.

We can call the Progressive’s and the Prosecutor’s take the anti-Castle Doctrine: Seconds may count, but you’d better politely wait several minutes until the police arrive, based upon the gun-grabbers’ unswerving presumption that anyone threatening you and/or trying to break into your house is, more likely than not, a pacifist who wants to sit down with you and discuss world peace through disarmament.

Unfortunately for Dr. Simon, the prosecutor didn’t let the matter rest after the judge said no. Instead, he decided to bring out the heavy guns [pun intended], and have a grand jury decide whether to indict Simon. The grand jury did, which isn’t very surprising given that the prosecutor had before him 19 upstanding Marin County residents.

And that should tell you all you need to know about what’s going to happen next. I won’t go so far as to say that anyone still insisting on staying in California will deserve it when something like this happens to them. But as with white people still clinging to Ferguson, Missouri, they long ago lost the privilege of being shocked and surprised by it.

(Via Maet)

Share

Narratives, truth, and bigotry

Compare:

Naturally, Democrats and the Left have tried to pry Southerners away from their guns and religion. Gun control has largely been a culture war effort for Democrats. “Some of the southern areas have cultures that we have to overcome,” was Congressman Charles Rangel’s explanation for why gun control was both needed and difficult.

The Washington Post’s Gene Weingarten cursed the Second Amendment as “the refuge of bumpkins and yeehaws who like to think they are protecting their homes against imagined swarthy marauders desperate to steal their flea-bitten sofas from their rotting front porches.”

Contrast:

Sixty-eight-year-old Joseph Sapienza suspects the men who attempted to break into his Gastonia home Thursday night thought he would be an easy target because he’s disabled and uses a walker.

But after scaring away the would-be thieves, Sapienza taped a note to his door, in which he attempted to make it clear that his trigger finger works just fine.

“(If) you try to break in my house again, I will be waiting on you,” reads the note, which was still there Friday afternoon. “Enter at your own risk.”

Sapienza, a Marine Corps veteran who served four years in Vietnam, was watching television in his bed at 7:42 p.m. at his home on Davis Avenue. He heard someone prying off the lock and pulling the nails to the latch out of his front door.

He grabbed his .45-caliber handgun, put it in a holster on his walker and began shuffling toward the sound. He flipped a hallway light on, yelled out to announce he was armed, and yanked open the door to see two men wearing ski masks.

They jumped off his porch and practically tripped over one another trying to flee, Sapienza said.

“It was like a keystone cops scene,” he said. “When they saw the .45, one ran one way up the street, and the other went the other way.”

If you despise the South as much as Democrat Socialists and other liberal-fascist haters like the above-quoted scum do, then stay the hell out, and keep your Nazi gun-control bullshit up North where it belongs. Otherwise, you just might get shot like the common housebreaking thugs you really are at heart.

And if you’d like to consider that a thinly-veiled invitation to come and take them, motherfuckers, then by all means be my guest. Some of us down here would absolutely LOVE it.

(Both via Herschel)

Share

Pigs, flying!

Okay, you’re not gonna believe this. You’re just not gonna believe it.

The Assault Weapon Myth
In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

The continuing focus on assault weapons stems from the media’s obsessive focus on mass shootings, which disproportionately involve weapons like the AR-15, a civilian version of the military M16 rifle. This, in turn, obscures some grim truths about who is really dying from gunshots.
Annually, 5,000 to 6,000 black men are murdered with guns. Black men amount to only 6 percent of the population. Yet of the 30 Americans on average shot to death each day, half are black males.

It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault weapons.” America was then suffering from a spike in gun crime and it seemed like a problem threatening everyone. Gun murders each year had been climbing: 11,000, then 13,000, then 17,000.

Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals, and which many in law enforcement wanted to get off the streets.

This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.

Nothing the least bit surprising there; I doubt there’s even one of you reading this who doesn’t know all of it already. No, what’s completely jawdropping about it is where it’s finally being admitted.

Via Bob, who says:

The op-ed concludes that violent homicides are primarily a poverty issue disproportionately concentrated among small groups of particularly violent young men, a stunning and rare admission that poverty and the drug trade are the primary problem driving murder, not access to firearms.

I’d argue with that, myself. Poverty is an all-purpose Progressivist excuse used to rationalize wealth redistribution everywhere from our lawless (on both sides of the law) urban jungles to your more violent Mideast hellholes. But I’d suggest that far from having a poverty problem, we and the rest of the world have a morality and ethics problem instead, coupled destructively with more than just a few criminal-justice problems. He’s right on the money with this, though:

Don’t expect this sort of stunning admission of the facts to mark a change in cover from the Times, however. The brief bout of lucidity will quickly fade behind the veil of Alzheimer’s liberalism, and we’ll hear the rest of the deranged gaggle of op-ed writers to quickly fall back into the mantra of “Guns are bad, the NRA is evil, we need more taxes, government, citizen control, etc.”

Still…it’s nice to see that every once in a while a real and honest thought can escape from the morass of Manhattan, however fleeting that honest thought may be.

Nice, sure. Also–dare I say it?–UNEXPECTED!

Share

Your feel-good story of the day

Give ’em hell.

Arthur M. Lewis may be elderly, but criminals are learning the North Palm Beach man is no easy mark.

The 89-year-old decorated World War II veteran foiled an armed robbery attempt Saturday afternoon at his Lake Park jewelry business that left a 44-year-old suspect with six gunshot wounds, but no loot.

The 89-year-old decorated World War II veteran foiled an armed robbery attempt Saturday afternoon at his Lake Park jewelry business that left a 44-year-old suspect with six gunshot wounds, but no loot.

Lewis was working behind the counter at The Jewelry Exchange at 900 N. Federal Highway when he was approached by a gun-wielding man around 3 p.m., according to an arrest report from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. Lewis said he immediately grabbed the suspect’s revolver and pulled out a .38-caliber handgun from his own pocket.

Lewis was working behind the counter at The Jewelry Exchange at 900 N. Federal Highway when he was approached by a gun-wielding man around 3 p.m., according to an arrest report from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. Lewis said he immediately grabbed the suspect’s revolver and pulled out a .38-caliber handgun from his own pocket.

The two men wrestled for several minutes and fired shots at each other. Despite battling someone half his age, Lewis got the best of it. A man identified by the sheriff’s office as Lennard Patrick Jervis, a Miramar resident, was shot six times by Lewis, including four times in the chest. Lewis’ left arm was grazed by a bullet, but he was otherwise unscathed.

Lewis said Jervis continued to fight with vigor, even with four gunshot wounds to the chest and one each to the wrist and leg. Large bullet holes remained in the store’s walls Monday and the area behind the counter where Lewis and Jervis fought hand to hand was trashed.

“People think because he’s 89, he’s frail,” said Vivien Bresnahan, Lewis’ girlfriend. “That irritates me because he’s anything but (frail).”

Jarvis eventually stumbled over the counter toward the front door and asked Lewis to buzz him out. Lewis complied.

“I was so glad to get rid of him,” said Lewis, who has been in business for 20 years. “I’d had enough of him.”

I think it’s safe to say the scum felt the same about you, Arthur. But your story is as good a refutation of the “liberal” gun-grabbers’ “high capacity assault magazine clip” horseshit as there is. Sometimes, six shots just aren’t adequate for the task at hand. Heavy, heavy emphasis on this:

Court records show that Jervis has been arrested 20 times in Miami-Dade and Broward counties since 1989.

Gee, imagine my surprise. The thieving punk was well along what you might call the Martin-Brown Road; he wouldn’t have stopped until he’d killed some poor soul like Lewis, or like my friend Chris, who was stabbed to death (over forty times) a couple of years ago when he arrived home from work to find his house being tossed by another of these oxygen thieves with a rap sheet as long as your right leg. Too bad Lewis didn’t off him; it’s extremely doubtful the filth learned anything from his righteous ventilating, and will be back plying his trade in a few short years.

Via Glenn, who says: “But maybe Lewis should upgun to a .44?” Heh. Indeed.

Share

Works every time it’s tried

Yes, even in a liberal-fascist hellhole as far gone as Chicago.

Since Illinois started granting concealed carry permits this year, the number of robberies that have led to arrests in Chicago has declined 20 percent from last year, according to police department statistics. Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low.

“It isn’t any coincidence crime rates started to go down when concealed carry was permitted. Just the idea that the criminals don’t know who’s armed and who isn’t has a deterrence effect,” said Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. “The police department hasn’t changed a single tactic — they haven’t announced a shift in policy or of course — and yet you have these incredible numbers.”

The Chicago Police Department has credited better police work as a reason for the lower crime rates this year. Police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy noted the confiscation of more than 1,300 illegal guns in the first three months of the year, better police training and “intelligent policing strategies.”

Yeah. Right. Whatever. Somebody ought to refer that hack to the paragraph right above it. No that it would do any good; gun-grabbers gonna grab guns, no matter what.

A July study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that 11.1 million Americans have permits to carry concealed weapons, a 147 percent increase from 4.5 million seven years ago. Meanwhile, homicide and other violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent.

“There’s a lot of academic research that’s been done on this, and if you look at the peer-reviewed studies, the bottom line is a large majority find a benefit of concealed carry on crime rates — and, at worst, there’s no cost,” said John Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center based in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania. “You can deter criminals with longer prison sentences and penalties, but arming people with the right to defend themselves with a gun is also a deterrence.”

You can pedantically argue over correlation and causation all you like, but simple common sense says: the facts are the facts, the truth is the truth, and what works, works.

Share

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix