A Perfectly Valid Question

In the comments to this previous post, long-time reader 1894C wrote:

"At first the story did not make sense. Why wouldn't a [North Carolina] family just shoot the guy?"

No reasons that I can see.

Fatal Shooting in Columbus County

A domestic dispute in Columbus County ends in a deadly shooting.

The sheriff's office says a man is dead after trying to break into his girlfriend's home on Robbie's Lane in Riegelwood.

The victim, 23-year-old Devon Tyrell Brown, was shot and killed early Sunday morning.

Um...no.

The "victim" was likely giving a statement to the police early Sunday morning. The individual who was shot and killed is the lowlife scumbag who was in the process of committing a violent crime against the inhabitants of the house which he had just broken into.

Try substituting the word "deceased" for "victim" and see how that fits.

Authorities say Brown and his girlfriend got into an argument Saturday and Brown left the house after threatening to hurt his girlfriend.

Early Sunday morning, Brown tried to break into his girlfriend's home and got into a struggle with the woman's uncle, David Simmons, who was staying with her.

The uncle then fired a gun which killed Brown.

Gun Control: Because the right of some asshole to break into his ex-girlfriend's house and beat the ever-loving snot out of her is more sacred that the right of her uncle to prevent him from doing so.

This Doesn't Suck

Sox sign Eric Gagne.

In a World Without Guns (cont.)

Cops: Trucker terrorized family

A masked North Carolina trucker armed with knives and a wire cord terrorized a Chelmsford family early yesterday in a bloody home invasion that police said included a teenage girl being held at knifepoint.

Police say the trucker pulled over on Interstate 495 early Monday before venturing into the woods to prey on a family on Pine Hill Road.

Adam Leroy Lane, 42, wore all black, including a mask, and was armed with two hunting knives and a wire cord as he moved through the woods toward the house, said Chelmsford Deputy Police Chief Scott Ubele.

[...]

After he reportedly entered the home, Lane had a confrontation with the residents including a struggle with at least one member of the family, Ubele said.

While one resident was able to phone 911, Lane allegedly stabbed another family member repeatedly in the hands.

But even after officers arrived, Lane allegedly fought with them as well.

And, from the "No Shit, Sherlock" Department:

He is “certainly a dangerous individual,” Ubele said.

Gee, all this time I thought it was the wire cord that was so dangerous.

This Could Work

HEAVY emphasis on "could".

Simple safety solution: classroom locks

BLACKSBURG, Va. --After a student gunman killed four of his classmates and his German teacher and then left, Derek O'Dell had to wedge one of his sneakers under the classroom door to keep the attacker from returning to kill even more.

There was no lock on the door to protect Derek and his wounded classmates against Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 30 students and faculty members, plus himself, at Virginia Tech's Norris Hall. Two others were killed in a dormitory.

Safety experts say that while school officials across the nation re-evaluate campus safety in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech tragedy, many are overlooking a simple solution: putting locks on the inside of classroom doors.

No! Don't do that! That might save lives!

A law that arbitrarily defines what a "large-capacity" magazine is, and then bans civilian possession of the same, is a much better solution.

Well, at least, in the minds (and I use that term loosely) of the Stuck on Stupid Society (aka: the US Senators from Massachusetts, New York, and California) it is.

"Often it's the simple stuff that will prevent a tragedy like this, and often it's the simpler things that will make the bigger difference," said Michael Dorn, a campus safety consultant and author of 19 books on the topic. "It's not the complex systems that cost millions of dollars."

It'll never fly at the legislative level then.

NEXT!

Of course, like any plan, it might have some drawbacks.

[Virginia Tech spokesman Larry] Hincker said the university must consider any problems the locks could create. In October, a man took several students hostage at Colorado's Platte Canyon High School classroom and killed one girl.

There would be several ways to make this work. Electric locking devices that could be remotely controlled could be turned off in a hostage situation as the one mentioned above and activated in the event of a shooter loose in the building. Granted, it would suck being the guy coming back from the john when the lockdown happens.

Also, any locks set up to be disabled in the event of a fire could possibly be manipulated by pulling a fire alarm switch in a hallway, allowing the bad guy access to the classrooms.

Of course, any such system will have its pluses and minuses. Where there's a system, there's a bypass, and someone's gonna find it if they want it bad enough. As I said in my post title, locks on classroom doors COULD be a viable solution here.

But, I'm thinking more along these lines.

Still, some question whether changes are necessary.

"This is a fluke of an incident and school security shouldn't have to be changed because of it," said Clay Violand, whose French teacher and 11 classmates were killed at Virginia Tech.

To paraphrase:

"This is a fluke of an incident and national gun laws shouldn't have to be changed because of it."

And as to Mr. Hincker's claim that "there's nothing off the table", I have to assume he's not including legal, armed self-defense by students and faculty in any discussions with the university's powers-that-be. It would be nice if he were, but I'm not holding my breath on this end.

Caption Contest - New York Wankees Edition

This one's too easy.

Photo: REUTERS/Dave Kaup (UNITED STATES)

Apologies to anyone who hasn't breakfast yet.

Hello, Again, Sleepless Nights

No, there's no baby on the way. At least, not a human one, anyway.

We're going out tomorrow to check out a local litter of puppies, and might be bringing the wife's birthday present home on Monday morning.

Unfortunately, my suggestion of "Ruger" got voted down by the Naming Committee.

UPDATE: Everybody, this is Finn*. Finn, this is everybody.



* short for Finnbear, if anyone's askin'.

Thingz Iv'e Lurned

I'm debating whether to bother returning to the comments to this post over at Dan "The purpose of car insurance is redistribution of income" Kennedy's blog.

Here's what I've learned so far from the members of the intelligentsia posting there who were kind enough to bestow their vast knowledge upon me.

If you are a member of a 2nd Amendment advocacy group...

...you're an "unamerican degereate".

If you believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, and that gun control laws that arbitrarily restrict the rights of Americans to own firearms are unconstitutional infringements on said right...

...you're "nuts".

If, in the process of defending the 2nd Amendment and calling out those who would wipe their asses with it, you provide rational arguments, backed up by facts...

...you're "volatile"

If you write a blog, in which you go into great detail discussing individual rights and liberties, providing links to news stories and published records that back up pretty much everything you say...

...you're a "wacko".

If you do any of the following...

(a) enjoy the shooting sports
(b) own more than a handful of guns
(c) own guns that look like assault rifles

...you're "sick" and you need to be placed under some kind of "restraint".

Wow. I feel so educated now. I had no idea how mentally unstable I was. I'd go and post a response, but the voices in my heads are telling me to go clean my guns.

UPDATE: Be sure you don't miss these other cerebral nuggets:

You can go out at late hours in most of Europe and you don't feel threatened by your surrounding as much as you do in some parts here. That's the point.

Um...OK. Can I play too?

You can go out at late hours in most of America and you don't feel threatened by your surrounding as much as you do in some parts of Europe. That's the point.

So, for those of you keeping score at home, his or her completely meaningless statement, which falls roughly seven light years short of making a point, is "the point".

Got it?

Seriously, that's right up there with the reality-deprived members of the Castro Coddlers Club who drone on incessantly, while reading from their dog-eared set of Michael Moore flashcards, about how the literacy rate in Cuba is "higher than many parts of the United States".

In the minds of some, these vacuous statements actually "prove" something...I mean, something other than their unyielding allegiance to the advancement of leftism the world over.

But, I digress...

You know those home-invading, scumbag, rapists/murderers down in Cheshire, Connecticut? The ones who, according to every news account I've read, didn't use any guns in the commission of their horrific crimes?

They're "the kind of lovely people [I] enable with [my] madness."

As I'm wont to say...

Wow.

Whatever you do don't tell this person that those brutal murders have caused an upswing in the number of Connecticut residents arming themselves to take responsibility for their families' well-being and security.

NEWINGTON, Conn. -- State gun sales have shot up in the days after the wife and two daughters of a prominent Connecticut physician were killed, according to a local gun shop owner.

I know, not very "progressive" of them.

Perhaps that chapter in "Fearing Guns for Dummies" should be renamed "Violent Crime Causes More Guns".

I wonder what David "Citizens Who Refuse To Be Helpless Victims Cause Crime" Hemenway has to say on this, because, back in the fall of 2004, he stated pulled this one out of his ass:

Rarely does a suburban homeowner beat a burglar to the draw in his living room at 3 a.m.

Well, if the alternative is to be beaten and stuffed down into my basement while my wife and daughters are upstairs being tied to their beds, raped, and burned alive, I'll take my fucking chances.

Thanks anyway.

Nail, Meet Hammer

Orson Scott Card:

They are not trying to stop global warming. They are trying to punish the Western democracies for being richer than the rest of the world.

Yep.

(link via Kim du Toit)

Putting Things In Perspective

Via Daily Pundit:

Here’s a little reminder for those on the right, and especially those on the left, who are slamming Fred Thompson for not formally announcing his candidacy: by the “Kerry Standard” of the most recent Presidential campaign, Thompson still has about a month and a half before he needs to announce.

Simply because Hillary Clinton has been running a presidential campaign since January 22, 1997, doesn’t mean that everybody else needs to do so.

Sounds like as good a standard to follow as any. After all, John Kerry did go on to win the election in 2004 (only to have it stolen by a handful of Toledo-based Halliburton operatives manipulating the poll results).

(link via Rob @ Say Anything)

And, speaking of Fred Thompson, here's a link to CNN Political Desk Manager Steve Brusk's blog coverage of a woman who confronted FDT in Texas and accused him on not being a true conservative. I couldn't help but wonder if this was a case of selective reporting by CNN, intended to help the Hillary for Queen campaign by smearing FDT's conservative credentials.

I know what you're thinking. Surely, my anti-media, gun-nut paranoia is getting the better of me. I mean, no one at CNN would ever do anything to keep their readers and viewers from getting the whole "fair and balanced" story, right?

Yeah, right.

Check out the rest of this woman's tirade.



Ask not for whom the cuckoo clock tolls...

Tell Me Something I Don't Already Know

My Conservative Identity:

You are an Anti-government Gunslinger, also known as a libertarian conservative. You believe in smaller government, states’ rights, gun rights, and that, as Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

Take the quiz at www.FightLiberals.com

Here's the complete list of results.

You are a Faith-Based Fighter, also known as a religious conservative. You believe in Judeo-Christian values, restoring God’s rightful place in the public square, and in showing all the unwashed and unsaved liberal sinners the path to salvation, or at least to the GOP.

You are a Flag-Waving Everyman, also known as a patriot. You believe in freedom, apple pie, rooting for America at all times, and that God gave us a two-day weekend so we could enjoy football and NASCAR.

You are a Free Marketeer, also known as a fiscal conservative. You believe in free-market capitalism, tax cuts, and protecting your hard-earned cash from pick-pocketing liberal socialists.

You are a Values Guardian, also known as a social conservative. You believe in serving on the front lines of the culture wars to restore traditional values and protecting America against condom-dispensing, stem cell-sucking sodomites from Hollyweird.

You are an Anti-government Gunslinger, also known as a libertarian conservative. You believe in smaller government, states’ rights, gun rights, and that, as Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

You are a Freedom Crusader, also known as a neoconservative. You believe in taking the fight directly to the enemy, whether it’s terrorists abroad or the liberal terrorist appeasers at home who give them aid and comfort.

(via Bitter)

Gee, the Suspense Was Killing Me

I can finally sleep at night, knowing this lingering uncertainty has been resolved, at last.

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, bolstering what appears to be an increasingly formidable campaign operation in delegate-rich California, will announce her endorsement by Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California's senior senator, today, sources close to the campaign have said.

I know. I'm as thoroughly shocked as the rest of you.

Slow Learners

From the Charlotte Observer (NC):

A clerk on Monday shot and killed a man trying to rob a northeast Charlotte convenience store, police say, in the fourth case this month of a potential victim shooting a would-be robber.

In Boston, these stories are infinitely more likely to include the phrases "string of armed robberies" and "police are still searching".

And, for today's Quote of the Day:

Law enforcement agencies advise people not to fight back against robbers, saying it can invite injury or death.

Yep.

That's been clearly illustrated here, thank you very much.

I, for one, see no problem with "inviting injury or death" onto some scumbag who's threatening me, my wife, or my daughters.

Hillary Clinton, of course, feels otherwise. She's made it clear how dedicated she is to protecting the lives and careers of armed robbers by voting last year for the forcible disarmament of any law-abiding American without a badge.

(see: Patricia Konie)

Who can blame her, though? Her voter base is getting snuffed out as a result of all these redneck store clerks having the nerve to defend themselves from "uninvited injury or death".

Of course, the fact that this store clerk was a WOMAN exercising her RIGHT TO CHOOSE to defend herself will be completely lost on Her Wretchedness.

As I wrote earlier:

Political correctness and strict adherence to liberal doctrine override all. And as soon as the Right succumbs to this "truth" and plays along, there will be peace and prosperity throughout the world.

Screw that.

Anyone who sees nothing wrong with surrendering responsibility for his own well-being to the likes of Hillary Clinton (or Rudy Giuliani, for that matter) is a friggin' moron.

Them Ain't No Babies

Everyone knows AR-15's are the teenagers in the gun family.

This is a baby.

No Mention of Any Recently Felled Trees

AP: Dead herring odor upsets Maine residents

The Knights Who Say "Ni!" were unavailable for comment.

It's Not Just Massachusetts

Boston Herald: Supects arraigned in home-invasion homicides

MERIDEN, Conn. - Two convicted burglars were out on parole Monday when they allegedly broke into the home of a prominent Cheshire physician, set it on fire and killed his wife and two daughters, authorities said.

No mention of any guns involved, thank goodness. If someone in that house had access to a firearm, someone could have gotten hurt.

As Zendo Deb is wont to say:

There are no guarantees in this life, and being prepared for an emergency is not a guarantee that I will survive the emergency, but the police are many minutes away, and in those few minutes that make all the difference, you are on your own. If you need to defend yourself from violent attack, few things are as effective as a firearm.

And, we don't have to guess what would have happened to Dr. Petit and his family had they not been armed. Things could hardly have turned out worse.

More Massachusetts Mentality

Today's "Quote of the Day" comes from the comments to this post over at Universal Hub (emphasis not mine):

"...there's absolutely nothing wonderful, courageous, intelligent, or secure about owning a firearm."

I beg to differ, and I suspect I'm not alone.

Gracie Watson would likely beg to differ.
Jarred Magers would likely beg to differ.
This 79-year-old homeowner would likely beg to differ.
Chad Ryan would likely beg to differ.
This woman and her 14-year-old son would likely beg to differ.
Gordon Absher would likely beg to differ.
This woman in Tulsa would likely beg to differ.
Christine Bruce would likely beg to differ.
This Pelham, New Hampshire homeowner would likely beg to differ.
The family of this 12-year-old boy would likely beg to differ.
83-year-old Harry Carpenter would likely beg to differ.
Stephen DeFerrari would likely beg to differ.
Baton Rouge police officer Brian Harrison would likely beg to differ.
Judith Kuntz would likely beg to differ.
Rodney J. Nowlin would likely beg to differ.
Georgia Belle Sullivan would likely beg to differ.
Donald Narkis would likely beg to differ.
Geoff Hamann would likely beg to differ.
Lawrence Maida would likely beg to differ.
The villagers of Gusa Jamat would likely beg to differ.

Need more? 'Cause I got more.

Now, looking at the other side of the coin, should a fellow citizen choose not to own a gun, that's fine with me. In fact, I will take up arms, if necessary, to defend the freedom of all Americans to make that personal choice for themselves. I strongly suspect I'm not alone in that regard, either.

But, I feel compelled to illustrate just how woefully unlearned people sound when they make such baseless statements as the one above.

As I wrote last March:

I can only assume that when the gun-grabbers say, "If it saves just ONE life, it will be worth it.", what they really mean is, "If it costs us a few thousand lives a year to achieve our totalitarian police state, then so be it. Christ, anything is better than ceding power and responsibility to the proletariat."

Only in Massachusetts

What's wrong with this sentence?

Because the whole point of insurance is to spread the risk so that those who need less will help pay for those who need more.

Go read the whole thing.

He starts out fairly strong in his opening paragraph, but immediately thereafter, drives the logic bus straight over the Cliffs of Liberal Groupthink into the abyss below.

As the Old Saying Goes...

Don't pahk your cahk in Hahvahd Yahd.

This Just In!

*** POST UPDATED *** SCROLL DOWN ***

Boston Globe columnist Steve Bailey is still a disingenuous hack.

In responding to the stories that have followed his on-air confession of having possibly violated federal firearms laws, he writes:

There is an epidemic of handgun violence in Boston's poorest neighborhoods...

Bad handguns! Go to your room!

He can't even make it to the end of his opening sentence without resorting to worn-out, leftist catch phrases. By constantly referring to it as "handgun violence", the liberals are shifting the responsibility for inner city violence from the criminals, where it belongs, to the tools used by the criminals, and by extension, to all law-abiding citizens who own similar tools for self defense.

...and the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is investigating me?

Yeah, they do that to people who are under suspicion of breaking the law. Funny how that works, huh?

Consider this my confession. I plead guilty to offending the loony gun lobby.

You think I'll have any luck going back through his past columns and finding a reference to NARAL as the "loony abortion lobby", or its members as "abortion nuts"? Or maybe he's referred to the AARP in the past as that "loony old folks lobby". Or the MTA members as "union nuts".

Yeah, and maybe the flying monkeys are congregating in my colon, as we speak, going over their preflight checklists.

In the likely event you missed this alleged story, here are the facts. You be the judge.

Facts? From a rabid anti-gun writer at the Boston Globe? Why am I now overcome with a ridiculously heavy sense of doubt?

Twenty months ago, a lifetime in columnist time, I wrote in this space about going to a gun show in New Hampshire. The idea was to see how easy it would be to buy a handgun just across the border from Massachusetts, which has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. The answer: not very hard at all.

Oh, I get it. He's speaking in code. Very clever.

When he says "facts", what he means is "abject lies".

And, when he says "not very hard at all", what he means is "not actually possible".

Sheesh, you think he'd include a glossary or at least some explanatory footnotes with this column, as a courtesy to his readers.

The stated purpose of his column (previously fisked here) was to show how easy it would be for someone from Massachusetts to buy a handgun just across the border in New Hampshire. The funny thing is, when he tried, he was denied. Had to do with that being, like, against the law, or something.

I went with John Rosenthal, the Boston gun-control advocate the gun lobby loves to hate, a cop named Andrew Heggie, and a former prison guard, Walter Belair. I also took my kids, who got in free. The cereal makers may be cutting back on marketing to kids, but the gun industry knows it is never to early to target the next generation.

Well, someone has to counter the efforts of the leftists indoctrination program known as American public education.

We shopped till we dropped.

WHAT? Oh, wait. He's speaking figuratively there. I got all excited for a minute.

Someone beat us to the used grenade launcher (price: $190), but it took Belair, a New Hampshire resident and licensed gun owner, less than 20 minutes to complete the purchase of a trashy little .38-caliber revolver, perfect for a night out in Dorchester.

Perfect? Hardly. But not too bad, considering.

It's got adequate stopping power, but personally, I'd want something with a greater ammunition capacity.

The gun, which retails for $349, was bargain-priced at $240, which I had given to Belair. (And, of course, expensed to the Globe.)

Gee, maybe that's why the Feds are looking into it, to ensure that all applicable federal firearms laws were complied with. Of course, admitting on the air that you violated federal gun laws might not have been the brightest thing you've ever done in your life.

Belair could have bought 100 guns in tax-free, no-limit New Hampshire that day, and I could have put them in my trunk and driven (illegally) home. That was exactly the point I was making.

What about this point you conveniently forgot to make? That is that you could have done nearly the EXACT SAME THING (bought 100 guns, though not tax-free, put 'em in the trunk and driven home) in Massachusetts. The only difference being that your buyer would have had to have been a Massachusetts resident who had coughed up the $200 needed ($100 for a pistol class, $100 for a License to Carry) and who lived in any of the gun rights-friendly towns in MA.

There are actually quite a few of those, you know.

That is not what I did. Belair took the gun with him; I'm afraid of guns.

So, with the exception of the extra $200 that it would have required for this scenario to have played out in the land of "the most effective gun control laws in the nation", there's pretty much no story here.

All bailey was able to demonstrate was that someone willing to violate state and federal gun laws (and able to find someone else willing to do the same) can illegally obtain handguns.

Wow!

Who knew?

Oh, and had the buyer actually purchased 100 handguns that day, the dealer would have been required under federal law to report that multiple purchase to the BATFE.

Oops, I guess he “forgot” to mention that one too.

Damn the NRA. It’s all their fault,

You would have thought I burned Johnny Pesky's jersey at Fenway Park. I got hundreds of vitriolic e-mails and phone calls from the live free and die bunch. No other column in a decade has approached it for hate mail, and that's saying something. In general, these are exactly the people I'd rather not see armed.

Rich people like his buddy Rosenthal arming himself? Fine and dandy. Unwashed commoners who understand and respect the US Constitution arming themselves? Oh the horror!

In January I wrote about a 14-year-old boy who was gunned down on Bowdoin Street. Not a word of outrage from this crowd.

I take it I can't list him as a regular reader of my blog.

It got to the point where I had to actually take a break every once in a while, because all I was doing on this site was expressing my outrage at the politicians and judges in Massachusetts who continually failed to do anything to remove violent criminals from the general population and put them in prison where they belong.

If a career criminal with a rap sheet a mile long, and five or six outstanding arrest warrants, shoots some kid in a city park, how is that the fault of the country's law-abiding gun owners (myself included) who make up the membership of the National Rifle Association?

What a twit.

I can't believe I'm once again wasting my energy writing about this loser.

This was all ancient history until 10 days ago when Rosenthal and I talked about our trip to the gun show on WRKO-AM's "Finneran's Forum," where I am a daily (paid) guest. The loonies went off again. On Wednesday the Second Amendment Foundation issued a press release headlined: "SAF calls for firing of Boston Globe columnist in straw purchase." It asked the ATF to open an investigation.

(It turns out that Alan Gottlieb, the foundation's founder and the guy who thinks I should be fired for unethical conduct, was convicted in 1984 for filing a false tax return, a felony. His right to possess a gun was later restored through an ATF program that gave felons a second chance. Gottlieb says the case should have been a civil matter; he says he settled the case for $18,000. But that's another story.)

Coincidence or not, you decide, two ATF agents and a Manchester, N.H., cop visited Belair at his work the same day. They had a search warrant and a tape of the radio interview. They wanted to know about the gun, Rosenthal, and me. Belair told them the gun was at home; they went there later in the day, and confiscated it. They did give him a receipt.

Jim McNally, a spokesman for the ATF's Boston office, declined to comment.

This is how it works. Intimidation is the stock in trade of the National Rifle Association and all the NRA knock-offs out there. Dare to say we need fewer, not more guns in this country, dare to say we need a uniform system for monitoring gun sales in this country and you become a target to be hunted down.

"Hunted down"? And we're the voice of fear-mongering and hyperbole, where discussions of gun laws are concerned?

Democrats and Republicans have allowed themselves to be cowed by this one-issue bloc for too long.

Yeah, that would be the issue of individual liberty and personal choice. Ugh, how repulsive, indeed.

The list of what ails America's poor urban neighborhoods is long. Start with the disaster of children bearing children, our scandalous dropout rate, and the drugs that are everywhere. But the flood of guns belongs prominently on that list, too.

How about adding to that list racist gun laws, and the politicians who support them, that prevent low-income people of color from defending their families?

I know. It's a "loony" thought to even consider.

Count me as a proud member of the gun lobby's hit list.

Sorry, but only one list entry per person, Steve. And, you're already on my list of people on whom I wouldn't waste a perfectly good bucket of warm horse piss.

UPDATE: Just a small question concerning one of Steve "Inanimate Objects Scare the Pee-Pee Out of Me" Bailey's "facts".

Since when is Lebanon, New Hampshire "just across the border from Massachusetts"?

It's about 125 miles from his office on Morrissey Boulevard in Boston. Even if he started in Lowell, it's still about a 100-mile drive north up I-93 to 89. A veritable stone's throw, if you will.

UPDATE II: The local lefties are lapping this shit up.

Unbelievable story:

Yeah, that's the thing about lies and misleading statements. They tend to not be all that believable.

Bad-ass Globe columnist Steve Bailey exposes how easy it is to buy guns in NH (and potentially take them back to MA); gun nuts go crazy; the ATF harasses Bailey.

What freakin' country is this? (Thanks Jay.)

Yeah...pretty "bad-ass".

He "exposed" how a law-abiding American citizen, and resident of New Hampshire, can go a gun show, select a handgun, fill out the paperwork required by federal law, undergo a criminal background check, hand over his cash, and take possession of a handgun.

Wow!

Get the Pulitzer people on the phone!

And, from the comments, this absolute gem from the official John Rosenthal Talking Points Playbook.

Firearm death rates/100,000 NH 5.8 MA 3.1

The numbers speak for themselves from Statemaster.com. Bailey should be applauded and law abiding people in New Hampshire should toughen up that state's gun control laws.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

by: Bob @ Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:41:48 PM CDT

The numbers speak for themselves, do they, Bob?

Let's have a look at that link, shall we?

Crime Statistics > Statistics > Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 (Latest available) by state

New Hampshire 5.8
Massachusetts 3.1

Holy crap! His argument is airtight! His logic is infallible! His mastery of statistics is simply awe-inspiring!

Well...

Actually, it's not airtight, infallible, or awe-inspiring.

Though I did get the "crap" part right.

It's called hand-picking statistical data points to line up with a pre-determined ideological conclusion. It's a favorite tool of gun-grabber's like Rosenthal and Bailey.

Actually, it's pretty much Rosenthal's only tool. If I had a nickel for every time he repeated that statistic as if it were the be all and end all of firearms-related statistics, I'd have, let's see...carry the five....an assload of nickels.

Here's how it works, using the same link from above:

Look everybody! The numbers speak for themselves!

Crime Statistics > Statistics > Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 (Latest available) by state

#1 - District of Columbia = 31.2
#45 - New Hampshire = 5.8

Look! I've just "proven" that draconian gun control causes a drastic increase in firearm fatalities!!!

This is the point where I try my best to avoid any name-calling. That wouldn't be nice to all the batshit insane ding-dongs who fall for all this crap being peddled by the anti-gun rights brigade.

Given that New Hampshire falls in between Washington DC and Massachusetts on that list, you'd be hard-pressed to draw up any conclusions correlating the strictness of a state's gun laws with its firearms death rate. That is, if you're capable of rational thought. I don't want to make any assumptions here.

So, let's consider this statistic, the "firearms death rate". how is it calculated? What goes into arriving at this number?

Does it include accidental hunting deaths? What do those numbers look like for these states in question? How about suicides? Does it differentiate between criminal use of firearms and justifiable homicide? How about fatal shootings by law enforcement officers?

I wonder.

Rosenthal certainly won't tell us.

Here's another factor that you won't want to overlook when analyzing the "firearms death rates" of these two states. Well, unless you're John Rosenthal, that is, in which case you probably do want to overlook it, as it drives the proverbial Mack truck through the only bullshit talking point you've got.

What do you suppose would happen to the "firearms death rate" in Massachusetts, if all the shooting victims from Roxbury and Dorchester had to be driven by ambulance to a hospital in Woburn for life-saving treatment? Fortunately, that is not the case, as I wrote about in June of last year:

The fact that Boston Medical Center, the largest 24-hour Level 1 trauma center in New England, is in such close proximity to the neighborhoods where most of the shootings are taking place is the main reason the death rate for gunshot victims in Boston is as low as it is today.

But, that was just me hypothesizing out of my ass with nothing to back up what I was saying. If only someone would do a study to show if having a world-class trauma center nearby has any effect on the death rate from injuries for those areas.

Hey look, here's one.

Granted it's from North Carolina, but I doubt the results would be much different for the other 49 states.

An analysis of the association of trauma centers with per capita hospitalizations and death rates from injury.

[...]

CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that the presence of a trauma center and advanced life support training were the two medical system factors that were the best predictors of the per capita county prehospital and total trauma death rates. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that trauma centers are associated with a decrease in trauma death rates.

So, I think it's safe to say there are multiple factors at play where these "firearms death rates" numbers are concerned.

Here's another one.

Come on, kids, this is fun! Take your fingers out of your ears and take your blindfolds off. It won't hurt, I promise.

Homicide rates (per 100,000 pop.) for 2005 (most recent data available):

Massachusetts: 2.64
New Hampshire: 1.39

Let's look at what they label "Gun Homicides".

Massachusetts: 1.53
New Hampshire: 0.43

How about the overall Violent Crime Rates for 2005 (per 100,000 pop.):

Massachusetts: 456.9
New Hampshire: 132.0

Now, which state is it that we are supposed to be looking at as a model for nationwide standardization of gun laws? Of course the gun grabbers wil respond to those by telling me they're not taking into account factors such as economic disparity, poverty rates, lack of a "living wage", or any of the favorite "social justice" talking points to which they cling so dearly.

If John Rosenthal throws some bullshit statistic around without breaking down the raw data therein, he's a fucking hero, because his objective follows the roadmap of leftist ideology.

But, let the gun rights proponents try to present a rational statistical argument, and the Left will assail it as nothing but a smoke and mirrors game designed to intimidate the other side.

That's how they operate.

Political correctness and strict adherence to liberal doctrine override all. And as soon as the Right succumbs to this "truth" and plays along, there will be peace and prosperity throughout the world.

Bottom line: If you gun grabbers want to engage us in a game of "My Statistics Can Beat Up Your Statistics", I've only got one thing to say. Bring it on, bitches! I've got all night.

A Little Help?

UPDATE IV (bumped to top of page):He's trailing again after having taken the lead. Please throw him a vote if you haven't done so already. Thanks.

UPDATE III: Two percentage points (roughly 51 votes) down as of 7:00 PM.

UPDATE II: He's only four percentage points down as of 5:30 PM Thursday.

Click here and vote for Entry #1 by Eric Hopkins.

UPDATE: My brother-in-law is only 14 percentage points out of first place, down from 28% at this time yesterday. Voting ends tomorrow. Hit it.

(original post follows)

Background info:

Playpumps International is a company that builds drinking water systems in impoverished regions of the world. The concept involves a merry-go-round connected to a pump that moves the water from a deep well into a elevated holding tank, where it is then made available for public consumption.

Anyway...

They are currently having a contest to create a 30-second PSA video, and my brother-in-law is one of the six finalists. He's trailing in third place currently, but I know we can remedy that situation.

Not only should you go vote for his video, because I'm asking you to, but you should vote for his video because it's far and away the best of the bunch. Unfortunately, I just found out about this contest and voting ends in two days.

You know what to do.

Click here and vote for Entry #1 by Eric Hopkins.

Spread the word.

It's "For the Children"^TM.

And, thanks.

Who Knew?

Apparently, Ted Kennedy doesn't feel Americans should be required to have any kind of government-issued license for the purpose of exercising one's second amendment rights.

Oh, wait. Never mind.

I guess some amendments are more equal than others.

A Refreshing Dose of Honesty

Heh.

(link via Adam at Universal Hub)

Speaking of Reset Buttons...

This is pissing me off to no end.

Congressional Democrats today failed to include a provision in homeland security legislation that would protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leaders.

"This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists," said Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Republicans wanted the provision included in final legislation, crafted yesterday during a House and Senate conference committee, that will implement final recommendations from the September 11 commission.

Mr. King and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the provision after a group of Muslim imams filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against US Airways and unknown "John Doe" passengers. The imams were removed from US Airways Flight 300 on Nov. 20 after fellow passengers on the Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight complained about the imams' suspicious behavior.

We've known for some time now that the "progressive" Democrats who have unfortunately been handed the chains of power in Congress abhor the concept of individual citizens defending their own lives. Now, we know they don't want us doing anything that can be construed as defending our country.

Right on the Right absolutely nails it.



Can we question their patriotism now?

NH Supreme Court = Non Compos Mentis

When it comes to state firearms law, and the true nature of gun control legislation, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has demonstrated this week that it hasn't got the slightest freakin' idea what they're talking about.

Case in point:

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- The state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the state Constitution's right to bear arms can be restricted and regulated.

"As numerous courts in other states have recognized...

Oh, fucking great. So, the past rulings of the Massachusetts SJC are now some kind of judicial yardstick to be employed when reviewing and determining the validity of New Hampshire state law?

How to I go about getting my name and e-mail address added to the official "Reset Button" Notification Memo Distribution List?

...with respect to their state constitutional right to bear arms ... the New Hampshire state constitutional right to bear arms 'is not absolute and may be subject to restriction and regulation'," the court ruled.

Well, perhaps, those "other states" have state constitutions with textual contents that vary slightly from ours. Because, Article 2-A of the New Hampshire State Constitution clearly states:

All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

Oh, wait, I see it now. Right there, after the word "state".

...unless a handful of activists judges, liberal busybody politicians, or statist prick police chiefs decide otherwise, without feeling any need to go through proper legislative channels or the procedures outlined herein to amend this document.

Got it. Clear as day. Sorry for the mix-up. Let's continue.

The court ruled in the case of Edward Bleiler of Dover who sued after the police chief revoked his concealed weapons permit. Bleiler's lawyer said they may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case arose from an incident at Dover City Hall in March 2006, when Bleiler displayed a loaded handgun in the city attorney's office. Bleiler did not threaten anyone, and said he used the gun as a prop to tell a story.

Then-Police Chief William Fenniman revoked Bleiler's concealed weapons permit, saying the incident showed unsafe and inappropriate handling of the weapon and citing other examples of reckless behavior.

Dover District Court upheld the revocation, and Bleiler appealed.

His lawyer, Richard Lehmann, argued Bleiler's state and federal constitutional rights were violated and that state law allowing municipalities to revoke concealed weapons permits for "just cause" is too vague and allows for arbitrary enforcement.

Bleiler inferred that Fenniman was acting on a grudge because Bleiler had filed a lawsuit over several city contracts.

The court rejected his arguments.

Though bearing arms is a fundamental right, the state still can put reasonable limits on it, the court said. The concealed weapons law "does not prohibit carrying weapons; it merely regulates the manner of carrying them," the court said.

Now this particular statement is true.

In New Hampshire, if a citizen is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, he or she can carry a loaded handgun on their person, in plain view of others, and not be guilty of any violation of state law.

But, here's where the court does a Louganis off the brain boat and splashes down into the ever-perilous and turbid Sea of Irrational Thought.

"The statute has a reasonable purpose, it protects the public by preventing an individual from having on hand a (loaded) deadly weapon of which the public is unaware," the court said.

Oh, my. Where to begin?

1. Is the court saying that the state concealed carry law protects the citizens of New Hampshire, because it physically prevents criminals - individuals ineligible to be issued pistol licenses - from carrying concealed weapons?

If they are, they're fucking morons.

2. Is the court saying that a licensed individual, lawfully carrying a concealed weapon, is under some kind of legal obligation to make everyong around him aware of the fact that he has a concealed handgun on his person?

If they are, they're fucking morons.

If neither question applies, what the hell are they saying? That statement makes NO FUCKING SENSE!

That said, the statute does, in fact, have a (debatable) "reasonable purpose".

It allows the law-abiding citizens of New Hampshire to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon for the purpose of personal protection, regardless of how much money that person contributed toward the mayor's most recent re-election efforts, and without having to refinance one's house, or dip into the kids' college fund, to be able to afford to do so.

And, while, I'd prefer to see the state adopt Vermont-style carry laws (no license required to carry a concealed weapon), I do see the state's current licensing system as serving one very useful purpose for the armed citizen.

Hypothetically, should a citizen ever have to use a lawfully carried weapon in self defense, having a state-issued license makes it a lot easier for the responding officers to assess the situation without having to run any background checks to ensure the individual with the gun is not a "prohibited person" under state or federal law.

So, instead of...

"Sir, we're going to hold onto this pistol and keep those cuffs on you for our own protection until we can verify your status as a lawful gun owner."

You're more likely to hear...

"Here's your gun back, Bob. Nice grouping."

It's because of ignorant judges spouting out baseless, vacuous statement such as the one above that the defeat of Senate Bill 44 last spring was so important. Any judge who would issue a statement like like, and actually believe it to be factual and coherent, should be removed from the bench forthwith, on the grounds of gross judicial incompetence.

I'll assume "publicly displaying ignorance of mind-numbing proportion like you read about" isn't enough of a reason under current state law.

As far as any future implications of this ruling are concerned, what are the odds that the Granny-staters in the state legislature, with a proven, perpetual hard-on for the trampling of individual liberties, will now be turning to the courts to achieve those political ends, which they know to be impossible to realize through legislative action alone (see Senate Bill 44) or by doing anything that even remotely resembles respecting the will of the people?

Here's more:

Lehmann also said the ruling goes against a 30-year-old U.S. Supreme Court ruling directing governments to apply strict scrutiny when regulating rights expressed in the constitution. Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of review.

"The hard thing to understand about the decision, is how they decide which constitutional rights they apply strict scrutiny to, and which constitutional rights they give governments a pass on," Lehmann said.

It's simple, really.

As long as the Democrats control the legislature, politically correct "rights" are to be defended at all costs (see Roe v. Wade) whether they actually appear in the constitution or not, while the civil rights of us gun-toting rednecks, which almost always run contrary to the Left's goal of creating their one-world, socialist Utopia, are to be shit upon at every turn.

Hope that clears things up for you.

The court said strict scrutiny need not be applied in all cases involving fundamental rights. For example, property ownership rights are fundamental, but zoning ordinances regulating them do not receive a strict scrutiny analysis, the court said.

Because no one's ever known a zoning ordinance to be improperly applied or enforced.

Like the gun regulations, zoning ordinances balance the property owners' rights against those of the public good.

Ahhhh, yes, the "public good".

As defined by whom, exactly?

Yes, these people honestly believe that by denying someone a pistol license, they have just prevented that person from violating the state laws against carrying concealed weapons without a license, should that person ever find himself walking out the front door with the intention of violating the state law against first-degree murder.

Nope, no disconnect from reality there.

Now, if you'll excuse them, Emperor Gogon is calling them back to their weekly meeting of the Bi-Lunar Council of Interplanetary Relations. And, from what I understand, you do not want to piss off the Emperor.

But, I digress.

Here's Money Quote #3...

"Strict scrutiny, with its presumption of unconstitutionality, is a standard of review traditionally used in areas where courts deem any burdensome legislation to be 'immediately suspect,'" the court said. "Gun control legislation, by contrast, with its legislative motivation of public safety ... is not inherently suspicious."

Again, where to begin?

"...legislative motivation of public safety"???

Anyone who honestly believes that needs to have their head examined, and their urine tested for mind-altering substances. These people are motivated by one thing and one thing only - the eventual disarmament of all law-abiding American citizens.

"...not inherently suspicious"???

Sure, not to the fascists sponsoring the legislation, it isn't. To them, it's all about "common sense". Or, at least that's what they'll tell their lapdogs in the media for dissemination to the unwashed masses.

I mean, just because someone like Ted Kennedy will sponsor a piece of legislation that would effectively seek to ban all centerfire hunting rifle ammunition, there's no need to get all paranoid about it.

And, just because the other senator from Gun Control Central (aka: Massachusetts) once co-sponsored a bill that would have essentially outlawed all semiautomatic shotguns and given the US Attorney General sole discretionary power to ban other types of firearms at will, with but a stroke of a pen, that's no reason to get all riled up.

Nope, nothing "inherently suspicious" there.

Eternal vigilance, my friends!

Nothing To See Here

Everything's fine.

FBI: Iraqis Being Smuggled Across the Rio Grande

Feel free to go back to your venti lattes and the latest Posh Beckham Spice "Breaking News" stories.

Separated at Birth?

Professor Dolores Umbridge from "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" and California Senator Dianne Feinstein.


And, if you've seen the movie, you know the similarities (downright creepy at times) aren't limited to their physical appearance.


For a while, I was convinced they had actually gotten Feinstein to play the role in the movie. Much like having Keith Richards playing the part of a ragged, old pirate, the coaching from off-camera would have pretty much been limited to "Just be yourself, you're doing fine".

So, yes, I enjoyed this scene quite a bit. Almost as much as the part where the Centaurs dragged her sorry ass off into the woods.

Memo to Senator Dianne Feinstein

Up yours.

ST. LOUISVILLE, Ohio -- It took six shots from a .22-caliber rifle to drive the dogs away. By then, 12-year-old Jarred Magers suffered uncountable bites and scratches from a pack of dogs his family keeps at a rural Licking County trailer.

Jarred was talking with friend and next-door neighbor Michael Whalen, 13, when the attack occurred. The two were standing atop a haphazard collection of fences that separates their properties along Stradley Road in Eden Township, northeast of Newark, when one of the dogs jumped up and bit Michael's shoe.

When Michael couldn't shake the dog loose, Jarred hit the dog with a stick.

As many as 10 dogs -- English bulldogs, pit bulls and pit-bull mixes -- swarmed the younger boy, Michael said.

His friend went down in the flurry of their attack.

"He kept screaming, 'Shoot them! Shoot them!' " Michael said.

Shoot them? What are you, some kind of Republican?

What your friend should have done is schedule a meeting, a "summit", if you will, to reason with these animals and try to determine the root cause of their aggression. Only then, could a common-sense, progressive solution be realized.

But, seeing as this story unfolded in the Free States of America, the feel-good, do-nothing bullshit found within the enlightened pages of the "Self Defense for Liberals Handbook" wasn't adhered to all that closely.

I know. What a shame.

The older boy said he hesitated at first and then ran back to his house to get his rifle. When four warning shots failed to dissuade the animals, he aimed and shot.

Sheesh. Sounds like he didn't even try saying "please" first.

The teen said he thought he killed one with a shot to the body. The sixth shot went through a second dog's leg.

"At first they didn't stop, but when they saw I was serious, they let go," he said.

Yeah, I imagine getting shot would have that effect on one's assailants, even of the four-legged variety.

Michael then helped Jarred climb over the fence, and went to call 911.

Of course, Dianne Feinstein's preferred method of having members of the lowly proletariat class handle a situation like this includes the phrases "Call 911" and "Watch friend get killed by a bunch of dogs".

I think it has something to do with "social justice" or "climatological uncertainty", or whatever catchy buzzwords the Socialist wing of the Democratic Party happens to be pimping this week.

Another neighbor, Mary Burns, told Jarred to lie in the grass until help could arrive. The Licking County 911 Center said the call came in about 2:30 p.m.

A medical helicopter flew the boy to Children's Hospital in Columbus. A nursing supervisor said his condition was not available yesterday evening. Michael said Jarred's mother, Samantha, called their house and said he was undergoing surgery.

Michael said his friend's pants were ripped off in the attack. He had scratches on his arms, legs and back and was covered in bite marks.

"He was messed up pretty bad," Michael said, adding that he could see the bones in Jarred's knee through the cuts.

"This was a sustained attack," said Licking County Dog Warden Jon Luzio, who arrived at the scene later. "It could have been a fatality."

What? A firearm in the hands of a 13-YEAR-OLD BOY quite possibly SAVED A CHILD'S LIFE??? How can that be??? Everyone knows that guns, especially extra-violent semiautomatic rifles such as the one used in this story, have but one sole purpose in life - to mow down as many innocent lives, in as short a timeframe, as possible.

Boston Mayor Tom Menino has been telling us for years that guns and kids don't mix.

Why, it's almost as if those schemeing little fascists holding the chains of power in the gun control movement have been (gasp!) lying to the American people all these years.

That, as I'm wont to say, is simply shocking.

Not.

Michael Whalen, 13, holds the gun that he used
to shoot a pack of dogs that were attacking
Jarred Magers, 12, whose mother owns the dogs.
Jarred was flown to Children's Hospital.
Photo by Morgan Wonorski, The Advocate

Good job, kid. I'd by you a beer, but you're only... Nah, screw it! I'll still buy you a beer. You done good.

(link via reader Magus)

www.uzisforkids.com

Apparently, someone actually fell for Senator Dianne Feinstein's (C-CA) bullshit about Uzis and AK-47s being readily available for anyone to purchase once the Federal (Guns That Look Like) Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to sunset back in 2004.

CBS station WBCS-TV in New York City has learned two high school students were arrested Friday after allegedly plotting to shoot staff and students at a Long Island high school and ignite explosives in the school on the ninth anniversary of the Columbine shootings.

[...]

Police obtained the 15-year-old suspect's computer and discovered he had made numerous attempts on the Internet to obtain weapons, including an Uzi and five pounds of explosive powder.

A 15-year-old was unsuccessful at purchasing a submachine gun on the internet? I'm shocked. I mean, what an idiot! Everyone knows you can just drive up to New Hampshire and pick them from trees on the side of the highway.

Of course, the facts of the matter will have little weight in determining how this incident will end up being used by the gungrabber coalition. If they need to twist a story around to serve their political goals, they'll find a way.

Try this on for size...

"We live in a world where 15-year-old boys fostering fantasies of mass murder are just ONE MOUSE CLICK AWAY from purchasing machine guns on the internet. When is Congress going to sever its bloody ties with the NRA and do something about it?"

It would be funny if it wasn't so believeable.

Compare and Contrast

Story #1 in this latest "Compare and Contrast" takes place in Revere, Massachusetts, the state with the "most effective gun laws in the nation", or so the commoners are supposed to believe, and gives us yet another variation on the First Rule of Gunfighting (Rule #1: Bring a gun).

Rule #1 (v. 16.3): Don't bring a wiffle bat to a rottweiler fight.

Neighbors used a rake, broom, and plastic bats to beat a rottweiler that was biting and dragging a woman it had attacked as she was walking to work yesterday, according to Revere police.

A police officer working at a detail ended the attack; he shot the dog twice, killing it.

What? A handgun proved to be immeasurably more effective at saving the woman's life than all the aforementioned household objects combined? Who could have guessed?

Joe Talluto, who resides next door to the house where the dogs were kept, said he heard the commotion through his kitchen window. He ran outside with two plastic bats to try to scare the dogs away, he said.

When he got outside , he said, he saw one of the dogs had the woman "on the ground, pretty much chewing on her arm." She had fled from the sidewalk to a backyard, where she was trying to defend herself with her purse.

Story #2 (previously posted here) comes to us from sunny Florida, a state that recognizes the right to self defense for all its law-abiding residents, regardless of socio-economic status or history of big money campaign contributions.

DELTONA -- Memories of an Easter Sunday pit bull attack four years ago came rushing back to Christine Bruce on Monday night as a pit bull charged toward her while she was jogging with her dogs.

Unlike four years ago, this time she was ready.

She pulled out her .38-caliber handgun and fired a shot at the charging pit bull as she was screaming at it to stop, she said Tuesday in a telephone interview.

The attack four years ago -- a pit bull ripped open part of a body cast on her right arm while she was recovering from spinal surgery -- prompted Bruce to start carrying the gun for self-defense, she said.

In Florida, and in most of the United States of America, women have the right to choose whether they want to use a handgun or a purse with which to defend themselves from animal attacks.

In many communities in Massachusetts, a woman's "right to choose" has been narrowed down for her, through the sheer benevolence and grace of her mayor or police chief, to which particular purse she wants to use.

It's more "progressive", and fewer cute, fluffy puppies are harmed or killed, that way.

Thousands of Killers and Rapists Walking Free?

In the "progressive" enclave of Massachusetts???

Say it isn't so!

I'm, like, wicked, super-duper, triple-secret probation-level kind of shocked at this startling new development.

From the Boston Globe:

Evidence samples from thousands of crime scenes across Massachusetts, including nearly 1,000 homicides and other deaths and 6,500 sexual assaults, were never analyzed by the State Police crime lab, according to an investigation of the lab ordered by the state.

The lab's failure to process potentially crucial DNA evidence from 16,000 cases means that killers and rapists could be walking free, said two law enforcement officials who have seen the report.

Dangerous criminals roaming the streets, free from the fear of ever being brought to justice for their crimes. All made possible by decades of Bay State cronyism, corruption, gross negligence and outright incompetence by those charged with determining and proving their guilt.

Very nice.

Now, explain to me and my readers again, Mayor Menino, how it's New Hampshire's fault that your city has so many gang-related shootings (three more last night, including a nine-year-old girl).

Explain to us how the National Rifle Association is to blame for the inability of the City of Boston and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate known violent offenders.

Explain to us how you could stand there with a straight face last year and declare your gun buyback program in Boston a "major success" when its stated goal was to "prevent gun violence" in the city.

I'm all ears.

The floor is yours.

Nailing It

John Stossel: Freedom, benevolence go together

Quote of the Day

From The Bourne Ultimatum, in theaters August 3rd (trailers here).

"Trying to kill him, and failing, just pisses him off."

~ Pamela Landy

One of the few summer movies on my "Absolutely Must See" list.

And, kudos to the person in charge who made the decision to airbrush Matt Damon's manboobs out of the promo poster.

Good call.



Not that I'm fixated on Matt Damon's manboobs, or anything...

I mean, not that there's anything wrong with that...

It's just that...

Never mind.

Well, There Goes My Appetite

From SondraK.com:

In 2007, Budweiser rolled out Chelada, a combination of Bud or Bud Light mixed with Clamato in 24oz cans.

Thank goodness they came out with the light version, for those hot afternoons when you just want to chug beer with clam juice in it all day long, and not get that bloated, filled-up feeling.

Evil Empire Endorses Hillary

No, not the New York Yankees, the Evil Empire.

James W. Pindell of the Boston Globe, writing about Bill and Hillary Clinton's recent visit to New Hampshire, grabbed a "man on the street" to interview for the article and (surprise, surprise) somehow managed to find a self-described Republican who said he would actually vote for this unapologetic Marxist.

What are the odds?

"I am a Republican, but I would vote for her," said Paul Giovannucci, 38, a general contractor from Nashua. "When he was president the economy was strong and we aren't in all the mess we are in now. I think we have an idea how she would run the country based on how he ran things."

You see! Hillary's a uniter! Republicans love her! The Boston Globe says so! How much more unbiased can you get?

Seriously though, you all better pay attention and do as he says. Not only is Paul Giovannucci a "Republican", but he's also Imperial Officer ID-4022.



Further proof, as if any was needed, that a vote for Hillary is a vote for the Dark Side.

Douchebag of the Decade

I realize there are a few years left before all nominations are due, but I'm calling it early. Deal with it. Plus, I have yet to post anything about this pathetic little speck of humankind, and this seems like as good a time as ever.

(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, file)

WASHINGTON --A customer who sued a dry cleaner for $54 million over a missing pair of pants has asked the judge who threw out the widely mocked case to reconsider, saying she committed a "fundamental legal error."

I say Judge Pearson's parents are partly to blame for having committed a "fundamental reproductive error".

UPDATE: Might as well award the first runner-up prize as well.



Suck it, you assmonkey.

Range Reports - Cliff Notes Version

I finally had a chance to take the "new" guns to the range today.

1. Baby Browning clone (.25 ACP), by Esperanza y Unceta (Spain)



The good news is, it goes bang when you pull the trigger.

Always a good sign.

I suspect that the magazine I got with it might not be the original one. It needs to be pushed in by hand to get the slide to close, when chambering the first round. Subsequent rounds cycled just fine.

The bad news is, after the first couple magazines through it, the pin (small dot on top of the slide in pic below) holding the extractor in started to creep up out of its hole.



Not a good sign.

Cleared the gun, took the slide off, and sure enough, a little tug and the pin came out the top.

Note to self: the next time you do that, be sure to hold the extractor in place so that it doesn;t go flying into the tall grass in front of the bench.

Keeping in mind that I spent a grand total of $0.00 (tax-free!!!) for this gun, I wasn't too bummed out by this. Can I assume that this piece is supposed to be shaped so that it can be inserted from the underside of the slide and not pop out the top of the hole?

If this is a quick fix, this gun is a keeper.

#2: Stevens single-shot shotgun



As a commenter pointed out in this earlier thread, It may need a new firing pin and spring, but it functioned flawlessly today. A great deal for the price I paid.

And, talk about hair-triggers. Yikes! :-)

Now, it's customary, at this point in the range report, to put up some pictures of the day's targets to show how well the guns performed. But, let's try this mental exercise instead. For the pocket gun, picture an 8" target with five randomly placed holes in the black. That's target #1 from about 20 feet out.

For the shotgun, well, I was shooting #8 target loads into the berm. at 25 yards just to see how it handled. Didn't have any paper on me big enough to capture it all. Sorry 'bout that.

Bruce's Rules of Thumb

#3: If you are in a room with an open container of gunpowder, and you feel you absolutely need to have a cigarette, go outside.

BAYOU BLACK, La. -- Stolen gunpowder went up with a bang when a teenager one of the idiots who stole it flicked cigarette ash near the open bottle, according to the Terrebonne Parish Sheriff's Office.

Sorry, but if that doesn't make you laugh, there's something wrong with what's in your head. Seek psychiatric help immediately.

Bleeding Hearts = Bleeding Victims

Last year, I wrote:

The police could sweep the city and arrest every single piece-of-shit criminal lowlife therein, but if a sympathetic, bleeding heart judge is gonna send them back out on the streets with a gentle slap on the wrist, it won't do dick to lower the violent crime rate or improve the quality of life for the people of Boston.

From Michelle McPhee in today's Boston Herald:

Want to know why teenagers are brazenly carrying guns - and using them - on Boston streets?

Ask Roxbury District Court Judge R. Peter Anderson, who just this week released on bail a teenager witnesses identified as the gunman who opened fire outside the crowded Breezeway barroom on Blue Hill Avenue Sunday night.

The bail for that suspect, who was charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon after he allegedly shot a 20-year-old man in the back:

A measly $250.

That’s despite the fact that the suspect, Lyndon Scott, 18, was already out on bail in connection with an assault and battery case on which he was busted in Roxbury earlier this year, prosecutors said.

Yet, according to the heroes of the "progressive" anti-gun movement, like Tom Menino and John Rosenthal, the gang-related violence plaguing the streets of America's inner-cities is the fault of other states' less restrictive firearms laws and the millions of law-abiding gun owners who have joined the NRA to help preserve the right to bear arms of all Americans.

Now, I don't want to condone violence on this site, but if any of you should bump into Menino or Rosenthal on the street today, and find yourself overcome with the desire to kick them square in the nuts, I could be talked into looking the other way for a minute or two.

Every second they spend trying to restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans is a second that could be spent trying to figure out ways to keep violent offenders off the street.

At least, we know where their priorities lie.

And this year's winner in the "World's Biggest Non-Surprise" competition:

Anderson was appointed to the bench in 1990, when he was 47 and a resident of Newton. At that time, he was the director of the Greater Boston Legal Services Program.

Four years earlier, the Governor’s Council rejected Anderson as a judicial nominee, but confirmed him after then Gov. Michael S. Dukakis resubmitted his name for a judgeship.

The Dukakis Doctrine continues to bear fruit on the streets of Massachusetts to this very day. Such a proud legacy he left behind, indeed.

And, since we're already in nut-kicking mode, feel free to do the same to anyone who tries to tell you that Mitt Romney was the worst governor the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has ever had.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go put on my rapid-fire, .50-caliber, Saturday Night Special, sniper assault pistol and run some errands.

Bruce's Rules of Thumb

#86: If you're one of eight people at a dinner party and, by the end of the evening, only one other person in the room doesn't think you're a complete assclown, you're doing something wrong.

If the President feels bad about the nation's opinion of him—a meager 25% of those surveyed in a June Gallup poll approve of Bush's performance—all he needs to do is pick up that same poll and keep reading. According to Gallup, just 14% of people express confidence in the current Congress. That's the lowest measure in the 34 years Gallup has been tracking government institutions.

(link via Polipundit, via Eric)

Bruce's Rules of Thumb

#16: If your blood alcohol content exceeds your age by 40 percent or more, do not attempt a boating expedition with your two-year-old.

According to court documents, Holly Spreen, 34, allegedly dropped her son, identified in court documents as E.V., while boarding the boat at approximately 1:50 p.m. last Friday. While doing so, one of her son's legs fell between the boat and the dock, causing the ship's crew to become concerned and call police.

"I observed Spreen's eyes to be bloodshot and glassy and she was unsteady on her feet," said Portsmouth Police Officer Charles Raizes in an affidavit filed at the Portsmouth District Court on Monday. "I noticed that Spreen's speech was slurred."

Raizes reported that Spreen initially refused to take a portable Breathalyzer test to be administered by Raizes, allegedly telling him, "I'll blow it." Spreen was later transported to Portsmouth Regional Hospital, where police say she recorded a .49 blood alcohol concentration during a blood test -- more than six times the legal limit to drive in the state.

Point-four-fucking-nine??? Yikes!

I haven't seen anything approaching those numbers since around 1985 or so, in the waning days of The Jumbo (a "wonderful dive" according to the Tufts alumni magazine) in Teele Square (Somerville, MA).