Right Thoughts...not right wing, just right.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Armed resistance…

...saves lives.

Bridges pulled a .357 Magnum pistol and he later said he was prepared to shoot to kill if necessary. He and Gross both approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions. Both were pointing their weapons at him. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his weapon. When the shooter realized they had the drop on him he threw his weapon down.

That was a 2002 incident just a short drive away from the Virginia Tech campus. 

There’s much more at the link.  Good information to have when deciding on how to feel about guns, gun control, crime, criminals and politicians who seek your vote.

Posted by JimK at 08:17 PM on April 23, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Categories: NewsCrime and CriminalsGuns - 2nd Amendment

Thursday, April 19, 2007

On gun control and consistency of thought

Often we paint the world in black and white.  In America, we’ve decided lately that we prefer red and blue.  Some things are automatically “blue” issues.  Some things are painted blue when really they’re purple; both “sides” actually have the same goal, such as more freedom for all Americans.

Gun control is very much a blue issue.  Oh you’ll find some red-staters that will allow for some degree or another of gun control; George Bush comes to mind.  No one would ever accuse him of being blue, and yet he’s always been unhappy about the “assault” weapons ban going the way of the dodo, regardless of how useless the law was in the first place.  Generally speaking, you’ll see that the vast majority of gun control advocates, especially those who believe that the Second Amendment is a collective right - are Democrats (or further to the left, even).

Who leads the charge in this country today when it comes to U.S. Citizens being, say, wiretapped without due process?  Who leads the charge against the USA PATRIOT Act?  Who calls the current administration everything from heavy-handed to totalitarian to Hitler?

Is it Republicans?  Not many, except for a few self-appointed “true” conservatives acting as our collective conscious (even if no one asked them to do so).  The people who yell the loudest about a “fascist” government are also yelling the loudest for the government to crush our Second Amendment rights, and with rare exception, they are blue.

I pose this question not to the reasonable “blues” who might read this - I think you and I already agree that another law won’t mean anything to a criminal or a nutcase bent on death and destruction - instead I pose it to anyone who favors a collectivist interpretation of the Second Amendment, and those who want guns banned; If you feel that the government should not be allowed to suspend or trample on your rights as a citizen in the name of maybe, hopefully, if we’re all lucky, catching a terrorist. then what are you doing supporting gun control?  Gun control is allowing the government to trample on and potentially suspend your Second Amendment rights in the hopes that maybe, if we’re really lucky, we might be able to catch a criminal or two before they use a gun.

Gun control and many of the powers created or taken by the current President have much in common.  They punish the innocent.  They assume guilt without due process.  They oppress the people.  They violate rights.  Criminals and terrorists will always find a way around all of it.

Consistency of thought comes into play here.  If you are in favor of one, it’s logical that you would favor the other.  If you despise one of these things, gun control or Bush’s abuses of the Constitution, it would be a contradiction in logic to support the other.  Put simply, if you can’t stand Bush’s abuses of liberty, then you should stand shoulder-to-shoulder with your gun-owning brothers and sisters and defend the ideal of liberty for all.  I put it to you that defending the nation against encroachment on liberty is a purple issue (for lack of a better way to phrase it).  It doesn’t matter if that encroachment is warrantless wiretapping, a war on drugs or gun control.  We should all be working together to prevent (or overturn) them all.  Red and blue, side-by-side, reminding the government that they work for us, not the other way around.

In summation, I would dig out an old chestnut that I think applies here.  In 1759, a book was published called “An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania.” Benjamin Franklin published it but he claimed later that he did not write it.  It was also used in 1755 in a letter to the governor of Pennsylvania.  The point is, no one really knows who first uttered the following motto; but the words ring as true today as they did in Colonial America:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Posted by JimK at 06:59 PM on April 19, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Categories: NewsPoliticsGuns - 2nd Amendment

Monday, April 16, 2007

Virginia Tech shooting

I know little to nothing about today’s event - neither does anyone else, really, but if you want to try to follow it, I suggest Wizbang.  Here’s their first post that has many, many updates.  It seems that it may have started when the shooter found his girlfriend in bed with another guy.

Here’s their second post, made now that the breaking aspect of this news has slowed down.

Two things: Let’s not operate as if we know all the facts some restraint in theorizing while discussing this.  More importantly, keep the victims and their families in your thoughts.

Posted by JimK at 06:43 PM on April 16, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Categories: NewsCrime and CriminalsGuns - 2nd Amendment

Friday, March 09, 2007

A Second Amendment victory

A common-sense individualistic interpretation of the Second Amendment:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

Hit the link for background on the case from which this decision comes.

Everywhere I have seen this story, people more well-versed in the law are saying it has an excellent chance of going to the Supreme Court and being upheld as the law of the land.  I consider that nothing less than a victory - we’ll never have to argue if the Second is an individual versus a collective right again.  It makes many gun control measures moot and will reduce the ability of politicians to issue wholesale bans.  Now, if you read my bablings often, you know I like things to be as small and as local as possible...except Constitutionally guaranteed rights.  Those must apply to all citizens.  I support some common-sense gun and gun safety laws, but with 20+ thousand federal laws already on the books...we’re full up, thanks.

Hat tip: Drumwaster

Posted by JimK at 09:00 PM on March 09, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Categories: NewsPoliticsGuns - 2nd Amendment

Sunday, January 28, 2007

The drug war

I would normally spend some time articulating my belief in legalization of soft drugs whenever the subject of the War On Drugs comes up.  If nothing else, legalizing marijuana would be a great moral and social victory for Americans.  Here’s where I feel completely comfortable in turning this one over to Lee, because he clearly and articulately illustrates why the War On Drugs is a waste of time and why those who support it are hypocrites.  Lee takes on John Hawkins and simply obliterates John’s stance (Hawkins favors the War On Drugs).

One thing I noticed in reading the piece: John’s arguments are, in flavor and tone, much like the arguments in favor of gun control - which have been proven, again and again in state after state, to utterly fail in the face of legalizing gun possession to the average citizen.  I’ll bet John doesn’t even see the similarities.

I should say that I like and respect John Hawkins and do not mean to insult him as a person.  I simply disagree completely with his positions, as does Lee.

Posted by JimK at 07:49 PM on January 28, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Categories: NewsCrime and CriminalsThe Federal GovernmentGuns - 2nd Amendment

Friday, January 12, 2007

Have gun, will murder?

Wow, this is bad news for gun owners!

In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of homicide, researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are higher in states where more households have guns.

Wow that’s horribl////what?  Who paid for the study? The Joyce Foundation?  Isn’t that the same group that has given just over $4,000,000 to one of the largest gun control groups in the United States?

Riiiiiight...I’m sure that data wasn’t massaged at all, and the questions weren’t weighted in any way.

Posted by JimK at 08:58 PM on January 12, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Categories: Guns - 2nd Amendment

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Please remember to be rational

My heart goes out to the families of those poor little Amish girls executed by Charles Carl Roberts IV.  After the tragic loss of the children, the worst part is that this truly evil human being can never be punished.  Thoughts like that make athiests and agnostics long for a verifiable afterlife, let me tell you.

I want to offer two things here.  First, that you as individuals not fall for the media’s new spin this school season in calling every act of gun violence at a school a “school shooting.” That phrase has a meaning already.  When a child goes crazy and shoots up a school, that is a school shooting.  If a teacher went nuts at work, that could be called a school shooting, although it might be more accurate to say “workplace shooting.” When a crazy, evil man targets little girls and happens to find them where one would in early October, that is not a “school shooting.” That’s a madman taking hostages and committing mass murder.

A “school shooting” almost always means one of the students targeted the school be it classmates or teachers.  They are after the institution and the people within.  Charles Carl Roberts IV simply felt the need to murder little girls, and he found the path of least resistance to accomplish that goal.  The media wants you to think that this is a rash of Columbine-like incidents and it is not.

Secondly, please keep this in mind:

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military. - William S. Burroughs

Burroughs was a junkie, but he was a smart junkie.

By the way, WHAT IS WITH THE THREE NAMES?  Seriously, do we need to enact federal legislation banning middle names or something?  Why do all these nuts always use their full three names?  If I ever have or adopt a child, no middle name.  I’m just not going to risk it.

Posted by JimK at 05:44 PM on October 04, 2006
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Categories: Crime and CriminalsGuns - 2nd Amendment

Friday, September 15, 2006

Bowling for Montreal

(Originally posted at Moorewatch)

Another senseless American Canadian murder story.


The gunman who went on a shooting rampage at a Montreal college Wednesday apparently left an online journal with chilling comments and photos of himself brandishing a rifle.

Kimveer Gill referred to himself as the ‘angel of death’ in an online diary.

Kimveer Gill was the author of an online diary posted at the website

Gill, 25, was dressed entirely in black, wearing a trench coat and armed with a rifle when he arrived at Dawson College on Wednesday afternoon.

One woman was shot to death and 19 people were injured, at least six of them critically, in the rampage that followed. Montreal police said the victims ranged in age from 17 to 48.

On Thursday, police identified the dead student as Anastasia DeSousa, an 18-year-old from the greater Montreal area, who was a business student at Dawson College.

DeSousa was shot dead inside the building, said Montreal’s ambulance agency.

Police said the gunman died during the shootout. Preliminary autopsy results released Thursday showed Gill died of a self-inflicted wound, Quebec police said.

Clearly the answer is more Canadians leaving their doors unlocked and banning guns...uhh...more.  Than they already have.  They should outlaw murder too, that would certainly stop these kinds of things from happening.

OK, enough being flippant.  First of all, gun control is a failure.  Every time something like this happens, it puts the lie to the idea that taking guns away from the population will stop criminals from getting and using them.  It’s Prima first view the truth is plainly evident.

Furthermore, this is actually a senseless tragedy and not something that should be jeered at or about.  That’s the problem with idiots like Michael Moore and the nitwits who follow him: They don’t respect or understand the crime or the criminal.

That’s right, I said respect the criminal.  Not the way you respect your dad or your wife or your local grocer...I mean respecting the threat that the criminal brings.  Respecting the threat means that you have to take it seriously and not cloud the issue with a lot of nonsense like, say, Lockheed Martin or what a bank does for promotional purposes.  It means you have to dig deep and find out why the criminal has done what, in this case he, has done.

That is, if you really want to help.  if you are actually interested in improving society, and you’re not just interested in lining your pockets off the blood of the dead.

Why did Kimveer Gill do this?  Was there anything that could have been done last year, five years ago, ten years ago to intervene in this kid’s life?  Was it bad wiring in his brain?  Were there signs?  Were those signs ignored?  Was anyone in his life engaged with him about his life?  At that age, he should know better, 25 is adult.  But how did he get to where he was when he shot himself?  How did he go from an innocent infant to a murderer who tried to be a mass murderer?

None of these questions can be answered by men like Moore.  Nothing about Bowling For Columbine will go one iota toward preventing something like this from happening again.  In fact, if you trust BFC, you would believe that this couldn’t happen in Canada.

It can.  It has, and it will again.  Gun culture is not the problem.  Heavy Metal is not the problem.  Lockheed Martin is not the problem.  Leaving children to fend for themselves emotionally is the problem.  Forcing kids to make adult decisions is the problem.  Exposing them to the seedy underbelly of the world and walking away is the problem.  Kimveer Gill was an adult, but Kimveer Gill was also made.  Someone fell asleep on the job when that kid was building his way of looking at the world.  The press is touting his “stable, middle class” family life.  Let me tell you something right now: Do not be fooled by that artificial construct.

The middle is a myth.  Normal is a myth.  Average does not exist.  EVERYONE has a story, everyone’s life contains trials and hardships no matter how great it looks on paper.  The “stable middle class” is a breeding ground for emotional abuse.  People like Kimveer Gill did not have stable, middle class upbringings.  They had the appearance of stable, middle class lives.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that all the really nasty serial killers and mass murderers of the 20th and 21st centuries are from these so-called “stable, middle class” lives?

Going forward, I urge you to ignore any and all aspects of this story that don’t involve finding out why.  Anything else is absolutely useless and designed to sell papers or get ratings or sell movie tickets and DVDs.

Let me clarify one thing now that I’m sure some of you reading this have misinterpreted: I am not excusing Kimveer Gill’s actions by saying it’s not his fault ‘cuz his mommy & daddy didn’t love him enough.  At his age, it is his fault.  He chose to act.  Goth style didn’t make him do it, Marilyn Manson didn’t brainwash him, the website did not pick up a gun and put it in his hands.  What I am saying is that to prevent another Kimveer Gill, another Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold, another Luke Woodham - In Canada, the U.S. or anywhere else - we have to know why.  We have to know what went wrong and how we can try - maybe we can’t succeed, but we can try - to see the signs before it gets this far the next time.

I can offer this piece of advice that I know for a fact can help: If you are involved with a young person - as a parent, teacher, guardian or relative - get in that kid’s life.  Find out what they do, what they think, how they feel.  Learn as much as you can about them, and for God’s sake listen to them.  Don’t lecture, don’t yell or demand or expect: Listen.  Kids want to talk to’s when adults stop listening that kids clam up and turn inward.

And for the love of Christ, don’t ever feel like you can’t look around a kid’s room.  There’s privacy and there’s letting your kid build pipe see what I’m saying?

Get involved.

Posted by JimK at 12:22 AM on September 15, 2006
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Categories: Michael Moore(on)Things To PonderCrime and CriminalsGuns - 2nd Amendment

Saturday, February 25, 2006

This guy is a moron.  But then, he’s a politician, so that’s to be expected.

Even people who don’t know shit about guns know better than this

Sen. David Paterson is pushing a bill that would require cops to shoot to wound, rather than using deadly force - drawing outrage from officers.

The bill also would create a new provision for second-degree manslaughter that would be reserved specifically for an officer who “uses more than the minimal amount necessary” to stop a crime suspect.

Paterson, who is on Eliot Spitzer’s ticket as lieutenant governor, has reintroduced the bill twice since first sponsoring it in 2001, refusing to let it die.

In a memo urging its passage, Paterson wrote: “There is no justification for terminating another’s life when a less extreme measure may accomplish the same objective.”

Current law gives cops a wide berth to use deadly force when a suspect presents a danger to another person’s life.

Paterson (D-Harlem) wrote that a police officer, under his legislation, “would have to try to shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg.”

Dumb dumb dumb.  First of all, life isn’t the movies, Paterson.  Almost no one is a sharpshooter.  Your monkey ass (***) probably voted to restrict the amount of funds available to train officers, and without hours and hours and hours and hundreds of hours, a massive amount of rounds downrange and a fairly large expense in worn-out hardware, you can’t train a sharpshooter.  On top of that, it’s virtually impossible to be a sharpshooter with a handgun unles sthe target is fixed to a steel frame and there’s a camera on you.  See Smith & Wesson shooting legend Jerry Miculek for more on how many thousands of hours of training it takes to put 6 rounds into a hole the size of a playing card every time.

Adrenaline, circumstances, terrain, obstacles, civilians, innocent bystanders, weather...all these things contribute to any shooting scenario.  What is most important though, is that you will be lucky, when being shot at, if you can *hit* the bad guy much less hit a slim arm or a moving leg.  Cops train center mass for a reason.  It works.

I’d love to set up an experiment.  Let’s take this idiot politician out to a CQB facility.  I’ll give him a fair shake: Put him through the NYC police academy.  Then he gets three weeks to train with the SEALS out at Coronado in Close Quarters Battle techniques.  Then we send him to CQB school at CQB Inc. in Florida.  That’s more training than most officers on the street get.

When he’s done, get three guys from the NYPD to play bad guys using paintball guns loaded with CS and a severe-yet-safe skin irritant.  Paterson gets regular paint-filled balls.  Rules:  They can shoot him wherever, and he can’t shoot them anywhere BUT arms and legs.  The setting will be a typical urban situation, buildings, houses & cars.

The catch: He has to do the real thing wearing only a pair of shorts and goggles.  No pants, no shirt.  Remember, they get CS and irritants mixed with their paintballs.  Let’s see how many hits he takes before he starts spraying and praying.  I’ll bet every dollar I ever earn that this guy fails miserably.  Why?

You can’t shoot an arm when it’s moving, your moving and the bad guy has you in his sights.  You can’t even take the time to consider it.  You shoot to stop.  Period.  That means center mass.  Often that means the bad guy dies.  Sometimes bad guys take shots and keep coming.

Does this idiot Paterson know anyone who was wounded in the military?  Surely some constituent of his who served could explain to him how they were shot in the arm or leg and kept fighting until they killed their attacker.  Not like he would care, though, because this is not about cops or criminals: it’s about demonizing guns, something politicians in New York have been doing all my life and well before.

Hat tip: Daily Pundit

*** I had no idea this guy was black when I wrote this.  I use the phrase “monkey-ass” as a general put-down for any idiot.  Ever see a monkey?  They act the fool.  That’s ALL I meant, so everyone take a breath and relax…

If I’m accused of being a racist over this, I swear to frigging God I will beat all your monkey asses directly into the ground with a bat.

Posted by JimK at 09:45 AM on February 25, 2006
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Categories: NewsPoliticsGuns - 2nd AmendmentThe Stupidity Of Man

Saturday, February 11, 2006

Gun that won the west to move to the Far East

End of an era.

NEW HAVEN — U.S. Repeating Arms Co., maker of “The Gun that Won the West,” said Tuesday it will shutter its plant here by March 31, ending a 140-year legacy and eliminating 186 jobs.

The company, which makes Winchester rifles at its 344 Winchester Ave. headquarters at Science Park and is part of Belgium-based Herstal Group, said decreased demand and tougher competition by lower-priced gun makers overseas were key reasons for the decision.

That’s kind of sad...I drive by there often.  It’s always been kind of a cool thing to in BlueStateLand we have (had?) a lot of gun makers…

The move to close the factory comes almost a year after the International Association of Machinists signed a three-year contract with USRAC in which they agreed to several concessions in an attempt to keep the company in New Haven. Many of those workers, meeting at the Italian American Independent Club in Hamden Tuesday, said they are disappointed and frustrated by the decision.

“We’ve given up a lot, everything, to keep this place going,” said Mary O’Toole, an assembly worker with 18 years at the company.

I don’t mean to kick them while they’re down, but...uhh...union shop + no market demand + high union wages and benefits = everyone loses job.  It’s happening a hundred times over in companies all across America.  We simply cannot expect companies to manufacture in America anymore...we’ve priced ourselves out of the market.

Once in a blue moon you see a situation where a union is needed these days, but by and large, all they are doing is contributing to the death of manufacturing in this country, and Winchester is just another example.

Grange said it was strictly a financial decision. “After years of attempting to make the facility profitable, our owners have decided that’s just not going to happen,” he said. “The bottom line was we were losing money on every gun we built.”

Like I said.  So what’s the union response?

A group of union members and community activists called The Citizens Ad Hoc Committee is pushing the city to use legal options, such as an injunction, to postpone the closing, based on the fact that the company has not lived up to employment-level agreements tied to the tax abatements.

“There’s a lot of leverage that can be used,” said Craig Gauthier, committee president.

Shameful.  The unions, unwilling to consider their own role in killing off this plant, are trying to legally force a company to lose more money in a facility that everyone admits is a sinkhole of cash.  Of course not every union member is quite that brazen…

John Reynolds, president of Local 609, and others said they will fight to keep the brand and the jobs in New Haven, though many admitted the factory has been struggling for years.

“We did everything within our power to avoid this day, but it seems it was inevitable,” Reynolds said.

Probably.  Although if you started worrying about the health of the facility 15 years ago...maybe it wouldn’t have been so inevitable.

Posted by JimK at 10:00 PM on February 11, 2006
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Categories: Guns - 2nd Amendment

Page 2 of 11 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »