Archive for May, 2007

This Is What Happens When Rabid Antis Run Things

May 12, 2007

One more time, it’s great to live in Texas…
(emphasis mine — ed.)

The Continental Army and the Redcoats may have to go at each other with baseball bats in New Jersey.
Revolutionary War buffs who annually re-enact historic conflicts like the Battle of Monmouth with muskets contend they will be disarmed by a proposed gun ban aimed at modern .50-caliber rifles that gun-control advocates call potential terrorist “sniper” weapons.


“Just about every rifle carried on the American continent prior to 1855 were larger than .60-caliber,” said Peter Hefferan of Wantage, a re-enactor and owner of Reactive Technologies, a private firearms consulting operation that works with law enforcement.
“You’ll wipe out re-enactors of the American Revolution. The whole concept of the re-enactment is history, and it is required that everything be accurate right down to the threading of the garments and the number of buttons, even the type of buttons,” he said.


“We have no intent of damaging or impeding the ability of hunters to hunt or re-enactors to do what they do,” said Bryan Miller of Cease Fire New Jersey. “But every time we try to get people from the other side of this debate to help us draft a bill that works, they refuse. If this bill is flawed, it’s their own fault.”

I just really don’t know where even to begin with this. Instead of standing up and raising ten kinds of hell about one more infringement on their natural rights, New Jerseyans are whining about their damned reenactments. I don’t know what’s worse, that or this arrogant jerk Bryan Miller blaming them for the bill going too far. Maybe if they’d stood up to Miller and those who think like him 40 years ago they wouldn’t be here, but no, they had to sit down and actually work with them instead of telling them to go straight to hell. Sickening. I remember back when I was in college, one morning on the classroom TV one of my professors was showing a clip of Bruce Springsteen in concert, talking about all the American landmarks that were in New Jersey, and he mentioned “the Statue of Liberty, which is actually in New Jersey!” No doubt the irony was completely lost on him.

Chron Throws Tantrum And Displays Disingenuousness, All In One Editorial

May 10, 2007

The Houston Chronicle, by newspaper editorial board standards at least, threw a World Class Temper Tantrum this morning…

If ever there were a champion of secret government and an enemy of public access to information, it is state Sen. Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands. This session he has repeatedly gone out of his way to reduce public knowledge of its own government, decreasing the chance that official corruption will come to light.

On Wednesday, Williams voted with the Senate majority to make secret all information involving permits to carry concealed handguns. The information was produced and compiled at public expense and is owned by the public. Where is the sense of depriving the owners of their property? If carrying a gun deters crime, what’s wrong with letting the carrier’s identity be known?

Oh, I don’t know…how about the fact that if the information fell into the wrong hands, that it could endanger those who carry as well as those who don’t? The arguments for keeping the identities of CHL holders secret (absent compelling reasons to disclose the names such as if a CHL holder commits a crime involving his weapon) are and have been well-established for a long time, and it’s appallingly dishonest of those in the media to cast the openness of the records as an open-government and property-rights issue. They make a big to-do about “depriving the owners of their property,” but apparently they never really stopped to consider the privacy of those who choose to exercise their right to effective self-defense. I guess you could call it more of the same from the mainstream media, but it’s sickening nonetheless.
I think I’ll drop the honorable senator a thank-you note today.

From One Gun Owner To Another? I Don’t Think So, Scooter…

May 9, 2007

Via JR, we have this from well, just read it…

Having owned guns and been an active hunter for more than 60 years, I feel qualified to speak on the subject of guns.

Why do I own a gun in the first place? I can think of only three possible reasons:

1. To go hunting.

2. To use for target practice.

3. For self-defense.

I can’t think of any other reason – can you? That being the case, why do we gun owners need an assault weapon? Is it just for kicks? Isn’t it time we stepped up and told the National Rifle Association to take the lead in calling for a ban on the manufacture of all automatic and assault weapons of every caliber?

During World War II, a manufacturer had to have a Defense Order to produce anything for use by the armed forces. If we reinstated such a requirement, we could eliminate the manufacture or importation of these “toys” except for armed service or police use and put an end to multiple slayings like Virginia Tech and Columbine.

NRA could expand its membership and win over many anti-gun folks by taking this lethal bull by the horns.

The NRA needs to hear it from us gun owners.

Indeed they do, but not in the way this fool thinks. Every now and then I am left utterly dazzled by some people’s lack of sense God gave people to even come in out of the rain, and, well, this is one of those times. I don’t know if you could even call this asshole a Fuddite, I mean, I’d like to think that even they aren’t so far gone. Just one more appeaser, I guess, either too stupid to know or too selfish or evil to care (at least right now) that throwing the rest of us to the wolves isn’t going to save his precious deer gun in the end; it only means they’ll take that sniper rifle last. One more time, from the Geek…

If you own a duck gun or a deer rifle, and see nothing wrong with the “Assault Weapons Ban”, I remind you that the Second Amendment is of sober and serious purpose that is not about your trivial right to entertain yourself with sports shooting.

When they come for your duck gun, my battle rifle and I won’t be there to help you, because at that point, I either won’t have a battle rifle, or it’s shards will have been buried with me.

And if that came to pass because you were sitting on your ass, you won’t deserve any help either.

It just can’t be said any better than that…

Steven Greenhut, Your Drink Of Choice Is On Me

May 6, 2007

Would that the national Republican Party establishment were so wise as to listen to Steven Greenhut (seen in this morning’s Houston Chronicle) and those like him…

Have you ever been in one of those destructive long-term relationships that, at some point, you really just needed to end?

I’m not referring to my marriage to my lovely wife of 23 years, but to my 25-year relationship with the Republican Party. In recent years especially, I have found fewer things in common with the party. I feel used and abused. We’ve obviously grown in different and incompatible directions.

It’s a groan-inducing cliché, I know, but it applies here: I didn’t leave the party; the party left me.


Under Republican leadership, the federal government has expanded – without even including war-related spending – far more quickly than it expanded under Bill Clinton. And when it comes to security matters, Republicans have been zealous in giving the feds additional powers to trample our privacy and liberties. Republicans have been unwavering in their support for embarking on nation-building experiments of the sort that traditional conservatives would abhor. The presidential candidates most committed to a muscular central government – Rudy Giuliani and John McCain – are leading the pack.

Now even the rhetoric of freedom is mostly gone. Most “mainstream” Republicans don’t talk about liberty anymore. The advocates for this emerging New Republican Party are becoming surprisingly outspoken. A good example is New York Times “conservative” columnist David Brooks, a former editor at the Weekly Standard, the neoconservative journal that shilled vociferously for war in Iraq. (Hint: The results of that policy might offer some warning to Republicans before they jump too quickly on his latest advice.)

In a column reprinted today (beginning on Page 1 of Commentary), Brooks rebutted those of us who argue that “in order to win again, the GOP has to reconnect with the truths of its Goldwater-Reagan glory days. It has to once again be the minimal-government party, the maximal-freedom party, the party of rugged individualism, and states’ rights. This is folly.”

Obviously unaware of the ever-growing Leviathan around him, Brooks claims that the old days of oppressive government are over. The idea of limited government – that silly, fuddy-duddy notion advanced by our Constitution, and ensconced in the Bill of Rights – is so 18th century. Time for something more appropriate for our time!

He’s got a new idea (actually, the oldest of ideas, the one that says that government and power are what matters, and that freedom and individualism are outdated). And he’s even got a catchy slogan for it. He calls it, Security leads to freedom.

Forgive me a Dave Barry moment, but I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. Doesn’t this sound like something out of an Orwell novel? War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Security is freedom. Brooks argues that the “liberty vs. power paradigm” is passé. Government doesn’t necessarily mean less personal liberty, he writes. Modern voters aren’t worried about an overweening state. Instead, the public wants to be protected from the complex modern threats to their existence: “Islamic extremism, failed states, global competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based economy, economic and social segmentation.”

As they say, read the whole thing. (And YES, Mr. Greenhut, Brooks and his kind do indeed sound frighteningly Orwellian!)
I was almost surprised that he did not mention Mr. Giuliani’s now-infamous quote on freedom being about authority, but that’s really a minor quibble, as Greenhut described to a tee what’s wrong with today’s national Republican Party and a certain portion of the “conservative” punditocracy. I say that because I really don’t think David Brooks is really any more of a real conservative than fellow NYT columnists Paul Krugman or Bob Herbert. Call me loony for that if you want, but anyone who argues for the things Brooks argues for is no friend of conservatives, or, for that matter, libertarian liberals. And furthermore, I don’t think it’s terribly farfetched to say that the ideals of Brooks and his ilk are what’s taking the country that much further away from what the Founding Fathers intended it to be, with apologies to Ronald Reagan, the last, best hope of free men on earth. These people are going to be the death of the Republican Party — and then where will we conservatives be? My money says the answer is going to be “marginalized dissidents in today’s party system.” I hope that does not come to pass, but I am more and more afraid that it will.

Vote For Me! We Mustn’t Upset The Radicals!

May 5, 2007

I must admit, I got a bit of a chuckle out of this…

France risks violence and brutality if right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy wins Sunday’s presidential election, his Socialist opponent Segolene Royal said on Friday.

if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d[‘fFczAdGDJHA-‘]=’&U=13bq31krs%2fN%3dfFczAdGDJHA-%2fC%3d584571.10597699.11290428.1442997%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d4569387

On the last day of official campaigning, opinion polls showed Sarkozy enjoyed a commanding lead over Royal, who accused the former interior minister of lying and polarizing France.

“Choosing Nicolas Sarkozy would be a dangerous choice,” Royal told RTL radio.

“It is my responsibility today to alert people to the risk of (his) candidature with regards to the violence and brutality that would be unleashed in the country (if he won),” she said.

Talk about taking demagoguery to an entirely new level. If you ever wonder why the French have the reputation as a nutless bunch of Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys, well, here’s your answer right here. Instead of standing up and demanding their rights as a free people, including asserting their God-given rights to effective self-defense, they sit there and let the people who get to be in a potential position to lead them either
a. demagogue the issue as Segolene Royal has done, or
b. tell them to sit down, shut up and wait on the cops to save them, as Nicolas Sarkozy has done.

God, but it’s good to be an American. Things could be better, but they could be a hell of a lot worse, too.

Same Tired Old Song from Chron Editorial Board

May 2, 2007

Does the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board get tired of hearing the same songs over and over on the radio? Whatever the answer may be, they certainly haven’t tired of singing the same old song on their editorial page…

…The Legislature just passed a bill that expands a resident’s right to use a firearm in self-defense at home, in vehicles and at other locations. The legislation would establish a legal presumption of self-defense for the shooter. After overwhelming approval by the House and Senate, the governor signed it.

Another bill moving through the Legislature would allow workers to keep licensed guns in their cars, even if they are parked at workplaces where their employer bans firearms. A third bill would make concealed handgun license records confidential. The records, owned by the public that paid for their creation, are properly classed as public documents.

These bills, should they become law, would encourage the proliferation of deadly weapons into every area of our lives, from the freeway to the shopping mall. Instead of putting the brakes on bad legislation, Perry’s latest comments only fuel the domestic arms race.

Arming the public to the teeth will not prevent individuals like Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Cho from murdering innocents taken by surprise and terrorizing a campus. He bought his killing tools legally and probably could have qualified for a concealed handgun permit in Texas.

Rather, guns in every classroom, car and bar would only make it easier for deadly weapons to find their way into the wrong hands. The odds that an armed population could quickly take down a deranged gunman are much smaller than the chance of being shot by an otherwise law-abiding citizen who becomes emotional and loses control in a stressful public setting.

Sigh. The same old blood-running-in-the-streets rhetoric trotted out by the Brady enuretics every time citizens’ rights of self-defense are even proposed to be expanded to the level they should have been in the first place. It gets tiring, and it’s quite insulting to boot. With the way the system is, I’d be willing to bet that at least a few CHL holders in Texas get ticked off every day about one thing or another, yet they leave the guns in the holsters, judging by the fact that these stories about innocents being shot by CHL holders who lost control of their emotions NEVER make it to newsprint. Why, it’s almost as if the Chron editorialists were talking out of their collective asses! Which, really isn’t surprising because, as I heard someone say once, “When you talk out of your ass, a lot of shit’s gonna come out.” Pardon my french, but this sort of thing just gets really tiring. Let’s hope Perry and the Legislature don’t listen to the media, and that they put these bills through. When it’s all said and done, it’s absolutely the only moral and right thing to do.