Sarah Palin Saturday Double-Header

My Calguns friend and shooting buddy 7X57 wrote a great piece I though it is worth sharing with the readers of my blog. Enjoy!

Sarah Palin Saturday Double-Header

As some have probably noticed, watching the media wear themselves out barking and snapping at the end of their chain at Sarah Palin has become a rather good spectator sport. Sometimes I play sportscaster here, for the amusement of those who enjoy the sport. Palin has become something of a morality play about the downfall of the Left, and that's good clean fun.

So it is today. We had a double-header last Saturday, one a simple demonstration of character and the other a morality play about political deftness and stupidity, but both breathtaking in their own way. The latter is particularly interesting, juxtaposed as it is beside one particular political folly of the Obama administration. Or, maybe that one is about character too. Maybe they're both connected. You, sportsfans, will have to decide.

Act I: The Anti-Gillibrand

The warm-up game is simply told: Sarah Palin gave a speech on Second Amendment Rights at a meeting of the Alaska Gun Collectors Association. The dinosaur media was quiet as a grave about this, which is interesting--why not take the opportunity to underline the talking point that she's a gun-nut extremist? I mean--*collecting*?

What kept them too busy to take a swipe at their favorite victim? We'll see in Act II. But this particular episode of the ongoing national morality play appears to be about character--simple honesty and loyalty. It's best seen as the opposite of Freshman senator Gillibrand, who seems to have been extra busy shedding her gun-rights connections as fast as Carolyn McCarthy can tell her to. Why not? If you have to run over the whole state of NY, which in practice means anti-gun fortress New York City, it's the sensible thing to do.

Except--some people, non-politicians to be sure, might think that dishonest. In any rate, Sarah Palin having chosen to step onto the national stage from the Frozen wastelands of the North, seems to be choosing the opposite. I'm sure any political consultant would have told her to moderate her views, but perhaps this is simply an example of good political instincts: she could never shed the image of a gun-nut, not in the face of a homicidally insane dinosaur media. The Health Care bill is struggling over the problem of trying to please too many at one time--perhaps there is political wisdom in "dancing with the one that brung ya." It is certain that she could never earn the trust of anti-gun voters, so why risk losing the gunnies for nothing?

Or, it might not be political instincts. It might be that other thing, that outdated idea from Classical Ethics that you should be willing to suffer the consequences of being right and not be ashamed of what you believe and where you came from. Either way, it fairly takes the breath away: a politician deliberately and unabashedly going to a gun-collector function, speaking on Second Amendment rights, and accepting an NRA award. It is so flagrant a violation of the political rule of avoiding controversy and giving offense to anyone that it almost looks like a deliberate invitation to the media to attack.

But it most assuredly means this: Sarah Palin is not going to run away from gunnies for political purposes--she appears to be the anti-Gillibrand. Now, she cannot be the most pro-gun politician in American history; that history includes presidents like Jefferson, who told us that the great object is that every man be armed, Grant, a president of the NRA, and Kennedy, who said we should strive to again be a nation of riflemen. It would hardly be possible to be more pro-gun than the founding generation. But at this point, Sarah Palin may be the most pro-gun politician alive. At any rate, one would have to go outside the main party structure to the likes of Ron Paul to find a serious competitor.

But returning to the other suggestion: why would she invite the media to attack her? Why wave the red flag? Well, I don't really think she did--it would be consistent with her behavior to simply do what she likes and disregard the opinions of detractors. I think that's the real Sarah Palin, and a breathtaking level of disregard she has, too. But that very disregard seems to be at the heart of the Left's terminal case of Palin Derangement. They are the Philosopher Kings. She does not give deference. In Plato's Republic, that is a fatal error. They aren't that far yet, but their hatred of her shows how far they're willing to go in the name of hate and injured pride.

More than one ethical tradition names Pride as a particularly effective path to destruction. The Western tradition receives it from both parents--it is Homozygous for it, you might say. The Hebrews told us that Pride goes before a Fall. The Greeks said that those the Gods would destroy they first made proud. And the apostles told their Greek converts that Pride was the Original Sin. So Pride doesn't play well in that tradition. This first act in Saturday's Palin Play illustrates the source of the wounded pride of the Left; a Little Person, worse an *uneducated* person (which has nothing to do with knowledge and everything to do with ideological certification) refuses to genuflect, and so spectacularly that the Philosopher Kings must crush her not as an opponent, but as a traitor who commits lese majeste. Not for practical reasons, but furiously, incoherently. And, perhaps in the terror that makes men lash out at shadows.


That bring us to Act II, on the theme of Pride and Fall.

The feature game was a bit different; the blogosphere went looking for a lamb and got torn to shreds by a lion. And we can learn a few things by how that happened.

The anti-Palin bloggers seem to have felt a distinct lack of Palin news, and perhaps despairing for a reason to get out of bed in the morning decided to just make some up. OK, well, outright lying is a normal day in the blogosphere, but you'd think they'd have learned back when they lied about the parentage of her baby and all the rest. However, you'd be wrong. Rational people learn from experience, and on the subject of Sarah Palin they are not only not rational, they are stark-staring mad. So like moths to a candle, they returned to her family life, which seems to exercise an unholy power over them. The lie this time was that she and Todd were breaking up.

What's the origin of this dark obsession with family life, so strong that it makes them lack even the human decency that prompted Barak Obama to say that family is off-limits? I think it lies in the sexual mythology of the left. There are many influences there, of course, some contradictory. A powerful one is the Radical Feminist theory that all sex is an exploitative exercise of power over another. There are few traditionalists as prudish as a certain kind of Feminist, as Camille Paglia is not shy to point out. A more popular variant is that it is any vestige of traditional marriage that is exploitative. This is nearly universal; repeated over and over again until it is not even a conscious meme is that the Right has cold, passionless, sterile relationships.

Now, the problem with Sarah Palin is that she threatens that idea; pretty much nobody believes she's one of the asexual women the left has so often put up for election. Worse is the dirty little secret that most of the left's iconic women got where they are because of a man (Hillary is a public figure because of Bill, and the list is astonishingly long from there), while Sarah Palin is genuinely, unquestionably self-made; Todd Palin is not a politician and leans toward the Alaska independence party.

So the other meme is invoked, one that comes from a bizzarely Leftist version of the Victorian woman: a female Conservative who isn't frigid is a slut. This is the constant theme running throughout all of the unseemly coverage of Palin's family. But you might have thought it might them from walking into the trap that the Divorce Lie led them into.

Perhaps the problem is that the left's theory about asexual marriages is in fact true in their experience? Bill Clinton, at least, might agree. And so, somehow, they didn't anticipate the political masterstroke that came when someone finally ran down an apparently bemused Sarah Palin and asked her about the whole thing. Perhaps it's because they'd spent so much time lying about the Palins that they drank their own kool-aid. Or, perhaps it's because we don't ever seem to see public figures who really appear to like their spouses. Perhaps they expected yet another of those polite, ham-fisted denials that never, ever work. Perhaps they expected that they could keep this game going for weeks, enjoying the ever-more-strident and ever-less-believable public denials. Instead, what they got their heads handed to them on a platter:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah Palin Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd? I may be just a renegade hockey mom, but I'm not blind!

That may be the most brilliant line we'll see for a long time. Denials never work; we've seen that time and time again that "I love my wife/husband" does nothing to stop the rumors. So what she said was different, something we simply have not heard from a politician and above all a female politician: she said, in essence, "I think my husband is hot."

And that brings us to one of the most interesting, politically incendary things about Sarah Palin: she likes men. Thanks to the Cultural Revolutionaries of the left, we now have a culture that hates men. Television is drowning in the dual image of men as either castrated or evil. Sarah Palin threatens that image, above all because she seems to genuinely like men as men. Being the husband of the governor is almost certain to be the most castrating job in Alaska--unless you happen to be a multiple Iron Dog champion and fishing-boat skipper. At that point, you can wear a unitard and still be manly. And that, it seems, is the kind of man Sarah Palin likes.

Name me *one* woman on the left happily, unapologetically married to a similar man.

I've said before that this is another aspect of Sarah Palin that is endlessly threatening to the left. It isn't primarily women that she attracts--its men. And not because of the left's smear that she looks like a "slutty flight attendent," a sexist pig attitude that they've spread as far as they can. It's because she likes them and doesn't tell them they should be castrated for the good of society.

My guess is that, push come to shove, quite a few of them would die for her. Nothing threatens the left as much as a woman who commands respect because she gives it. If that sort of thing became common, the left would have no gender-theory left. And that's my guess as to why they'll never be able to avoid walking into that kind of trap; because they simply can't imagine what a strong, self-made woman who likes men and chooses to surround herself with them and their environment instead of blaming them for her own shortcomings would think like.

They're right to fear her like the devil. Even moderate and left-leaning men tend to appreciate not being blamed for everything. She has to be stopped and neutralized lest too many of them start to like being treated like men instead of half-domesticated animals. They might enjoy an environment without hate.

And that's the bases-loaded home run that ended Saturday's double-header. Until next time, your humble sportscaster remains....

7x57

Lock'n Load

New reality series coming up on SHOWTIME.

On the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling on the 2nd Amendment which reinforces every American's right to bear arms, this show is a fly on the wall at "The Shootist" gun store in Englewood, Colorado, where salesman Josh Ryan is always in full-on pitch mode -- and the steady stream of customers never stops. And for every gun sold by this expert gunslinger at this family-owned store, there's a fascinating story and a fascinating buyer to tell it to him: the new parent who wants to protect his family; the teenager who's an expert hunter; the 30-something woman who feels a little more at ease with a revolver in her purse and the avid collector who simply has a fascination with guns of all kinds. There's even a shooting range in the basement to try out the merchandise before completing the sale. The show will debut in 2009.

Here are two trailers:

Punks Messing Up With The Wrong Guy Got What They Deserved

Meet Elliot Firby: working man, father of five and new gun owner.

Elliot Firby says he decided to get a gun as a way to protect himself and his family. He says law enforcement can't be there all the time. Turns out he wouldn't even have the gun a year before it would be used.

No Guns For Negroes

Another exceptional pro-Second Amendment movie brought to you by JFPO.
Best 20 minutes I've spent watching a video in a very long time.

Part 1


Part 2

How Gun Rights In Romania Were Lost And A Few Words About The Brave Man And Women Who Fought A Guerilla War Against Communism

My previous blog entry about Mr. Duca, the young Romanian candidate to the EU Parliament and his position on gun rights for the citizens of his country was read by a member of a gun forum where I post often.
This member asked me to clarify a few things for him about Romania and firearms rights in that part of the world, which I did. I decided to post his questions and my answers on my blog because this way more people may have the opportunity to learn little known facts about how easy it is to lose your guns and how hard - if not impossible it is to get them back.

Question:
Is there even a gun control debate in Romania? It would seem a prudent discussion to have considering the soviet and communist occupation in their recent history.

Answer:
Actually, I don't think so...yet.
You see, before the Soviet communization of Romania, the people had the right to have guns. I remember my father telling me his dad owned a double barreled shotgun he used to hunt doves and rabbits with as well as a Luger pistol picked from the retreating German troops (the German soldiers were getting rid of all their military equipment by simply throwing it out of the troop transport trains).

When the communists took power in 1949 following falsified elections, the first law they enacted was total gun confiscation (for the greater good of course). Then after they made sure the population was disarmed they started the arrests, imprisonments, reeducation camps and killings.
So practically since 1949 it was illegal to own any firearms in communist Romania. The only exception was for hunting purposes: only single and double barreled shotguns, only with a special permit form the police, the owner was required to be a member of a state run hunting association and the guns must be registered and locked at the police station any time the dictator was in town.

After so many years of restrictions and servitude for over two generations, the perception of the Romanian population about gun rights changed in worse; I must admit when I first came to the US I too was surprised to see how owning guns is something normal and affordable and I too believed guns in the hands of untrained people can be dangerous (and keep in mind I served 2 years in the military so I was familiar with firearms)
Luckily I was educated in the principles of the 2nd Amendment by a friend and that's how I got my first gun - a Glock 21.

Question:
Yeah the Romanian story is one that I think should be told more often. It's amazing to hear some of the things that went on under communism.

Out of curiosity, when the soviet troops occupied Romania and dismantled the army and installed their commnist regime how would the 2a have prevented that? I only ask since my parents always seem to come back to pistols are no match for tanks argument. Just curious on your thoughts (my grandparents lived through the occupation in Romania)

Answer:
I am glad to answer your question. When the Soviets brought the communists to power in 1947-1948 one of the the first things the new communist regime did was to confiscate all firearms. (as a side note: the Russians actually had to bring with them from the USSR the entire leadership of the Romanian Communist Party because there weren't enough "capable comrades" to be found locally).

Anyway, after so many years of war and occupation the overwhelming majority of the people were sick and tired of the war; so they believed what the propaganda of the new regime was telling them. They were lied that the government will protect them, that guns must be surrendered for their own safety, that since the war is over there is no need for guns anymore and since they will start a new life as owners and rulers of the People's Republic (that sounds very tempting - the Republic of the People, isn't it?) they have no need for guns since the people are making the laws and enforce the rules.

So believing that crap, the vast majority of the population voluntarily surrendered their guns without firing a single shot. Next thing you know in 1948/49, the communists started making arrests. Leaders and members of the opposition Parties, all officers in the military, intellectuals, clergy, writers and artists, simple farmers like my grandad and small business owners; in other words the cream of the Romanian citizenry got imprisoned, sentenced to life, interned in reeducation camps, killed or simply disappeared forever.

As it turned out, not all Romanians turned their guns in the previous year. There was a small number of patriots who knew what was about to happen. Among them there were a number of capable military officers who fled when the communists started making arrests, some peasants and workers plus in the region where I am from, members of a national minority named Aromani (or Macedo-Romani). These people who speak a language that is considered proto (ancient)-Romanian are tracking their origins to Alexander The Great; they are very tough and determined individuals, good businessmen who made decent money in sheep herding and trading goods - but not only. You could compare their character and toughness with the Americans living in the Appalachian mountains.

So these merry bands of armed Romanians took arms and retreated in the Carpathian mountains; they called themselves "haiduci" (spell hayduchy) and they were the Romanian version of Tito's Partizans - only they were fighting the Soviet and the Communist Romanian army. Their guns were whatever they could get their hands on but they benefited from the support of the population in the small mountain villages where they were fighting.
The communists tactic to defeat them was to terrorize, infiltrate, arrest or displace the local population supporting them. The Securitate and military were fighting with full auto AK-47's tanks, machine guns and airplanes while the guerrilla fighters were using WWII Mausers and whatever they were capturing from the dead enemy.
Even like that - short in guns, ammunition, food and with diminished local support, these patriots continued their fight from 1947 until late 50's early 60's which is no small accomplishment. In fact, it is the longest lasting anti-communist armed resistance movement in the former Communist block.

By the time Ceausescu came to power in mid 60's with a platform of de-Stalinization, there were very few anti-communist fighters left alive. The new dictator promised an amnesty for everyone and those maybe a dozen freedom fighters still alive who were malnourished, beat up and tired to live on the run saw a chance to reunite with what was left of their families and took it. The promised American invasion the Romanian people were waiting for never came to their rescue.

Do I believe guns in the hands of determined people would have helped stopping the communists? Depends on the number of guns and number of people. Keep in mind, the overwhelming majority of the population surrendered their arms, only a minuscule fraction of them chose to keep them and fight. At the time, the population of Romania was 14 million. Less than 10,000 of them took up arms and confronted the communists. That's 0.7% of the population, and while it wasn't enough to win it still was enough to keep the commies on on their toes for over 16 years.
So my sincere opinion is that yes, a reasonably large number of patriots (somewhere between 3%-4% of the population - which is the same percentage that started and fought the War of Independence in the America) well armed and having the support of the majority of the non-combatant population can have a real chance to overthrow a dictatorial regime over a number of years.

As another side note: I had the pleasure and honor to meet one of these great patriots, one of the very few freedom fighters who survived years of detention in communist prisons. He emigrated to America and now lives in Whittier, less than 15 miles away from my home. As it happens I didn't knew his story in the beginning; his oldest daughter is my wife's best friend and we knew each other for a number of years but he never mentioned anything to me about his past. Only when one day I visited the home of this modest man I noticed a framed piece of paper on the wall in his living room with his name on it and with the phrase "awarded by the Government of Romanian Republic in recognition to the sacrifice, courage and years of anti-communist fighting".

If you are interested lo learn more about the anti-communist resistance in Romania there is a Wiki article here

Video: I Decided Not To Be A Victim

A Justice Files episode about the right of self defense from an era when California wasn't a gun-hating liberal stronghold:



H/T The War On Guns

You Know What The Problem Is? There Is Too LITTLE Media Bias Against Guns

Eric Boehlert from Media Matters (liberal think-tank run by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta and financed by former Nazi collaborator and Democrat Party mega-sugar-daddy George Soros) explains what's causing the latest mass shootings ocuring in America:
The press no longer cares about epic gun violence

Oh, Lord...

Before clicking the link to Mr. Boehler masterpiece of braindead journalism make sure you have one of these close at hand. Or a couple of them, just to be sure.

Woo Hoo! Time To Buy A Home In Montana

Now I know where I'll move when I retire

MT: House aims to shoot down federal gun controls


HELENA — Montana lawmakers fired another shot in battles for states' rights as they supported letting some Montana gun owners and dealers skip reporting their transactions to the federal government.
Advertisement

Under House Bill 246, firearms made in Montana and used in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation. The same would be true for firearm accessories and ammunition made and sold in the state.

"What we need here is for Montana to be able to handle Montana's business and affairs,'' Republican Rep. Joel Boniek told fellow lawmakers Saturday. The wilderness guide from Livingston defeated Republican incumbent Bruce Malcolm in last spring's election.

Boniek's measure aims to circumvent federal authority over interstate commerce, which is the legal basis for most gun regulation in the United States. The bill potentially could release Montanans from both federal gun registration requirements and dealership licensing rules. Since the state has no background-check laws on its own books, the legislation also could free gun purchasers from that requirement.

"Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I'd like to support that,'' Boniek said. "But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It's about state rights.''

The House voted 64-36 for the bill on Saturday. If it clears a final vote, the measure will go to the Senate.

House Republicans were joined by 14 Democrats in passing the measure.

"I would hope that our U.S. Supreme Court would begin to retreat from what I think is an abusive interpretation of our interstate commerce clause,'' said Rep. Deborah Kottel, a Democrat from Great Falls who supports the measure.

That clause in the U.S. Constitution grants Congress authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states. The Supreme Court has handled cases seeking to limit the clause's application in recent years. In 2005, the court upheld federal authority to regulate marijuana under the clause, even when its use is limited to noncommercial purposes — such as medical reasons — and it is grown and used within a state's borders.

The Montana bill follows fears here and elsewhere that the election of Barack Obama as president will trigger more gun regulation. In the months before Obama's inauguration, Montanans rushed to stock up on guns, pushing gun sales beyond normal benchmarks despite the recession.

Opponents of the measure worry lax regulations in the state could lead to a similar surge in both gun sales and gun manufacturing.

"Who are we bringing in and is this the kind of business we want to have in this state?'' asked Rep. Sue Malek, D-Missoula. "I want our state to be recognized as a state that cares about people, and that cares about the environment.''

The bill is one of a number the Legislature is considering that may extend gun rights in Montana.

Earlier in the week, the House passed another measure, HB228, that would let Montanans carry concealed weapons in city limits without having permits.

On Saturday the House Judiciary Committee narrowly passed a resolution that affirms Montanans' right to carry weapons in national parks and wildlife refuges.

Gun Rights On Campus Movement Is Gainig Steam

Here is a surprisingly unbiased piece from Washington (com)Post on pro-Second Amendment student groups and their efforts to legalize the right carry concealed firearms in university campuses for self protection.

Students Aim for Gun Rights on Campus
Group Advocates for Concealed Weapons to Protect Against College Shootings

HARRISONBURG, Va., Feb. 14 --

Kyle Smith agreed to play the bad guy.

In a scenario eerily designed to imitate the Virginia Tech massacre, when a lone gunman shot and killed 32 people in the nine minutes it took for campus police to respond, Smith burst into a classroom here Saturday, his right index finger pointed as if it were a gun drawn, and immediately "shot" the teacher between the eyes.

"You people treated me wrong," the freshman yelled, a little sheepishly. "I just can't take it anymore."

As the four students in the room screamed, hit the floor and crouched under desks, he methodically fired five more shots with his finger and "killed" them all. In 23 seconds, it was over.

"You're all dead," Shawn Deehan, a gun rights advocate from GunRightsWeek.org, told the jeans-clad James Madison University students crumpled on the floor and waiting for his cue that the reenactment was over. "A great rate of response from law enforcement is six minutes. Six minutes. If you don't care if you live or die, that's a suitable response. But if you're concerned about living another day, another minute, then that's too long."

Then Deehan reran the scenario the way he and other gun rights advocates would prefer: with the teacher and two students carrying concealed weapons.

---------------------------

Efforts by gun rights advocates to allow students and teachers to carry concealed weapons on campus have never gotten out of committee in the gun-friendly Virginia legislature the past four years. And a spate of attempts to introduce similar bills in a number of states since the Virginia Tech shooting have failed. But gun rights advocates say the battle is just beginning. And the battleground now, they say, is the hearts and minds and trigger fingers of students themselves.

What better way to create converts and advocates, they say, than to put them in the shoes of Virginia Tech victims and let them feel the difference between being defenseless and having the power to take action.

For the second scenario, bad guy Smith again barged into the classroom and again whacked the teacher between the eyes. But this time, Kelly Clouston and Leah Sargent, students at James Madison, bounced up out of their seats, assumed a wide-legged stance and pointed their "gun" fingers at Smith, not forgetting to pull their hands back slightly to imitate a pistol's recoil after they fired. Smith fell to the floor four seconds after he'd entered.

"See? One person, maybe two, got shot and it's over," Deehan said proudly. "This is the reality with concealed carry. It's over." Clouston and Sargent high-fived each other.

---------------------------

Yesterday's demonstration, in a classroom at the Top Gun Shooting Range in Harrisonburg, was just one of a number of Virginia Tech classroom shooting scenarios that gun rights advocates had been staging all week at JMU, using Nerf guns, plastic toy rifles and fingers. Organizers said more than 100 students and community members came to hear lectures about gun rights, watch the two Virginia Tech scenarios and spend a sunny day shooting actual pistols at the firing range.

"We want people to understand that guns can be safe and guns can be fun," Katie Cannon said. The College Republicans' event coordinator helped organize the gun rights week.

Sargent, a senior music education major, donned thick plastic glasses and screwed bright orange earplugs into her ears. "The line is hot!" organizers called out. "Fire away!" She picked up a Glock 19 9mm and stared down its sights. Pa CHA. The gun discharged. Bull's-eye.

"This is really fun. I loved it," Sargent said after her target shooting session. "I'm really proud of this." She unfurled her target, with a cluster of holes directly in the center of the bull's-eye. "She's a natural," one of the instructors said admiringly. She tucked her long blond hair behind one ear and smiled. A spent bullet casing dropped to the floor.

Read the complete article at the link

What I Have Learned From the Twentieth Century

Discovered this gem over at Sipsey Street Irregulars. It is a piece written 10 years ago by Mike Vanderboegh and his words are ringing today even truer than the day they were written.

Meet the Faculty Emeritus of the University of Collectivism. They make the trains run on time, right to the execution camp gate.
Here's a tip: Don't get in the boxcar.

I wrote this ten years ago. By request, here it is again.

Mike
III

What I Have Learned From the Twentieth Century

With thanks to Schoolmasters Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot

From the Liberty Pole
June, 1999
by Mike Vanderboegh

As an amateur historian of this sad century whose time is almost up, I would like to reflect upon six lessons I have learned in my studies. Folks who wish to live free and prosperous in the next century would do well to understand the failures of the past.

LESSON NO. 1: If a bureaucrat, or a soldier sent by a bureaucrat, comes to knock down your door and take you someplace you do not want to go because of who you are or what you think -- kill him. If you can, kill the politician who sent him. You will likely die anyway, and you will be saving someone else the same fate. For it is a universal truth that the intended victims always far outnumber the tyrant's executioners. Any nation which practices this lesson will quickly run out of executioners and tyrants, or they will run out of it.

LESSON NO. 2: If a bureaucrat, or a soldier sent by a bureaucrat, comes to knock down your door and confiscate your firearms -- kill him. The disarmament of law-abiding citizens is the required precursor to genocide.

LESSON NO. 3: If a bureaucrat tells you that he must know if you have a firearm so he can put your name on a list for the common good, or wants to issue you an identity card so that you be more easily identified -- tell him to go to hell. Registration of people and firearms is the required precursor to the tyranny which permits genocide. Bureaucrats cannot send soldiers to doors that are not on their list.

LESSON NO. 4: Believe actions, not words. Tyrants are consummate liars. Just because a tyrant is "democratically elected" does not mean he believes in democracy. Reference Adolf Hitler, 1932.

And just because a would-be tyrant mouths words of reverence to law and justice, or takes a solemn oath to uphold a constitution, does not mean be believes such concepts apply to him. Reference Bill Clinton, among others.

The language of the lie is just another tool of killers. A sign saying "Arbeit Macht Frei" (Work Makes You Free) posted above an execution camp gate does not mean that anybody gets out of there alive, and a room labeled "Showers" does not necessarily make you clean. Bill Clinton notwithstanding, the meaning of "is" is plain when such perverted language gets you killed. While all tyrants are liars, it is true that not all political liars are would-be tyrants -- but they bear close watching. And keep your rifle handy.

LESSON NO. 5: Our constitutional republic as crafted by the Founders is the worst form of government in the world, except when compared to all the others. Capitalism, as well, is a terrible way to run an economy, except when compared to all other economic systems. Unrestrained democracy is best expressed as three wolves and a sheep sitting down to vote on what to have for dinner. The horrors of collectivism in all its forms -- socialism, communism, national socialism, fascism -- have been demonstrated beyond dispute by considerable wasteful trial and bloody error. Leaders such as Bill Clinton who view the Constitution as inconvenient and ignorable are harbingers of tyranny.

LESSON NO. 6: While nations do not always get the leaders they deserve, they always get the leaders they tolerate. And anyone who tells you that "It Can't Happen Here" is whistling past the graveyard of history. There is no "house rule" that bars tyranny coming to America. History is replete with republics whose people grew complacent and descended into imperial butchery and chaos. Dictators count on the assistance of people who are complacent, fearful, envious, lazy and corrupt. While there is no "Collective guilt" to the crimes of a regime (all such crimes being committed by specific criminal individuals), there is certainly "collective responsibility" -- especially for those who watch the criminals at work without objecting or interfering.

A French journalist of the last century wrote: "I must speak out, for I will not be an accomplice." Evil tyrants require, indeed they depend upon, willing and unwilling accomplices -- good people who would never think of harming a soul themselves. Lenin called such people "useful idiots."

De Tocqueville observed that "America is great because America is good. When America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great." As related in the Old Testament, God judged nations based upon the immorality and criminality of their leaders. Entire peoples were scourged because of their failure to remove corrupt leaders.

As we move from the Twentieth Century into the Twenty-First, we should take care to remember the ancient story of Sodom and Gommorrah. If we wish to avoid the butchery of the Twentieth Century and the righteous judgment of the God of our antiquity, we would do well to keep our Bibles, our Constitution and our firearms close at hand.

In the backgound: Siegessäule monument (Victory column). Hitler's favorite landmark in Berlin, the column represented a symbol of German superiority over Denmark, Austria and France

Citizens Grilling The Gun Grabbing O.C. Sheriff

A video recording of the Orange County Board Of Supervisors meeting that took place this morning is now available for viewing.

For up to speed info on why this OC BOS meeting is so important for the Second Amendment rights go here first.

Video:
Part 1 - the concealed weapon permit debate starts at 01:44:20 mark on the player with the Sheriff statement. First of the 41 gun rights speakers takes the microphone at 02:08:15 mark)
Part 2 - afternoon session (the last 11 gun rights speakers followed by questions and comments from the OC Board of Supervisors members)

Pahrump, Nevada: When Citizens Make A Stand For The Second Amendment, Politicians Back Off

It started when the Pahrump NV. Town Manager Bill Kohbarger placed on the town board meeting agenda a proposition banning guns from the city property.
However, Pahrump residents caught wind of what Kohbarger and his leftist gun grabbing acolytes were scheming and by the time the board meeting started, scores of angry citizens were already packing the town hall.

Read what happened next:

Town withdraws effort to ban guns

By GINA B. GOOD


There was definitely a hot time in the old town Tuesday night, due in part to an item placed on the town board meeting agenda by Pahrump Town Manager Bill Kohbarger that would have barred firearms on town-owned property, in town-owned buildings and at town-sponsored events.

Fired up residents braved the frigid winds blowing down from snow-capped Mt. Charleston as they streamed into the Bob Ruud Community Center 30 minutes early to ensure a seat for the meeting.

By the time the meeting was called to order at 7 p.m., dozens of residents were standing in the back of the hall.

The board's first order of business after the pledge of allegiance was to permanently remove the firearms ban from the agenda, on advice from the town's attorney, Rick Campbell.

He said, "My research shows the town does not have the legal right to enact these types of ordinances." That ended the matter for the board but didn't stop the 200 or so people in attendance from wanting to voice their opinions. Residents waiting to address the board lined up behind the speaker's podium and around the back of the auditorium.

Board Chairman Nicole Shupp tried to cut off the speaking, but attendees protested, wanting the board, and specifically Kohbarger, to know where they stood on the issue.

A man stating he was from District 5 was first to speak. His name was lost in the noise of the crowd as they reacted to the fact they would not be able to speak on the matter. "The colors have been shown," he said. "We are not okay with this. We can see what's coming in this country. The government is getting out of control. When it comes to gun rights and the Second Amendment, we can't give any more ground. We have zero tolerance on this issue."

The speaker paused as the hall broke out in thunderous applause.

"I want get the people whose idea this is fired," he continued. "Gun restriction only hurts the honest citizens. Don't our elected officials recognize this fact?

Referring to the recent murder of a convenience store employee, he added, "When you walk into a convenience store in Pahrump, do you know who's walking in behind you?"

As the woman next in line tried to ask the board a question, Shupp told the gathering, "We are moving on."

The crowd reacted, with several people yelling out, "Let her ask a question."

Shupp used her gavel to quiet the room, again saying the board would move on to the next agenda item, but a male voice from the back of the auditorium called out, "All in favor of hearing the question say 'Aye'."

"Ayes" rang out in the community center.

Shupp was not swayed in her determination to move to the next item. She told those in attendance that the gun ban was permanently removed from the agenda but they were invited to come back and comment at the next regularly scheduled meeting. She said, "We'll be here until midnight if everyone in the room takes a turn at the podium."

People shouted out they wanted to know why a gun ban was on the agenda in the first place, but no answer was forthcoming.

"You are not going to be re-elected madam," called out someone from the back of the hall.

Harley Kulkin addressed Shupp and the board, saying, "If you don't have time to listen to the people who elected you, you shouldn't run for public office."

In a brief interview after the lengthy meeting, Kohbarger, who bore most of the blame from those in attendance, said two residents asked him to put the gun ban on the agenda.

"They didn't show up to back me up on their own item, but I've got broad shoulders," he said.

He said he'd canvassed more than a dozen people after the item was proposed to him and came to the conclusion that guns carried in the open intimidated people.

Before the town attorney advised Kohbarger the town could not enact the ordinance, he'd planned to change the agenda item so those with concealed carry permits would not be prohibited from carrying their firearms, "because those people have training."

CCW holders must pass a background check and weapon handling test.


Residents react to ban idea

"I am totally against this gun ban," said Mike Hickey, before the Pahrump Town Board meeting began on Tuesday. "If this is the way the town manager thinks, he can go somewhere else. He is new in town and he's trying to flex his muscles. I don't know where he's from, but he can just head right on back there. I'm still a believer in the Constitution."

His friend, Daniel Spooner added, "I'm here to find out what's going on and to put in my two cents worth if necessary. I want to know if a study has been done on barring arms by the town manager. If they take our firearms, only the crooks will carry guns and law abiding people won't. I believe in my Second Amendment rights."

Bill Aldrich agreed, "We have to do everything we can to stop this gun ban from happening."

Donald Dial said, "Our rights are being taken away. This town has been like this for many, many years. What's the purpose for changing? Just because you make an ordinance to not carry a gun doesn't mean we don't have a right to carry. It's in the Constitution."

Carol Bird commented, "My husband Steve and I are here in support of citizens' right to bear arms. I don't want the town to ban guns. In my job, I am in and out of public buildings almost every day. I don't want to remove my gun every time I go into a public building."

Louis DeCanio said, "I know the elections are over so nobody has to listen to the people, but we have the right to speak."

Donald Cox asked the board who put the item on the agenda. Kohbarger simply said, "I did."

"Then you need to resign or be fired," said Cox.

Ann Hits The Bullseye: Armed Citizens Save Lives, Gun Grabbers Responsible For Disarmed Victims Being Murdered

A fragment from Ann Coulter'a article LIBERAL VICTIMHOOD: A GAME YOU CAN PLAY AT HOME. As usual, Ann hits the bullseye.

When Gov. David Paterson ended the Kennedy soap opera by appointing Democratic congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand, her Democratic colleague, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, blanketed the airwaves, threatening to challenge Gillibrand in the next election because of her NRA-approved stand on guns.

McCarthy explained, "My voice is for the victims."

See how Rep. Carolyn McCarthy doesn't understand her own anti-gun legislation
(hillarious video here)

The only reason McCarthy was elected to Congress in the first place is that her husband and son were shot by a crazed gunman on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993. Colin Ferguson's shooting spree wasn't stopped sooner because none of the passengers had guns. As has been demonstrated beyond dispute at this point, armed citizens save lives.

In a comprehensive study of all public multiple shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that the only public policy that reduced both the incidence and casualties of such shootings were concealed-carry laws. Not only are there 60 percent fewer gun massacres after states adopt concealed-carry laws, but the death and injury rate of such rampages are reduced by 80 percent.

Rep. McCarthy claims to "speak for the victims" by promoting policies that will provably create a lot more victims.

Quote Of The Day: The Definition Of Gun Control

Gun control defined: The theory that people who are willing to ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm.

H/T Hawk

Yep, that makes a lot of sense. Brilliant theory - if you are a brain dead liberal.

All You Need To Know About The 2nd Amendment In 3 Min. 8 Sec.

Logic and common sense. Things gun grabbing liberal pansies are sorely missing.



H/T Powerline