It came out a couple weeks ago but I missed it. Thanks to Joseph Olsen’s email for pointing it out to me. Read it here.

The problem, of course, is that the writer and most of the commentators, while agreeing that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, are all supporting Obama for President and he is on record as supporting the “assault weapons ban,” banning handguns, banning all semi-automatic firearms, and a host of other restrictions on our gun rights. If he was proposing similar restrictions on the 1st Amendment, they’d stomp him like a narc at a biker’s rally.

KETK TV affirms the slogan: Don’t Mess With Texas:

The number of Texans applying for concealed handgun licenses increased by almost 40 percent over the last year.

The Department of Public Safety is having a hard time keeping up with the license demand. DPS processed more than one thousand concealed handgun applications last week. However, there were still more than 800 additional applications the department did not get to. Reports show it’s taking about a month longer than the 60 day processing time period that the law allows for.

Jay Carson, a licensing instructor, says his licensing classes are booked months out.

. . . And a lot of the applicants are women.

Someone hand Hillary a cup of coffee. Maybe she’ll wake up and smell it. In the meantime, while the Clinton Attack Machine continues to pretend it has a chance, most of us realize that in November, the choice is between Obama and McCain. Some choice.

A vote for Obama will bring gun bans (he supports the so-called “assault weapons ban”) and other liberal “sensible gun control” while a vote for McCain will probably preserve our gun rights but lead to a “path of citizenship” for 15 million illegals.

Neither has presented much in the way of actual policy in other areas.

I don’t think I’ll be following politics all that much in the coming months. I can’t get excited about either candidate. I don’t want either of them for President. I have a feeling that this would be a very good year for a third-party.

In the letters column of the newspaper, someone takes the Modesto Bee to task:

The level of violence in our city recently is shocking and deplorable. The conditions that lead young people to consider affiliation with gangs and participation in associated criminal activity are widespread in our society, especially in the media. Violent solutions to problems are widely promoted and glorified throughout our culture — in movies, video games and even in print and television news.

Therefore, I was dismayed but not surprised to see in The Bee this past Thursday a full-page ad (Page A-9) featuring handguns. In the light of the recent shootings, what message does that send? Is The Bee condoning, through its advertising policy, the settling of differences with guns? Or are you pandering to the segment of society that advocates “carrying” as a deterrent to criminal activity?

I myself was shocked, shocked I tell you, to see that the paper also carries ads for automobiles. When I think of the 45 thousand deaths on our highways from bad drivers or drivers under the influence, I have to presume that the Modesto Bee is condoning the violence and misery wracked upon society by cars and trucks. And don’t even get me started on the cutlery ads. . .

Let me state this very clearly, at the beginning of this post: Three mutants robbed a bank and one of them killed Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski, a Philadelphia policeman. Any and every time a cop is killed in the line of duty, all of us who are law abiding citizens suffer a terrible loss and of course that pales in comparison to the loss felt by that officer’s family. In this post, I have no intention of belittling this tragedy or trying to minimize it in any way. Rather, I want to discuss the typical, knee-jerk reaction by liberal newspapers, politicians, and wannabe pundits who would use this awful crime to further their vacuous agendas and careers.

From Phillyburbs.com:

The slaying of a Philadelphia police officer with an assault rifle during a bank holdup emphasizes the need for Mayor Nutter’s gun control measures.

Philadelphia police Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski didn’t even have a chance, say investigators. The 12-year veteran, married and the father of three, was responding Saturday to the robbery of a bank inside a city food market.

At least one of three suspects fleeing the scene opened fire with a high-powered assault rifle, hitting Liczbinski and killing him instantly.

I believe, but am not sure, that the rifle used was an SKS. It fires high-powered rounds, to be sure, but they are no more powerful than rounds fired from most popular hunting rifles. Would anyone like to be hit by a .30-06 or a 30-30 or even a .22 magnum? We have to assume, since this wasn’t a machine gun, that it was simply a “scary looking” semi-automatic firearm that operates pretty much like all other semi-automatic guns. One shot for one trigger pull.

Does it really matter what kind of bullet hit the brave, unfortunate Sargent? Any bullet can kill. A mutant shot up a mall in Salt Lake City with a regular Sturm Ruger MK II several years ago, killing — unfortunately — nine people. Would legislators ban the “lowly” .22 that millions of kids have grown up with, that is mostly made for hunting small (really small) varmints and target shooting?

It’s not the gun. It’s not the caliber. It’s the fucking mentally defective mutant not raised by properly licensed parents that has decided that a human life is worth less than his personal gain.

I hope these sick fucks are caught and suffer a very long ride back to the precinct. I hope they burn in hell for all eternity. I hope that the family of Stephen Liczbinski can find some small solace in the fact that he died a hero at the hands of cowards. He was doing what he thought right: Trying to protect all of us from the garbage that has polluted civilized society and that preys on us all.

But. But! It wasn’t the firearm used. It was the thug, the piece of crap who used that firearm, that thought that killing a cop (or anyone, civilian, citizen, human. . .) was no big deal compared to grabbing some cash to buy drugs or sex or whatever.

I know what it’s like to lose a friend who happens to be a cop. I did. I wrote about it here. Someone, a nice woman, a good cop, a great friend who bought fencing material from me for her golden retriever puppies. I wrote this:

Collura was Mary Ann Collura. I knew her. A long time ago in a different life far away from where I am now, I sold fencing in Fair Lawn, N.J. I met her at her home to measure for fencing materials. She came to our store several times to pick up the fencing she would be installing herself. Sometimes she would stop by just to say, “hello.”

She was a nice person, great sense of humor. She wasn’t known as a “hot-dog” cop with a point to prove. She was always friendly and approachable. A good person and a good cop. My sympathies to her family, friends, and co-workers.

Dammit.

That last remark really sums up how I felt about her being killed by a fucking mutant. But that was all I could write because I was crying at the time. I’m sure, certain, that the family and friends and coworkers of Stephen Liczbinski are feeling the same way right now. Dammit. Dammit to Hell. Damn the shit who did this. It’s not the way, or the gun, or the ammo, or anything else like that that upsets us. It’s the fact that they considered the life of a public defender, a cop, to be worth less than a couple bucks to buy drugs or something.

I sincerely hope that somehow Stephen’s family finds some piece in all of this hell. And, I hope that the thugs who killed him are brought to justice. Of course, liberals will give him a comfy-chair justice. I would like to see him suffer in agony for all time. A bad guy took the life of a good guy. Dammit.

But let’s get real. It wasn’t the type of gun or the ammo. It was the piece-of-crap who casually took that life that should suffer. And, I want him to suffer excruciating pain. Unlike liberals, I don’t forgive violence and death because some shit’s parents didn’t discipline him. Fuck him and his uncaring parents.

Folks: We are under attack by the garbage of society. Arm yourself and kill this contaminate. Kill them all. The Democrats and other liberals will bleat about the rights of killers but we all know that the only right they have and deserve is to die quickly. I’d rather it was slowly but that won’t happen.

Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski, I solute you. You have given the ultimate sacrifice. You deserve much better than you have gotten. I hope there is a heaven, and, I hope that you are there. And — really! — I hope your killer burns in Hell. Slowly and painfully. Fuck the liberals who would make excuses for him. I hope he feels every level of his skin burning off. I hope he dies horribly, painfully . . .

Dammit.

Here’s a headline for you:

Police: Illegal Drugs May Be Fueling Many Crimes.

Ya’ think?

Early Monday morning, police said a man was beaten and stabbed by a gang of people at the corner of Diamond and Main streets.

In April, police said three men beat their roommate with a hammer, and when officials investigated further, they discovered drugs in the apartment where the beating took place.

In January, police said a group assaulted a man right in front of the high school.

Police Chief Gary Taylor said he believes it’s not the locals who are to blame for the rise in violence.

“I think that we have a tremendous influx of out-of-town influences in our area. (That’s) one of the driving factors behind much of what we are seeing, this quasi-organized illegal activity,” said Taylor.

I’ve said this for years. Vermont (and other rural areas) are being invaded by mutant drug gangs migrating from cities. While some are white, most aren’t. Whenever you see photos of crime suspects from these drug gangs, there’s a common theme. . .

Socialist, Burlington Mayor Kiss would like to enact gun control laws because he’d never dare blame the criminals moving into his city or the surrounding area. Fortunately, most Vermont legislators and cops haven’t followed his lame lead. Also, fortunately, the Vermont courts have already declared that municipalities can’t enact their own gun laws, only the state can.

In the Philadelphia Daily News, an interesting letter:

ABOUT 90 percent of the people shot in [Philadelphia] last year were African-American. While figures are unavailable, it is assumed by most that close to 100 percent of the perpetrators of these shootings were African-American.

Almost all the firearms used in these shootings were obtained, possessed and carried illegally by those who perpetrated the shootings. If, as is constantly claimed, we MUST DO SOMETHING to stop this violence, then why not ban African-American residents of the city from owning handguns?

The answer is that that is patently unfair and discriminatory. To judge an entire group as a problem and punish all members of that group, irrespective of their individual actions, is unconscionable.

Yet, it’s deemed perfectly acceptable to discriminate against one particular group - gun owners.

The writer goes on to warn that if Mayor Nutter has his way — to pass whatever gun laws he likes — it will be nearly impossible for any Philadelphia resident to obtain a handgun permit.

The fact is, of course, that the vast majority of African-Americans are law abiding and I’ve said here time and again that it is they, and women, and others who should be arming themselves for protection from the mutants who prey on society.

Murrie Gene Kinney Jr. demonstrates that when the Brady Bunch “grade” each state on its gun control laws and the Violence Policy Center reports on homicide rates, there is a glaring contradiction. From the Liberty Vindicator:

Each year this organization [the Brady Campaign. . .] rates each state, with a number grade similar to school grading, from 0 to 100. A “100″ would mean that the state has the tightest controls in place and the “0″ rating means simply that the state has no gun controls in place.
*

The “Violence Policy Center” was formed in 1988 as a non-profit educational organization to study violence, based in Washington, D.C. The “VPC” approaches violence and especially gun violence as a broad based public health issue and not just a crime.

In January of 2007, the “VPC” released a study based on 2004 data from across the United States. The study looked only at “black homicides” in the United States from the 2004 data and ranked the states by the number of black homicides and used that number to determine a homicide rate based per 100,000 for each state.

The national black homicide rate per 100,000 was 18.1 in 2004.

Ever since the Brady Campaign started grading the states on amount of gun control for the state, California has always been ranked as number one, since Washington, D.C. is not ranked because it is not a state.

Vermont and NH consistently rate poorly by the Brady Bunch yet also — consistently — have some of the lowest firearm homicide rates in the country. “Why” seems pretty clear to me.

The anti-gun folks in England will not allow bending the rules to allow Olympians to practice in their own country. From People UK:

Anti-gun campaigners have blasted plans to relax firearms laws for our Olympic shooters.

Ministers are expected to let the 2012 pistol squad train in Britain after this year’s Beijing Games instead of having to go abroad. But that will mean changing the rules banning all handguns, brought in after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996.

Anne Pearston of the Snowdrop Campaign, which led the drive to outlaw guns after 16 kids and their teacher were killed, said: “A child’s life is not worth a medal.

“It took Dunblane for the Government to do the right thing - we can’t open the door again.”

The idea is to let the squad use secure Ministry of Defence ranges before the London Games. And the powerful Commons Culture and Sport Committee wants gun bans totally axed for shooting teams after 2012.

Gill Marshall-Andrews of the Gun Control Network hit back: “We oppose any kind of change, even for training. Why should we put society at risk for the sake of a few sportspeople?”

Gun control folks are fond of saying that gun rights advocates are extremists unwilling to bend to even “sensible gun control laws” as they put it but who is the extremist here?

Everyone’s trying to get out of their gas guzzlers. A month ago we had 24 Prius Hybrids on the lot. Now, all are sold and gone. We have about eight incoming over the next two weeks and half of those are sold. Needless to say, we’re back to “full sticker” on these. Corollas are almost sold out, too. And the Yaris. Life is good as a Toyota salesman. . .

Or at least have federal laws defer to state laws. From Environment News Service:

The Bush administration on Wednesday announced its intent to shoot down federal rules that prohibit individuals from carrying loaded firearms in U.S. national parks and wildlife refuges. The proposal would permit individuals to carry loaded and concealed weapons if permitted by state laws in the state where the park or refuge is located, a change many current and retired park rangers contend is unnecessary and potentially dangerous.

U.S. Interior Department officials said the proposed change would clarify conflicting state and federal restrictions. The 61 units of the National Park Service where hunting is permitted, as well as the public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, follow state laws on firearms.

Needless to say, there’s plenty of opposition to this. Not from me. . .

We’re always reading about bicyclers or hikers being attacked by mountain lions or bears. If for no other reason than that, it’d be nice to have a bit of protection. More than that, though, there have been attacks by mutants. I do know that two lesbians were killed on the Appalachian Trail a few years ago. I don’t remember the details but again, why would folks who have already passed the appropriate state CCW permit laws NOT be qualified to carry in a park?

This particular article is somewhat biased against the idea of CCW in parks and raises all the old canards:

“Do visitors want other visitors with concealed handguns sitting next to them in park concession restaurants, or in park visitor center auditoriums during interpretive programs, or walking with them during ranger-guided walks?” asked Wade, former superintendent at Shenandoah National Park . “Will parks and concessionaires now have to install metal detectors at the entrances to lodges and visitor centers and other administrative facilities?”

Personally, I’d feel safer knowing that some of my fellow citizens are able to protect us all from unknown dangers but that’s just me.

By the way, it’s nice to see the Bush administration actually supporting some gun rights for a change. Remember, he had said that he’d sign another “assault weapons ban” if it crossed his desk and didn’t they also file a brief in the Heller vs DC case before the Supreme Court supporting DC’s gun ban?

Some progress has been made in allowing law abiding CCW permit holders to defend college campuses:

The state House Criminal Justice Committee approved a widely-debated gun bill with an 11 to 3 vote Thursday after three hours of discussion.

House Bill 199, introduced by Rep. Ernest Wooton, of Jefferson, Plaquemines and St. Charles parishes, would authorize concealed handgun license holders to exercise permits on higher education campuses.

The bill aims to limit a college or university’s authority to regulate or prohibit concealed carry on campus.

[…]

The bill will advance to the House floor, where it will be discussed and voted on by all representatives.

Wooton said the bill applies to all members of a campus community, including faculty, staff and visitors in addition to students.

Louisiana has a pretty strict permit process including requiring a statement from a doctor that you’re not a nut case. To me, it’s always been, either you can trust us everywhere with our firearm or you can’t trust us anywhere. That is, why would a law abiding citizen, having passed the CCW permit process, suddenly become unhinged because they stroll onto a university campus?

Bloomberg (and his predecessor, Giuliani) lose again! This is big news:

A federal appeals court struck a blow for justice and responsibility this week when it rejected a lawsuit filed by New York City against firearm manufacturers.

The city hadn’t asked for any money from gun makers, but it wanted them to change the way they distribute their products. New York claimed the firearm industry violated public nuisance law by not doing enough to stop the flow of guns across the nation.

In particular, the city faulted manufacturers for allowing guns to be sold at gun shows where individuals can sell to other individuals without being licensed firearm dealers, for allowing guns to be sold through private sales from one individual to another and for making too many guns.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed the suit, citing a federal law Congress passed to protect firearm makers from similar municipal lawsuits. A few years ago, several cities sued gun manufacturers in attempts to recover the costs of gun violence.

Exactly. From an SAF press release:

The Second Amendment Foundation said today’s dismissal of a lawsuit filed against the firearms industry by anti-gun New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg should send a clear message that “courthouse demagoguery and harassment of law-abiding business is not the responsible way to fight crime.”

The 2-1 opinion, written by U.S. Appeals Court Judge Robert J. Miner,
affirms the constitutionality of the 2005 Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It overturns a lower court ruling by activist federal judge Jack B. Weinstein, explaining that he should have dismissed the case instead of allowing it to go forward.

“Today’s ruling is clearly a defeat for Michael Bloomberg,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “The law trumps a billionaire’s arrogance and a federal judge’s long standing anti-gun activism. It is time for Bloomberg to grow up, and for Weinstein to step down.

He’s not going to grow up. According to the New York Times today, Bloomberg said:

In a statement released on Wednesday, Mr. Bloomberg expressed disappointment in the decision but said it would have no effect on the suits still pending against the dealers, which claimed a clear violation of gun-sale laws. “Regardless of this ruling, we will continue our fight against illegal guns full-bore — in the courtrooms, on the streets, and in Congress,” he said.

There’s still a suit pending against the industry in Indiana. All other suits around the country have lost or been tossed. A spokesman for NYC has not decided whether the city will appeal to the Supreme Court, yet. If SCOTUS decides in favor of an individual right in Heller vs DC this Summer, I suspect there won’t be an appeal.

Some of you will not agree, but I think that many parents have stopped parenting and that is why we have so much gang violence in this country. I also agree with these Schenectady, NY residents:

“We have to let the parents know, you don’t have to be scared of your kid,” said Portia Alston, who urged parents to spank their children and offered to do it for them if they needed help. She was one of about 50 residents, clergy and government officials who gathered at Christ Church to talk about the recently escalating city gun violence and propose ways to stop it.

Spanking — or at least laying down rules and enforcing them — was the favored solution.

“If we took our own children off the streets, we wouldn’t need so many police,” the Rev. Emanuel Adams said.

He castigated parents for negotiating with their children instead of setting firm rules.

“We’ve got to control our children,” he said. “You want to argue with them, and yet you feed them and clothe them. I see parents arguing with a 3-year-old child over whether to sit down.”

He, too, offered to help if parents were too afraid to discipline their children themselves.

“You’ve got to discipline that child,” he said. “If you don’t do this, I don’t care what the mayor does, I don’t care what the police do, I don’t care how many cameras you have, you will not resolve this problem.”

No arguments from me!

Criminals will be celebrating this story:

A lopsided city council vote of 39-3 calling for a federal ban on handgun ownership came as little surprise yesterday. What proved revealing was how two right-wing councillors, seen by some as future mayoral candidates, came down on opposite sides of the vote.

Does that mean the other 40 councilors are “left wing?”

Everyone says there’s no slippery slope but I sure see one getting greased in Canada. This vote, along with a petition, will be presented to the Canadian Parliment in June.

If Canada ever actually does ban handgun ownership, I’m sure the Canadian media will be there to report on all the Bloods, Crips, Hell’s Angels, and M13 gang members lining up at police stations to turn in their firearms.

Another of those “I own a gun but. . .” from the regularly anti-gun CS Monitor:

It [the gun industry] should develop and adopt a private licensing and certification program fashioned on the highly successful scuba diving industry model to provide safety, legal, and marksmanship training to all gun owners and users. Such a private mandate will ensure a base of safer and more knowledgeable gun users and develop a fresh and lucrative revenue source for the whole industry.

[…]

The gun industry, perhaps led by the National Rifle Association, should develop a curriculum of training and education leading to firearms certification.” All retailers of guns and or ammunition would require the provision of such private certification by the consumer before consenting to the sale of any of those items. Background checks should be included in the certification process as well as periodic refresher courses. The federal and state governments would not be involved. Records of gun ownership would be available to government or law-enforcement officials only with the written consent of the certified owner or a warrant provided by proper authority. Nonconsenting retailers would be “blackballed” by industry leaders and cut off from supplies of goods and services.

Actually, the NRA already has certification programs. I see no need, though, for mandatory certification for what is an inherent as well as constitutional right.

By the way, in scuba diving, you are entering the territory of the sharks. In real life firearm ownership, the sharks are coming right through your door or window.

One letter writer lays it on the line:

The April 15 front page large print headline read, “Crowd split on gun laws.” That in reference to a forum in Naperville the day before sponsored by California-based Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV). Moderating the forum was gun control movement veteran Steve Young.

Of the 175 or so attendees, all but a handful were gun-rights supporters. And I mean a handful … maybe five. You call that “Crowd split on gun laws”? That’s a split? I’m glad you’re not my partner. I thought split meant roughly 50/50.

The LCAV claims to have broad support, and, despite the free press coverage prior to the forum, they sure did not generate much support.

Probably the biggest blow to LCAV’s credibility came when Steve Young showed polling data that supposedly showed 80 percent of Illinois gun owners support LCAV gun control policies. After the laughter subsided, Richard Pearson of the Illinois State Rifle Association asked members in the audience who supported LCAV gun control policies to please stand. Not one person got up.

I hope this kind of lying and deception put forth by the gun control lobby makes sensible Americans stop and ask, “What is going on here?” If their arguments are so bulletproof, why resort to lying and deception and false statistics generated by bogus polling techniques?

Well, at least the Daily Herald printed this letter. . .

Not that they plan to recommend anything — just to study it. From the A.P. (4th item down):

The Virginia State Crime Commission plans to study private sales of firearms at gun shows — a practice that’s been criticized by gun-control advocates.

In Virginia, private sellers at gun shows don’t have to run background checks on prospective customers. Some demanded the so-called loophole be closed after the Virginia Tech killings last year.

The commission last week agreed to study state and federal firearms laws so the General Assembly will have a clear understanding of the gun-show law in any future legislative debates. But it doesn’t plan to recommend any proposed laws — because the issue is politically divisive.

I could be snarky and ask why gun control advocates would criticize a study but my grammar isn’t perfect, either. Anyway. . .

I’m not sure what the Virginia Tech killings have to do with private sales of firearms. After all, the mutant Cho purchased his guns legally from dealers. The problem is that his mental illness wasn’t reported in the NICS database. Once again, big government to the rescue of a problem that doesn’t exist.

Well boo-hoo. The editorial staff of the Chicago Tribune wonders why our side wins all the debates:

Gun-control advocates are weak. Whether they’re badly outnumbered by gun-rights advocates, lazier than gun-rights advocates or simply don’t have the statistical or philosophical ammunition to keep up with gun-rights advocates I’m not totally sure.

But the undeniable truth is that, whenever this subject bobs to the surface of the news pond, as it has lately, those who favor tough new laws to restrict access to guns prove to be no match for their passionate foes in the rumble-tumble of online debate.

I think it’s one and three: Gun control advocates are weak and have no statistics to back up their claims.

There; glad to clarify things for the Tribune staff.

Specifically, he thinks liberals should not be issued CCW permits:

As I was reading the Bible in my office, I reflected on all the childish name-calling by the professor. It was then I realized that a partial gun ban is necessary. Specifically, I concluded that liberals cannot be allowed to own guns, much less carry them on our college campuses. If they cannot control their emotions enough to engage in rational debate, they cannot be expected to handle a firearm responsibly. Handguns were not made for people with shaking hands and raised voices. They were made for those with self-control.

I, too, have noticed that most temper-tantrums, most death-wishes, most violent protests come from the liberal elements of our society. Not all, but most. It’s like they’re still children who haven’t grown up emotionally yet. I can almost guarantee that most prison inmates vote Democratic. That’s why Democrats are so anxious to allow felons and ex-felons to vote. It’s also why Democrat controlled cities and states are so lax on criminals — preferring to blame society or to blame the gun instead.

Gun control: Just for liberals!