Category Archives: Current News

This is about stuff in the mass media that generally has a short interest life span. Speculation about an election outcome a few days before the election is an example.

I heard McCain talking today

Posted on by

… on the Glen Beck radio show.  If you know Glen Beck at all, you know he’s a capitalist.  He gets it.  In discussing the “Bail out” scam, he asked McCain why he voted for it the second time, after having opposed it earlier and after decrying earmarks and pork.  Now, I’d say it was a dumb question, because there is no possible decent answer other than, “I’m a sucker and I have no principles.  What can I say?”  Taking probably his best way out, McCain answered, and I paraphrase;


“Everyone was telling me it was the right thing to do.”


Now that’s leadership, baby!  Wow, what balls!  Everyone told him to do it.  And just who is this Everyone person?  I’d like to meet him.  We’ve known McCain for a long time, so this is nothing unexpected.  Apparently this Everyone person is a lot smarter and a more forceful decision-maker, ’cause he turned McCain around on a dime.


We are so screwed.


And for those who think it untimely of me to bring this up right before the election; I see it as a matter of how quickly we’re gonna get screwed, so it’s hard to keep a dog in this fight.  Frog-in-the-pot model and all.  It’s McCain’s to lose.  Hopefully this Everyone person, whom he trusts more than himself, will give him some better advice in the coming weeks. 

Educating the media on body armor and rifles

Posted on by

Earlier today Say Uncle sent me an email asking if I could help out a reporter looking for “someone of authority” to address the body armor versus deer hunting ammo issue. I know a lot more about exterior ballistics (I wrote Modern Ballistics) than terminal ballistics but I’m not totally ignorant of it either. So I agreed to “look up a few references” for the guy.


My email, with very minor edits, to the reporter follows. His email response indicated he was happy with my answers.




Say Uncle asked that I address your “deer ammo going through body armor” story. I’ll address it as best I can but strictly speaking I’m not an expert. I’m a very well informed hobbyist.


Although there is occasional some controversy over the National Institute of Justice testing procedures and standards they are still “the standard”. You can read their standard here.


Their main page on Body Armor is here.


Probably the part that is most relevant to your issue is the body armor classification. This can be found in section 2 starting on page 17. The basics are that body armor is classified according to the level of protection it provides. Those classes are, in order of increasing protection level:



  • Type IIA (9 mm; .40 S&W)
  • Type II (9 mm; .357 Magnum)
  • Type IIIA (.357 SIG; .44 Magnum)
  • Type III (Rifles)
  • Type IV (Armor Piercing Rifle)

Most law enforcement officers wear type II or IIIA. Higher levels of protection require metal or ceramic inserts which increase the weight, bulk, and the body heat retention. See also Section 6, Selecting the Appropriate Level of Protection in this document. At some point in the tradeoff between comfort and protection the police officer will stop wearing the armor on an everyday patrol. In a high risk entry/arrest situation they are more likely to upgrade to type III armor if it is available.


The problem certain well intentioned politicians get into is that they don’t realize the body armor problem is as much a velocity problem as it is a bullet construction problem. Certainly sharp pointed Teflon coated tungsten carbide (a very hard metal used for metal working tools) bullets will penetrate a higher level of armor than a blunt nosed soft lead bullet. But that only goes so far. Increasing the velocity of the bullet by a few hundred feet per second will overcome the inferior construction in most applications. Rifle bullets are much faster than common pistol bullets. The typical handgun bullet is on the order of 1000 fps. A typical modern center fire rifle bullet leaves the muzzle at a velocity on the order of 2500 fps or greater.


I’ve done some informal testing with the 30-06 rifle on an engine block. The Speer Reloading Manual says of this rifle cartridge, “It is safe to say that the 30-06 Springfield is the best-known and most successful centerfire cartridge ever developed.” In a typical hunting load (see http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=260) at 100 yards from the muzzle the bullet is still traveling at over 2600 fps. The tests I did were with a target cartridge and bullet (http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=148). At the muzzle this bullet is traveling at about 2700 fps and is still going at over 2500 fps at 100 yards. I was shooting into the side of a six cylinder car engine from the early fifties from about 50 yards away. This was a very heavy engine block compared to today’s cars yet the target bullet would penetrate half way through the block penetrating the water jacket, one side of a cylinder and frequently one side of a piston. A very high velocity (1350 fps at the muzzle) 9mm bullet shot at the same engine block only knocked the rust off of the metal. It did not dent or crack the side of the engine.


It is a very different problem to stop a rifle bullet than to stop a handgun bullet. Although it isn’t quite this simple you can think of it as an energy problem. The energy of the projectile is proportional to the mass of the bullet times the velocity of the bullet squared. That is E = m V2. The mass of a common hunting bullet is on the order of 150 to 180 grains. The mass of a pistol bullet is on the order of 125 to 200 grains with the heaver bullets moving much slower than the lighter ones. The rifle bullets typically are moving about 2.5 times as fast as the pistol bullets. Hence they will typically have about 2.52 or about 6 times as much energy as the pistol bullet.


Even the ancient 30-30 Winchester cartridge has a muzzle velocity of nearly 2400 fps with a 150 grain bullet (http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=28) which will cut through the typical concealable body armor worn by law enforcement on a daily basis. Higher end rifles for larger game such as, the still very common, .300 Winchester Magnum with a 165 grain bullet (http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=592) have muzzle velocities of over 3000 fps. Run the numbers on that and see the sort of problem the body armor is facing.


Hence, the NRA claim that outlawing ammunition on the basis of its ability to penetrate typical body armor would result in the banning nearly all common rifle hunting is true. It is possible the politician did not have that intention but that would be the result.


That is probably more information than you really wanted but I hope it answers your questions. If not or if you have any further questions please let me know.

What’s So Great About America?

Posted on by

At this time– this very day when Congress is plotting the final stroke in yet another, years-in-the-making, offensive against capitalism, Bill whittle has brought our attention to his doctorate level thesis on American exceptionalism.  It’s called, Trinity (part 1).



If you believe, as I do, that wealth can be manufactured out of thin air, then there is no limit to the amount of wealth you can amass. And since you are creating it out of thin air, there is no moral onus on making money – you work hard to create it and have stolen from no one. There is an expression for this: you earned it.


Indeed, since charity depends on excess wealth, excess capacity, the more you make for yourself the better off everyone else is. You can even throw charity out the window if you are so hard-hearted; the fact remains that you will spend that money to get the things you want, and the more you have the more you can spend. That money goes to other people. This interchange is called “the economy”, and rich societies are rich because they understand in their bones the centerpiece of Capitalist thinking: Wealth can be created from thin air by human ingenuity and hard work.


Now people on the left have, in their guts, a revulsion towards the rich and the wealthy, because whenever they see wealth they naturally assume that it was stolen…


So true, Doctor Whittle.


If any of you haven’t read Bill’s piece, you’ve missed out.  We know at least 99% of politicians have never read anything like it.  Either that or they were unable to understand it and wandered off to catch happy hour down at the watering hole.  Certainly nothing like this is being presented within our public schools.  Ever.


Well, now’s your chance.  It’ll take some time, but you’ll thank Bill for it, I guarantee.


For you lefties out there; don’t bother.  Something like a curse in a foreign language, you won’t understand it but it will upset the hell out of you all the same.  Like when certain people ask me how to do something and I say, with total sincerity, “I’m sure you can figure it out.”  Curse in a foreign language.

Couldn’t Have Said it Better…

Posted on by


…than Thomas Sowell did in his recent piece, “Idols of Crowds”;



[Iran] is a country whose president has already threatened to wipe a neighboring country off the map. Does anyone need to draw pictures?


When terrorists get nuclear weapons, there will be no way to deter suicide bombers. We and our children will be permanently at the mercy of the merciless.


Reading Sowell’s post, I can’t help seeing the faces of those women on the verge of fainting with ecstasy at that big rally in Germany in the 1930s.  Those were the enraptured, delighted, happy, adoring faces of mass death.


Local Control and the Second Amendment

Posted on by

I’m about fed up with this blatant PDS (public display of stupidity).  The leftists keep telling us that we, the mean old meanies in other states, are “forcing our will” on the poor, besieged Washington DC residents, telling them they can’t make their very own gun laws.  Oh, the humanity– a local government isn’t being allowed to violate the constitution!  Woe be to us all– the very concept of democracy is being tortured to death by those eeevil and dastardly NRA-puppet, gun-clinging, pig Neocons!  Boo Hoo Hoo Hoooooo!  And, oh yeah– Boo Hoo Hoooooo!

Just for fun (and because it will raise the ire of just about everyone) lets look at the fake indignation over “states’ rights” and the phony demand for “local democratic control” among the left when it comes to abortion.  States’ rights on abortion laws anyone?  Nope.  No way.  None exist.  No local control rights exist for abortion because abortion is a constitutional right, damn it.  Five justices said so, and you can’t mess with a constitutional right!  Not even a little bit, because if we allow a little bit, who knows how far things would go toward limiting the right to an abortion?  Why, some people even want to ban abortion, don’t you know!

We can now see that even the most anti-American, gun-hating, bigoted Marxist, anti-constitution leftists, including those in the Supreme Court, do in fact understand how rights are supposed to work.  They’ve told us.  There should be no option, for any state or locale, for voting away that which is a right, or for encroaching on it in any way whatsoever.  To do so would violate the right of the individual to an abortion, and that would be wrong no matter how many people want to do it, no matter where they are, and no matter how good their intentions.  Some have even gone so far as to insist that, as a right, abortion should be paid for by the taxpayers, on demand, to minors, with no parental notification, and in so demanding, they have been taken very, very seriously by the left.

I as a parent can’t send my kid to school with a couple of asprin because drugs are “bad” and many schools have zero tolerance for drugs, but when it comes to abortion– a “right” that isn’t addressed in the constitution, wasn’t written into the constitution by the prescribed amendment process but was instead created out of thin air by five people in black robes, it’s a right which is so absolute that my under-age kid should get an abortion on demand, anywhere in the fifty states and the district of Columbia, without parental notification, and have it paid for by the state.  Got it.

Leftists assert some new-found rights and behave one way, while they disagree with other, well-established and clearly enumerated rights and behave in the opposite manner.  Imagine if we were to take the hard-core “abortion rights” advocates’ position regarding our second amendment rights:

Anyone who wants a gun gets the gun of their choice, on demand, with plenty of ammunition, at any time, anywhere in the Union, with no parental notification, paid for with taxpayer money, and no state or locale should be allowed to make any laws regarding guns or other weapons because it’s a constitutional right and you can’t mess with a constitutional right, ever, ever, no matter what, period.  (hey, they’re going to do it anyway, right?  may as well give them quality guns and show them how to use them properly in a controlled environment)

Which way do you want it, lefties?  Tell you what; I’m confident enough as a parent that I believe I can convince my daughter to do the right thing when it comes to controlling her sex life.  You can have your way with abortion if we can have our way regarding the real Bill of Rights, including the second amendment (except we’ll throw out the tax-payer funding bit, because that’s just stupid as hell).  Deal?  And I don’t want to ever hear, “If it saves the life of just one child…”  We’re on to you lefties.  Knock it off.

How about we take the assertion, “my body, my choice” and apply it to the second amendment? “My body, my choice, including the means of protecting it.”

(Largely) Without Comment

Posted on by

On this day, the anniversary of 9/11/01;


By our friend in Israel, this article in HA’ARETZ is brought to our attention.


What I bring away from the article is, well, I won’t tell you.

Deadly, hip-fired, bullet spraying assault weapons receive police approval

Posted on by

This normally wouldn’t be a story– police departments need guns.  Can you say, “Duuuhhh”?  But it is a story over on WCBSTV (brought to our attention by Uncle).


Apparently, our police departments haven’t gotten the loon’s memo; “Violence never solves anything.”
Or the other loon memo; “Having a gun is more likely to endanger you than to stop an attacker.”
Or; “Arming yourselves will do nothing but ‘provoke’ the bad guys (sorry– victims of American imperialism) and escalate the violence.”



Then there’s;
“It increases our range and our accuracy,” Sgt. Brian Lyman said.


Uh…9 mm parabellum in a submachinegun = “range” and “accuracy”?  OK I’ll play; compared to what?  I hope he’s referring to an M-4 rather than the UMP mentioned in the article as an “assault rifle” (for those of you in Rio Linda; a submachinegun [or machine pistol] is not an assault rifle [the former was created decades before the latter] but given their level of education on controversial, hot-button political issues, we don’t expect a single journalist in the U.S. to know the difference [UMP stands for Universal Machine Pistol, IIRC]).



“I think if they think they need [submachineguns], then it is good that they have them,” one woman said.


OK, granted, so we can throw out all the silly arguments that say you must have criminal intent, or be paranoid and/or racist and/or a redneck drunken testosterone-poisoned yahoo, before you’d ever want a gun.  Glad we got that cleared up.



“When you have to wait, five, 10, 15 minutes… during that interim people could be dying…”


That one is the best.  I guess when a cop says it it’s clear and sensible, but when we’re talking about an armed citizen in the absence of any police, it’s a totally different paradigm.  Five, 10, 15 minutes, or any amount of time for that matter, to wait for police to arrive after calling 911, is a perfectly acceptable amount of time for people to be dying.  Just ask any anti gun-rights organization.



“Many departments in Bergen County are using Homeland Security grants to purchase these weapons.”


You mean more submachineguns are needed in the civilian population to secure the Homeland (police are in fact civilians, no)?  That makes no sense in light of the fact that, as we’ve been told, 9/11 was an inside job and there is no terrorist threat (I heard Mike Moore say the latter himself, so we know it has to be true– he got an Academy Award didn’t he) guns are more dangerous to their owners, violence never solves anything, and having weapons provokes your enemies.  Obviously then, the Homeland Security assertion is just cover for the “real reason” police are acquiring automatic weapons.


But I’m forgetting something– the Left hate police almost as much as they hate liberty (remember; in the 1960s police were referred to collectively as “pigs”) so I expect they’d go along with the above criminal-intent/paranoid/racist/yahoo theory to explain why police want guns, and let it go at that.

Quote of the day–M. Carol Bambery

Posted on by

Women are at a severe disadvantage when confronting a likely stronger male assailant. In general, women simply do not have the upper body strength and testosterone-driven speed to effectively defend themselves without help. A firearm, particularly an easily manipulable handgun, equalizes this strength differential and thereby provides women the best chance they have of thwarting an attacker. Even more statistically likely, a firearm in the hands of a threatened woman offers the deterrence empty hands and an often unavailing 911 call do not.


M. Carol Bambery
Brief of amicae curiae 126 women state legislators and academics in support of respondent.
[They are at a particular disadvantage if they are 85 years old and the assailant is 17 years old. But if the woman has even a .22 caliber single action revolver then she can make the assailant dial 911.–Joe]

Spying on the enemy

Posted on by

I know I’m late to the party. I’ve been very busy with preparing for Blackwater/Para/Todd and Caleb and then I had problems with my blog that took way too long to fix (and I’m still not totally where I want to be yet).

Here is some of what others have been saying about the Mary McFate (or Mary Lou Sapone) story as broken by Mother Jones. I haven’t begun to read all 100+ blog posts–maybe only a tenth of that. But there are some things I’m not seeing that I think should be addressed.

First, the legality issue. I’m not a lawyer but my expectation is that unless she signed some sort of non-disclosure contract it’s going to be hard to make anything stick on the legal front. Expect non-disclosures to be SOP for high level positions in the anti-gun groups in the near future.

Second, the ethical issue. I’m all for playing by the rules. Anyone who knows me well will know this in the extreme. When other people are walking across the street without a light they will find me standing on the corner. When everyone else is going 10 or 15 MPH over the speed limit I’ll be going the speed limit or maybe up to 5 MPH over. That doesn’t mean I won’t push the envelope. I have a very strong tendency to follow the rules to the letter. But when that “letter” has a loophole there is also a very good chance I will try to exploit it. But I nearly always follow the rules and get very annoyed, even angry, when others don’t. Barb says it’s because I have a mild case of Asperbergers. I say it’s because I’m rational, honest, and despise cheats.

In a battle such as the one over the specific, enumerated, right to keep and bear arms the anti-gun groups have a very long history of underhanded activities. I remember before I purchased my first gun (1994) I did a bunch of research on gun control, the Second Amendment, and related stuff. I got on the mailing list for Handgun Control Inc. (now The Brady Campaign). One of their propaganda flyers said that in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875) it was spelled out explicitly, “This is not a right granted by the Constitution.” I was shocked and had to look it up to make sure. Yup. It did say that. But there was a gotcha HCI didn’t put in their propaganda. The very next sentence in that opinion said, “Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” Hence it was not a simple oversight on the part of some incompetent HCI flunky. They could not have missed the very next sentence or the previous paragraphs where similar things are said about the First Amendment. This opinion is very clear that these are not rights granted by the Bill of Rights. They are preexisting rights that even the repeal of the 2nd (or 1st) Amendment could not nullify. The anti-gun people do this sort of thing constantly and sometimes every single point they make is a lie even when the facts are easily available. They do not fear being caught in a lie. It costs us far more in time, money, and precious words to fight their lies than it does for them to make the lie.

This isn’t just some sort of nit-picky Aspergers thing about something that happened nearly 15 years ago. It was just that is when I realized with absolute certainty which was the side of evil, who must be defeated, and the rules by which the game was played.

This is not to say that I think our side should be sloppy with the truth. We don’t need to. They do. What it does mean is that I have zero, perhaps even negative, qualms about doing “underhanded” or sneaky things to defeat them. They chose the playing field when they set out to destroy a specifically guaranteed civil right. They not only chose to do evil they additionally chose to use underhanded tactics in their propaganda and on the battlefield. By their actions they have declared the rules they play this game by. If we play entirely by our set of rules we may still win but how many millions of people will be denied their civil rights and how many tens of thousands will killed and injured because they were unable to exercise that right or believed a gun would more likely harm an innocent than a predator? What price are you willing to pay for “playing fair”? In some exceedingly dark projections of the future we may actually be fighting for the fate of humanity with the George Orwell’s vision given to us in 1984 as the downside of losing this fight. When the boots of a tyrannical government are smashing the face of humanity forever what satisfaction will you have for having played by your ethics rather than those that were very clear in their agenda and the rules they played by? That may not be the result of losing but that is what you are risking. Hence I agree with Sebastian when he said, “Given that, is there really any tactic that’s too sleazy and too underhanded to use in order to defeat them?”

The worst thing Mary did was getting caught. For that she, or whoever was responsible for outing her, should be quietly and behind the scenes, scolded.

Third, the benefits of having a spy. A lot of people have claimed there wasn’t all that much we could have gotten from a spy so the benefits weren’t worth risks of bad PR from possibly getting caught. Others have said advance knowledge of legislation agendas and allocation of resources for fighting initiatives could be very useful. I fully agree with this latter line of thinking but I don’t think it goes far enough in explaining what the potential benefits are. I fully agree that getting caught is bad but the benefits might well have been fantastic.

Aside from getting a magazine once a month (which I seldom read) and a few carefully worded emails with the occasional wheelbarrows full of cash (thanks Ashley!) I don’t have any deep source of from information inside the NRA. But from being “part of the U.S. intelligence community” for a while I do know a little about intelligence gathering and how it can be of benefit. The following is entirely speculation and is not in any way based on information the NRA actually received.

Example 1: Suppose the bad guys plan an initiative to ban “assault weapons”. Going in cold with the dry words of the initiative they find they can only get about half of the signatures they need to get on the ballot. Their resources are limited and they want to conserve their money for the fight once they are actually on the ballot. They can’t spend a lot of money for the signature gathers for months then fight in the media for the actual votes.

But they have done polls and found videos of unshaved men firing full auto while dressed in camouflage followed by scenes of Columbine and other school shootings yields 80% support for their initiative. They can get the required signatures in a remarkable short time if the propaganda is done correctly. They decide to coordinate the release of their video with their friends in the media with the announcement of the initiative in the two months before the deadline to turn in the signatures. The paid signatures gathers are contracted for and everything is in place for a political Blitzkrieg. If they keep things quiet the good guys won’t have time to form a coherent defense before the signatures have been gathered. Hence the bad guys can save their resources for the battle of votes on Election Day.

If the good guys have advance knowledge they will be able do their own polls (which could take weeks) with lots of different sound bites and find a couple one liners that cut that 80% support down to 40%. They prepare their own set of videos that can be hit the mass media as paid ads in only a few days after the bad guys go public. They bad guys aren’t prepared for a fight at this stage and don’t get the signatures needed. The good guys had to pay some money up front but they stopped the bad guy at the signature stage rather than to fight it out at the ballot box and can spend their resources on the defeat of the politicians who showed their colors and came out in support of the ballot initiative.

Or the good guys could come out with their own offensive that upsets the plans of the bad guys. They may know they cannot win but if they start pushing for a youth shooting program in the schools subsidized by the state you can be sure the bad guys will devote resources to that and maybe put the “assault weapon” ban on the back burner.

Example 2: Suppose the initiative did make it on the ballot and the good guys have to win. They can draw upon reserves allocated for national issues if needed but that would weaken plans for actual gains at the higher level. It’s getting down to election day and the good guys are currently ahead in the polls (private and/or public). Barring some last minute surprise from the bad guys they don’t need to use those reserves. If they know a surprise is coming and what that surprise is they can not only have done the polls they can have the countering ads ready for release on the same day the “surprise” hits the street. If they know the bad guys don’t have any money left and are running on empty they can send the reserves home and concentrate on making gains at the national level rather than winning a fight that was already won.

Example 3: Suppose the bad guys are having some internal problems. Maybe one of their key leaders has health problems and doesn’t really want to step aside for someone else. Maybe their finances are in poor shape (only the 501(c)(3)/charities orgs and publically traded corps have to make public disclosure of their finances, not the private political organizations). Or maybe they lost their building lease and have to move. Not only are time and money spent in the finding a new building and the actually moving but their phone numbers will have to change in the process. Or maybe some key personal are moving on to higher paying jobs in a different field and replacements need to be hired and trained.

Having knowledge of these troubles may mean the good guys can time a critical amendment to some legislation when the opposition is least able to put up resistance.

The bottom line is that yes we know, in general terms, what the bad guys are going to do and we can figure things out very quickly once they do go public. We may have larger war chests and more committed voters but that may not amount to anything if those resources can’t be deployed in the most effective manner. Having weeks or months advance knowledge can give us the opportunity to deploy after giving careful thought and parsimoniously allocating them thus yielding fantastic benefits. The benefit of having a spy is all in the timing. Time is a dimension that many people don’t take into account when going into a fight. They look at numbers like dollars, votes, tanks, ships, bomb yields, weapon accuracy, magazine capacity, penetration depth in gelatin and the caliber of their carry gun. But it doesn’t matter in the slightest that you carry a .45 with three spare magazines and can put ten rounds under a quarter at 25 yards if you opponent puts a .22LR bullet from his zip gun into your eyeball from three feet away before you get a chance to draw.

Knowledge gives us time and this can be more important than almost anything else.

Thank you Mary and whoever else might be out there, unknown and under appreciated; yielding results that surpass the benefits we get from highly compensated executives enjoying fame and wealth. I consider you a fallen hero.

Carry a piece of Heller history

Posted on by

SAF and S&W announce a commemorative revolver.



Second Amendment Foundation and Smith & Wesson Partner on Commemorative Revolver


Engraved Model 442 Will Recognize District of Columbia vs. Heller Decision



SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (July, 21, 2008) – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Smith & Wesson have partnered to create a commemorative revolver designed to recognize the historical significance of the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision and to acknowledge the six original plaintiffs that united to challenge the gun ban in Washington, D.C.



As part of the project, an engraved Smith & Wesson Model 442 revolver will be presented to each of the six plaintiffs – Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller – for their key roles in working to protect the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Smith & Wesson will make the commemorative revolver available for consumer purchase in Fall 2008 and will direct a portion of the proceeds to the Second Amendment Foundation to acknowledge the organization’s pivotal role in the Heller case and its ongoing efforts to preserve the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.



“We are proud to work with Smith & Wesson on this project,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. “June 26 saw a landmark victory for the Second Amendment, and for all Americans. This is a fitting way to commemorate a significant moment in history, and support future efforts that will continue to strengthen our constitutional rights.”



The Smith & Wesson Model 442 will be laser engraved with an insignia to commemorate the ruling by the Supreme Court. On the right side plate of the revolver, the scale of justice is depicted with the wording “D.C. vs. Heller” across the scale. The balance is in favor of the “Heller” name with the court date of “June 26, 2008” positioned across the top. Underneath the scale, the side plate reads “Second Amendment” and “The right to keep and bear arms” in white lettering.



“We at Smith & Wesson are pleased to honor the six original plaintiffs in the case while at the same time offer to consumers a firearm that will help in the preservation and protection of the Second Amendment,” said Tom Taylor, Vice President of Marketing for Smith & Wesson. “The Second Amendment Foundation has worked diligently on the Heller case along with several other cases in the last two decades by promoting legal scholarship. Their contributions have helped to dramatically change the legal landscape and we are honored to partner with them on this project.”


Jeff has more including this link to the Boston Herald where gun bigot John Rosenthal is quoted in an article. So I left the following comment with the article:



Would the Boston Herald quote the KKK if there were some similar celebratory event occurring because of a civil rights Supreme Court victory for blacks? If not, then why quote John Rosenthal in this article?


The only conclusion I can come up with is that the Boston Herald has sympathy for the position of those that would deny people a specific enumerated civil right.

Racking up the victories

Posted on by

With the Heller decision we successfully landed on the beach and are now advancing.


The Apex of the Triangle of Death reports on the latest victory in Morton Grove Illinois where they surrendered without firing a shot.

No surprise here

Posted on by

I had said before that even with the Heller win the gun bigots will scream and yell, and refuse to obey the law as long as they can. They are doing just that:



The proposal, which maintains some of the city’s strict gun ownership rules and adds more regulations, was immediately criticized by gun rights advocates threatening more legal action.



Handguns will still be banned, except for self-defense in the home, city officials said at a noon news conference. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns and short-barreled rifles are still prohibited.


Keep in mind that their definition of a “machine gun” is any gun that holds 12 or more rounds.


And the difference between what was declared unconstitutional and what they are proposing is minimal. Imagine if some Jim Crow law was declared unconstitutional and the bigot revised their laws in a similar manner:



Police will register one handgun per person for the first 90 days after the legislation becomes law, city officials said. A six-month amnesty period will be set up during which residents can register guns already in their possession.


…


“We have crafted what I believe to be a model for the nation in terms of complying with the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decision and at the same time protecting our citizens,” interim Attorney General Peter Nickles said.


…


The new legislation also modifies existing law to clarify that firearms must be stored unloaded and either disassembled or secured with a trigger lock, gun safe or similar device, officials said. There would be an exception for guns in the home that are being used against the “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm.”


…


D.C. residents who want to register handguns must complete an application from MPD’s firearms registration section, pass a written firearms test and provide photos, proof of residency and proof of good vision. They also will be fingerprinted


A model for the nation?


I think the Supreme Court should issue varmint licenses and put a bounty on these bigots heads. That should be the model for the nation.

One step at a time

Posted on by

Via Sebastian we find out the deprivation of civil rights under the color of law angle is being used in the San Fransisco lawsuit.


I would rather the Federal Marshals showed up and arrested a bunch of them but I’m still smiling. It’s a step in the right direction.

It’s not a slippery slope

Posted on by

Some are calling the Heller ruling a slippery slope. And the lawsuits being filed (and here) might be used as evidence for that claim.

I don’t see it quite that way. It’s more as I told Sean last night in IM:

It’s like we have landed on Normandy, held, and advanced a couple miles with materials, men, and supplies pouring in behind us.

It’s going to be a very long and difficult fight. Every challenge to their bigoted beliefs will be a rallying cry for them. They will scream and yell, and refuse to obey the law of the land as long as they can. It will be little different than when blacks were declared equal citizens and they were still stopped for driving while black, jailed, beaten, and even convicted in kangaroo courts on phony charges. It won’t be until we start convicting the bigots on 18 USC 241 and 242 (the rough equivalent of the Nuremberg trials in my Normandy analogy) will they start to back off.

BTW: A little birdie told me there will be more lawsuits announced on Monday. This is going to be very broad front war. We outnumber them and can out supply them. We can exhaust their resources, diminish their ability to put up effective resistance, and sap their will to fight. Some will even surrender without putting up a fight.

I’m reminded of the words of Charles Schumer:

We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission!

U.S. Rep. Charles Schumer
November 30, 1993
NBC Nightly News

Eat them Chucky!

Quote of the day–Justice Antonin Scalia

Posted on by

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

Justice Antonin Scalia
June 26, 2008
District of Columbia et al. v. Heller
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit.
[It sounds to me like D.C. just became a shall issue politicial entity. That’s overstating things just a little but not by much.–Joe]

Attack! Attack! Attack!

Posted on by

The ink isn’t dry on the Heller decision and we have already attacked the bigots in Chicago.

I was worried when I first heard of it. I was worried it was someone that didn’t know what they were doing and they would mess it up. The Second Amendment Foundation is involved which helped ease my worry some. Reading the entire complaint I broke out into a big smile. I can hear Alan Gottlieb’s mischievous voice and carefully calculated plan coming through. Then at the very end I saw the attorney–Alan Gura.

As Sean just told me in IM, “Yeah, baby! Sleep well, Mayor Daley”.

But that’s not all! The NRA is on the attack in California as well and perhaps New York. There should not be any rest for the wicked.

This is going to be great for the election in November too. It will have a very strong component of the gun rights issues. And I think we can get out the votes better than the other side can. Plus with the Heller decision on our side with Obama flip-flopping it’s going to look bad for him.

A settlement between Red’s and ATF

Posted on by

I would prefer the Feds ended up in jail and reimbursing Red’s for all expenses but I can’t complain a whole lot if this goes down as described:

An Idaho gun shop that went to federal court to keep the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from stripping it of its gun license has reached a tentative settlement with the government.

Attorneys on both sides told U.S. District Court Judge Mikel H. Williams on Wednesday that they had likely agreed on how to end the case.

Mark Geston, an attorney representing Terry and Ryan Horsley of Red’s Trading Post, said he could not yet release details, but said the proposal would allow the Twin Falls gun shop to continue operating.

“I think everybody’s reached a cooperative and constructive agreement,” Geston said Thursday. “The judge said to have it finalized in 10 days and we’ll just do our best to do that. The agreement allows Red’s Trading Post to continue as a gun shop in Twin Falls.”

I tried to check out Ryan’s blog but Blogger reports:

Sorry, the blog at redstradingpost.blogspot.com has been removed. This address is not available for new blogs.

This is entirely speculation on my part but my guess is pulling the blog down is part of the settlement. Stepping even further into baseless speculation one could say it’s a sad day when you have to give up your 1st Amendment rights to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights.

Quote of the day–Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

Legal theatrics that deflect attention from the failure of Bloomberg’s administration to prevent crime while pursuing an agenda of victim disarmament are all flash and no substance and the people know it. Judging from today’s appeals court ruling, so do the courts.

Alan Gottlieb
April 30, 2008
SAF CHEERS FEDERAL COURT REJECTION OF BLOOMBERG LAWSUIT
[I’m frequently told it is because of a personality “defect” that I expect people to obey the law instead of openly disobey. Even though the 2nd and 10th Amendment are so blatantly violated that you would think I would get a clue and not have those expectations of our public servants. Still occasionally those servants who believe themselves to be masters get their wrists slapped and that is a good thing. Not as good as being sent to prison for violation of 18 USC 242 as they should be but it is better than letting them get away with it entirely as is usually the case.–Joe]

More evidence of the efficacy of Dr. Joe’s cure

Posted on by

Via Scott K. we have this research confirming Dr. Joe’s cure for everything:

Researchers from the Cancer Council of Victoria found that men who masturbated more than five times each week were one-third less likely to develop the cancer.

Feeding the poor

Posted on by

Ignoring the fact that no where in the U.S. Constitution does it allow for the Federal government to do this it’s just plain stupid even if it was allowed:

President Bush called on Congress Thursday to approve $770 million to help alleviate dramatically escalating food prices that threaten widespread hunger and increasing social unrest around the world.

In a surprise mid-afternoon appearance at the White House, Bush announced he is asking lawmakers to approve the additional funds for global food aid and development programs. The money is being included in a broader $70 billion Iraq war funding measure for 2009 that the White House sent to Capitol Hill on Thursday.

If it were the case that it was some sort of rare natural disaster at a personal or business, not governmental, level I could see accepting promissory notes in exchange for food or even making gifts of food. The goodwill generated might prove worthwhile. But to feed those that can no longer afford to feed themselves and have no realistic hope of improving their economic situation will only increase the suffering.

A short story will illustrate. The essence is true but I forget the details.

A few years ago a group (I think it was a state wildlife department) decided to feed a small herd of hungry deer searching for food in the snow. There were only a few of them–perhaps 20 or 30. Nearly all the deer made it through the winter when perhaps a five or ten of them would have died had they not been given assistance.

The next winter, at the same location they again fed the deer but this time there were 40 or 50. The wintering area could only support perhaps 15 or 20 deer. If they didn’t feed them again then perhaps 20 or 30 would die. If they could not allow for five or ten to die last year then certainly the could not allow 20 or 30 to die this year! A few years later the herd was in the hundreds and not only was it prohibitively expensive to feed them the deer were destroying the plant life of both their winter and summer feeding grounds. That many hooves and mouths became, in essence, a swarm of locusts that stripped the countryside clean.

What should be done now that they realized the folly they had engaged in that first winter? They had reached the point where they would have to feed them even in the summer to avoid the deaths of hundreds and still they would destroy the plant life and endanger other animal species wherever they went. I believe some were trapped and moved to other areas but increasing the bag limits on hunting season thinned the herd down to levels where the environment could support them. Most of those deer they feared would die were killed.

So what do we do about people in some distant land that cannot afford to feed themselves? I don’t know exactly but the free market, if it were allowed to work, will find solutions such that most of them will not starve. Someone who is hungry and whose family is hungry will work hard and for long hours. Cheap labor attracts the capitalists. The smart ones in those areas of food shortages, if allowed to do so, will find products and/or services they can export in exchange for food and/or money. And yes, some will die of starvation. The media will show us high resolution color pictures of dying children and say it is the fault of the greedy capitalists. But giving them food without anything in exchange will only mean death is delayed and the magnitude of the tragedy increased.