Let's Stay Focused

Freedom's Safest Place

A safer world means a place where the bad guys are scared and the good guys aren't. Unfortunately, liberals in government do the opposite, enacting policies which empower the "demons" and making the good folks second guess themselves. They limit the freedom of the good guys in ways the bad guys don't care about.



On talk radio the other day, I heard a woman wisely recommend an alternative to the ridiculous "Gun Free Zone" signs you see in commercial buildings. Did she suggest that a sign be posted that reads "A lot of us carry guns here, so watch out?" No, she said the signs should read "This building is under surveillance." A good person doesn't care about surveillance because they are in the building to obtain products or services, to make a deposit, to do their job, etc. But a bad person fears getting caught for what they are about to do.

If I owned commercial property there is only one way I'd post those no guns allowed signs. That's if I had a full walk-through metal detector to go along with them. The idea that these signs are any kind of deterrent is a very dangerous one.

Newest NRA Spot

The good guys will defend themselves and their families using all legal means available to them. I go through bouts where I don't want to support candidates or lobbies but I always support the NRA.

Giron blames loss on voter supression

Tammy Bruce gets the H/T. Voter suppression is the new bogeyman of the left. Ms. Giron, people didn't come out to vote for you because you attempted to suppress their 2nd amendment rights!



Laughable.

Anti-gun is DONE in Colorado

Giron and Morse have both been recalled. Awesome. It is hard to overstate how big this victory is for supporters of the Second Amendment and gun rights. Here's the statement from the NRA:

A historic grassroots effort by voters in Colorado’s Senate District 11 has resulted in the recall of Colorado Senate President John Morse (D). The people of Colorado Springs sent a clear message to the Senate leader that his primary job was to defend their rights and freedoms and that he is ultimately accountable to them – his constituents, and not to the dollars or social engineering agendas of anti-gun billionaires.

Recall proceedings began earlier this year after Sen. Morse pushed through anti-gun legislation that restricted the ability of law-abiding residents to exercise their Second Amendment rights, including their inherent right to self-defense. This effort was driven by concerned citizens, who made phone calls, knocked on doors, and worked diligently to turn voters out in this historic effort.

The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is proud to have stood with the men and women in Colorado who sent a clear message that their Second Amendment rights are not for sale. We look forward to working with NRA-PVF “A” rated and endorsed Bernie Herpin (R) from Colorado Springs.

My personal favorite loser here is Mayor Bloomberg. Catch this?

Recall opponents, floating on oceans of money funneled into the recall contests by billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, outspent recall backers by a whopping 7 to 1 margin.

The fact that turnout numbers suggest such a competitive race given the anti-recall side’s jaw-dropping financial advantage is frankly, astounding. And the fact that so much of the money comes from out of state – the Denver Post recently reported that Bloomberg and California philanthropist Eli Broad personally stroked six figure checks – suggests that liberal elites from thousands of miles away think they can buy Colorado’s elections.

Man, who do they think they are? The Koch Brothers?? OK, I'm giddy over this, I'll admit it. Call it a Rocky Mountain High. The Kos Kids are crying. My dining room has been painted. It's a nice day in Ohio.

Legally make your own gun

They'll never take them away, really. From cold dead hands, maybe, but from the American spirit which burns and doesn't die? I don't think so. What if they change this law? I think you'll still see these items out there, and if they are grandfathered, how can anyone tell when they were finished and put together?

Here is a good FAQ on what the man is talking about on their website. Basically the lower is 80% finished, so it can be sold as a non-FFL controlled item.

Here's a page about the same thing from another company.

Results of the Australian Gun Ban

Armed Robberies UP 69%
Assaults With Guns UP 28%
Gun Murders UP 19%
Home Invasions UP 21%
...

And for some odd reason, there's a huge decline in the number of people who want to become policemen Down Under as well.

People who don't think this could happen here must think that America has more decent criminals than Australia. One of the reasons criminals don't break in to a house is that they think there might meet resistance. If they case a joint and see an old guy wandering around by himself they figure they can take him—unless there's a chance he has a gun. That chance will instill fear, uncertainty and doubt in the criminal, which is not just a sales tactic. FUD is a way to control behavior. It's a psychological fence, if you will, which you wield to get people to leave you alone. In many ways it's a first line of defense which might never be penetrated. Actually using a firearm might be a last-line of defense, but the right to bear arms is not, because of these many implications.

The criminal who would undertake a home invasion cares more dearly for his own life more than the law-abiding citizen, and he cares less about everyone else's life. He is a coward in the worst sense of the term. He preys on those he perceives to be weak and defenseless. A society which outlaws guns cares nothing about elderly people, single mothers, or poor people living in bad neighborhoods, no matter how big the social security payments or assistance checks are. In such an unarmed society, calling these people "at risk" because they have less money than suburbanites is a mean joke. These people are at risk because they can't defend themselves with aluminum ball bats or expensive monitored alarm systems. A fat lot of good government assistance will do for them when they're lying in a pool of blood because they didn't have a first or last line of defense against the criminal.

Learn how to fire a handgun

That's an order. The nice thing is that you don't have to buy a handgun in order to learn how to fire one. You can usually rent one at any range attached to a gun store. They will usually have an assortment including a 9mm, a .22, a 38 revolver, a 45, etc. All the common calibers. You'll probably have to give them your drivers license to hold onto and sign a sheet saying that you understand the rules and all, but there is no background check required, at least not in Ohio.

You could obviously start of by shooting something really small like a 22 caliber target pistol. But since you probably want to get a handgun for personal protection, I'd start with something bigger. The first handgun I ever fired was a 38 special "police-style" revolver like this one. A revolver is a nice gun to start with, easy to load—no magazines to mess with, and a box of 50 rounds of 38 FMJ cartridges is going to be about $21, or 42 cents per round. I like the models with a little bit longer barrels, especially for beginners. The nice man or lady at the counter will be very helpful if you have any questions. You'll also need ear and eye protection. Corrective lenses can count as eye protection, but unless you have big-ass Buddy Holly-looking frames, it's probably a good idea to get a nice pair of protective goggles. Don't forget to put on your ear protection before you enter the range.

I forget what handgun rental costs are exactly. I'm thinking around $15-25 per half hour. Obviously you can call ahead of time to find out. Also I think some ranges would let you try out a variety of handguns during one rental session, which usually is broken into half-hour increments. I go to a place in Lorain where the range costs are $8/half-hour, $10 on weekends.

For semi-automatics, I recommend trying out a Glock 9mm if you're ready for something with a little more recoil. Or of course you can check out some type of 1911 model like this Taurus -- I'm just partial to Glock. If you want something with a little less kick, check out a .380 ACP if they have one. I have one that Bersa makes, and I literally can't even feel the recoil from it if I pick it up and shoot it after I've been firing my Glock 40. I have a slightly funny story about purchasing it, but maybe later.

I don't consider myself an expert on any of this—just a serious student. I'm actually little more than a novice, and I know many people with more experience, practice and knowledge. But I know a lot more about it than many people I know, and I want those people to go from being completely uninitiated to becoming somewhat proficient with a handgun. You learn it by doing it, and I'm just pointing out an easy way to get going. Don't be afraid to ask anyone at the range how to hold and fire the weapon, where to put your left thumb, how to load the magazine, how to line the sites up, how to pull the trigger, etc. They'll be more than happy to show you.

T. L. Davis: The Barrel Will Be Hot

I've warmed up to the blogging of T. L. Davis, TL In Exile. His message is urgent and resolute, and yet never crosses over into wild-eyed Alex Jones territory. I would call him clear-eyed rather than wild-eyed, and he's written several books, so his message is delivered with precision and succinctness. I've purchased The Constitutionalist on Kindle and look forward to reading it.

Here are some excerpts from his latest post, The Barrel Will Be Hot.

The federal government, particularly Barack Obama and Eric Holder might want to pay attention here. They are losing the PR battle when it comes to the Second Amendment. Instead of making the supporters of the Second Amendment look like nuts who just want to kill people, they are convincing the other half of the nation that the government is full of nuts who just want to kill people.

It wasn't so long ago when those of us in the patriot/liberty community spoke about resistance we were shrugged off. When we spoke of unconstitutional laws we were ignored. When we called out the President and the Attorney General as Marxists who wanted to disarm the American people to force their collectivist policies on people we were shouted down as unreasonable and delusional.

That isn't happening now. People are reading stories of excessive laws like those which have ensnared Nathan Haddad and Keith Pantaleon and recognize that something is wrong. When Chicago produces a higher body count than Afghanistan day in and day out with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, the charge that more gun restrictions will lead to safety fall on ever more deaf ears.

The traitorous media refuses to print the daily instances where guns have saved lives and it rises to the millions in a given year. In Atlanta a student shot a 14-year-old at a middle school before an armed volunteer overpowered him. Not the police, somebody at the scene. A Sandy Hook was averted by the presence of a gun in a school and it just slipped by unnoticed except on the Drudge Report and The Blaze.

The equal division of the nation's people is being forged by the Obama Administration and I would like to think it was an error in judgment on the part of the President, but I have seen too many instances where division and strife were exactly what he wanted to achieve. So he has his divided society between "rednecks" and sycophantic liberals. He has driven a wedge between federal law enforcement and local law enforcement.

This last is an astute observation. That's why we can't start flipping out in our actions or our rhetoric. That would be handing political ammunition to the gun control crowd. And just because most of the mass killers of recent times have been on the left, that doesn't mean people on our side can't flip out and do something horrible. And lately I've been worrying about some of the "open carry" proponents; they seem to more concerned about making a point than self-defense as I've noted before.

We are there and we are ready to fight, because we are ready to die. The people know deep down that these threats to regulate, register and confiscate our weapons is the last item on the agenda leading to absolute despotism. They are the prelude to everything our fighting men have died to oppose over the past centuries. There is something just un-American about it and they can't stomach it.

Mr. Davis is eloquent and I think the readers here would appreciate him. We're all in exile, by the way, in case any of you have forgotten.

Nathan Haddad: Guilty of self-defense

Nathan Haddad had some nice magazines, got arrested for it.

Send him money by going HERE. I just did.

Highlights from David Mamet's excellent article

Please read this entire article. David Mamet is a really good writer, and stating that fact is sort of like saying that Mozart was a really good composer. Mamet brings his writing brilliance to the topic of gun rights versus gun control policy and ties it philosophically to the big picture of individual rights and freedoms versus overbearing government. I'm merely going to excerpt highlights here with short commentary.

As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.

Any one using the phrase "one-size-fits-all" to describe wrongheaded, liberal, big-government policy immediately scores check marks on the good rhetoric clipboard. People who switch from being on the left to being on the right, like Mamet and others such as David Horowitz, realize that the enshrinement of egalitarianism eventually hurts everyone, even those they claim to be trying to help. As soon as you realize that one size does not fit all, you are on your way toward the individual rights camp.

But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

Ah, yes, the kind of diversity the left thoroughly dislikes, the kind which has components of intellect and will involved and not just one based on skin color or other accidental features. Diversity based on viewpoints and knowledge and reasoning capabilities—in other words, diversity based on essential human qualities—is the only really interesting kind to people interested in fixing real societal problems. One person likes the city, another likes the country, one likes to work outdoors, another prefers office work, one likes a steady paycheck, another likes to trade options, etc. Is there any way for democratic society to deal with such diversity of opinions other than absolute freedom on these non-moral issues? Of course we have seen the left espouse intolerance of actual diversity of thought for years now—one quick example. Mamet includes churches as beneficiaries of this type of essential diversity; St. Paul appears to concur.

The Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: “He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges dependent on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance … imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.”

This is a chillingly familiar set of grievances; and its recrudescence was foreseen by the Founders. They realized that King George was not an individual case, but the inevitable outcome of unfettered power; that any person or group with the power to tax, to form laws, and to enforce them by arms will default to dictatorship, absent the constant unflagging scrutiny of the governed, and their severe untempered insistence upon compliance with law.

I don't have much to add to this observation. Except maybe... BOOM.

Many are opposed to private ownership of firearms, and their opposition comes under several heads. Their specific objections are answerable retail, but a wholesale response is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms.

The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.

Two good points. These 2 million instances of good news gun stories are pretty much unreported unless you read NRA magazines and other pro-gun publications. One reason has to do with the liberal agenda of the media, but another I believe is the non-newsworthiness of the "incidents" to the reporting industry. For example, something like a burglar hears a shotgun pump action and falls out of the first floor window and runs usually doesn't make for good copy, especially if the would-have-been victim isn't photogenic. Whereas an accomplished athlete named Plaxico has a gun accident and it's national news. It's what they can use to sell soap and underwear that creates newsworthiness. "If it bleeds it leads" explains why normal excessive drinking and idiocy on the part of celebrities doesn't make headlines as well as the effective defensive use of firearms which doesn't produce a corpse or a drastic injury of some sort.

Walk down Madison Avenue in New York. Many posh stores have, on view, or behind a two-way mirror, an armed guard. Walk into most any pawnshop, jewelry story, currency exchange, gold store in the country, and there will be an armed guard nearby. Why? As currency, jewelry, gold are precious. Who complains about the presence of these armed guards? And is this wealth more precious than our children?

Apparently it is: for the Left adduces arguments against armed presence in the school but not in the wristwatch stores. Q. How many accidental shootings occurred last year in jewelry stores, or on any premises with armed security guards?

Why not then, for the love of God, have an armed presence in the schools? It could be done at the cost of a pistol (several hundred dollars), and a few hours of training (that’s all the security guards get). Why not offer teachers, administrators, custodians, a small extra stipend for completing a firearms-safety course and carrying a concealed weapon to school? The arguments to the contrary escape me.

We are all for that.

Don't forget to take the snap poll while you're reading Mamet's piece. It was 84-16, in the right direction, last time I checked. That's encouraging.

Feb 23 (.223) is the Day of Resistance

Here's the main page where you can sign up for updates.

Here's their volunteer page on Facebook.

Red flags

Thanks, Pauli, for letting me post here.  Hope I can make an occasional worthwhile contribution.

So . . . here I am, a handgun owner (at the encouragement and nudging by my son – imagine that), wondering why the recent gun control “conversation” is bugging me more than many things these days. Something doesn’t seem right about it, beyond the obvious that this was going to be the type of conversation in which they tell us what is going to be done and we are going to listen.

I guess it is because there are all these red flags popping up.  We have horrible evil perpetrated on innocent children, and much to-do that something has to be done, even “if it saves only one life”, but what we get are proposals that have little to do with solving the stated problem. 

If the solutions being trumpeted don’t solve the stated problem (esp. in a high profile case like this), you can be sure that there is another agenda in mind.   

Another red flag is the perversion of fundamental principles that has sadly become a habit with our current ruling class.  They refer to the free exercise of religion as ”freedom of worship” (culminating, so far, in the HHS mandate).  We saw it writ large in Obama’s second inaugural address, asserting that our unalienable right to liberty requires “collective action”. There has been a constant drip of this attitude, giving us the “sense that those who played by the rules and did well have instead done something wrong, or at least are under suspicion — and it is now time for their government to seek atonement from them”.

And on the gun issue, Obama tells us that he has “profound respect for the traditions of hunting”, and Biden tells us how many rounds hunters need.  This is a perversion of our natural right to defend our lives against an aggressor and the moral obligation to defined the lives of innocent others, as Pauli ably stated, not to mention our natural right to self-government rather than tyranny.

These red flags tell us that the current “gun control” proposals are not so much about “guns”, but are instead about “control".  The ruling class is demanding that we cede to the State at least part of our natural right to self-defense and our moral obligation to defend others, for our own safety, of course.  (Or not.)  But as the Declaration asserts, and as we Catholics especially know, we cannot cede our natural rights or our moral accountability – we remain obligated and accountable to protect innocent life.  A government that applies its power to take for itself our God-given rights and responsibilities violates the natural rights of man, and offends human dignity.  More on that topic here.

So yes, something ought to bug me.  This is a defining issue, IMO, masquerading as something happening on the edges.  We must resist this attempt, saying so based on principle rather than because we are specifically affected by the details. Why do we law-abiding citizens need high-capacity magazines? Not because I want one, but because we don’t want a fair fight if we must defend ourselves from an aggressor (or multiple aggressors), as is our right and obligation. Why do we fight a federal requirement to do a background check when we sell (or give) a weapon to our good friend down the street? Not because I don’t want the hassle, but because the federal government has no power over that transaction (nope, not even the commerce clause). Why do we law-abiding citizens need “assault” rifles? Not because the definition is a sham or because it is the best tool for what I want to do, but because “… we are not serfs. We are a free people living under a republic of our own construction. We may consent to be governed, but we will not be ruled.”. 

We live in an era of government-by-anecdote, in which every non-optimal event fitting the narrative turns into a call for federal action. Even if we avoid this current threat, some day there will be another bad result simply because evil and human imperfection exist. Like Pauli said, we need to take whatever "equal time" we can get to repeat those principles necessary to argue and defend against the creeping tyranny of "something has to be done" when the next bad event happens, as it necessarily will.

* More disclosure – I sold my second .45 to a friend of mine this weekend (don’t need two guns shooting the same round, especially at 50 cents per).  Don’t worry – I didn’t launder it through a ridiculous “buyback” nor sell it to a street thug or lunatic.  I sold it to a good friend who is on our parish pastoral committee, as a matter of fact.

Get 'em while they're still legal

Speaking of bump-firing these slide stocks make it easier to bump fire and you can do it while holding the gun in a regular aiming position. That way you can see what you are utterly destroying. Check it out:



Of course, these are mainly for fun, or for revolution if that's yo thang. But Diane Feinstein no likey so much. So buy a few now while you still can.

Video: Choosing A Handgun For Home Defense

Everything this guy says is worth considering. He is really knowledgeable, and gives proper consideration to the familiarity factor.


Love how he ends it: "Remember, shoot straight on the range and in life."

Some people say "Just get a pump action shotgun (like this Mossberg) for Home D." Good idea, but I would suggest getting one in addition to your sidearm. They only cost a couple hundred, and the sound of the pump action will put the fear of God into some garden variety burglars. But in a life or death situation you can't call time out to reload. So it's nice to have the magazine load option. Even a revolver can be speed loaded with these suckers, so it almost as simple as magazine switching, and can probably be just as fast with practice.

Plus there is the factor of being able to hide more easily with a handgun than with something possessing a long barrel.

I used to (15 years ago) have an S&W "hand cannon" revolver like the one he shows, and I configured it the same way, i.e., kept it loaded with 38 special plus P hollow point rounds inside a combination safe. I sold it on a time, and sort of regret it now. (Hmmmmm....)

Intention: Stop the Aggressor

I believe that, in general, all men with families should own a firearm and learn how to use it properly as a part of a comprehensive defense strategy against aggressors. I say "in general" because there people who are so uncomfortable with the concept of a firearm due to misinformation and propaganda that they can be excused from this duty out of ignorance. But I also personally feel the weight of the duty to combat this ignorance.

I also believe that Catholics should be in the forefront of the defense of the right to bear arms in our country. Based on constant teaching and summarized in the following catechism points, the Church has always upheld the right to the use of means such as firearms for legitimate self-defense.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

The description of the killing of the aggressor not being intended is worthy to note, because it exactly ties in to a point I heard reiterated often in one of the self-defense courses I took. The instructor started with a trick question "Do you shoot to kill or to wound?" The answer is "neither—you shoot to stop."

To the ignorant, shooting to stop rather than to kill might sound like a distinction without a difference. This is because the "knowledge" most people have about fire-fights is garnered from film dramatizations on television or in movies. Someone shot by one round from a high-powered rifle often flies back 5 feet which completely goes against real-life experience, not to mention several dozen or so laws of physics. Someone running toward you can be hit in the chest several times and yet still have enough oxygen in his brain to reach you and slit your throat with a credit card shiv. This is why emptying a magazine into an attacker to stop him is not considered excessive but necessary.

I could go off on this tangent even more, but let it suffice to ask if you really think that the "good guy" is always a better shot in real like like he is in the movies. My point is to show how practicing self-defense with a firearm, as it is presented by the NRA and other groups, lines up with the classic double-effect principle espoused by the Catholic Church. Death is the second, unintended effect, and learning to shoot accurately should never be equated with becoming a killer.

Any prudential argument against personal gun ownership must provide an alternative method for stopping a criminal aggressor. To date, I haven't really heard one that doesn't smack of fantasy and wishful thinking. A politically liberal Catholic friend of mine once said to me "I'm for gun control. People should rely more on their guardian angels for protection." Well, his major premise—we should rely on the protection of the angels—is correct. But I have seven dependents who all have guardian angels. How does anyone know they didn't all team up and make sure their pater familias possessed the means and the will to use lethal force to defend them from criminal aggressors? Spiritual beings like angels—as well as God himself—normally rely on human agency. You might as well argue that a man could either work for a living or trust God to provide food on the table. Obviously the angels-only strategy is based on an either-or fallacy which religious people routinely dismiss.

The only other alternative means I can think of have to do with martial arts or non-lethal weapons. These are simply not plausible for most people and would require almost a devotion to techniques that would be prohibitive for men raising a family. Guns level the playing field in a remarkable way.

My intention of writing this post is to counter the troubling statistic that 62 percent of Catholics favor more gun control measures, the highest among religious groups. The problem is, I fear, more ignorance; broadly put I support regulations dealing with guns, e.g., felons should not be able to buy weapons, etc. But looking at the actual Feinstein proposals which require destroying weapons upon the death of the owner and you can see that confiscation is the end goal. There is no way these measures can be called sensible, and it is frightening that anyone is proposing them and calling upon religious support for them.

I plan to write many more posts here on this topic of America's First Freedom. I'm not worried that people may see this as "gun-nuttery" or obsession. I'll preemptively cop the Limbaugh plea that I'm just trying to be equal time on this. The real nuts in this "debate" are those who know that stricter gun control laws will not prevent violence but try to pass them anyway. I hope none of the US Bishops fall into this category but are only being utopian and impractical. The truth is I am a total fanatic about my family, and about all other fathers and their families. So I'm going to tag all these posts with the tag Defending Your Family. Because that is what it is really all about.

We are assuredly not alone in this philosophical struggle. Here are a few more good reads on the topic with plenty more to come:

Jimmy Akin: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms

Matt Abbott: Catholics and Gun Ownership

Tiananmen Square protester explains how it works

"To me a rifle is not for sporting or hunting. It is an instrument of freedom."



"It guarantees that I cannot be coerced, that I have free will, that I am a free man."

Guns don't kill people; Democrats kill people

Another reason the media would rather talk about gun control laws than the murderers who commit gun crime: the perps are Democrats and/or come from Democrat families.

Ft Hood: Registered Democrat/Muslim.

Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.

Virginia Tech: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff.

Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal.

Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.

This shouldn't surprise people. The left is always ginning up hatred against Christians, conservatives and other groups. Oh, yes, also hatred against America is a pretty big theme on the left. So that's a skip and a jump from hating Americans in the mind of an unstable brute.

Yeah, Einstein I know that not all Democrats kill people. But the media pipe dream is that a serious NRA member is going to pull a Lanza and there is very little chance of that. Hang around us for a short time and you would know this.

Incidentally, please consider joining the NRA. I recently renewed my membership which I had allowed to lapse a few years back.

Protect the Second Amendment

Sign this petition to protect the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Click the link or the picture below.

Here's what the Second Amendment says, in case you forgot.

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Source.

Est Quod Est recommends Glock.

Oh hell yeah

Here's where Rick Perry buys his golf clubs. And balls & shit.