No words to describe just how despicable this man is.

Via Mike we have a congressman — who, by the way, keeps getting re-elected over and over again — who leaves no doubt as to his tyranny. Listen and learn:

From David T. Hardy comes this:

[The Brady Campaign is] on the defensive (to the extent they act at all) and the progun side is on the offense. Since almost all of it has occurred over the last month or so, it’s more than an offense, it’s a legal blitzkrieg.

That made my day.

My Conservative Identity:

You are an Anti-government Gunslinger, also known as a libertarian conservative or Tea Partier. You believe in smaller government, states’ rights, gun rights, and that, as Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

Take the quiz at
About.com Political Humor

And I promise, no more of these quizzes until after I do a real blog post.

And I promise, there will be some more gun/freedom blogging soon.

Heh. Here’s what I got after plugging in my earlier post titled In Defense of the Layman.

I write like
H. P. Lovecraft

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

Breda made a very good point today about the so-called “Hate Crimes” legislation with her “that word you’re using…” post regarding the special, privileged class that is created. Breda says she’s not really for gay marriage, but rather for getting the government out of the business of marriage altogether. Here’s what I would propose:

1. Government no longer requires anything, including blood test, for marriage. I would still advocate encouraging those who wish to engage in an intimate relationship get blood tests, but not that nor anything else should carry the force of law.
   
2. Churches, mosques, synagogues, atheist organizations, etc, take over all of the administration of marriage as they see fit.
   
3. Any parties are welcome to enter into an agreement, much like they way any other contracts are administered, through lawyers and approved by courts. Many like to call these civil unions, but I see no need whatsoever to box them into a particular name. There may be perfectly good financial or other reasons having nothing to do with intimate involvement for people to enter this kind of contract and civil union carries a connotation they may not want.
   
4. The 16th amendment to the US Constitution is repealed and the income tax abolished. That way, there’s no confusion about how to change the tax code since it’s gone.

I know 4 is a stretch, but frankly, it’s all a stretch in today’s current political climate, but I spell it to make a point that one can be entirely opposed to any sort of homosexual behaviour, but not necessarily in favour of government control of that behaviour. Nobody in the homosexual world has a right to be seen as normal by everyone they meet. My strong libertarian leaning informs me in my position that I don’t even think any (private) employers should be forced to hire or not hire anyone based on homosexual behaviour. Homosexuals are welcome to try and convince naysayers to see they’re behaviour as normal. It is the right of those who don’t to hold that view.

But I digress.

My main point here is that no one has any right to have their behaviour viewed as normal by anyone else. That includes gun owners. And that includes those who open carry. It is our determined goal, as expressed through opencarry.org and various other organizations to normalize the sight of people carrying guns on their hips, not only not being a threat, but being a stabilizing force in otherwise crime ridden areas. It is our human right to keep and bear arms, and that includes bearing them openly.

But just because we can’t expect to be viewed as normal (there will always be those who will never be convinced of it), doesn’t mean we should modify our behaviour to satisfy them. A right not exercised is a right lost. Virginia became, relatively speaking, one of the friendliest eastern states to open carrying of firearms by people carrying firearms openly. It was already legal, it just took some determined activist to change the view of a number of people and, I think in some cases, the local police.

I’m with Rob Allen in “Open carry is fine, so long as you don’t do it where people can see you” where he demands proof of statements like “For every one person you turn on, two others are turned off.” I asked Sebastian in the comments of Alan’s “Sebastian Zumbos Himself” post to give evidence that leans heavily toward exercising a right causing a deterioration of the freedom to exercise that right.

I still haven’t seen a credible answer.

I posted more on Open vs. Concealed carry here almost a year ago.

Update: Forgot about the Hunters reference. I also meant to point out Sebastian’s post a week ago titled “High Public Approval for Hunting“. In that post, he said:

The danger I see is that hunters have not yet accepted the “no one gets thrown off the lifeboat” philosophy that most in the shooting community have come to understand.

He’s not quite doing that to open carriers just yet, but he’s dang near close, so I challenged him with it. His comeback was to say that unless he was working to make open carrying illegal or sitting by while others were working for that, then open carriers were not being thrown off the lifeboat. Well…let’s just say that seeing him jump on every opportunity to bash open carriers makes that hard to swallow. Not all so-called “Fudds” were necessarily working to make EBRs illegal, they just were not all that crazy about others having and using them. Sounds awfully familiar.

Update: Ouch. Fixed a couple of missing negatives in that last paragraph.

Go here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2338125/posts for some great aerial and other photos. h/t Pamela

Reasonably good coverage of a citizen defense story. Even though the father didn’t intend on killing the perp (or so it seems), it appears law enforcement at least acknowledges that deadly force was justified. But I take issue with the victim’s statement that it was a “lose-lose” situation. Yes, the perp and his family lost. But the victimized family, without a doubt, won. Emotional trauma? Sure. A little sadness at taking a human life, possibly for the first time? Absolutely. But, Mr. McNally, you won. You won your daughter’s life and likely your own as well. And, you won your dignity.

Here is a question that I was faced with recently. And frankly, I wasn’t happy with my response. Not in the comments on Roberta’s blog, but see below.

As I’ve said, I live in a relatively free state where there at least is no requirement for a permit to own any shotguns, rifles, or handguns. But this state is what OpenCarry calls an “anomalous” open carry state. It’s allowed at the state level, but there’s no preemption preventing localities from restricting it. And some certainly do. So we have a patchwork of ordinances that make it legally risky to carry openly. There is at least preemption for concealed carry.

But none of that really matters while in one’s own home. So I carry openly regularly in my home. But a few days ago I had someone come by and ring my doorbell. Doesn’t happen very often for the simple reason that I’m relatively new to the area and don’t know enough people who come by without calling first.

Before opening the door, I panicked and chickened out. I immediately disarmed (except I forgot about the two spare mags in mag holsters on my left hip) and went to answer the door. It was a cub scout with his father selling all that funky flavored popcorn to raise money for his pack. I was more than willing (even though I’m not wild about popcorn) to support the scouts. (Some day maybe I’ll blog about my rather short lived experience with the scouts, but that’s for another time.)

So I let the cub scout and his father in and proceeded to pick something from the catalog. The father then saw the large amount of ammo that I had recently purchased (a clearance sale at a price I couldn’t refuse) sitting on my kitchen counter and asked if I was a firearms instructor. My response was, “No, not an instructor, just a fan.”

*sigh*

First, I chicken out and disarm, just at a time when being armed makes more sense than ever…after dark when someone I don’t know rings the doorbell. And second, I revert to the “fun” aspect of shooting instead of the “freedom” aspect. I had a perfect opportunity to talk to someone about the Arms = Freedom equation and I blew it.

As an aside, it turns out that the father was a retired LEO who had most recently worked in the metropolitan area closest to my home. He only recently retired and got a job paying about twice as much at a jewler’s shop, only to be laid off four months ago and is now looking for work. I don’t know why it surprised me, but it did bother me that the first thing this retired LEO assumed was that I was a firearms instructor.

I do hope he gets a job soon. Preferable at a local range teaching civilians how to shoot. If he’s any good, that is. (smirk)

I’ve read quite a bit over the past few years indicating that the majority of in-the-trenches officers are in favor of an armed citizenry, but it is the Chiefs of Police and other bureaucrats who are against it. But I also hear quite a bit about training — many non-LEOs spend a lot more time practicing than most LEOs. And regarding accuracy, the hit rate (hitting the intended target) and wrong person not getting shot (intended target was the correct target) also tend to favor the non-LEOs. I have no numbers at the moment, but I’m sure I can dig them up if anyone asks.

I’m on a mission, now, to find as many friends and relatives who are LEOs or former LEOs (my brother-in-law is at least one) and ask them what they think and why. If my sole reader (heh) can do the same, we might have something to report back.