Remember, in a pissing contest .....

.
you're only going to get wet! Just to stay honest, this from WND is an example of a permit-holder who allegedly drew his firearm on two US Marshals:

A respected domestic violence and anger management counselor in Fairfax County was arraigned in federal court Thursday after he allegedly pulled a gun on two men who he believed were blocking his car on an Annandale street last week.

The two men were federal marshals.

It's interesting that he's being held without bond ..... if the two officers weren't officers, would that be true?

Also, Mr Avila contends that he only pointed a cell phone at the officers; I'll also note that according to information I found on the intertubez, the Astra wasn't loaded to capacity.

Wonder who will win?

pm

I thought you said The O wouldn't take our guns?

This story has been floating around for a while, I'm just now getting around to commenting on it:

In a video posted on the website for the National Rifle Association, Bolton said, "I think it was clear from the outset that the Obama administration would move in this direction. The only thing that's surprising is that it's taken this long."

He said the presentations have portrayed the "Small Arms Treaty" as something to address international arms trade. "But there's no doubt that the real agenda is domestic firearms control," he said.

This is pretty important, because a law banning personal arms would be unconstitutional, but a treaty that does the same thing might pass muster (here's an interesting article). It's unclear what will happen; there are adamant voices on both sides of the argument.

Also in the favor of firearms rights is that a treaty requires 67 votes for ratification, votes that Obama doesn't have.

But call your senators anyway!

pm

The 'headline' read .....

Top reason Al Qaeda won't attack Knob Creek (h/t Ace):



Something to start your day!

pm

Media reporting bleg

If you'll remember, recent email conversations with a local tv news director revealed that his station is at least taking pro-active approach, trying to get his staff edumacated about firearms.

My bleg: What questions would you ask if you were researching a story? You can delineate between witnesses and authorities, but what would you ask?!

Oh yeah, what, to you, defines 'high-powered'?

pm

Pro-activation

WND has this article on some pro-active movement on right-to-carry issues:

Gun Owners of America, in partnership with the Second Amendment March and the New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense, are hoping their new "Right to Carry Road Show" will soon spread nationwide to assist gun owners and send a message of defiance to gun control advocates who push to bog down applications in endless red tape.

They're helping you to get a Florida Non-resident permit, by coming to where you are.

When you go to their web page, you'll notice that there are no events scheduled currently, but at least there's an organization dedicated to going around those 'petty bureaucrats' to get your carry rights.

pm

Take a listen

A good, catchy tune ....... h/t Ace:



pm

Heh, it's happened!

As I mentioned here, someone's asking the pointy questions:

The US transportation chief's public rebukes of Toyota's handling of a massive safety recall have raised eyebrows, given the US government's major stake in rivals General Motors and Chrysler.

"The optics are terrible because -- and this is what happens when a government owns a company - the two companies that are going to gain the most out of this are General Motors and Chrysler," said Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland's business school.

How much longer will Obama be able to pull off his relentless march to a socialist Utopia?

pm

They're at it again

Seems like after the case of the 2-inch machine gun, New York schools are doubling down on teh stoopid:

A 12-year-old Queens girl was hauled out of school in handcuffs for an artless offense - doodling her name on her desk in erasable marker, the Daily News has learned.

Have they not learned that 'zero tolerance' is a loser?

Guess not.

pm

What does 'security' mean?

A long time ago (a really long time!), I wrote letters to the editor of my hometown paper about gunny things and such. One of the letters was a 'fisking' of the second amendment.

But I am moved today to talk about one of the glaring (to me) errors in the arguments about the preface clause of the 2nd 'A well-regulated militia being necessary t tohe security of a free state'.

I am a firearms rights absolutist; I believe the founders meant what they wrote, and wrote what they meant. 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

The right of the people ....... to keep and bear arms ......

shall not be infringed.

Sounds pretty simple to me. But that pesky first phrase about militias ..... doesn't that mean the military? I looked up the definition of the words at the time they were written (I think it was the Old Oxford Dictionary at the library), and I came up with the definition that I like (surprise!), but I'm apparently in good company. But the word 'security' ...... that seems out of place if you contend a military aspect to the 2nd amendment.

Because militias, used in the military context, can't provide security unless they're bearing arms all the time. Now defense ...... now there's a normal use of the militia, right? But the problem is, you only need defense when you're being attacked.

Security is 24/7/365.

The security of a free state ..... police officers provide security, don't they? Aren't they always armed while they're providing security? Think about any security guard you can think of ...... aren't most of them armed? If they're not, they can't really provide much security now, can they!

Security guards - armed. Police officers - armed. FBI - armed. Secret Service - armed.

Security - arms. Arms = security.

Wow!

So a well regulated militia (the whole people of a state) being necessary to the security (24/7) of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm not a lawyer, nor have I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express lately ...... I think the founders were simply being clear about what they meant.

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

pm

More spreading the wealth

At David's request, here's another Gun Rights Examiner column:

Is there a dark and violent side to former senator and democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards? Two recent reports make that disturbing case.

Read the whole thing.

pm

Sharing the wealth

David has another Gun Rights column he would like to get exposure, and I'm happy to oblige:

A hate group masquerading as a civil rights organization continues to spread a message of intolerance and bigotry. Here's the latest from the seething haters at the Southern Poverty Law Center ....

If you don't think your firearm rights are under assault, you're not paying attention.

pm

This is one way ....

I saw this on 2 or 3 blogs yesterday, but it's a missive on how badly the drug war/police/justice system is today:

Last week I was a juror in the trial of a man accused of selling a $10 bag of heroin to an undercover police officer. At the end of the two days of testimony, I concluded that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I also concluded that he should be acquitted. In my mind, it came down to a simple, unsettling question: Is it worse to let a drug dealer go free, or to reward the police for lying under oath?

The case turned out almost perfectly; hung jury, and the prosecutor declined to refile charges.

And it's interesting that most judges these days won't let anyone even mention jury nullification; it's the best way to get out of the pool.

pm