data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/080ec/080ece0144486c3dcbcbcbaa008cc7f3416d401f" alt=""
These machine gun purses are from designer James Piatt, who also did a lovely set of brass knuck purses.
Author and host of the hit OUTDOOR CHANNEL show SHOOTING GALLERY spouts off...
"Weapons compound man's power to achieve; they amplify the capabilities of both the good man and the bad, and to exactly the same degree, having no will of their own. Thus we must regard them as servants, not masters - and good servants to good men. Without them, man is diminished, and his opportunities to fulfill his destiny are lessened. An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
— Col. Jeff Cooper
NRA Nation
The Second Amendment people are winning
[...]
Bloomberg is wrong: The Democrats are not “in charge” of Congress, at least when it comes to guns — the National Rifle Association is.
[...]
What accounts for the extraordinary strength of the gun-rights movement? Four factors come to mind.
First: While the polls show that the public supports some gun-control measures, that support has slipped over the last decade. In 1999, after the Columbine massacre, ABC found that 67 percent of the public wanted “stricter gun control.” Now 61 percent do. In 1999, the public was evenly split on whether people should be allowed to carry concealed handguns. Now they think it should be legal, by a 55 to 42 percent margin. Other polling organizations, and other questions, show similar results: The public has moved to the right. That movement may reflect the fact that concealed-carry laws have spread across the country without its becoming the O.K. Corral writ large.
Second: Support for gun control is a mile wide but half an inch deep. A lot of people who support particular gun-control measures — mandatory trigger locks, say — do so because those regulations sound reasonable to them. Many of them don’t believe that such regulations will do much to reduce crime. It is not an issue that moves their votes.
Opponents of gun control, on the other hand, tend to be gun owners, for whom gun issues are much less abstract. The intensity is all on their side. Many of them will vote against a politician based on gun issues alone.
Third: Democrats are gun-shy after seeing this issue backfire on them too many times. Many Democrats, including Bill Clinton, blamed their loss of Congress in 1994 on their support for the “assault weapons” ban. Many Democrats blamed Al Gore’s loss in 2000 on gun control, too, which contributed to his losing Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
By 2006, the Democrats had backed off on guns. In some places, they ran pro-gun candidates. More often, they ran anti-gun candidates who campaigned on other issues. Guns were a major issue in only one competitive race last year: the contest to replace Henry Hyde, a moderate Republican on gun control, in the Sixth Congressional District of Illinois. Peter Roskam, a proponent of gun rights, beat back a strong Democratic challenge, partly by using the gun issue.
Fourth: The NRA is a highly effective organization. It has 4 million members — a little below its 2000 peak, but enough to be formidable. It keeps a wary eye on everything going on in Congress. And it understands that political muscle is built by being exercised.
The NRA worked that muscle twice in recent weeks. Rep. Jay Inslee, a Democrat from Washington State, proposed an amendment banning the importation of polar-bear trophies. The NRA opposed it as a regulation on hunting, and beat it in late June.
In mid-July, congressmen working with the NRA forced the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to withdraw a proposed regulation on explosives. The NRA feared the regulation was too broadly written, and would inadvertently make it hard for gun shops to store ammunition. OSHA is redrafting the rule.
A fourth-grader once told journalist and author Richard Louv that he liked to play indoors because that's where the electrical outlets are.I know you don't want to hear me blather about this, but notice what's missing from this article — any mention of the boom in the shooting sports. We are in the position of walking around a desert-full of parched people with a bucket of water, but nobody wants it. The shooting sports are the solution to the decline in hunting...more people in shooting translates into a bigger universe from which to recruit new hunters, as well as buttressing the RKBA battle.
[...]
But there are a myriad of reasons why people don't hunt and fish.
Some of the reasons discussed at the meeting were complex rules and regulations, reduced hunting opportunities, age restrictions, a lack of encouragement or help for older hunters, increasing urbanization of the population, rising license and permit costs, difficult access to recreational lands and a perception that hunting and fishing is cruel and inhumane.
"We try to placate the public by becoming invisible," Keck told the group.
Weekly World News to closeSigh...I always had aspirations of becoming the 34-pound Grasshopper Correspondent, traveling the Midwest in search of the elusive giant insects. Another dream bites the dust!
(aliens not blamed!)
MIAMI (Reuters) - Publisher American Media Inc. said on Tuesday it will stop printing the Weekly World News, which for 28 years gleefully chronicled the exploits of alien babies, animal-human hybrids and dead celebrities.
The company said in a brief statement it would end the print version of the tabloid newspaper next month but would maintain the online version (www.weeklyworldnews.com).
[...]
The Weekly World News, which boasted it was "The World's Only Reliable Newspaper," reveled in shocking and almost always exclusive reports about extra-terrestrials, ghosts, scoundrels and scientific discoveries, such as the cure for lovesickness found on the walls of an ancient Mexican monument.
Bat Boy, the half-bat, half-human child found in a cave, was a regular feature. After the September 11 attacks, the tabloid reported he had been enlisted in the hunt for Osama bin Laden because of his special cave-dwelling skills.
UFO sightings bring town to a standstillWouldn't it totally suck if the aliens actually landed AFTER WWN closes????
Last updated at 11:27am on 25th July 2007
A crowd of 100 stunned stargazers brought a town centre to a standstill when five mysterious UFOs were spotted hovering in the sky.
Drinkers spilled out of pubs, motorists stopped to gawp and camera phones were aimed upwards as the five orbs, in a seeming formation, hovered above Stratford-Upon-Avon for half an hour.
The unidentified flying objects lit up the otherwise clear night sky above Shakespeare's birthplace in Warwickshire on Saturday.
Legends say that an entry to the underground realms was located somewhere in the North, and legendary ancient tribes living on the planet centuries ago used the entries to have a good shelter under the Earth's surface. Mystics believe that the entry to the legendary Hyperborea, Shambala and Plutonia is carefully concealed from outsiders somewhere close to the North Pole. Recently, a reliable edition reported that UFOs coming to this planet start not from space but burst out from huge holes under the surface in the North Pole.Sort of like Boulder resident Jeff Long's cool best-selling novel, The Descent. Just in case, I went down and checked the basement, but no sign of underaliens. Actually, they're welcome in my basement gun room if they'll single run the Dillons for me...I've give them a case of Jiffy Extra-Crunchy peanut butter a month and an Internet connection with their own FaceBook account, so they can meet other underaliens. When I get tired of all their chitterings, I'll sell them on eBay. I am a simple man.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it will significantly revise a recent proposal for new “explosives safety” regulations that caused serious concern among gun owners. OSHA had originally set out to update workplace safety regulations, but the proposed rules included restrictions that very few gun shops, sporting goods stores, shippers, or ammunition dealers could comply with.Simple truth...when we stand together, we have the power. And we are going to need that power, because there is a storm coming in 2008. Believe it!
Gun owners had filed a blizzard of negative comments urged by the NRA, and just a week ago, OSHA had already issued one extension for its public comment period at the request of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. After continued publicity through NRA alerts and the outdoor media, and after dozens of Members of Congress expressed concern about its impact, OSHA has wisely decided to go back to the drawing board.
Working with the NRA, Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) planned to offer a floor amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill this Wednesday when the House considers this legislation. His amendment would have prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce this OSHA regulation.
Local government officials in Washington, D.C., announced Monday they will appeal to the Supreme Court in a major test case on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The key issue in the coming petition will be whether the Amendment protects an individual right to have guns in one's home -- an issue on which there is now a clear conflict among federal Circuit Courts. The city will be defending the constitutionality of a local handgun control law that is regarded as the strictest in the nation.What does it all mean?
The petition would have been due Aug. 7, but city officials said Monday that they would ask Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., for a 30-day extension of time to file the case. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and city Attorney General Linda Singer disclosed the appeal plan at a press conference, along with local Police Chief Cathy Lanier. (A news release announcing the action can be found here ) The Mayor said: "We have made the determination that this law can and should be defended and we are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land to protect the city's residents. Our handgun law has saved countless lives -- keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves."
The D.C. Circuit Court ruled on March 9 that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right to possess a gun -- at least within one's own home. The ruling was the first by a federal appeals court to strike down a gun control law based on that view of the Amendment's reach. The case is Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia (Circuit docket 04-7041). On May 8, the Circuit Court refused by a 6-4 vote to rehear the case en banc. The mandate is scheduled to be issued Aug. 7, but will be withheld after the city files its Supreme Court petition. Thus, the existing gun law would remain in effect temporarily.
...the Parker case may be a turning point in the struggle for the right to keep and bear arms. It must be remembered, however, that the Parker case focuses on the question of “keeping arms” in one’s home or business, not “bearing” arms on the streets of Washington, DC, or anywhere else.Let's talk a little about timing and the President elections of 2008. This is from the Volokh Conspiracy last March right after the decision:
If it goes to the Supreme Court, and the court upholds the Mar. 9 ruling by the three-judge panel in the DC appellate court, it will not spell the end of all gun control laws. That decision, like the earlier 5th Circuit Emerson decision left room for some limitations on firearms possession and use while upholding an individual right to possess them.
The anti-gunners has been tearing their hair out and screaming that the world of gun control will come to an end if the Supreme Court upholds the Parker decision. As usual, they are predicting nothing short of the end of civilization as we know it if the decision is upheld.
Some pro-gunners are almost as extreme in their fear of what would happen if the court overturns Parker, something I find hard to believe given the careful preparation of the case, the upstanding nature of the plaintiffs, and the scholarship woven into the Parker decision.
Sooner or later, it is inevitable that one or more Second Amendment cases will be accepted by the Supreme Court, no matter what the pro-gun and anti-gun leaders and their strategists say. I believe that Parker should be that case. As I mentioned, it is a case about the right to keep arms in one’s home. Later, there may be cases that address the question of bearing arms outside the home.
Better now the Parker case than the one involving drug dealers, terrorists, bank robbers, and rapists—all of whom frequently raise the Second Amendment in their defenses.
As Parker case attorney Alan Gura told Workman during his interview, “If not this case, which case?”
Say that the D.C. Circuit decides not to rehear the case en banc; that probably means the en banc petition will be denied within several months. Assume that it's denied by late June — the petition for certiorari will be due in late September, the Supreme Court will consider it in the next month or two (unless it decides to call for the views of the Solicitor General, but I doubt this will be necessary). That means the case will likely be heard in early 2008, and decide by June 2008.We'll see...
What will the extra prominence of the issue do to the primaries?
Assume the decision is 5-4 in favor of the individual rights theory; what will that do to the general Presidential election race? Assume it's 5-4 in favor of the collective rights theory, with Kennedy joining the four liberals on the collective rights side — what will that do to the race? What if it's 5-4 with Roberts or Alito joining the liberals? I take it that if it's not 5-4, or (possibly) if it's 5-4 with a less liberal/conservative split, the effect will be less; is that right? Or is this decision not that relevant, either on the theory that the issue won't energize people that much, or on the theory that plenty of people would be energized on gun control and the Second Amendment regardless of how the case comes down?
Naturally, if one of the Justices retires this year or next, the effect on the Presidential race would be still greater, I suspect. And if the case is delayed (say, by en banc activity, by a call for the views of the Solicitor General, or the like) so that it's heard in Fall 2008 and expected to be decided in Spring 2009, I take it the effect on the election would be bigger still.
Finally, note that if there is a pro-individual-rights decision from the Supreme Court, I expect it will be very narrow, will leave open considerable room for gun controls that are less comprehensive than D.C.'s total ban, and will not resolve the question whether the Second Amendment is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment to cover state regulations.
He felt it was the artist's assignment to find out -- "to snare the spirits of mankind in nets of magic," as Wolfe put it.I would also like to acknowledge the gracious comments on the last post. Two of the posters, Gary & Sandi, figured large in our shared story...not only did Gary actually (and insanely) hire both Marlette and I for the Florida Flambeau, but during those college years they fed us both more than once.
This is not because, as you might imagine, blacks have high crime rates and also happen to be overwhelmingly Democratic. Lott compares the voting patterns of felons and nonfelons, controlling for race, age, education level, religious habits, employment, age and country of residence. Wholly apart from all these factors, felons were still more likely to vote Democratic. Indeed, in the 2004 election, Lott says, felons in Washington state "voted exclusively for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry."And John McCain, too!
With so many felons being Democrats, the party might want to think about changing its mascot from a donkey to a jailbird.
Needless to say, Democrats are neurotically obsessed with restoring the right to vote to felons. But the ex-cons themselves rarely express any interest in regaining this particular right. What ex-cons want is the right to own a gun. "Felons," Lott says, "who frequently live in poor, high-crime neighborhoods, want to be able to defend themselves."
So the evidence is in on that one, too: Preferring the right to bear arms to the right to vote (for choice), convicted felons have a superior value system to liberals.
This is troubling because paramilitary police actions are extremely volatile, necessarily violent, overly confrontational, and leave very little margin for error. These are acceptable risks when you’re dealing with an already violent situation featuring a suspect who is an eminent threat to the community.Check out this map on botched police raids put together by the Cato Insititute. The red dots are raids that resulted in the death of an innocent person.
But when you’re dealing with nonviolent drug offenders, paramilitary police actions create violence instead of defusing it. Whether you’re an innocent family startled by a police invasion that inadvertently targeted the wrong home or a drug dealer who mistakes raiding police officers for a rival drug dealer, forced entry into someone’s home creates confrontation. It rouses the basest, most fundamental instincts we have in us – those of self-preservation – to fight when flight isn’t an option.
So when the left began to demonize gun owners in the 1960s, they not only were arrogant and insulting because they associated all gun owners with criminals but also were politically stupid" [P129; graf 2]And this on Hollywood's love affair with gun control, talking about the infamous Handgun Control Inc. "Open Letter to the NRA" a few years back:
Personally I love 'em all, but Hollywood doesn't seem to have the common sense God gave a soggy animal cracker when it comes to guns. Maybe they signed up to endorse HCI because their agent says they need a cause and there is no more room on the AIDS bandwagon. I don't know. But according to HCI and the well-meaning but clueless stars who endorse it, "Every day we lose 13 children to gun violence in this country...The debate is not about guns. It's about children." Nah, It's about middle-class liberal feel-good masturbation and celebrity-identity franchise building through causes. In reality, 90 percent of the "children" we lose to gun violence are gangbangers between 15 and 19 years of age. Which is not quite the same as your average elementary or middle school kid shooting up the neighborhood or popping little brother with daddy's Magnum pistol. [P136-137; graf 3]Couldn't have said it better myself, Joe! He goes on to discuss gun control's ugly little closet secret, that it was born primarily to deprive black Americans of their right to self-defense. Of course, he can't resist working up a little liberal sweat on those of us with high-tech rifles in the basement:
Yet I shudder to think about what the Glens and the Donnys of the world will do one day if things spiral out of control. What happens when this country finally hits Peak Oil Demand and the electrical grid starts browning down and even little things become desperately difficult or unaffordable? What happens if the wrong kind of president declares the wrong kind of national emergency. What will be the first reflex of those hundreds of thousands of devotees of lethality? [P156; graf 1]Now that's a thorny question, isn't it Joe?
Researchers at Harvard and McGill University (in Montreal) are working on an amnesia drug that blocks or deletes bad memories. The technique seems to allow psychiatrists to disrupt the biochemical pathways that allow a memory to be recalled.I can't wait to get some, because I've been trying to forget the Clintons for 8 years; I suspect that I'll need a second dose to forget most of the Bush Presidency.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the government agency charged with assuring the safety and health of America's workers, is proposing a regulatory rule affecting the manufacturing, transportation and storage of small arms ammunition, primers and smokeless propellants.Go to the NSSF site for details on how to contact OSHA!
As written, the proposed rule would force the closure of nearly all ammunition manufacturers and force the cost of small arms ammunition to skyrocket beyond what the market could bear—essentially collapsing our industry. This is not an exaggeration. The cost to comply with the proposed rule for the ammunition industry, including manufacturer, wholesale distributors and retailers, will be massive and easily exceed $100 million. For example, ammunition and smokeless propellant manufacturers would have to shut down and evacuate a factory when a thunderstorm approached and customers would not be allowed within 50 feet of any ammunition (displayed or otherwise stored) without first being searched for matches or lighters.
Almost half a century later, the book [Starship Troopers, of course] continues to outrage, shock--and awe. It still has critics, but also armies of admirers. As a coming-of-age story about duty, citizenship, and the role of the military in a free society, "Starship Troopers" certainly speaks to modern concerns. The U.S. armed services frequently put it on recommended-reading lists.Interestingly enough, Brian Doherty's book on American libertarianism, Radicals for Capitalism, notes that most modern libertarian activitists list Heinlein as an early influence. I consider myself a libertarian activist who focuses on the gun issue, and, of course, much of my early thinking (such as it was) centered around Heinlein, Ayn Rand, and some crotchety bastard firebrand named Jeff Cooper.
There's even a grassroots campaign to have a next-generation, Zumwalt-class destroyer named the USS Robert A. Heinlein.
Heinlein's influence reaches far beyond a single book, of course. He was the first sci-fi author to make the bestseller lists, the winner of multiple awards, and the inspiration for a legion of proteges and imitators whose own volumes now weigh down bookstore shelves. He was not the most accomplished literary stylist in his genre, but he spun a good yarn, grappled with big questions, and left an enduring imprint on a popular field. He was arguably the preeminent sci-fi author of the 20th century.
[...]
One of the key differences between him and the two men who might also compete for this title--Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke--is that whereas they were political liberals, Heinlein was a Man of the Right.
Enter your name and email address to sign up for.....
![]() |