The Rules of Firearms Safety

Wm. H of Amazing Facts recently sent an email with an article from The Star Ledger of New Jersey. The article covers a sheriffs department that had two firearms accidents in three days. A quick overview of the accidents:

Accident #1

Veteran Detective Chester Kurdyla, 49, wounded himself late Sunday night at the county jail in Morris Township after transporting a prisoner to the lockup, said Rochford.

Kurdyla stored his gun when he entered the jail. When he completed his duties at 11:50 p.m., he retrieved the gun, a .40 caliber Glock, and was putting it back in his holster when it discharged, sending a bullet into his right thigh.

Accident #2

On Friday afternoon, 33-year-old Sheriff's Officer Wilman Diaz, also shot himself in the leg. Diaz was in an office adjacent to the front-door security post at the county courthouse in Morristown and was about to turn in his .40 caliber Glock for a bi-annual weapons inspection when it discharged as he removed it from his holster, said authorities.

The article goes on to report that this department is scheduling more firearms safety training for it's officers. Read the whole article here.

This is the perfect opportunity to go over the four rules of handing a firearm. If these officers had followed these four rules, they would be home with their families, bandage free.

Rule #1 - Every firearm is loaded. Notice that I did not say "Treat every firearm as if it were loaded". NO, every firearm is loaded. Do not act like a firearm is loaded, believe it. Until you check personally, visually and by feel, that a firearm is unloaded, it has a round in the chamber and is ready to fire.

Rule #2 - Never let the muzzle of a firearm point at anything you are not willing to destroy. This is probably the rule I see broken the most at gun shows and shops. Never, ever, cross a person with the barrel of a firearm. Never, ever, cross a part of your own body with the barrel of a firearm. Accidental shootings would not happen if this were followed 100% of the time.

Rule #3 - Keep your finger off the trigger unless your sights are on the target. Do not place your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire your firearm. Sights on the target means you have the firearm aimed at the target/bad guy/whatever and are ready to fire. You gain no speed by putting your finger on the trigger as you unholster your firearm. (hint, hint to the above officers). Negligent discharges would never happen if this rule was followed 100% of the time.

Rule #4 - Be sure of your target and what is behind it. Be aware of your surroundings. Be sure of your target. Never shoot at sounds or at objects that you can not positively identify. Know what surrounds your target, and what is behind it. Again, be aware of your surroundings whether on a range, in the woods, or in a potentially lethal conflict.

If the officers had followed these four rules, they would not have ended up in the hospital. The fact that there were two incidents in the same department indicates that have a very poor overall philosophy in regards to firearms safety and general handling. For each accident, there had to be dozens of times when safety rules were broken. If you broke a rule at my range, there are plenty of folks that would let you know right away.

If you own a firearm, make these four rules a matter of habit, teach them to your children and loved ones. You teach your kids the rules of the road, teach them the rules of handling firearms.

For more information on firearm safety, go to Fr. Frogs Pad.

Make a Choice

Are guns a useful tool, or a liability?

Make a Choice

Sunday's Blog of the Week

E. David Quammen, the force behind GunShowOnTheNet, is a solid librarian of historical facts and quotes concerning the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. GunShowOnTheNet is a blog well worth your time, and E. David is a man with a true fire in his belly for freedom and liberty. A recent post and example of his work:

Journals of the Continental Congress, "...the citizens of the United States possessed of arms", Jan. 31, 1780

"...That it will appear by the constitutions and other publick acts of the several states, that the citizens of the United States possessed of arms, possessed of freedom, possessed of political power to create and direct their magistrates as they think proper, are united in their determinations to secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings of liberty, by supporting the independence of their governments, and observing their treaties and publick engagements with immoveable firmness and fidelity. And the Congress assure his Majesty, that should any individual in America be found base enough to show the least disposition for persuading the people to the contrary, such individual would instantly lose all power of effecting his purpose, by forfeiting the esteem and confidence of the people...."

If you want to know about the intent of the Second Amendment, go to GunShowOnTheNet. If you want historical fact to back up your debate with the anti's, go to GunShowOnTheNet. E. David is a freedom and liberty lover, and a freedom fighter. I see his work all over the net, fighting ignorance and injustice. Check him out, you will see what I mean.

The Brit's, A Foreshadowing of our Future?

A commentor in a previous post asked about British Police and firearms. So I hopped over to the London Metropolitan Police web site to see what I could find out. Before I got very far in my investigation, I found these two articles. The first about firearms and the second about knives.

The first article is about Trident, a police and community leader organization to stop gun violence in the black communities of London. Seeing as how the entire country has very stringent gun laws, I do not understand how they can possibly have any gun violence. Trident is starting an ad campaign:

Trident launches new hard-hitting advertising campaign

The campaign features a stark billboard advert depicting a dead man in a mortuary fridge with the hard-hitting and bleak message: "Carrying a gun can get you into the coolest places."Over 80 of the billboards went up over night in the six boroughs of London where gun crime is most prevalent within its black communities.

The advert is intended to demonstrate the likelihood of being a victim of gun crime if you carry a firearm.

I am going to assume that most of the folks that visit my blog understand just how factually incorrect the premise of this advertising campaign is. Our domestic anti gunners take a lot of their cues from Britain and Australia, so I expect to see similar billboards in LA and NYC soon.

The next article concerns an operation to get knives off of the streets of London. If you have not been following knife laws in London, you may be surprised to learn that carrying a knife in London could get you five years in prison. They treat knives pretty much the same as Massachusetts treats guns. There are knife buyback programs and anti knife rhetoric taught in the schools. It is all pretty funny, until you remember that will happen in the U.S. once they get the guns banned. Here is the article:

We launch the next phase of Operation Blunt

The MPS has launched the next phase of Operation Blunt in a bid to tackle the carrying of knives in the Capital.

As part of Operation Blunt, Met officers, including Safer Neighbourhood Teams , from all 32 boroughs are employing a number of measures as part of a long-term strategy to combat knife crime. This includes the use of search arches and hand-held detectors at transport hubs and licensed premises across the capital.

High-visibility patrols are operating in knife hotspots, and test purchases are to be carried out with the assistance of trading standards. Police will also deploy automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) systems.

During the three-weeks of sustained activity, which began on Monday 23 October and includes school half-term, police are operating search arches across London.

Today officers are working with colleagues from British Transport Police at various locations including Clapham Junction, one of the busiest railway stations in the country. We know that those who carry knives use transport links to move around London. The operation at Clapham is one of a variety of tactics being deployed across the capital and is being rolled out to other stations and locations so as to prevent people travelling with offensive weapons.

Search arches = portable metal detectors placed in high congestion areas.

Superintendent Chris McDonald, operational lead for Blunt, said:

"It is a sad fact that many young people continue to carry knives either as a fashion accessory or because they feel that it will offer them protection. However, the stark reality is that every week teenagers become victims of knife crime. The national amnesty is over, people have had a chance to dispose of their knives. If anyone is caught carrying a knife by police, we will arrest them and put them before the courts."

Metal detectors, sting operations, electronic surveillance... sounds like something out of a Robert Ludlam book. But instead of using all this manpower and technology to find a terrorist, they are looking for folks carrying pen knives.

Laws like this can happen here in the United States. I take that back, laws like this will happen unless we work together to put a stop to the ever increasing encroachments upon our basic freedoms by local, state and federal governments.

We're the "Only Ones" Who Can Not Tell Black From White!

I try to follow articles like the one from the Denver Post that follows to find out how many times the bg's had been previously arrested. This article did not mention anything about previous arrests, but I did notice something very strange:

Denver police search for shooting suspect

Two, possibly three, carjacking suspects in Westminster fired shots at police this afternoon while leading them on a high-speed chase through the industrial area north of Denver, at I-70 and Washington Street west of the Colliseum.

No officers were hit.

A gray van crashed at 38th and Delgany Streets. Officers captured at least one suspect and possibly two. A third man, initially described as a thin black man in his 20s wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and armed with a .22 caliber pistol, ran from the scene.

Officers from Denver, Westminster, Federal Heights, Adams County and the state patrol set up a perimeter to search for the man. The perimeter ran roughly along Washington Street from 38th Avenue to I-70 and along 45th Avenue from Pearl Street toward Broadway. A number of schools in the area were locked down, to prevent the students from leaving and also to prevent anyone from entering. Traffic in the area quickly clogged the streets outside of the perimeter.

The suspect reportedly was seen several times, once near the South Platte River running south toward downtown Denver. Officers said he was carrying a rifle.

A short while later, police changed the description of the suspect to a white male in his 20s, wearing a blue sweatshirt and carrying an assault rifle.

The chase began shortly after noon today. Officers were sill looking for the man three hours later.

The eye witnesses to the suspect escaping from the crash were police officers who described the man as a young black man in a hoodie with a .22 pistol. It appears that the suspect somehow morphed into a young white man, wearing a blue sweatshirt and carrying an assault rifle.

I did not post this story in an attempt to bash police officers, but to point out that they are just people, like the rest of us. Gun grabbers often insist that police officers are the "only ones" trained and professional enough to carry firearms. David Codrea over at The War on Guns is collecting stories like this one as proof of the flawed reasoning behind that statement.

[More from "The Only Ones" files...]

Not all lawyers are spineless wimps

There are probably pretty close to as many lawyer jokes out there as blonde jokes. I'll bet you think twice about telling a lawyer joke to this Texas lawyer though. Last week the news reported on a man who had crashed in a ravine and was rescued two days later. It was reported that he was pretty well banged up and it took him two days to crawl out of the ravine. The Star Telegram spoke with this man today and here is his awesome story:

When Jerry Wood finally awoke, he was in the back seat of his mangled car at the bottom of a brushy ravine.

A stick, 3 feet long and as thick as his pinkie, was lodged in the bottom of his throat.

"I began to try and pull on it and get it out," Wood recalled, his blue eyes shiny and moist. "When I realized I could not dislodge it, that is when I began to panic."

Wood leaned forward and pulled out the pocketknife he kept in his console. Short of breath, he desperately tried to cut the stick. When that didn't work, the 49-year-old defense attorney did the unimaginable.

"I stuck the knife in my throat underneath the stick and was dislodging it," Wood said. "Eventually, the stick came out and the knife went in. A lot of blood came out all over everywhere.

"At that point, I thought that was the end. I thought I had cut my throat, slashed my throat. ... I sat there in the car and bled quite a bit. ... After a few minutes, I was actually still breathing and exhaling through the hole I had made in my throat."...

OK, so this is not a post about firearms or freedom. But it is an interesting story about one mans decision to do what needed to be done to survive. How many people would still be at the bottom of that ravine with a stick in their throat, waiting for someone to rescue them? Read the whole article here.

A Minor Victory in Texas

We have a couple of anti gun district attorneys and cities here in Texas that do their best to infringe upon our rights as gun owners. Harris County and Houston are the worst. The Houston Chronicle reports that they have finally been forced to comply with state law concerning concealed carry on public property:

Harris County Commissioners Court today ordered the removal of signs banning legally concealed handguns in county parks, after hearing legal advice that the county could not enforce such a ban.

County Attorney Mike Stafford's office told the court that the county has been violating state law by banning people with concealed handgun licenses from carrying their guns into parks.

A complaint from a resident who saw one of the signs while using a county park prompted the county attorney's office to look into whether it is legal to ban the guns, Stafford said.

"He was a concealed handgun carrier. He wasn't arrested," Stafford said. "His complaint eventually went up the line to us."

After state lawmakers authorized concealed handgun licenses in 1995, the county, other public entities and all property owners had the authority to ban handguns from their properties.

That changed for public entities in 2003, when the Legislature amended the concealed handgun law.

Governments are now prohibited from banning licensed concealed handgun owners from carrying guns on most public properties. The county can ban concealed handgun licensees from bringing guns to parks when high school, college or professional sporting events are held there.

Until now, the county has banned concealed handguns from its lands and buildings, including the County Administration Building on Preston...

Note that they have been knowingly breaking the law for three years. A lot of Texans talk about the firearms laws in CA and MA and act as if those laws could never be imposed here. I try to point out that it is too late, that restrictive firearms laws are already in place, and they may easily get worse. Heck, the Mayor of Dallas joined Bloomberg's anti gun group. We have a DA in Houston that refuses to acknowledge the intent of new statewide traveling laws as they pertain to unlicensed individuals with loaded handgun in their automobiles. Gun owning Texas voters should be able to easily get rid of politicians such as these and their supporters. The fact that they have not is a sad statement.

We have made some very good strides in the past couple legislative sessions, but we have to be even more vigilant as Bloomberg and Brady seem to be gaining some momentum recently.

Sunday's Blog of the Week

This weeks "Blog of the Week" is The War on Guns.

There is not one particular post of David's that should be highlighted for this feature. David is a prolific blogger who just happens to write for Guns magazine (among others). David brings us news and opinion that we are just not going to find anywhere else. While you are at The War on Guns, be sure to read the comments sections, this site attracts some very insightful commentary.

Check out The War on Guns, it will end up on your daily read list also.

Second Amendmenet Carnival VI

Welcome to the sixth edition of the Second Amendment Carnival!

Providing the best 2nd Amendment Coverage the Blogosphere has to offer.

Intruder shot by homeowner

From Keep and Bear Arms and the LA Daily News, we find this little gem of an article:

CANYON COUNTRY - A woman shot a gang member Wednesday who had broken into her Canyon Country home while his mother waited outside in the getaway car, sheriff's deputies said.

The 29-year-old suspect, whose wounds were not life-threatening, snapped the lock on the homeowner's screen door and barged in as the woman retreated to the backyard, gun in hand, according to a sheriff's report.

A 29 year old gang banger takes Mom out on a job, just another day at the office. Except today he picked the wrong house to rob, and the wrong woman to intimidate.

When suspect Mike Lugo of Palmdale approached the woman about 10:45 a.m. through her back door, yelling at her as he advanced, the woman shot him with a Smith & Wesson .38-caliber revolver. Frightened, she hit him twice in the abdomen and once in the leg, missing a fourth shot, Bryski said.

Three out of four ain't bad. Actually it is much better than quite a few police shootings.

What did the sheriff have to say about this?

"To be honest it's fairly rare, but occasionally it does pay off to own a gun," sheriff's Lt. Tom Bryski said.

"...occasionally it does pay off"? Well sheriff, that "occasionally" is the reason we have the Second Amendment. That "occasionally" is why our Founding Fathers gave us the right to keep and bear arms. That "occasionally" is the reason so many people do accept the responsibility of carrying a firearm on their person. Remember that, sheriff, if you are ever in the position of approving concealed weapon licences in California.

This is the best part of the article:

Lugo managed to run from the Canvas Street street house and got into the Dodge Intrepid, with his mother, Cynthia Brandon, behind the wheel, Bryski said.

Brandon, 51, drove off, but the Palmdale resident didn't know where a local hospital was, Bryski said. So she flagged down a sheriff's deputy speeding by on Soledad Canyon Road and Deep Creek Drive. The deputy was responding to the victim's 911 call.

The bad guy's Mom flagged down the sheriff as he was answering the 911 call. Looks like the homeowner had it under control. It was good of the bad guy to make it easy for the sheriff's department to make an arrest.

The article points out that there is evidence that this was not the first house on the criminals list for the day. The article fails to point out that it would not have been the last if the homeowner had not taken action.

The neighbors always have something to say to a reporter:

Eryc Fults, 39, who lives a few houses away from the victim, heard shots, but thought they were wood pallets being dropped up the street. He learned later that the woman had shot a suspected burglar.

"Good for her," he said. "Well, not good that she shot him, but if somebody's breaking into your house ..."

You had it right the first time Eryc, good for her!

The Mad Hatter's Campus RKBA Roundup #4

This week's edition of the Campus RKBA roundup showed a pretty good balance, with some surprising favor towards the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Barbecue Edition

Jim Crow Laws Coming to an End in Massachusetts (well... maybe)

Massachusetts has some really "intricate" firearms laws. To own any firearm requires a state issued license, and there are four levels of licensing (Overview of Licensing Structure). The basic Firearms Identification Card is required for the purchase and carry of Mace and Pepper Spray, no firearms allowed. The levels go up from there to a Class A Firearms License that may allow concealed carry.

Currently these licenses are issued by the local chief of police. There is no "shall issue" law in MA, it is up to the discretion of the police chief. Other than being against the Constitution of the United States and the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, this is also immoral. The police chief can make the decision to issue or not issue a license based on arbitrary matters that he does not have to make public. So, the chief can deny a license based on race, income, part of town you live in, what ever he wants. This opens the door for racism, preferential treatment or fraud. Laws like this are similar to the old "Jim Crow" laws that are a stain on our history.

There is a means for the citizens of MA to appeal the denial of a license.

As reported in the Boston Globe, the Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, Kerry M . Healey, might be taking a first step towards freedom:

Lieutenant Governor Kerry M . Healey yesterday called for stripping local police chiefs of the power to issue gun licenses and transferring the responsibility to a specially appointed state public safety official, a proposal that puts her in line with the agenda of the Massachusetts gun owners' lobby.

Lieutenant Governor Healey explains her new position:

``My proposal would be to elevate that position to a state body, so that citizens of the Commonwealth . . . could have the same standards applied to their application to carry or possess a gun," Healey said at a news conference. ``At this moment, your ability is . . . completely controlled by the police chief. I think we have a need for a standard set of regulations. . . . that would be much better done at a state level, not a local level."

This is a step in the right direction for the people of Massachusetts. It is not even close to perfect, but if passed will open the door for a shall issue law.

The Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) is a good place to start if looking for Massachusetts firearm laws, and for information on what is being done do change them.

Update: Bruce over at mAss Backwards has a different take on Healey and GOAL here.

David also posted a different point of view at The War on Guns.

Granted, this is most likely election year rhetoric on Healey's part. But if she can get this done, then it will be easier to get a shall issue law passed in the future. Fighting the soft war against gun control in a state like Massachusetts has got to be disappointing. Banging your head against the wall on a daily basis and not getting much support from the general population of firearms owners would burn most people out quickly. Small victories like this may help to get more firearms owners (and those that want to be firearms owners) more involved in securing their right to keep and bear arms.

A Bit of Humor to Start the Week

The Gospel According To John (Moses Browning)

As translated from the original ancient manuscripts by Fr. Frog.
© copyright 2002 by John C. Schaefer

1 In the beginning was the 1911, and the 1911 was THE pistol, and it was good. And behold the Lord said, "Thou shalt not muck with my disciple John's design for it is good and it workith. For John made the 1911, and lo all of his weapons, from the designs which I, the Lord, gave him upon the mountain."

2 "And shouldst thou muck with it, and hang all manner of foul implements upon it, and profane its internal parts, thou shalt surely have malfunctions, and in the midst of battle thou shalt surely come to harm."

3 And as the ages passed men in their ignorance and arrogance didst forget the word of the Lord and began to profane the 1911. The tribe of the gamesman did place recoil spring guides and extended slide releases upon the 1911 and their metal smiths didst tighten the tolerances and alter parts to their liking, their clearness of mind being clouded by lust.

4 Their artisans did hang all manner of foul implements upon the 1911 and did so alter it that it became impractical to purchase. For lo, the artisans didst charge a great tax upon the purchasers of the 1911 so that the lowly field worker could not afford one. And the profaning of the internal parts didst render it unworkable when the dust of the land fell upon it.

5 And lo, they didst install adjustable sights, which are an abomination unto the Lord. For they doth break and lose their zero when thou dost need true aim. And those who have done so will be slain in great numbers by their enemies in the great battle. a

6 And it came to pass that the Lord didst see the abomination wrought by man and didst cause, as he had warned, fearful malfunctions to come upon the abominations and upon the artisans who thought they could do no wrong.

7 Seeing the malfunctions and the confusion of men, the lord of the underworld did see an opportunity to further ensnare man and didst bring forth pistols made of plastic, whose form was such that they looked and felt like a brick, yet the eyes of man being clouded, they were consumed by the plastic pistol and did buy vast quantities of them.

8 And being a deceitful spirit the lord of the underworld did make these plastic pistols unamenable to the artisans of earth and they were unable to muck much with the design, and lo these pistols did appear to function.

9 And the evil one also brought forth pistols in which the trigger didst both cock and fire them and which require a "dingus" to make them appear safe.

10 But man being stupid did not understand these new pistols and didst proceed to shoot themselves with the plastic pistol and with the trigger cocking pistols for lo their manual of arms required great intelligence which man had long since forsaken. Yet man continue to gloat over these new pistols blaming evil forces for the negligent discharges which they themselves had committed.

11 And when man had been totally ensnared with the plastic pistol, the lord of the underworld didst cause a plague of the terrible Ka-Boom to descend upon man and the plastic pistols delivered their retribution upon men. And there was a great wailing and gnashing of teeth in the land.

12 Then seeing that the eyes of man were slowly being opened and that man was truly sorrowful for his sinful misdeeds, the Lord did send his messengers in the form of artisans who did hear and obey the teachings of the prophet and who didst restore the profaned 1911s to their proper configuration, and lo, to the amazement of men they didst begin to work as the prophet had intended.

13 And the men of the land didst drive out the charlatans and profaners from the land, and there was joy and peace in the land, except for the evil sprits which tried occasionally to prey on the men and women of the land and who were sent to the place of eternal damnation b by the followers of John.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

a) Several old manuscripts add the following text. "And they [also rendered as "these men"] didst chamber it for cartridges who's calibers startith with numbers less than the Holy Number 4. And lo the Lord did cause great grief amongst these men when their enemies who were struck in battle with these lesser numbers didst not fall but did continue to cause great harm."

b) or Hell

I grabbed this bit of wisdom from Fr. Frogs Pad, a repository of all sorts of interesting information.

Sunday's Blog of the Week

This week Lady Liberty interviewed Matthew Bracken, author of Enemies Foreign and Domestic. Mr. Bracken his published the second book in the Enemies series. This book is titled "Domestic Enemies" and is on book shelves now.

An excerpt from the interview that is posted on The Price of Liberty:

In 2003, author Matthew Bracken published Enemies Foreign and Domestic, the first novel of a planned trilogy. With its focus on a government set-up that resulted in draconian gun control measures, it gained good reviews and much appreciation from readers. As gun control advocates have continued in their efforts to disarm the law abiding, it also seemed to offer some chilling warnings.

This year, Bracken released the second novel in the trilogy. Domestic Enemies held onto the background established in the first novel, but added to it the probable result of continued unfettered illegal immigration into the country. Once again, the reality is striking even as the story holds the reader's interest.

After reading Domestic Enemies and finding myself genuinely fearful of some of the near future it outlines, I determined to speak with Matthew Bracken and discuss just how real his fiction might - unfortunately - prove to be. Mr. Bracken kindly agreed to answer some questions, and here is the result of our recent conversation.

Lady Liberty: In your first book, the incident that led to all of the other subsequent actions was a government set-up of a shooting incident which caused, in turn, the demonization of guns and gun owners. At the time - two and a half years ago - that seemed pretty believable. As your storyline has evolved, do you still think something like that could happen?

Matthew Bracken: Sure, a false attribution sniper attack could be done. Why not? All it would take is a rifle and ammo, and a crowd penned into an easy killing zone like a packed stadium.

LL: How likely do you believe it is that it will happen - or even that something similar has already happened?

MB: Stranger things have happened, such as Oklahoma City and 9-11. It could happen tomorrow or never. But if it happens, I hope my first novel will at least cause people to look into the crime very closely.

LL: Once laws are made, they're tough to un-do. But in the case of the second volume of your planned trilogy, the problem is apparently a lack of enforcement of long extant constitutional mandate. I refer, of course, to border security. We already know how likely that is because it's already happening. But do you seriously believe that illegal immigration is as great a threat as you paint it to be in your fiction?

MB: Absolutely. I'm dead serious about the threat...

The Price of Liberty is a multi-contributor blog that always has something new and interesting to read and think about. Head on over and read the rest of this interview with Matthew Bracken, and you will find many other interesting articles to read.

How to Be a More Effective Advocate for Freedom

John Ross, the author of Unintended Consequences, wrote an article awhile back titled "Mistakes We Make in the Gun Culture". In this article he presents a primer for debating gun rights with the anti's. More and more editorials are being written by the gun control crowd, many of them sophomoric. The Internet has opened the avenues of communication up to the point where we can instantly provide feedback on these articles by commenting directly or by blogging. The mindset John illustrates in this article is one effective way of getting our point across.

One of the biggest mistakes that freedom advocates make is we often fail to take the moral high ground on freedom issues, and we let our enemies define the terms. This is a huge mistake. Never forget: We are in the right on this issue. We are on the side of the Founding Fathers. They are on the side of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and every other leader of an oppressive, totalitarian regime.


Let me give some common examples I’ve often heard when Second Amendment advocates debate gun control supporters:

THEY SAY: “We’d be better off if no one had guns.”

WE SAY: “You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns.” (FLAW: the implication here is that if you could succeed at eliminating all guns, it would be a reasonable plan.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that’s unacceptable. Better we should require every citizen to carry a gun.”


THEY SAY: “Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don’t need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer--they’re only for killing people.”

WE SAY: “I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I’ve never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me blah blah blah.” (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “Your claim that ‘they’re only for killing people’ is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high-capacity, military-type rifle or handgun is designed for conflict. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest-capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they’re good practice.”


THEY SAY: “If we pass this License-To-Carry law, it will be like the Wild West, with shootouts all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it.”

WE SAY: “Studies have shown blah blah blah” (FLAW: You have implied that if studies showed License-To-Carry laws equaled more heat-of-passion shootings, Right-To-Carry should be illegal.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that’s not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than the Constitution, why don’t we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We’d catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?”


THEY SAY: “I don’t see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period.”

WE SAY: “It doesn’t do any good, criminals don’t wait five days, it’s a waste of resources blah blah blah.” (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods did reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “Shall we apply your logic to the First Amendment along with the Second? How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn’t that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who already own a handgun tells me that it’s not about crime prevention, it’s about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a ‘safe’ one with the government as chief nanny.”


THEY SAY: “In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have Atomic bombs.”

WE SAY: “Uh, well, uh...”

WE SHOULD SAY: “Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue--it’s in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 each had muskets, but not the large field pieces that fired exploding shells. In 2005, soldiers are each individually issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing free speech and freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV, satellite transmission, FAXes, and the Internet.”


THEY SAY: “We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these dangerous weapons.”

WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

WE SHOULD SAY: “You know, driving is a luxury, whereas firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let’s put that aside for a moment. It’s interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can at any age go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size you want, and you don’t need to do anything if you don’t use them on public property. No license at all. If you do want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. No waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property. Sounds great to me.”



FINAL COMMENT, useful with most all arguments:



YOU SAY: “You know, I’m amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything.”

THEY SAY: “Hunh?”

YOU SAY: “Well, passing this proposal won’t have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither George W. Bush nor Hillary Clinton is going to open up internment camps for Americans like Roosevelt did sixty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn’t it possible that a person like that might be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him or her? If that does happen, do you really want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it by you?

I do realize that debating anti gunners will not change the mind of the person you are debating, but, it will affect those who are reading the debate. We should always attempt to inject a bit of common sense when we find idiotic op-eds. I hope this article provides you with additional ammo for your next debate.

The #1 weapon against gun control is a shooting public. Take a non-shooter to the range today.

The Mad Hatter's Campus RKBA Roundup #3

With all the furor going on in America's Dairyland over a proposed measure to make their schools less of a target for the disaffected and disturbed, I bring to you this week's Campus RKBA Roundup:

The Cheesehead Edition

Teaching Common-Sense School Protection

Dave Kopel of National Review Online wrote an informative article covering school violence. The article covers what has been done since the Columbine murders of 1999, and what still needs to be accomplished to make our schools safe. Mr. Kopel discusses changes in police tactics and the way that the media is now focusing on the victims instead of the killers. He also talks about the anti-bullying programs and new gun control laws that were put into effect. New gun control laws... so what have the new gun control laws done to make our schools safer?

But it is pretty clear that the kinds of laws which were pushed after Columbine (one-gun-a-month in California, special restrictions on gun shows in Colorado and Oregon) are of little value in keeping guns away from people who plan their attacks a long period of time in advance.

Notably, Canada has adopted almost everything (and more) which American anti-gun lobbies have pushed in the United States. Yet this fall’s spate of copycat school shootings began on September 13 in Canada, when Dawson College, in Montreal, was attacked by a 25-year-old man who killed one victim and wounded 19 more, putting two of them into a coma. (Fortunately, two policemen happened to be on campus, and they took immediate action, rather than waiting for a SWAT team to arrive. Their prompt and heroic boldness likely saved many lives.)

That is what I thought, new gun laws have done nothing towards the protection of our schools.

The Kids are not always the killers:

The attacks this fall highlight a problem that was forgotten in the post-Columbine frenzy. There are lots of attacks which are not perpetrated by disaffected students. We knew this in 1988, when 30-year-old Laurie Dann attacked a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Illinois, and in January 1989, when an adult criminal named Patrick Purdy attacked a school playground in Stockton, California. Or when British pederast Thomas Hamilton killed 16 kindergarteners and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland.

One reason why adult sociopaths so often choose to attack schools — schools to which they have no particular connection — is that schools are easy targets. It is not surprising that police stations, hunting-club meetings, stateside army bases, NRA offices, and similar locations known to contain armed adults are rarely attacked.

So why are schools easy targets? Schools are easy targets due to the "gun free school zone laws".

Because of the spread of concealed-handgun licensing laws, now in 40 out of 50 states, whenever you walk into a place with a large crowd of people — a restaurant, a theater, a shopping mall — you can safely assume that several people in the crowd will have a license to carry a concealed handgun, and some of them are currently carrying.

Schools are one of the few places in the United States where the government has guaranteed that there will be no licensed, trained adults with a concealed firearm that could be used to resist a would-be mass murderer.

Since this fact is apparently obvious to random psychopaths, it would be very dangerous to assume that the fact is not obvious to terrorists also. Beslan, Russia, shows that terrorists with al Qaeda connections consider schools to be good targets. There is also the danger of self-starting jihadis, such as the man who attacked the Jewish community center in Seattle. Every Jewish school and community center should very seriously consider having at least one full-time security guard.

I think I really like the writing of Dave Kopel, he does a much better job of expressing what I have been trying to say. I even learned something new today:

Like many states, Utah enacted a concealed-handgun licensing law in 1995. Unlike most states, Utah did not make schools an exclusion zone for lawful carrying. Not only a teacher on duty, but also a parent coming to pick up a child from school, can lawfully carry a concealed handgun in a Utah school building — after, of course, passing a background check and safety training. (See Utah Code sect. 76-10-505.5. In 2003, the legislature expanded the law, by allowing principals to authorize firearms possession by individuals who did not have a concealed-handgun carry permit.)

A CHL permit holder can carry on Utah school grounds? I thought there was a federal law against that. It seems that I was wrong.

It is commonly, but incorrectly, believed that the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act creates an insurmountable barrier to arming teachers. Not so. The GFSZA has a specific exemption for persons who have a concealed handgun carry permit from the state where the school is located, if the state requires a background check before issuance of a permit.

Learn something new every day.

Mr. Kopel goes on to cover several things schools can do today to make them safer for our children. This is a very good article, and I highly recommend you go check it out.

Bill from The Ten Ring led me to this article by posting this quote:

Our nation has too many people who are not only unwilling to learn how to protect themselves, but who are also determined to prevent innocent third persons from practicing active defense. A person has the right to choose to be a pacifist, but it is wrong to force everyone else to act like a pacifist. It is the policies of the pacifist-aggressives which have turned American schools into safe zones for mass murderers.

It is well past time to tell the "pacifist-agressives" to pack sand. We need to start working now to get reasonable people nominated in the '08 primaries at both the state and national level. We need to get their names and ideas out now so that they can make it through the primaries and onto the election ballot.

Corpus Christi Teen Kills Burglar in Home

This short but sweet article from Houston Chronicle shows why firearm familiarity and safety training for your children is a much better idea than gun locks:

CORPUS CHRISTI — A 14-year-old boy shot and killed a man who broke into his family's home today and threatened to kill him and his mother, Police Chief Bryan Smith said.

Smith said the man, whose name was not immediately known, confronted a woman as she was carrying groceries into her home shortly before 1 p.m.

The man forced her inside and tied up her and her son. Smith said the woman was able to loosen the binding and free her son, who got his father's revolver from a security box beneath a bed.

As the man tried to break into the room where the two were and threatened to kill them both, the teen fired a shot through the door and hit the intruder in the head, Smith said.

The teenager either knew the security code on the box, or his mother gave it to him. There was no fumbling around for keys or other nonsense. The teenager was at least somewhat familiar with the operation of the revolver, and he killed the goblin. One goblin dead, one boy taking a very large step towards becoming a man by his adult actions.

This teenager and his mother are alive and well because there was a firearm available for protection, and the teenager knew how to use it. A teenager, one of the folks that the Brady Bunch and others are trying so very hard to keep from ever learning the safe operation of a handgun.

Man Fatally Shoots Assailant in Downtown Seattle

Beautiful downtown Seattle in the middle of the shopping district. It is a patrolled area that poses no danger for the good citizens of the city. Well, maybe not:

SEATTLE - A fight between two total strangers led to a fatal shooting in downtown Seattle Saturday morning.

It happened at Fourth Avenue and Pine Street, at 11:30 a.m., in the heart of the shopping area.

Police said a man who was visiting downtown and minding his own business was brutally attacked by a stranger. But the victim of that attack had a gun and license to carry it. So he shot his attacker.

Police said they received complaints about a man who had been harassing shoppers about a half hour before the incident. But the suspect then began assaulting a complete stranger, kicking him repeatedly.

“We heard a loud noise, we looked out the window there was a black man standing over somebody with a gun in his hand then he was walking around. And he was saying: ‘I shot him,’” said witness Annette Johnson.

This is just another fine example of why it is important to always be alert and ready for any situation that may come about. The good guy was from out of town, on business or shopping, and enjoying the day when he was attacked. If he were not armed, we might be talking about a victim, instead we are talking about a citizen who utilized his right to keep and bear arms to protect himself.

One interesting item of note in this article: The police were called about the man harassing shoppers thirty minutes before the good guy was forced to shoot him, they had thirty minutes to put a stop to this harassment.

Sunday's Blog of the Week.

The LawDog Files is a hard hitting, take no prisoners blog. A recent post, Meditations on the Combat Mindset is a good example of what you can expect to find there. From the post:

..."No! I can't take a gun or knife on a plane! I'm going to be helpless!"

Codswallop.

Put a Masterlock and a thin leather dress belt in your carry-on. If a critter presents himself, thread the Masterlock onto the dress belt and break his skull with it.

If TSA takes away your Masterlock, then beat the critter to death with your walking stick.

If they confiscate your walking stick, then you take a pencil, a fountain pen or a biro, and you puncture his vital organs in alphabetical order.

If your writing utensils are banned, you garrote the bastard with your bootlaces.

If TSA forbids foot-wear, then you break a CD disk and you cut his sodding throat with the jagged edges, BUT DON'T BLOODY WELL GIVE ME THIS "HELPLESS" BULL[DELETED]!

LawDog, they won't let me carry a gun -- I'm helpless. LawDog, they won't let them have pocket-knives, they are helpless.

BULL. [DELETED].

Helpless, my furry arse. You are helpless because you're fixated on tools. You're helpless because you -- your mind -- is letting you think that you're helpless just because some daftie took away your pretty tools.

Stop it.

Firearms don't have a single godsdamned thing to do with the Combat Mindset.

Knives don't have a single flaming thing to do with the Combat Mindset.

Combat Mindset has not a bloody thing to do with tools, and everything to do with your mind -- that's why it's called "The Combat Mindset" and not "The Combat Toolset".

Period. Full stop. End of statement.

The LawDog Files is a blog well worth your time.

Los Angeles City Councilman Seeks Ways to ID Ammo Buyers

The Los Angeles Times reports that city councilman Jack Weiss is requesting that LAPD come up with a way to identify folks who purchase ammunition. Purchasing ammo in Los Angeles currently requires a legal photo ID and a fingerprint. The establishment that sells the ammo keeps the record of the sale on file. Here is the article:

A Los Angeles councilman asked the LAPD and city attorney's office on Friday to study ways to identify those who purchase ammunition.

The request by Councilman Jack Weiss follows a Rand Corp. report, released Thursday, that found dozens of ex-felons and others legally prohibited from buying ammunition purchased more than 10,000 rounds of bullets and shotgun shells during a two-month study period in 2004. The rounds, the report said, were purchased at 10 businesses in Los Angeles that sell ammo.

So, the Rand Corporation performs an "objective analysis and study" of who bought ammunition in Los Angeles and finds that felons are purchasing ammunition. During this study, the Rand Corp. found:

A total of 2,031 people purchased 436,956 rounds of ammunition during the study period. This included 10,050 rounds of ammunition purchased by 52 people with felony convictions or other violations on their records that legally prohibit them from buying ammunition.

Felons purchase less ammo than non felons. OK, that is not quite the conclusion that the Rand Corp. came up with:

While the study examined only a short period of time, researchers say it provides the first reliable information about whether ammunition is routinely purchased by people who are barred from possessing ammunition.

“We found that it's not uncommon for people with criminal records simply to buy ammunition at a retail store,” said Greg Ridgeway, co-author of the study and a researcher at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “It is particularly risky for communities to have guns and ammunition in the hands of such people.”

Past studies have shown that guns and ammunition possessed by felons and others prohibited from owning weapons are more likely to be used in violent crimes than weapons bought by people with no criminal histories.

The Rand Corp. has just stated that criminals are more likely to commit crimes than non-criminals. That is what we have been saying all along. I did not notice that little tidbit of fact pointed out in the news paper article, did you?

The Rand Corp. goes on to recommend the following:

The RAND study says if lawmakers want to prohibit the illegal sale of ammunition they could extend the instant background checks required before guns are sold to also cover the sale of ammunition.

It appears that this is the recommendation that Councilman Weiss is interested in promoting, but the Rand Corp. also recommended:

Another alternative is for law enforcement officials to take advantage of ammunition sales records to provide tips about felons who may illegally possess firearms, according to researchers. Ammunition logs have been used by Los Angeles area law enforcement officials to obtain search warrants that have led to the recovery of illegal firearms, according to the study.

Go after the criminals instead of making even more hoops for law abiding citizens to jump through. That is an idea that makes a bit of sense. I'll leave the discussion about whether or not Felons should be allowed Second Amendment rights for another day.

The councilman should have read that last paragraph, and then pondered upon it for a minute or two. If he had, he could have come up with this amazing idea - The city has proof of 52 felons that have purchased ammunition illegally. 52 people who have broken the law once again. They have their photographs, they have their addresses, and they have their fingerprints. If Councilman Weiss is so worried about criminals having ammunition, he should be demanding 52 arrests.

Schools look at security procedures

Our local paper, The Star Telegram, ran a story on security at local schools. Pretty much every paper in the country is running a similar story this week in the wake of three recent school shootings. It would be a shame if the end result of the current discussion was a level of security at our schools similar to that used for our prisons. It would be an outrage if further restrictions on the liberties and freedoms of law abiding citizens came about due the the actions of these psychotic killers. Here are some points brought about in our local paper:

"Acts of violence such as these have the potential to induce others to commit similar acts," she wrote.

But securing schools from all violent acts isn't possible, according to a local criminologist."What is so scary is that we have already maximized what is feasible in protecting these facilities," said James Quinn, a criminologist at the University of North Texas. "Unless you're going to put armed guards around schools, you can't defend against it."

With the current philosophy of school security, the above is a true statement.

Grapevine-Colleyville schools spokeswoman Megan Overman said that district has reviewed security plans with campuses and believes that schools are the safest places for children.

"The last few incidents that have happened have targeted kids at schools," Overman said. "Parents are always concerned about the safety of their children's schools, but it could also be anywhere our kids are gathered at a public setting."

That's important to remember, Quinn said.

These attacks can happen anywhere our kids are gathered, but they don't. The paper lists one reason:

And recent school shootings may be highlighting an even seamier side of the criminal mind -- the desire for the world to know what they've done.

"It's guaranteed if you abduct a couple of girls from a local mall, that's local or regional news," Quinn said. "When you take a school hostage, you get national attention. Schools can be attractive to people looking to do harm and make a statement."

The 15 minutes of fame factor is a very large part of what makes our schools targets for goblins, and an even bigger target for terrorist. Remember the Chechen terrorists that attacked a school in Russia? In that incident, over 200 people were killed and 700 injured. There were only a thousand people on campus at the time. The news coverage was world wide, as is the coverage of our recent shootings. The terrorist and the goblins both made their statements on a world wide stage, the terrorist for political reasons and the goblin for psychotic ones.

There is one other reason that our schools are targets of opportunity for goblins and terrorists alike. That reason is the law that requires all schools to be gun free zones. That is utter stupidity. Our laws guarentee the bad guys free reign to do as they wish in our schools. If there are armed guards, a terrorist can make provisions to take out the guard(s) first as they will be identified by their uniforms.

As reported in USA Today, one Wisconsin politician has the right idea:

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A state lawmaker, worried about a recent string of deadly school shootings, suggested arming teachers, principals and other school personnel as a safety measure and a deterrent.

It might not be politically correct, but it has worked effectively in other countries, Republican Rep. Frank Lasee said Wednesday.

"To make our schools safe for our students to learn, all options should be on the table," he said. "Israel and Thailand have well-trained teachers carrying weapons and keeping their children safe from harm. It can work in Wisconsin."

If there is the possibility that there will be unidentified armed people that will step up and stop an attack, the less likely it is that there will be an attack at that establishment. This is the reasoning behind the Air Marshals is it not? These teachers/administrators/janitors/coaches would have to qualify for a state issued concealed carry permit. Further quality training should be required to insure that they can make rational decisions and react appropriately to a dangerous situation. Think about it, one armed and trained person could have stopped any of the three school shootings that are in the news today.

Lasee said he planned to introduce legislation that would allow school personnel to carry concealed weapons. He stressed that it would hinge on school staff members getting strict training on the use of the weapons, and he acknowledged he would have to work around a federal law that bans guns on school grounds.

If you live in Wisconsin, you have a good representative in Lasee, give him all of your support. On this issue at least, he is right as rain.

Amish shootings color House debate on gun violence

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives finished up three days of debate on issues of gun related violence. The shootings in the Amish school house intensified the debate, but did not result in new gun control legislation being written:

Mention of Monday's murders in Lancaster County crept into the debate, the first two days of which have underscored tension between preserving or restricting citizens' rights to buy guns and ammunition. One by one, gun control proposals failed in nonbinding votes after a five-hour "committee of the whole" session Tuesday designed to hear all ideas and find out which could pass.

Today's debate brought sharp focus on gun laws and violence. From the side that favors the constitution comes:

One gun control opponent, Rep. Douglas Reichley, R-Berks, insisted that the killer, Charles Carl Roberts IV, had serious mental problems and that his case had nothing to do with gun laws.

And -

Gun control opponents said limiting access to a weapon would not reduce gun crimes or keep criminals from getting guns, and instead promoted a variety of ways to toughen sentencing and get more police officers on the streets.

The anti's let slip their true agenda. While debating an initiative to limit hand gun purchases to one per month, a representative stated this gem of their true intent:

But Rep. Mike Gerber, D-Montgomery, drew a parallel between the Amish school killings and legislation he supports to limit handgun purchases, saying guns make it easier to kill.

"What if that perpetrator didn't have a gun?" Gerber said. "What would have happened? Would it have been as easy for him to kill? The obvious answer is no."

That is an expression of their true intent. The legislation was to limit handgun purchases to one per month, but the long term intent is to remove all guns.

It just goes downhill from there folks. Remember that these are elected representatives of the people. These are the people who are supposed to be upholding our rights.

Thomas W. Blackwell IV, D-Philadelphia, who argued for the proposal, questioned whether gun control opponents should care more about the constitutional right to bear arms, or human life.

"Yesterday, all those children were killed," Blackwell said. "You're talking about a piece of paper while children are dying? What kind of god do you serve?"

Representative Blackwell wants to just trash the constitution, do away with the second amendment. He wants us to "do it for the children" and even goes so far as to insinuate that owning firearms is un-Christian.

The final quote kind of sums it all up:

Still, Rendell, who attended a police briefing for the news media near the Amish school, said he did not know of any gun control law that could have prevented Roberts from carrying out the killings.

Roberts had no criminal record or history of mental instability that would have prevented him from buying guns legally, Rendell said.

"I think we should all understand, no proposed law, none that I would think of or none that I've seen, could have ruled out this situation," Rendell said.

I have just one quick note of thanks to the representatives that did not let the emotions and events of the day get ahead of doing what was right. Thank you for standing firm and protecting the rights of Pennsylvania gun owners.

Hat tip to The War on Guns for leading me to this article.

Evil IS

David over at The War on Guns posted a link to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer on the Amish school house shooting that left five young girls dead, and five more in the hospital. The Goblin (I hate to use the word man when taking about him) was evil personified. What kind of person can plan and carry out such an act? How do we, as society protect ourselves from such a person?

In the comments to David's post, E. David Quammen of GunShowOnTheNet made a statement that I wish I had written:

Don't know if I have the words to express how I feel. Sean did a good job. All I can bring myself to wonder is how the hell does someone allow themselves to get THAT EVIL? What is going through their mind?

The anti's will do their blood dance. The sheeple will bleat for more 'protection' and further government intrusions. At the cost of more of our Freedoms and Liberties being lost, of course. And this despite clear evidence to the contrary, that further infringements will only make things worse.

What is really frustrating, is that even many of our fellow gun owners will nod their heads in agreement that more 'controls' are necessary. How many gun owners actual first thought was; 'I wish I'd had been there, he'd have been dead after the first or second shot'?

Was not the founders whole intent for an armed populace, keeping evil at bay? From whatever source it might arise, whether it be foreign or domestic? Was not each citizen expected to do their part?

Is not that sound reasoning? How is it then, that so many are blinded to this fact, and refuse to accept the truth?

Our, supposed, 'civilization' is in a very bad state of affairs. When common sense is given such little regard, how much longer will our society survive?

One responsible armed citizen, aware of their duty as a citizen, could have stopped this tragedy with one shot.

The people whom have shrilly cried for 'gun control' are directly, and indirectly, responsible for this and other tragedys. The blood belongs on their hands. Not on the people that would have acted, had they not been perversely restrained from doing so. It's time to pull the kid gloves off, and really start slamming the truth home, hard. And this, while we still have some semblance of a society worth fighting for. The consequence of not doing so, will lead to anarchy and totalitarian control...

There is evil in this world. There are goblins that prey upon the innocent. It is our duty and responsibility to stand against this evil, not just for ourselves and our family, but for society as a whole.

Breast Cancer Awareness Month

I know that this is a bit of a departure from one of my regular posts, not something you were expecting when you dropped by. This is a very important topic, if not for you, then for someone you love and care for.

October has been designated as breast cancer awareness month. There is one very simple reason that there is a month designated as breast cancer awareness month. That reason is the 212,000 (two hundred twelve thousand) women that will be diagnosed with new cases of breast cancer this year, and the almost 41,000 (forty one thousand) women who will die of breast cancer during 2006. It is estimated that one out of every 8 women will develop breast cancer during their lifetime.

The single most important factor in surviving breast cancer is early detection, and early detection can only come through awareness.

The following is a list of the basic breast health steps:

• Monthly breast self-examination beginning by age 20.Clinical breast examinations at least every 3 years beginning at age 20 and annually after age 40.


• Annual screening mammography beginning at age 40.


• Women under age 40 with a family history of breast cancer and other concerns about their personal risk should consult a trained medical professional about risk assessment and when to begin screening mammography.

For more information on breast cancer and breast health issues, go to the following sites:

The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation

Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization

The American Cancer Society

WebMD

Sunday's Blog of the Week

The Mad Hatter is performing a survey of what is being discussed on collage campuses in regards to the Second Amendment and gun rights. He is reading the student op-ed pieces and has found some interesting articles. From the post:

OK, I'll admit...I was expecting to find anti-gun op-ed's all over the board when it came to discussions over gun rights. Surprisingly enough, I found a fairly good balance, which encourages me about our universities being places where a diversity of ideas can thrive.

Sure, you had the clueless anti's breathlessly spouting off about matters they know nothing about, but often, you could find someone a little more reasonable able to lay the facts out in a well-informed manner worthy of higher education.

Here are my findings thus far:

You are going to have to head on over to read the rest.