Thursday, May 28, 2015

L. Neil Smith on the Ivory Tower Hoplophobes

Everything Neil says below is absolutely accurate, but something needs to be added. Yes, this Traphagan character is delighted when firearms are misused, and applauds every unnecessary death. But leftists are not passive, they don't just wait for these things to happen. They make them happen. What better way to prove that "Americans" can't handle widespread gun ownership than to encourage, invite, subsidize, and require mass immigration by people most likely to misuse firearms? Yep, criminal classes from everywhere, but most especially from the Third World, where corruption and coercion are the rule and not the exception. So when an immigrant kills somebody, that's proof that Americans can't handle gun ownership. And, of course, objection to all this mass immigration is racism, and therefore unthinkable. Keep that in mind as you read:

Idiot ''Academic'' Advocates Victim Disarmament
by L.Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com




Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

A friend of mine sent me an article this week that came from Patriot Update. a freedom movement publication. It, in turn, referred the reader to the same article in The Blaze by Dave Urbanski. The long, awkward headline in both cases read "Professor Says America Has Proven Its Inability to Handle Widespread Gun Ownership".

Like many another gun-grabbing hoplophobe, the guy's skull is so full of festering, malicious garbage, it's hard to know where to start. To begin with, the "professor" in question is one John Traphagan; his specialty is religious studies. At the risk of offending my friends who happen to be religious, I'll point out that the guy makes a living blathering in a field which has no subject matter, no hard facts, and no repeatable experiments. To me, the mental processes of anybody over four years old who admits to having an Imaginary Playmate, or sees fairies at the bottom of his garden are suspect.

At least.

If this be argumentum ad hominem, let us make the most of it. To this writer, me, it's simply a matter of prudently considering the source.

As a propaganda springboard, this so-called "professor" hops off the spectacular and photogenic multi-motorcycle-gang battle that occurred days ago in a Waco beer-joint parking lot. AS the sign said in Wanted Dead Or Alive, "Drink all night, Pistol Dawn". Of course, it could have been anything, a bank robbery, an especially lethal PTA meeting, or a deadly baby shower. His kind don't care: they sit around like vultures on a cactus, waiting for somebody to die. He's likely ecstatic to have been given this hook to hang his bee-filled bonnet on.

Like all such grand ideas Traphgan's is just the same old frog-boiling crap: gradually outlaw and then confiscate "certain" guns in incremental stages so we can all keep loving and trusting each other until we are betrayed. You can probably guess what kind of guns; the more effective they are at defending you and your family from freelance criminals or a feral government, the sooner they'll be taken away. But I have some news for Traphagan and all such schemers and social engineers: Americans have obeyed their last gun law, and personally, I will never trust anyone who covets even the least of my collection. You see, I know what they won't admit. They want my guns so they can do things to me that they can't do as long as I have my guns.

If you remember nothing else from this essay, remember that: they want our guns so they can do things to us they can't do as long as we have our guns. The whole issue is really no more complicated than that.

But they will not be permitted to Pelosify this country any further.

Mr. Traphagan, it occurs to me to wonder how you've never noticed that the most criminally violent spots in this country are those that have followed your prescription, and outlawed guns. Are you blind? Are you deaf? Then why haven't you noticed that, conversely, in places which have legalized open or concealed carry of weapons, and people still hang rifles and shotguns in the back windows of their pickup trucks, violent crime has fallen in double digits. Are you a fool? Do you only notice phenomena or events tht fit your outmoded, discredited theories?

Or do you know these facts as well as I do and choose to ignore them because you actually hunger to watch people die by the thousands for some obscure, perverted reason of your own? I once knew a guy whom everybody described as a "blood-in-the-streets revolutionary"—that is, anybody's blood in the streets except his own. Does that describe you accurately? Then you have a problem: I will never comply. Exactly how many individuals like me are you willing to see killed to enforce your airy armchair aspirations? Are you a knowing accomplice to brutal fascism, an enabler of mass murder, or just another moron with a mortarboard?

Like the man said, come and get them, John. Yourself. I'm extremely conversant in this field, and have been writing about it for over half a century, since 1964. I'm well known in certain circles for having said that opponents of any form of personal liberty—but especially the individual right to own and carry weapons—are either evil, stupid, or insane. My question to you now is, which are you?
Another point, John. The governments of various nations in which you claim that people have "realized" there is no reason to possess personal weapons: they have all participated, at one time or another, to one degree or another, in the last century, in the mass slaughter of about a quarter of a billion people. At the same time, crimeless Switzerland, which has avoided all that, requires its male citizens to own and keep what amounts to a machine-gun in their homes. And lots of ammunition.
They have not had to fight a war for 400 years.

As a polemicist, I personally strive each and every day to see a loaded AR-15 (or AK-47) in every home, and a Glock (or 1911) on every night table. It's already happening, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. I have been ably assisted in this effort by Barack Hussein Obama, who has frightened millions of people into buying their first gun.

I'm a novelist by trade, highly interested in the phenomenon of character, so you'll forgive me if I am extremely curious how you came to believe that the criminal mischief of a tiny minority means that 330,000,000 people have been proven unable "to handle widespread gun ownership." Those numbers would seem to me rather to have proven exactly the reverse. Moreover, to punish that 330,000,000 for the criminal actions of a few hundred or even a few million is patently unjust.

It's also illegal: the Second Amendment, just in case your own professors neglected to tell you, is part of the Bill of Rights, the highest law of the land. Repeal it, and you will renege on an ancient agreement; with the Constitution null and void, government will no longer have the authority to do anything. We will be ruled by brute force.

Or would you enjoy living through a civil war?

Of course you're completely wrong about England, Australia, Japan, etc., too. Most have had victim disarmament for decades. They disguise the resulting crime rates as something else. England, for instance, blamed the IRA for decades. Countries like Australia (which was never exactly laissez faire about guns to begin with), that have adopted victim disarmement more recently, presently suffer the highest violent crime rates in the world. So, John-boy, are you a liar or just misinformed?

And here's the kicker, John. You recall that Waco gunfight that gave you an excuse to write the tripe somebody sent me? I've just learned it was as phony as everything else that underpins the political stances you take. According to my friend, columnist Will Grigg, writing for Rockwell.com, it was a trap, a setup, an ambush. The nine people killed were killed by the authorities, as part of a scheme related to "Fast and Furious", in which gun shops were forced by the BATFE to sell guns to bikers that had been converted by the feds into machine guns. So in terms of support for your argument, it is meaningless.

But then, meaninglessness is your bailiwick, isn't it? I suggest you save your authoritarian political wet-dreams for someone who cares and go back to teaching gullible kids about virgin birth and the transubstantiation of the host. You'll be much happier in the long run.
-----------
Quibcag: I'm not certain, but I think this is a girl from  Upotte!! (うぽって!!).

Saturday, May 23, 2015

High Heels for the Troops! Fred Reed on the latest feminist atrocity.

Fred is not making this up. Follow his link to Army Times. This is from http://www.unz.com

Note to a Generic Pentagon General
A Cause of Delayed-Nausea Syndrome
I have just read in Army Times that, to my delight, the Army is making soldiers wear the prettiest red high-heels in the pursuit of gender-equality. Yes. They look like little girls playing with Mommy’s shoes. It has something to do with understanding the psychological problems of women, a matter of importance in combat. It necessarily was done with the approval of the Army’s generals in the Pentagon, particularly Chief of Staff Odierno, since they are in charge of the whole Army shebang. I write them in astonished admiration, thusly:
Dear General,
I see that on your watch the Army is turning into a transvestite marching corps in high heels, a Ziegfeld cross-gendered or bisected gay-bath sexual zoo vacuuming up every sort of erotic loony, not to mention becoming a home for unwed mothers and prostitution rings. I commend you. I have always wanted to be defended by a freak show.
I do not question your qualifications for command. You doubtless have a firm handshake, a steely gaze, an imposing presence, and a perfect grasp of PowerPoint. But a general who is so afraid of feminists that he forces his troops to play dress-up, well, I mean, what if there is a real war?
I applaud your forthrightness in bringing the doughboys out of the closet in those cute red heels. They are so precious! (By the way, have you considered foot-binding?) As a former Marine in Vietnamese days, I have always suspected the Army of being cross-dressers. How candid of you to confirm my suspicions.
True, traditionalists, and warriors, and cranky old Marines will say that you are just another sorry two-bit, peace-time, careerist politician of a pseudo-soldier who doesn’t have the balls to stand up to feminists and protect the service from becoming a display ad for Victoria’s Secret. I am shocked. Howcould they think such a thing?
Yes, General, yes. I understand. Putting GIs in those darling heels is supposed to provide some kind of uplift (though I believe brassieres are better for that). But I know perfectly well, and you may suspect—check with your dominatrix—that feminists get a hoot out of watching those macho men (ugh!)tottering around before the whole world in heels, like teen-age girls preparing for their first prom.“Heeeeeeeeeeeee-ha-ha.” Likely every diesel-dyke in a Women’s Studies department is rolling on the floor. Tippy-toe. Tippy-tippy-toe. “Hey, Sheila, look what we made them do!”
What I figure, General, is you ought to set an example for the troops by wearing panties and a bra (if you don’t already wear panties: I give you credit for miltary foresight.) A good officer–we had some–doesn’t order his men to do anything he himself wouldn’t do. Walk a Mile in Her Skivvies, General. (Actually, when I was a hard-charging young Gyrene, we spent a lot of time trying to get into women’s skivvies. Now it’s going to be mandatory?)
But you can do more for equity. There should be clear expression of the Army’s commitment to transvest–justice, I meant to say. I can imagine a whole new gendered approach to insignia of rank: Artificial hooters, in easily-washed silicone and real flesh tone. Enlisted men would get small ones. Officers would have big mommas. You, being an exalted military figure, would have three. The Command-in-Chief could wear an udder.
Now, General, I speak only for myself as a Marine who carried a rifle in Viet Nam, but others may agree with me. (A “rifle” is one of those awful long thingies (no, not those long thingies) that make boomy noises and stinky smoke and put stains on your cocktail dress that just ruin it.) Outside of Da Nang we used to lie behind sandbags at night with mortars coming in (a “mortar” is one of those gun thingies with a tube—no, a different kind of tube, General—that shoots–never mind) hoping a hit wouldn’t spray a buddy’s guts around. To a man we were thinking, why couldn’t we have a leader like a Pentagon general to give us cute little heels instead of these uncomfy old boots?
But let us get back to serious military questions. The effect on our enemies of the boob-insignia will be profound. The Afghan resistance fighters will be stunned, just stunned, to see American soldiers in high-heels and varying numbers of breasts. As the Mujahedeen gape, paralyzed with amazement, our soldiers will be able to approach them and give them therapy on the value of non-violence and rape culture. Each mujahid would be encouraged to express his feelings and find the roots of his anger. They could all be given a breast to take home and fondle.
I can see by your feminization of the ranks that you are socially progressive. Good. I imagine that you are against the culture of violence that prevails in the military. But what can you expect in a society that has so many gun thingies, and glorifies them? We need to de-emphasize war, and substitute caring activities involving cooperation. You could lead from the front by taking part in social activities, perhaps being pivot man in a circle jerk. On YouTube (No, not that….)
I hear that also on your watch the Army has taken measures to make the service more LBTG-friendly, as well as more inclusive and welcoming to single mommies. I think you should go further. For example, the Army could use armored nail-salons to keep the troops looking great and feeling good about themselves, and those funny old tanks need changing tables inside the turret-thingy. And big guns look tho phallic. They must make women anxious. The only thing they are good for is drying lingerie. The guns, I mean, not the women.
Now, mean old military historians who say that in a real war soldiers die because of posturing peace-time political pogues (I was in an alliteration company)—what do they know? A few thousand lives are a small price to pay for gender-equity. Besides, those who do the fighting are not the girly-boys, the boy-girls, the katoys, the to-be-decideds, the climbing vines with their cucumbers chopped, or the single mommies who have to look after some random guy’s kid. These, the core of the Army, will not be troubled. As you have shown, we must stay with core values.
Don’t pay attention to those macho infantry men (ugh!) who say that women should try walking in men’s shoes—unloading a six-by of 81mm mortar rounds under fire, or changing a truck tire in sand in Indian territory with night coming on. Everyone knows that trucks unload themselves by pushing some kind of button or something, and anyway we have drones.
Them’s my thoughts, General. And I suspect that every guy who ever served in a combat zone shares my overwhelming respect and admiration for you. If anyone criticizes you and you feel all upset and flustered, take your Midol, breathe deeply and it will get all better soon.

Another Liberal Knee-Jerkism

Many years ago, when Ex-Army wasn't Ex yet, a fellow soldier in my outfit, sort of a proto-White liberal, found himself compelled willy-nilly to point out to one of our Black fellow soldiers that Dianhann Carroll sure was beautiful. Here's a LINK for you youngsters who have never heard of her. He probably couldn't have told you himself why he felt that he had to do that. There were plenty of TV beauties in those days, from Elizabeth Montgomery to Julie Newmar, but he never felt that he had to point out their beauty to his fellow White soldiers or anybody else. Subconsciously, I imagine, he was trying to establish himself as a Good Guy who could appreciate the beauty of a Black woman, the hidden assumption being that most of us White guys couldn't.  The Black soldier rolled his eyes, not annoyed so much as bored, I think, by this behavior of a patronizing White liberal.

These day, though, White liberals say such things more to establish their right-thinking credentials with other White liberals than to impress Blacks, who are surely sick of it all by now.

But me, I'm like most White guys, and I'm seldom impressed by anybody Black, and I'm certainly not going to pretend I am when I'm not.

John Craig comments on the essential dishonesty and ditziness of such White liberal behavior on his blog here:
http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2015/05/conversations-with-liberal.html

Conversations with a liberal

Yesterday a liberal white woman said to me, "Oh, B.B. King died. He was one of my favorites!"

I asked her to name two of his songs besides "The Thrill is Gone." She was unable to name even one. I suggested that if he were really one of her favorites -- which would imply that she must have listened to him fairly frequently -- she ought to be able to name at least one song beside the one he was most famous for.

Why did she feel obliged to point out that King was one of her favorites if she almost never listened to his music? Did she think that this demonstrated how she was not racist? How sophisticated her musical tastes were?

There's something intrinsically dishonest going on here. This woman would never have seized upon the death of an old white musician to somehow prove her bona fides.

A couple of weeks ago, I heard this same woman -- who has no black friends -- volunteer that the black mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, was "beautiful."

Again, this woman would never have felt obliged to point out that Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann were beautiful.

I'm not suggesting that B. B. King was not great, or that Rawlings-Blake does not have even features. I'm merely pointing out that there's something about using black people to prove your own virtue that is quintessentially liberal, and completely dishonest.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

GAME OF EMPIRES


Richard Blake has done it again,  This is his latest historical novel set in the seventh century, a period very much neglected by novelists in general.  You can get all his books at Amazon HERE.  I've read all of them so far, and if you haven't yet, you're in for a treat. 

PRESS RELEASE:
ENDEAVOUR PRESS – www.endeavourpress.com AMY DURANT – amy@endeavourpress.com
GAME OF EMPIRES
RICHARD BLAKE
Published by ENDEAVOUR PRESS, 15th May 2015,
Priced £2.99 in E-format

Constantinople, 617 AD
Chained up in a condemned cell, Rodi thinks it’s the last day of his life.
It becomes the first.
Though only fourteen, his brains and skill at forgery make him too valuable to the Roman Empire for wasting in a public execution.

The Lord Treasurer Alaric recruits him into a top secret security agency. His job is to turn the tables in the Empire’s war with the so far victorious Persians.
This is a story that takes you from the glittering palaces and sordid streets and brothels of the Imperial City, to the barbarian-ravaged provinces, to high mountain tops fringed with pine. Here, with no one to help but a naïve Christian missionary, Rodi must prove himself in a contest with the devotees of an obscene and bloody idol and a Persian spy.
Can young Rodi survive and come out on top in this ruthless and secret Game of Empires...?
Game of Empires is a thrilling historical novella, perfect for fans of Simon Scarrow, Bernard Cornwell and Conn Iggulden.
For further information or to request an interview with Richard, please contact Amy on Amy@endeavourpress.com 

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Bonus Graphic

I call it a graphic because it's not really a quibcag. Pass it around.
---------
Great minds do think alike. I posted this, then took a look at Stever Sailer's latest, and just look what he posted:
http://www.unz.com/isteve/on-cinco-de-mayo-hillary-rhetorically-outpunches-gop-with-her-path-to-citizenship-demand-for-illegals/

Tom Sowell on Baltimore

Most of the readers of this blog probably are also Tom Sowell fans, but for the few who are not....  I started reading Sowell many years ago and I recomment everything he writes, from his newspaper columns to his thickest tomes. Below, Stuart Schneiderman elaborates on Sowell's evaluation of Baltimore. This is from HERE.

Thomas Sowell Explains

Amidst the din the voice of reason emerges.

While many politicians and pundits are trying to excuse the rioting that took place in Baltimore last week, Thomas Sowell points to the facts.

It is certainly not the first time he has done so. While politicians and pundits are pushing a guilt narrative that excuses all bad behavior by African-Americans, Sowell offers a dose of reality:

We are told that such riots are a result of black poverty and white racism. But in fact — for those who still have some respect for facts — black poverty was far worse, and white racism was far worse, prior to 1960. But violent crime within black ghettos was far less.

Murder rates among black males were going down — repeat, down — during the much-lamented 1950s, while it went up after the much celebrated 1960s, reaching levels more than double what they had been before. Most black children were raised in two-parent families prior to the 1960s. But today the great majority of black children are raised in one-parent families.


When you state that one group of people need not observe the same standards and follow the same rules as everyone else, they don’t. When you excuse their criminal behavior, they engage in more criminal behavior. When you believe that their rioting is a justifiable rebellion against the entrenched whit the power structure, they will continue to riot. If you are an ideologue, you believe that the continued bad behavior shows that you were right all along.

Sowell explains it well:

You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization — including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility, and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain — without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.

Non-judgmental subsidies of counterproductive lifestyles are treating people as if they were livestock, to be fed and tended by others in a welfare state — and yet expecting them to develop as human beings have developed when facing the challenges of life themselves.


Statistics show that black married couples do not, as a rule, live in poverty. Much of the problem comes from homes that are led by a single mothers. One suspects that the media cannot bring itself to identify the problem as the lack of fathers. Don’t its leaders believe that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, that they are all just social constructs?

In Sowell’s words:

One key fact that keeps getting ignored is that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits every year since 1994. Behavior matters and facts matter, more than the prevailing social visions or political empires built on those visions.
-----------
QuibcagL Illustrated by Marii Buratei of Joshiraku (じょしらく),,because she's very good at illustrating things.

Monday, May 4, 2015

Root Causes in Baltimore

Over at http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/, John Craig knocks another one out of the park:

Occam's razor

There have been a lot of theories floated in the mainstream media as to the root cause of the Baltimore riots.

One is the desperate poverty of many of the residents there. Another is the hopelessness of life in the inner city. Some say the educational system is lacking. Some blame the lack of employment opportunities for minority youth. And others say that such a conflagration was inevitable given the hostile, disrespectful attitude many police officers display towards young black men.

Here's a simpler explanation for the recent chaos:

Fish swim, birds fly.

Saturday, May 2, 2015

Diversity as it ought to be.

In response to my last, rather goofy post HERE, Matt Bailey wrote:

Don't knock it, that pretty young woman can pretty much walk alone anywhere in Japan and have an almost 0 percent chance of being raped and/or murdered. Whereas all sensible American women perforce carry guns these days. (The right to carry a gun is a great thing, the *forced necessity* to do the same is a national disgrace).

Matt has a way of putting things pungently and well, and is also the only person I know of since C. S. Lewis who knows what "perforce" means and how and when to use it, and it got me to thinking about 'diversity.' We have a diverse planet, with different kinds of people in different places, and that produces many different wonderful things because of the infinite variety of human insights and abilities. To the left, though, that kind of diversity really stinks, and their kind of diversity would slop everybody around all over the world, encouraging all kinds of multicuturalism and interbreeding, the idea being to end up with a bland, beige human race where there's no significant difference between one person and another, one nation or another, one family or another. In short, the leftist 'diversity' ethic is actually a uniformity ethic. Got that? As is the case in so many other areas, the left is working towards the opposite of what it publicly advocates.

Another example is 'safety.' The left says it will make you safer by disarming you. That is, when criminals are assured that regular people have no weapons in their homes, home burglaries and invasions will of course increase like crazy, so the criminals will feel safer. So when the left says they want to make you safe, again it's the opposite — They want to make the criminals safe and therefore put you at much greater risk.

You can go on and on with this 'opposites' theme. They want to make you more prospersous by raising your taxes. Prevent war by threatening Russia. Improve education by forcing incompatible groups to go to school together. And that brings us back to diversity.

And, since all this started with a post about Japan, it's worth pointing out that Japan's strength is not diversity, but homogeneity. And I want to keep humanity diverse by keeping the Japanese homogenous. And my own race homogenous. And all the others.
---------

Friday, May 1, 2015

A Little High Culture for a Change

Here in America we get very little foreign television, and it's a pity. Oh, you can get Latin American stuff on the Spanish channels, but it's mostly just popular lowbrow stuff like variety shows and soap operas. And we really don't get very much of worth from Britain, mostly cheap English sitcoms and the like. We get nothing at all from Continental Europe as far as I know, and from Japan, we seem to mainly get Pokémon and other trivial kid stuff. The really refined cultural material from abroad is seldom translated into English. But, never mind that. I wanted to assure everybody that Japan, at least, produces some refined cultural material. I couldn't find an English dubbed example, unfortunately, but here's a sample of what could probably be considered the Japanese equivalent of Masterpiece Theatre.

L. Neil Smith on Open Carry

I can't add much to this except to say that any 'Americans' who oppose the right to own and bear arms are a victim of circumstances, for some reason being located in the wrong country. I invite them to move to some safe, peaceful country like Brazil, where nasty guns are prohibited.


Open Carry
by L.Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com


Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

There is a gigantic, horrific flapdoodle right now in the Lone Star legislature over the issue of "open carry". Which means that the politicos are arguing over whether people—Americans, supposedly already protected by the Bill of Rights—ought to be allowed by the government to carry a weapon that can be (gasp!) seen by others in public.

Even sillier, both houses have actually passed open carry bills that we gun people should like, they're just hassling with each other over whose bill, principles be damned, should become the law of the land. This is a time when reasonable people start thinking about lamposts.
Frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn.

As the Publisher and Senior Columnist of L. NEIL SMITH'S THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE(online for some nineteen years, now), as well as an Honorary Life Member and Senior Editorial Consultant of Jews for the Preservation Of Firearms Ownership, and as an ordinary Life Member (for forty-three years) of the National Rifle Association, I hereby throw the bullshit flag on all of this. Experience hath shewn (to quote Thomas Jefferson) that violent crime is more greatly reduced by concealed weapons than by visible ones. This is because the mugger or rapist has to guess whether you're armed or not, and the price for guessing wrong is simply too high. Concealed carry also benefits those who don't carry, because the criminal has to guess about them, too.

Now that's a utilitarian or collectivist argument. The libertarian argument is that I own my own life, and that, owing to the Zero Aggression Principal nobody has a right to tell me how (or whether) to carry my gun (or guns). I have already mentioned the supporting Constitutional argument—I'll add that the Second Amendment doesn't mention concealed or open carry. It simply says "bear", which means "carry".

So, no matter how you slice it, the state (of Texas, this time) is still attempting to exert authority over your personal business. That's exactly what the Founding Fathers were trying to stop. The real issue is the right to bear arms, and the open/concealed dichotomy only serves to distract us from that. It's as if we were allowed to carry Remingtons, but are forced to mount a fight politically to carry Winchesters.

Me, I'm a Marlin guy.

It's irrelevant. It's all irrelevant.

I like to see folks carrying guns. It reminds me pleasantly of our once and future free country. I even have a big computer file I've collected of pretty girls, not wearing much but a holster belt or rifle sling. Enjoyable, but that's not what we really need at this moment.

We need now what I once called "Vermont Carry"; in that state there is no law against simply dropping your piece in your pocket and going shopping. As a result, Vermont has an almost non-existent violent crime rate. Now that Alaska and Wyoming [and Arizona!—Editor]have adopted it, and it's trembling on the legislative lip of a dozen other states, they call it "Constitutional Carry". No permit, no nothing. Just peace and freedom.

Here in colorful Colorado, individuals no longer have to resort to furtive, fearful methods to enjoy the putative benefits of marijuana. (No, I am not changing the subject, here.) The change in the political atmosphere is more than conspicuous, even to a non-user. That many fewer "dynamic entries" by the blue gang, that many fewer suspicious and hostile stares by the bludge. It isn't perfect, but those with chronic pain—or who just want an evening's vacation—no longer have to go without their goodies. A hundred bucks should be taken from every cop's check each month as reparation for a decades long reign of terror.

Oddly, dope is still illegal in Wyoming, which I live closer to than, say, Denver. But Constitutional carry is legal. So as you drive across the border (at the famous Terry Buffalo Ranch—yes, I'm happy to live in the Wild, Wild West) you have to mentally shift gears. Not forever, though. There are concealed forces at work in the Cowboy State.

If the marijuana kind of freedom were to come to the gun-toting scene, the ambient atmosphere would relax even more. Violent crime would plummet. It might even be safe to let your kids walk to school as we oldies once did. I predicted this in my first novel, The Probability Broach. I listen to a Texas radio station which had an advertisement on for Glock pistols when I turned it on this morning, and there are beautiful gun ads decorating every wed site that I visit.

I more or less predicted that, too.

Meanwhile, infinitesimally tiny numbers of pathetics continue to show up in to noisily picket public events, and pose for misleading photographs demanding "gun control"—their propagandistic name for victim disarmament—are met with nothing but ridicule. It warms my cockles to realize that Sarah Brady lived just long enough to see that.

The world seems to be getting better every day, a little at a time. It may not seem like very much to you, especially if you're young and impatient to be free, but considering where we started (my personal base year is 1964, the year of the Lyndon landslide—Vin Suprynowicz says 1913) it's more progress than I had ever hoped to see.
--------
Quibcag: Alas, I don't know who the girl is. Found her on the net.

Pride, Prejudice, and Neale's Weekly Gun Rant for 4-26-2015

Neale begins with Mama Liberty's Mother's Day suggestion, and we learn that she lives in what sounds like Absaroka County.  Then the liberal media (heh!) shoots itself in the foot. Traffic stops and drugs, righteous firearm use, weird stuff in Louisiana that even the Kingfish wouldn't have countenanced,  another Neal(e), an obituary, another good sheriff (maybe congress should just be all the sheriffs in the country voting by email), more media hypocrisy, and then media lies about the NRA, another story about a poor, abused rapist being shot by some fascist civilian gun owner, and, finally, more stupid politicians wanting us to voluntarily disarm ourselves. This week's illustration is Homura Akemi again, of Puella Magi Madoka Magica (魔法少女まどか☆マギカ Mahō Shōjo Madoka Magika, "Magical Girl Madoka Magica"). And now to Neale:

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant for 4-26-2015
by Neale Osborn
nealebooks@hotmail.com


Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Mama Liberty, being pretty damn good at hitting the nail on the head, hits one out of the park! [Link] It's called "Guns, A Great Mother's Day Gift."

Last Mother's Day, one of my sons gave me a HiPoint 9mm carbine. We had talked about the fact that I was having a harder time shooting the larger caliber rifles, and even had problems with the much loved Mossberg 20 gauge shotgun. I just wasn't shooting as much as I used to, even though I own a lot of different guns. I'm nearly 70 years old, with some serious problems due to an old back injury, and it is only going to get worse as time goes on. 

Why would I concern myself with it? Why do I want to continue to be able to shoot well? 


I had to shoot a man to save my life thirty some years ago. If I had not been holding a gun when the attack began, I would have been killed, most likely, as that was his stated intention. He was a stranger, discovered trying to break into my car in the middle of the night. 


I live in rural NE Wyoming, far from any city or major population center, and yet I have had to confront a potential attack more than once even here. There is no place on earth where the risk of attack is actually zero. Criminals can and do live among us, or can travel easily from other places. I never let the "low crime" reputation of my environment here tempt me to reduce my preparedness.


He sounds like a wonderful son. My wife asked for (and got) a .38 S&W Chief's Special for a graduation gift back when.

We've got the "Rape Culture", the "Rap Culture", the "Racist Culture" and now we have the best culture—the "Self Defense Culture". A Pew Research Poll shows us that the Self Defense Culture is growing by leaps and bounds. [Link]

I had to laugh. A new Pew Research poll surveyed our attitude towards guns. I laughed, not because the poll was so bad, but because the poll was so true! There are two reasons I liked this poll. First, the biased and self-serving news media accelerated a social trend that the media doesn't like. Second, the end effect was surely something the media didn't intend. They never saw it coming. Guns have gone mainstream, and the news media helped! We know the news media distorts reports of violence. Since Cain killed Abel.. if it bleeds it leads. This overemphasis on violence in the media had a cumulative effect, particularly on today's hipsters who are plugged into their smart phones. These media junkies are flooded with headlines of eye-catching violence. 

Most of the media is biased against the right of self-defense. They wanted to show us how bad guns were. Ironically, the result of their biased reporting was that more people saw a dangerous world and wanted firearms for self-defense. The media sensationalized ordinary crime stories to keep us from changing the channel. "Entertainment" feeds us shoot-'em-up cop shows. The media never thought we'd take them seriously and change how we viewed the world.


Again, Rob hits the nail on the head. Good job, Rob.

I like this decision.

Police officers violate the Constitution when they extend an otherwise completed traffic stop to allow time for a trained dog to sniff for drugs, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. The justices, voting 6-3, said that officers must let the driver leave unless they have specific reasons to suspect the car is carrying contraband. 

Police authority "ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority.


A dog IS an warrantless search. Making me wait for a dog (and no warrant) pisses me off. What I'd LIKE to do is get some cannabis oil, and give the entire car a light coating of it. Since I do not use ANY drugs other than my blood pressure medicine, it's be fun suing the shit out of the cops for false arrest.

I'm not quite sure why it says the driver was a CCW holder, when he was using a shotgun, but this driver is one of our "Well Armed Americans", and he acted in defense of others—HE was safe from the perp! Link.

As Custodio was allegedly opening fire on the crowd Friday, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit picked up his own firearm and shot Custodio multiple times, according to prosecutors and court records. 

The Uber driver, a 47-year-old Little Italy resident, has a firearm owner's identification card and acted in self-defense and the defense of others, Assistant State's Attorney Barry Quinn said Sunday in bond court. 


No charges have been filed against the Uber driver, police said. 


The incident began about 11:50 p.m. Friday in the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue in Logan Square, Quinn said. 


The Uber driver was parked on the east side of the street, while Custodio was on the west side, he said. 


A group of people were walking in front of the Uber driver on his side of the street when Custodio suddenly began firing at them, causing them to scatter, Quinn said. 


The Uber driver then pulled out a shotgun and fired six rounds at Custodio, striking him multiple times, according to court records. 


Police were nearby and found Custodio lying on the ground, bleeding, Quinn said. 


The Uber driver stayed at the scene and provided police with his paperwork, according to Quinn.



The big surprise is that no charges were filed against the driver. After all, this IS Chicago!!!!


Ya know, I didn't think this was a true story at first. [Link] Then, I couldn't believe it was a law IN LOUSIANA!! I figured that IF the story was true, it would be someplace like the People's Republic of Massachusetts, not a normally decent state like Louisiana.

With the passage of House Bill 195 into law, the State of Louisiana has banned the use of cash in all transactions involving secondhand goods. State representative Ricky Hardy, a co-author of the bill, claims that the bill targets criminals who traffic in stolen goods. According to Hardy, "It's a mechanism to be used so the police department has something to go on and have a lead." The bill prohibits cash transactions by "secondhand dealers," defined to include garage sales, flea markets, resellers of specialty items, and even non-profit resellers like Goodwill. Curiously, it specifically exempts pawnbrokers from the ban. But of course, pawn shops—and not rented stalls at local church flea markets—are notorious as places that criminals frequent to convert stolen goods into quick cash. So what gives? Are the authors of the bill and those who voted for it ignoramuses—or are they deliberately obscuring the real purpose of the bill? 

The answer is clear once we examine the other provisions of the bill. In fact, the bill goes far beyond banning cash transactions. As lawyer Thad Ackel notes, the bill requires:


... secondhand dealers to turn over a valuable business asset, namely, their business' proprietary client information. For every transaction a secondhand dealer must obtain the seller's personal information such as their name, address, driver's license number and the license plate number of the vehicle in which the goods were delivered. They must also make a detailed description of the item(s) purchased and submit this with the personal identification information of every transaction to the local policing authorities through electronic daily reports. If a seller cannot or refuses to produce to the secondhand dealer any of the required forms of identification, the secondhand dealer is prohibited from completing the transaction.


If this isn't a total crock of shit to you, I'd have to say you're head is LOCATED where shit originates....

For those who don't know him, Neal Boortz (who spells "Neale" incorrectly....) is one of those guys Democrats AND Republicans alike hate. And this piece, from his blog, is a great example of his work. If you've never read his writings, this just might addict you....[Link]

I really do feel for you folks in the media who have to continue to honestly and objectively cover this dangerous man in the White House. Talk about the best planned retirement in history. I simply cannot sit here and do the daily play-by-play of his destruction of this country that I love any more. This last election made it clear. The moochers, parasites, leaches and the looters who support them are in control. We simply have too many people voting for a living in this country ... the takers rule, and too many makers are disengaged and sit on their hands on Election Day.

Obama KNEW that as soon as he won the election in 2008 that one day he was going to make a move against the Second Amendment. His ultimate goal was and is to disarm the American people—not because he didn't want them to have the means to defend themselves against thugs and predators, but because he knew—as most liberals know—that the true intent of the Second Amendment was to preserve for the American People the right to resist, with arms if necessary, an oppressive government. Liberals are all about oppressive government—why in the world would they want the people to be able to resist? Take a lesson from Obama's recent tax increase victory. What did he do as soon as the GOP caved and gave him his tax increase? He IMMEDIATELY said that now he wanted to raise taxes on the evil rich even MORE! Same things with gun control. Give him what he asked for here, and he will immediately step forward to ask for more. Again ... his goal is to remove the Second Amendment from our Constitution.

Neal Boortz, L. Neil Smith, And other Neales, spelled correctly or not, keep pointing the way.... (Anybody got contact info for Neal that DOESN'T involve Twitter????")

I love this Obituary!!!! I wish I'd known this man. Link.

Larry Darrell Upright, 81, passed away Monday, April 13, 2015, at CMC—NorthEast in Concord. Darrell was born Aug. 15, 1933, in Cabarrus County to the late Arthur and Mary Ruth Upright. He was also preceded in death by his son, Joel Allen Upright. He is survived by his beloved wife and devoted caregiver, Colleen McDonald Upright; son Michael D. Upright; daughter Jill Upright McLain and husband Phil; granddaughters McKenzie Upright Brady and husband Logan, Lindsay McLain Leece and husband Jason and Laura McLain. 

He was a member and past Master of Allen-Graham 695 Masonic Lodge and a former Shriner of the Year at Cabarrus Shrine Club. He retired from the Building Automation Industry and in his retirement was an avid golfer and member of The Club at Irish Creek. Darrell's greatest joy was his family, and he will forever be remembered as a loving husband, father and Grandaddy. 


Arrangements: The family will receive friends from 6-8 p.m. Wednesday at Whitley's Funeral Home. Services will be held at 2 p.m. Thursday, April 16 at Whitley's Funeral Home Chapel officiated by Mr. Bill Jolley. Burial will follow at Carolina Memorial Park with Masonic rites. 


Memorials: In lieu of flowers, memorials may be sent to Shriners Hospital for Children, 2900 Rocky Point Drive, Tampa, FL 33607. 


Also, the family respectfully asks that you do not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. R.I.P. Grandaddy. 


Online condolences may be left at: www.whitleysfuneralhome.com"


I shall respect his wishes.

Another fine example of an elected Sheriff doing his duty, rather than blindly violating both his state's, AND the federal Constitution, by enforcing laws that violate the 2nd Amendment. [Link]

As things develop in Josephine County concerning the Bureau of Land Management's threats against the owners of the Sugar Pine mine in southern Oregon, the sheriff of that county said that neither he nor his office would enforce a state law, which legislators are attempting to pass that would expand background checks to include private sales. 

Senate Bill 941, a 23-page-monstrosity that completely oversteps the authority of government against the people, is called the Oregon Firearms Safety Act. The bill waspassed by the Oregon senate on Tuesday by a vote of 17-13. It will now head to the House, where Socialist Democrats believe it will have a swift and easy passage. 


Politicians were also called out by the Oregon Firearms Federation for not being truthful with those they serve. 


"The Senate debate proved that supporters of SB 941 did not read it or were willing to lie about it," the organization wrote on its website. "Senator Prozanski said you would be able to loan a firearm to someone to go hunting, but that's not true unless you were with them at the time they were hunting. He said the bill would not prevent a transfer to a person who was 18 to 21. That is also false. This bill is riddled with contradictions and unenforceable provisions."

* * * *

However, Josephine County Sheriff Dave Daniel is having none of it. Daniel is new on the job, following in the footsteps of Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, who had previously written a letter to Joe Biden concerning federal gun laws warning him, "Any rule, regulation, or executive order repugnant to the constitutional rights of the citizens of this County will be ignored by this office." 

According to the Examiner, "Sheriff Dave Daniel announced to the media on Tuesday that he and his department won't enforce a state law." 

"Sheriff Daniel, who is the new top cop for Josephine County which shares a border with northern California, told reporters that believes this latest gun control law goes against his county's charter," wrote Jim Kouri of the Examiner. "He also said his department doesn't have a sufficient number of deputies to pursue lawbreakers who are committing a frivolous misdemeanor."


It's so great to see this kind of response from the ONLY law enforcement that is actually answerable to the people, elected county Sheriffs. Support Sheriff Dave in his defense of our RTKBA.

A little feel-good piece about spending 30 minutes doing something nice.... [Link] Nothing to do with guns, but I liked it....

Isn't it funny how the mainstream media is SOOO quick to turn in a pro-gun person for a possible violation of the law, while defending a Victim Disarmament supporter who actually DOES violate it? Link. What we have here is MSN supporting the "investigation" of a Republican Congressman, Ken Buck of Colorado, for having an inoperable AR15 in a display case on his office walls.

A Republican member of Congress who posed for a photo with an assault rifle in his office could face investigation for violating the District of Columbia's gun laws, the city's attorney general's office said on Tuesday.

Representative Ken Buck, of Colorado, on Thursday tweeted a picture of himself and Representative Trey Gowdy, a Republican from South Carolina, holding an AR-15 rifle.

Reporters alerted the office of District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine to the photo, and the information was passed on to the city's Metropolitan Police Department to investigate, said spokesman Robert Marus.

"It is illegal to possess an assault rifle in the District of Columbia," he said.

In a statement, Buck said he received permission from the U.S. Capitol Police to bring the inoperable rifle to the office, where it hangs in a locked case.

"It is a beautiful, patriotic paperweight," Buck said of the rifle, which is painted to look like the U.S. flag.

* * * *

Following the mass school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012, NBC News anchor David Gregory had a scrape with District authorities after bringing a 30-round magazine to "Meet the Press," which is filmed in Washington.

The magazine was barred under District law. Police investigated but decided not to bring charges.


Note that REPORTERS, who have gone to jail rather than tell police where they interviewed hunted murderers, squealed to the police because a Republican Congressman has a display rifle. Also note that yet again, the ongoing lie about the so-called "assault rifles" is furthered. Typical liberal gun-grabbing BS rears it's ugly head again.

From the keyboard of Rob Morse, a great defender of the RTKBA.... [Link]

According to the main stream media, the hypocritical National Rifle Association disarmed its members during their annual meeting in Nashville, Tennessee. I was there, and the media reports are false. What I read about the convention doesn't match what I saw on the ground. 

Inaccurate reporting by the news media is by design rather than by accident. The media doesn't know gun owners.. and doesn't care to know them. Instead, the main stream media paints an unflattering image of gun owners tailored to fit the prejudices of their audience.. and their advertisers. They paint gun owners as fat old ugly men. In short, the advertising campaign says gun owners are both unattractive.. and dangerous.


Since we already dealt with the lies of the media, it's nice to have eyewitness confirmation of the facts.

And the last of our "Well Armed American, Neighbor Edition" deals with one deceased rapist. Link.

A devastating series of events too place in Gadsden (AL) early Monday morning, leaving a violent predator of a teenager dead, a woman traumatized and violated, and a community reeling in shock. 
The resident, a 37-year-old woman, told police three men kicked in the front door, awakening her. One of the men came into her bedroom, put a gun to her head and raped her while the other two ransacked the home.
The two men left, but the robber assaulting her began beating her in the head with the gun and demanding money. The woman told her attacker that a neighbor down the street kept all her money. The robber then forced the woman down the street to the neighbor's home on South 21st Street, the woman told police.
Once they walked there, the woman knocked and yelled for the neighbor's attention, telling him she was being attacked. The neighbor, a 59-year-old man, looked out the window and called 911 to report a crime. The gunman yelled for the neighbor to get off the phone, shooting twice into the air. He then aimed his gun at the neighbor. The neighbor fired one round at the offender, hitting him in the chest. The gunman ran a short distance, collapsed and died. 

It's nice to see scum properly treated. Of course, his Momma claims he was innocent. I guess the shots he fired were just for noise value.

Simply HAVE to love fucking idiots who think we're dumb. [Link] This fool thinks that getting a $2000 tax break is going to get us to surrender valuable firearms to the federal government.... OK, maybe this can work. If you've got a junker gun that the criteria define as an assault weapon (and all they use is cosmetics, nothing that actually would qualify a gun as such), we can screw Uncle Asswipe, er, Obama, er, ummmm SAM out of some of our own money.

A Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut, Representative Rosa DeLauro, is set to introduce a bill designed to persuade owners of "assault weapons" to turn in their guns. Under the terms of the bill, citizens who surrender their guns to the federal government would receive a tax credit of up to $2,000. 

The bill is called the "Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education (SAFER) of our Streets Act. It was first introduced in January 2013, after the tragic school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. At that time, it failed to attract sufficient support.
In a press release on Rep. DeLauro's website, she writes: 

Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense. There is no reason on Earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield. They have no place on the streets or in our homes. 

IJReview reports: 

The bill includes a wide range of rifles, pistols, and shotguns, and any of the former that have a folding or telescoping stock, a threaded barrel, a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, shotguns with revolving cylinders, conversion kits, or any:
"...semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."


It's obvious this jackass has NO clue what the 2nd Amendment was actually written to preserve.