Thursday, December 11, 2014

Pew Poll Shows More People Support Gun Rights that Gun Control

Katie Pavlich has a piece up today on the new Pew Research poll entitled Pew Poll: Americans Support Gun Rights More Than Gun Control, and that Americans believe that guns save lives. According to the Pew Research Center:
For the first time in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, there is more support for gun rights than gun control. Currently, 52% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46% say it is more important to control gun ownership.
Pavlich also notes that:
One of the most important numbers from the survey shows that five percent more women support protecting rights over gun control than they did just two years ago. Women are also the fasted growing demographic of gun owners in America.
I have long advocated in the blog that women should be armed, because women are often viewed by the predators of this world as soft targets. I seriously doubt that, with only one or two readers a day, that I have had any influence over this happy change of fortunes, but I am glad to see it.  It means when my grand daughter comes of age, perhaps she will carry a gun for personal protection, and not be bullied by peer pressure into believing lies of the anti-gunners.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

If you live by your own will, you inevitably reap the consequences

John Hawkins has an excellent piece today at entitled Your Screwed Up Life is Your Own Responsibility, He begins by quoting P.J. O'Rourke and Thomas Sowell:
“There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.” — P.J. O’Rourke

“We seem to be moving steadily in the direction of a society where no one is responsible for what he himself did,but we are all responsible for what somebody else did, either in the present or in the past.” – Thomas Sowell
 The quote from Thomas Sowell perhaps sums it up best for a lot of people who feel that their hard work, living by the rules is punished by a society that seems to elevate sloth and irresponsible behavior to some form of secular sainthood.  I have said before elsewhere, that Michael Brown's death was the result of Michael Brown's actions.  If he had been driving too fast, and run his car into a tree and died, his family would still be grieving, but they would have had no one else to blame. But because a police officer killed him instead, they blame the police officer, the town of Ferguson, and ultimately every white person living in the United States.  Note that the police do not shoot to kill, but to stop the attack.  Had Michael Brown stopped the attack at any time before the sixth bullet struck him in the head, he would very likely be alive today.

So now Eric Holder says we shouldn't be racially profiling, of profiling on the basis of creed, gender or sexual orientation, or national origin, because profiling is ineffective.  Like so much said by this guy, I both disagree and agree with his statement.  No, we shouldn't be racially profiling, but certain behaviors that happen to be associated with certain races are sometimes a cause for alarm.  If a white person has a shaved head, and tattoos on his neck and other body parts indicating an affinity for NAZI philosophy, would you think that person might be a skin head and dangerous?  Of course you would, and rightly so.  Similarly, people affiliated with gangs have a certain style of dress, and certain mannerisms that shout "gang" to anyone who sees them.  Profiling is not ineffective, and race sometimes plays a part.

Jesus summarized his teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, and if you understand these teachings, they are not so much theology as they are practical rules for living responsibly.  You have free will, of course, and you can "do as you damn well please," but living that way, constantly applying your own will, makes for a miserable existence, and hurts the people around you as well.  If you don't quite understand what Jesus was getting at in the Sermon on the Mount (and I didn't either for a long time,) I suggest you read, and re-read Emmet Fox's little book The Sermon on the Mount: Keys to Success in Life.

Saturday, November 29, 2014

Using Leftist Methods Against Them

David Codrea over at the War on Guns has hit on an capital idea! Codrea suggest we sue the government to force them to enjoin the amnesty of illegals until an environmental impact statement is completed. It is truly genius, since we would be using Leftists own methods against them. Go read it. Meanwhile, I want to look into it further.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014


I've got a long "honey do" list today, getting ready for family and friends coming into town for the Thanksgiving weekend, but I thought I would highlight one little piece from entitled The Top Four Liberal Reactions to Ferguson Grand Jury by Michael Schaus. Of these four, which are all outrageous, the one by a writer named Harold Itzkowitz stands as the dumbest. Since I can't copy twitter posts, I will have to retype what was said. Itzkowitz wrote:
So, stealing Cigarillos and jaywalking brings the death penalty.
Schaus writes in response:
Well, no. Committing a strong-armed robbery is not, by itself, justification for a death penalty. But premature death is certainly a distinct possibility for anyone attempting to attack and disarm a police officer.

So, to answer your question: I guess it depends on how you react when a cop tries to talk to you about jaywalking. (Hint: Don’t reach for his gun.)
Just so. Michael Brown's death was a tragedy, but it was also all in Michael Brown's hands. By initiating aggression, he elicited an aggressive response which resulted in his own death. That his parents and the community can not work these simple things out goes to the moral decay that has taken place in America. In general, one can not know the intentions of another, but when someone grabs for your weapon during a struggle, its a safe bet they plan to use it against you.

Indeed, the story that is presented by the Left, and the actual facts as presented to the Grand Jury as they are reported so far, are so at odds, that it makes one wonder why the protestors did not choose a more sympathetic victim over whom to make their case.  If the claim is that white police officers go around shooting innocent black people for no reason, then why not choose a truly innocent guy as the victim?  Surely there must be one or two out there if the claims are correct.  But to have Feguson in flames today over Michael Brown, a man about whom people on the outside looking in can see made bad decisions which led to his own demise, raises the suspicion that what these people actually want is the right not to be held accountable for their illegal acts.  In essense, they want the right to act like barbarians without consequences.

Is that so?  And by what right do you make these claims?

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Lois Lerner's Emails Found

You have probably read about or heard that Obama has signed an executive order changing the immigration law to allow 5 million illegals to remain in the United States, and grants an amnesty. In doing so, he his claiming the rights of a dictator, and emperor, a king, whatever word you want to use to describe him. He claims to be above the law, to actually make law. He even claims to be able to dictate to the Congress, since at one point he offered and excuse that Congress had failed to act as he thought they should. What arrogance! Of course the Constitutional remedy is to impeach him, but nobody will for fear of being called racists. You are also likely aware of Ferguson, Missouri, where apparently blacks are working very hard to start a race war. It is very distressing that people still buy into the race baiters bitter hatred, which is designed, of course, to enrich the race baiters and not to help those supposedly suffering. And no doubt you have heard that the reason Buffalo is sitting under 8 feet of snow is because of climate change, which used to be global warming, or global cooling, or...well, I can't keep the story straight. But its all stuff and nonsense in any case. Buffalo happens to be unfortunately located at a point where if the winds and temperatures are just right, they will get hugely magnified lake effect snowfalls. It has happened before, it will happen again.

 Less covered, but of interest to conservatives was the fact that Lois Lerner's emails have been uncovered. You can read about it in a blurb at American Thinker today by Thomas Lifson entitled Lois Lerner's Emails Turn Out Not to be Lost. Lifson writes:
Despite the sworn testimony of IRS commissioner John Koskinen that backup tapes are recycled after 6 months, backup tapes containing up to 30,000 emails from Lois Lerner’s “crashed” computer have been uncovered by the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)...
"The chickens" as Jeremiah Wright famously said, "are coming home to roost!" First Jonathan Grubber lets the cat out of the bag about Obama's lying to the American people repeatedly to get Obamacare passed, and now Lois Lerner's emails come to light.  I have a feeling that the wheels of the Obama cart will continue to fall off as time passes.  The question is, will anyone learn anything from this regrettable saga in American history, or will they merely think that it all would have worked if we had just gotten the right person...

A certain Rudyard Kipling poem keeps running across my mind.

Update: also has the story here.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

More Mass Noncompliance in Washington

In Washington state, where I-594 passed, gun owners plan a mass noncompliance protest at the State Capitol on December 13.  Bob Owens has the story over at Bearing Arms. Apparently 5,600 gun owners plan to meet in front of the capitol and exchange firearms with each other to show the utter stupidity of the law. All I can say is "God Speed" Mr. Seim.

Saturday, November 8, 2014

Looking at what the new Congress might do

I have been reading a number of excellent proposals for what the Republican Congressional agenda should be. I have even read a good piece at the American Thinker by Marguerite Creel that suggests a good plan for the North Carolina Republican agenda. Miss Creel suggests that a State like North Carolina should be bold in advancing a conservative agenda that is both fair and allows everyone to prosper (in the fullest sense of the word.) But with all that, Charles C. W. Cooke over at the National Review online offers up a couple of small fixes the Congress should make to gun laws at Two Gun Bills the New Republican Congress Should Consider.  The two gun bills are to fix the current Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) to make clear that airports and airplanes are included in the "safe passage" provisions in the law, and to pass the national concealed carry bill.  Cooke:

Now that Republicans are in full control of Congress, there are a couple of firearms related bills that I would like to see debated. The first would fix the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), making it clear henceforth that the law’s “safe passage” provision applies to airports as well as to highways. Earlier in the year, I noted that the states of New York and New Jersey have managed to exempt themselves from FOPA’s remit, thereby preventing Americans who rely upon JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark airports from traveling with their guns...
Innocent people are caught all the time by New York and New Jersey when planes are delayed or diverted, and the passenger is forced to take possession of his baggage. Its a shake down racket, enabled by the Third District Federal Court. The fact that people are caught, not when arriving with a gun, but when leaving, points to the "gotcha" aspect of this bizarre interpretation of the law. An interesting, if frustrating, article on the subject can be found at Human Events here.  Or this article from the Blaze, which also highlights a post by a New York lawyer who deals with this on a routine basis.

The other bill that should be considered is one Cooke titles the Shaneen Allen bill. Ms. Allen, you will recall, was the nurse and single mom from Pennsylvania arrested in New Jersey when she told a law enforcement officer she had a concealed carry permit and was armed during a traffic stop. Unfortunately, New Jersey does not recognize a Pennsylvania concealed carry permit. The Shaneen Allen bill would force states that allow concealed carry to recognize another state's permit under the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. Thus, concealed carry would be treated like driver's licenses, marriage licenses and so forth. Should Ms. Allen have known that New Jersey is rabidly anti-gun and would, if given the chance, do this? Well, sure. But the idea that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" has its limitations when one has to take care of two small children while working full time. I know such people, and they don't have time to keep up with the various, often crazy and irrational laws put up for the express purpose of making them stumble. The Shaneen Allen bill would, in the words of the NRA:
The Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013 (H.R. 2959) has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressmen Richard Nugent (R-Fla.) and Jim Matheson (D-Utah). The bill would allow any person who is not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under federal law and who has a valid, concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed handgun in any state that issues its own residents permits to carry concealed firearms. Persons carrying a handgun in another state pursuant to H.R. 2959 would be subject to the laws of that state with respect to where concealed firearms may be carried. Similar legislation to H.R. 2959 passed the U.S. House of Representatives in 2011 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 272-154.

H.R. 2959 would not create a federal licensing system, nor authorize the federal government to interfere with the powers of the states to set standards for the issuance of carry permits, nor establish federal standards for carry permits, nor override state laws allowing for the carrying of firearms without a permit. Rather, it would simply require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits.
This would be an act of Congress that is fully within the scope of the Constitution, unlike much of what they do now. I would have no problem with a bill of this nature, so long as that is all the Congress intend to do.