Memories, like the corners of my mind...

1992 - Los Angeles, CA: Korean and Vietnamese shop owners use "Assault Weapons" to defend their property and their lives against rampaging "non-citizen residents" who are trying to loot, burn, rob and kill them while heavily outnumbered members of the LAPD stand 100 yards away and do NOTHING to stop it.

2005 - New Orleans, LA: members of the N.O. police force actually join the looters while the residents of the city are left defenseless against a rising tide of water and lawlessness.

I remember. I will never forget.

And because I remember, I will NEVER allow any further diminution of my right to self-defense. Ever.

Just a word to the wise...

...is sufficient.

Sadly, there do not seem to be many 'wise' people left in the Republican party today.

Let me explain this to you. If the Republican Party does not nominate a 2008 candidate for President who is 100%, 24-carat GOLD on the gun issue, the Republicans will suffer a cataclysmic loss. One to make 2006 look like a huge leap forward.

This means:

Giuliani: GONE
Romney: GONE
McCain: GONE

You have been warned. Don't fuck this up.

Confessions of an ex-Zumbo

After reading about all the brouhaha regarding Mr. Zumbo, I thought perhaps my experience might give some of you a window into the mindset of our hunting/target shooting brethren who had no problems whatsoever with Mr. Zumbo’s (now recanted) position.

For 20 years I was a skeet/trap shooter who dismissed the NRA as “extremist”. I was enlightened, you see. I was for gun ownership, of course, but I looked at the yokels and knuckle-draggers with their AR15 “machine-guns” and thought, “THOSE people should have their guns taken away. Sitting safely in my suburban sub-division, I saw the carnage in the cities and said, “We’ve got to have gun control to stop this sort of thing.” Among my shooting friends hardly anyone owned a handgun, or admitted to it. I was white, educated, upper-middle class and looked down my nose at the “gun nuts” who seemed to be giving the rest of us ‘decent’ gun owners a bad name. “From my cold dead hands”? Oh, please. Just look at the newspapers! Can’t you see the inner-city crime? Something must be done. And the NRA wants people to have machine guns! Ludicrous! Besides, whatever laws they pass, they’re not going to affect my Perazzi or my Browning Superposed.

One day, about ten years ago, I was sitting at a posh gun club, waiting for the others in my sporting clays group to arrive when I over heard a conversation going on across the room. This fellow was telling a couple of guys that they’d better join the NRA. I vaguely knew one of the listeners, so I discreetly joined the group. The speaker was saying that if you wanted to be able to shoot anything, you’d better get with the NRA. I simply couldn’t stand this arrogant ignorance, so I interrupted him and stated flatly, “I’d never join the NRA, they’re a bunch of nuts – extremists who give the rest of us a bad name. How can you defend their positions? The guy looked at me for a second as if I were a soup stain on his tie - and then, to his everlasting credit – he smiled at me. He simply asked me, “What is it, exactly, that you know about the NRA’s positions?” Well, they want everyone to be able to have machine guns. They oppose everything and won’t let even the most basic and necessary gun laws pass. Our cities are shooting galleries and the NRA won’t do anything to stop it.” He nodded a couple of times and then asked me, “Where did you get that information?” “Where? Everywhere! It’s in the newspapers, on the TV news – why just last week in Time magazine there was an article.” There followed a brief silence during which he calmly absorbed what I’d said. I didn’t want to be rude, he was dressed well and seemed nice enough, so I just assumed he was misinformed – and I was happy to set him straight. Still smiling, he asked me, “Have you ever actually gotten the NRA’s positions? I mean, what you know – or more appropriately – what you think you know about the NRA hasn’t actually come from the NRA itself has it? You’re only hearing what the mass media want you to hear, aren’t you?” I had no response. He had me there. “Well, I suppose you’ve got a point there.” He continued, “Do you believe that the media is unbiased? Do you believe that they don’t have an agenda that they’re pushing?” “Well, sure. Of course they’re biased. But they can’t be THAT biased.” Now his smile got wider, “In fact” he stated pleasantly, “you really don’t know anything about the NRA’s positions, do you? Isn’t it actually the case that all you know is the media’s characterizations of the NRA’s positions?” That last question hit me like an elbow in the gut. “Well, uh, that is…I mean…” Dammit! This guy was right! I didn’t know anything about what the NRA’s actual positions were. My newly arrived squad mates interrupted and I excused myself to go shoot. By the time I’d gotten home from shooting I’d quite forgotten the discussion.

About a week later I was driving to work listening to NPR (I knew they were somewhat left-of-center, but I liked the fact that they would give a story 10 minutes) when one of their commentators started talking about the need for common sense gun control, to save lives – and how the big, bullying NRA stood in the way. As I began to shake my head at the deplorable intransigence again demonstrated by the NRA, the previous weekend’s conversation came back to me and I asked myself, “Is this right? Is the NRA totally wrong on this?” I determined to get the NRA’s position on it…from the NRA. I was, however, completely convinced that I would be proven correct, that the NRA was an organization that was way out of the main stream. I did not have internet access in those days, so I called the NRA and basically told them what I was trying to do. The staffer I spoke with told me that the best thing he could do was to send me a packet of information. When it arrived about a week later, I was startled at its size. I began wading through it ready to dismiss the illogical rants and distortions I was sure I’d find. As I got into it I was confused. Was the NRA talking about the same things I was reading about in the newspapers? Slogging through the information, I began to realize – and was chagrined to find - that the NRA’s arguments and positions had the better logic. I was surprised to discover that what I thought were sensible regulations were, in fact, poorly written laws which could easily trap an honest individual. Then, I was shocked to learn that the people who were shouting about ‘common sense’ gun laws didn’t know the difference between a machine gun and a semi-automatic skeet gun – and didn’t care about the difference. I saw, in the explanation of a bill which had sounded reasonable on the news, the potential ban of guns I saw being used every weekend. This was getting close to home. Two hours later I had found the distortions and lies all right, they were on the pages of the newspaper I read every day. The illogic I was looking for was on the television every night and on the radio and in the periodicals I’d read for years. What I learned that night was that it was the NRA which was reasonable and the forces of ‘gun control’ which were extreme. I could scarcely credit what I had just read. It had to be wrong. I read it again the next day. No, it was the same. I was conflicted. I just could not accept that I’d been so wrong. I contacted the Brady Campaign to get their side. When their information arrived I discovered that, indeed, their positions were based on appeals to emotion and that facts were, for them, flexible things. I couldn’t help but notice that when gun control hadn’t worked, they had no answer – except more gun control. Worst of all, to me, was that when they discussed leading pro-gun authorities, rather than argue the merits of their work, they just tried to discredit the individual. That clinched it for me. Shortly after this, I got more involved in the issues. I learned as much as I could about the various bills being introduced in my state and at the federal level. Everything that I learned subsequently demonstrated that, while the NRA was sometimes wrong, the other side was rarely ever right.

I never met that guy again, but approximately six months after that discussion at the gun club, I joined the NRA – and three years ago I became a life member. Over the years, I’ve come to realize that the right to keep and bear arms truly is the bedrock upon which our Constitution rests. And, therefore, while it may not be perfect, the NRA is the only civil rights organization in the United States that stands up for ALL the people. You can talk all day about your right to free speech, or your right to petition the government for the redress of grievances, or your right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and to be secure in your papers and effects. You can talk until you are blue in the face about all your rights, but, if the day ever comes when the government decides they no longer apply, what are you and I - what are "We The People - going to do about it? Without the second amendment, we’re going to put our hands up and go along quietly. If you think it can’t happen here, ask yourself why not? I think what you’ll find, upon reflection, is that the only thing that separates us from those places where it has happened is this short phrase:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the defense of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

That is why I support the NRA…and that is why I believe that Mr. Zumbo should be eagerly welcomed back into polite society.

Political Strategy in D.C. Gun Ruling

It turns out that the NRA tried to dissuade the plaintiffs from taking their case to the DC Circuit Court. Further, when the plaintiffs made it clear that they intended to go ahead, the NRA actively tried to keep the case from getting heard. This doesn't fit with the stereotype of a gung-ho, sabre-rattling NRA, but it is true.

The NRA, being a conservative organization, was more worried about what could be lost than what might be won.

The NRA has been very successful at getting various legislatures to enact laws to protect and advance the cause of gun owners - and they decided years ago that the safest and most productive way to proceed was the legislative route rather than to fight a leftward tilting judiciary.

It would not surprise me if the NRA attempts to derail a Supreme Court hearing of this case because - again - of what might be lost if SCOTUS rules in favor of DC.

While, like most 2nd Amendment purists, I am utterly convinced of the original intent of the founders, I am also quite certain that after 230+ years of judicial "whisper-down-the-lane" the constitution, in 2007, means only what some judge says it means on any given day. While it looks good for us, a loss at the Supreme Court would be a devastating blow from which we might not recover for decades, if at all.

Nevertheless, it will never be more clear than it is today that the understanding - and the will - of the people is that 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says.

I say, Go for it!

I'm THIS close...

...to losing it. In a recent post I outlined how the Democrats and the fifth column fourth estate are willing to do anything to see to it that we lose the war against terror. Even though I know this, it still staggered me and caused a near uncontrollable rage when I read that the New York Times (better known as Pravda-on-the-Hudson) reported about 300 counter demonstrators in D.C. at the anti-war protest this past weekend. According to the National Park Service, however, the Pro-America, Pro-Soldier demonstration outnumbered the surrender monkeys 30,000 to 10,000. That’s commonly known as 3-to-1. But the NYT will not tell the truth when it interferes with the achievement of their avowed goal.

Despite my outrage however, the good news here is huge. This is not 1968. Not even close. The baby-boomer, hippie re-treads are just trying to relive the one moment of their pathetic lives when they felt like people were listening to them. These people cannot grasp the fact that their self-centered, hedonistic generation has done irreparable damage to the social fabric of this nation.

They will be judged harshly.

Huzzah!

This past Friday, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals found, 2-1, that individual citizens indeed do have the constitutional right to keep (and if need be bear) arms in their homes for self-defense.

The importance of this cannot be underestimated. The forces of collectivism and authoritarianism HATE the idea of an armed populace. It threatens their plans for a "better" United States of America.

Those rational souls whose legal opinions matter and who disagree with the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision base their disagreement on the following couple of things:

1. They maintain that we should follow the instructions of late Justice Warren Burger and read the Second Amendment as follows: “Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the defense of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Then, these people declare that the militia is no longer “necessary” – thus, there is no injunction against infringing (or indeed abolishing) the right to keep and bear arms.
2. Precedent (specifically SCOTUS precedent) is such that an ‘individual rights’ interpretation is counter to “accepted collective right jurisprudence” (and thus Friday's decision amounts to “judicial activism”).

Here is why they are wrong:

1. First, (duh!) the Amendment does NOT contain “because”. A while back, several highly regarded grammarians were asked to evaluate the wording and punctuation of the amendment and they indicated that it makes perfect sense as written – and to them it was clear that the authors intended an individual right. However, let us assume that the mighty Burger was right. We find that the right enumerated still obtains. If you put the amendment into an “IF, THEN” construction, we find that even if we deny the ‘if’ statement, that in no way invalidates the ‘then’ portion. To do so is to commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Just because a well regulated militia may no longer be necessary, it DOES NOT FOLLOW that the right to keep and bear arms may or should be infringed. The right was one which could be found in English common law and predated the republic. The 2^nd amendment “grants” nothing, it merely guarantees a right which all free men understood themselves to possess.

2. The precedents mentioned by anti-individual right legal types are all of dubious value and provenance. There are basically three: U.S. v Cruikshank (1876); Presser v Illinois (1883); U.S. v Miller (1939). The first was a dreadful decision which sided with the KKK against the rights of recently freed blacks. The second was an equally flawed decision which sided with an out of control government of the state of Illinois which denied the rights of citizens who were seeking to unionize to organize a defense against violent governmental oppression. If you are going to argue that these precedents should be followed, then you would necessarily have to argue (if logical consistency means anything to you) that Brown v Board of Education was wrongly decided. The third was an incomplete decision which has been twisted out of all proper interpretation. In ‘Miller’ the court held that Mr. Miller had no reasonable expectation of second amendment protection because the weapon which he was convicted of possessing illegally, a sawed-off shotgun, was not a weapon which the militia would use. ‘Collective right’ proponents have long argued that this indicates that only a militia has any right to arms. This decision was wrong because, first, short-barreled shotguns had been in military use as recently as World War I, so it was indeed a militia weapon – also the decision was flawed because it never explicated who/what was the militia. The militia act of 1792 spelled out who was in the militia – and this act, most recently updated in 1956 (and very much still in effect in the U.S. Code) clearly states that all able-bodied persons between the ages of 18 and 45 are members of the militia.
   

There are many ‘unserious’ complainants against this decision, but they cannot be taken seriously. One school of thought maintains that the militia is in fact the National Guard. The Militia Act of 1903 does allow for the creation of a National Guard, but does not change the basic definition of militia. Thus, while hope springs eternal, to claim that our founders, in A.D. 1790 foresaw the creation of the National Guard in 1917, is not merely to strain credulity but to snap it in two like a dry twig.

No, despite the linguistic, grammatical and etymological flips and twists done by those who would deny our right to self-defense, any seventh-grader can clearly understand what Madison, et. al. meant when they wrote: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the defense of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It was a good day for Liberty and a bad day for the forces of collectivism. That is why I say, “Huzzah! God save the republic.”

Much of what I’m talking about can be found here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051601.shtml

Yeah, right.

Philadelphia mayoral candidate Tom Knox currently has a TV commercial running in which he promises to add 1000 police to the force to help combat crime.

Let's talk truth for a minute. As far back as the mid-90s, money was allocated for more police in urban areas. Nevertheless, only a few new officers were added.

The problem - which still exists - is this: The average Philadelphia Police Officer can, if he works it right, make over $100,000 a year milking the overtime system. If the city were to hire 1,000 new officers, many currently making a killing (so to speak) would lose a lot of money. That is why the Police Union WILL NOT PERMIT the hiring of 1,000 new officers. Oh, they may get 10, 20...let's go crazy and say 100. But this city will NOT hire anything near 1,000 new officers in anything less than 15 years.

My question to Mr. Knox - and indeed every candidate for mayor - is this: What are you going to do to break the union stranglehold on this city?

I'd like to ask the question just to see the bastards squirm.