UPDATE: The Hoplophobe Responds

Barry of Inn of the Last Home responds to the criticism of his objection to concealed-carry. (Link bloggered - scroll down to Vilification and Clarification.)

In my opinion, he just dug himself in deeper, and he needs to think about what he said very, very hard.

My response?

"I also would feel uncomfortable knowing that anyone on the street, in the theatre, at a restaurant, at the supermarket could be carrying a loaded gun on their person. And here's why - despite training, despite temperament, despite the best of intentions: I don't trust you."

Barry, what you don't seem to realize is that anyone on the street, in the theatre, at a restaurant, at the supermarket could be carrying a loaded gun on their person - WITHOUT A CONCEALED-CARRY PERMIT. They're called "criminals" and they do it all the time. They're the ones who do stick up the fast-food clerk, and the person behind the convenience-store counter, and the person stepping out of their SUV and so on and so forth.

The problem is, Barry, that you haven't been paying attention. There are now 35 states that are "shall-issue" - states where the government must give an applicant a permit if he is not legally prohibited possessing a firearm. In none of these states has there been anything like you fear.

In short, your distrust is misplaced. As I put it, you are a hoplophobe - you fear weapons, not people - because if you were really distrustful of people you'd be going around in paranoid fear of the (approximately) 1% of the population that is violently criminal that might be carrying a weapon with intent to criminally use it. Instead, you fear the (approximately) 1% of the law-abiding population who are willing to jump through all the legal hoops necessary in order to carry a firearm legally and thus act as a deterrent against those willing to use violence to take what they want.

That is an irrational fear. And why do you have that fear? Because you project on all those others what you fear YOU might do yourself if you were armed.

You don't mistrust others, Barry.

You mistrust yourself.

And I feel sorry for you.

But I'm glad you don't want a gun.

Go tell him what you think. I believe he needs to hear it.

UPDATE 12/19/03: Francis Porretto weighs in, too.

No Charges

I've probably been beaten to this story already, but Bill St. Clair was kind enough to e-mail me this report that 71 year-old Melvin Spaulding will not be charged for shooting 20 year-old scum James T. Moore who was one of three men beating up Melvin's 63 year-old friend George Lowe. Halleluja!

Why the hell Spaulding was arrested and jailed is still beyond me.

I covered this earlier here and here.

Per the e-mail:

Shooter, 71, won't face charges at all

Prosecutors will not file an attempted murder charge against Melvin Spaulding, the 71-year-old man who shot a 20-year-old for allegedly attacking his friend in the street.

"That's good," Spaulding said after hearing the news Tuesday, as he smoked a Dutch Masters cigar in his mobile home.

Pinellas-Pasco Chief Assistant State Attorney Bruce Bartlett said evidence showed Spaulding was trying to prevent his friend George Lowe, 63, from being killed or suffering "serious bodily harm" as others attacked him.

The law allows people to intervene in such cases to protect others from harm, Bartlett said.

Spaulding said he fired his .22-caliber handgun Nov. 30 because three young men were attacking Lowe and he was afraid his neighbor was in serious danger. The bullet hit one of the men, James T. Moore, 20, in the arm.

Lowe said the episode began when he heard noise outside his home on 40th Street N in the Lealman area and went outside to investigate. He said he asked the men not to be so loud, which turned into an argument. Then the others began kicking him in the legs and back, he said.

After Spaulding fired his gun, sheriff's deputies arrived and arrested him on an attempted murder charge. Later, the other three men were charged with misdemeanor battery.

But two of the alleged attackers dispute the description of the events by Lowe and Spaulding. They acknowledge having words with Lowe, but they say no one hit or kicked anyone before Spaulding fired.

Eric Palm, 18, said Lowe grabbed at his FUBU jersey, so he shoved his face to push him away. Palm said he then swung at Lowe and missed, and that's when the shot went off.

Moore denies kicking or hitting Lowe. He said he wants people to know "that I'm not a damn old-person beater."

"I'm a nice person, you know? I get along with everybody. When people get drunk, of course they're going to get loud 'cause that's what people do, but I don't go around fighting people just for no reason."

Moore and his friends had been celebrating his 20th birthday that night.

Asked about the sheriff's deputies' decision to arrest Spaulding, Pinellas-Pasco Public Defender Bob Dillinger said, "I think particularly in ones of this nature, they may want to call the State Attorney's Office before they make an arrest."

Gee, ya THINK?

Pinellas sheriff's spokesman Tim Goodman said there was nothing improper with the arrest, even though the prosecutors have decided against filing charges.

Bartlett said the State Attorney's Office was likely to file misdemeanor battery charges against the three men: Moore, Palm and James Curtis Ganoe, 18. Those three also were arrested by deputies.

Lowe said he was pleased with the decision not to file charges against Spaulding for coming to his aid.

"I think that's excellent," Lowe said. "I think that's the greatest thing they could have done."

Spaulding said he was relieved by the state attorney's decision. While deputies were polite, he said, he did not enjoy his first trip to jail.

What if he hears a noise outside his trailer again and faces the same situation?

"I just couldn't let them kill somebody," Spaulding said. "I couldn't do it . . . what they did was wrong."

Yes it was, Mr. Spaulding. And you did the right thing.

Back Again

I'm not addicted to the Internet! I can quit anytime!

So why is it, as soon as I get access, I've got to get caught up on what I've missed?

Anyway, one more day at work, then I have the next two weeks off.

More posting is promised!

The Hoplophobic Mindset

Via Say Uncle comes the link to fellow blogger Michael Williams' disgusted response to being denied a CCW permit by his betters in California.

While I'm not surprised by the denial, I was a bit shocked to see the comment by Barry, another blogger who runs The Inn of the Last Home from Tennessee. It is the quintessential gun-phobe:

I just...I just blink my eyes in amazement everytime this crops up - actually watching people feel the need to carry a concealed weapon in public...

If I were to take a live, armed weapon and carry it on my person, in public, it would eat away at my sanity just as if it were emitting lethal radiation. To know that I carried an instrument of sure and certain death on my person, available and ready to be pulled out and used at a moment's notice to possibly kill...a child. A homeless person. An innocent.

Obviously that is not your intent. You want to protect yourself - maybe that is how you feel in California. But being brought up in Eastern Tennessee I've never once felt the need to protect myself from imminent bodily harm in public. And if I were aware of a location that might be unduly hazardous - a dark alley, a badly lighted parking area - I would avoid it. I've never been mugged, nor can I readily pull up a name of any person I've ever met that's been mugged or even bodily threatened in my whole life.

What scares me most is the arbitrary nature of self-defense. What line must be crossed to signal to you that there is imminent danger or threat? Is it a criminal pulling a gun on you? In which case, unless you're a gunslinger, you're not going to outdraw him. Is it someone pulling a knife? Threatening words? Bad language or rude gestures? Where is that one point where you decide, "Yes, my life or the life of my loved ones is in danger and I must now take it upon myself to take the life of another person." What if the guy is reaching into his jacket, and you are sure, absolutely certain that it is a weapon. You pull your gun and shoot--and see he's reaching for his wallet. Or worse, you miss and hit a child running in the street. Where is that line?

The radiation would rot my brain and I would never be able to live with myself.

Maybe it's different in California. Maybe it's different in Tennessee. Maybe I don't love my family enough...maybe I love them too much. But I know myself, and know that if I surrendered to the paranoia - and I mean that in the most basic sense - there would be no turning back.

I'll stay in the light, thanks.

Note the change: "If I were to take a live, armed weapon and carry it on my person, in public, it would eat away at my sanity just as if it were emitting lethal radiation." Followed below by: "The radiation would rot my brain...."

That is fear of an inanimate object. He actually believes that the presence of a firearm will warp his sanity.

Barry, I applaud your decision to remain unarmed. I hope, however, that you will get some psychiatric or psychological treatment for your crippling fear of your own lack of control.

And I sincerely hope that neither you nor anyone you know becomes the victim of a violent crime.

But please, don't project your mental disturbance on others.

UPDATE:  The original JSKit/Echo comment thread is available here, thanks to reader John Hardin.

More Guns in Church!

Via The Volokh Conspiracy, comes this story of one Rev. Arthur Ford who used a handgun to defend himself and his son-in-law from a nut who was beating them with a fireplace poker. This guy attacked six people in total, with the Reverend and his son-in-law being the last. One of the victims was critically injured and is hospitalized.

I suspect that if Rev. Ford had not owned a handgun, they would not have been the last.

So much for turning the other cheek.

Good for the Reverend.

We Got Him

Like you haven't heard it everywhere by now.

Wring him out, give him a fair trial, then hang him.

The New, Updated Bill of Rights

Spoons has it. Go read.

Truer Words...

From Donald Sensing:

I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free.

No Law Abridging

That's the title of this piece by Curmudgeon Emeritus Francis Porretto. Money quote:

So long as speech was protected, Americans could claim with some justice that we were in some sense free. If Tuesday's Supreme Court decision prevails, we will not be able to call ourselves even partly free. We will be a people in chains. Chains forged to protect incumbents from having their records in office publicized in the press as they stand for election. Chains forged to increase the power of the Old Media, granting their journalists and editors the last word on political campaigns. Chains forged by (and for) men to whom "the people" are not only not sovereign, but are a force to be fastened down and made to do as they're told by those who know better.

Read the whole thing, including the comments.

And think about that reset button some more.

Pressing the "RESET" Button

Last week, Jay Solo asked an important question. I was the first to respond.

His question was whether or not the American populace would use the "reset button" guaranteed by the Second Amendment. In his words:

Do you expect the "reset button" to need to be used in our lifetimes?

--

I was recently discussing with someone the concept of the Second Amendment as the government's reset button. Ultimately a major reason it exists is so the populace cannot be prevented from being armed, or easily disarmed through registration or excess regulation for that matter, in case we must ever take back the government and start again if it gets out of hand or something akin to a coup happens and the imposters must be reckoned with.

--

Do you think this will ever be needed? In the next fifty years? Do you think it will still be possible after another fifty years of those who want as much power, and helplessness of the populace against it as much as possible, chipping away at or disregarding our ability to reset things back to sanity? How about contrarians; do you think the reset interpretation is erroneous or, even if not, will never be needed?

It's a good question. I recommend you read all the responses, and add your own if you feel like it. Here was my response:

Do I expect it to be used? Yes. Will it be effective? I doubt it.

I think we've passed the point at which "using the reset button" would be useful.

Why do I think it will be used? Two recent posts come to mind. This one in which the Geek with a .45 posted from New Jersey: "The fact that things have gone so far south in some places that people actually feel compelled to move the fuck out should frighten the almighty piss out of you.

"Ten or fifteen years ago, I would’ve dismissed that notion, that people were relocating themselves for freedom within America as the wild rantings of a fringe lunatic, but today, I’m looking for a real estate agent."

And then this one from Publicola yesterday, detailing government insult upon outrage from which the majority shrugs and turns away.

Jefferson suggested a small armed rebellion every 20 years or so. We didn't take his advice. Our last one ended in 1865, and it was so devastating, I think it put us off rebellion entirely too long.

Government isn't "us" and hasn't been for a long, long time. It represents the people who run the Democrat and Republican Parties, and those who pay them the most. Government-run education has ensured that the end product coming out of our schools is uniformly ignorant of how the system is supposed to work, and it's done a damned good job of indoctrinating our children in the "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" philosophy, and the "if it feels good, do it" philosophy. Fifty-plus years of this has produced a very large, very ignorant, very apathetic population.

I think that "pressing the reset button" is going to happen, but all it's going to get some of us is a tighter collar and a heavier chain.

Still, Churchill said it best:

"You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory,
because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

There were several good responses, but I'd like to elaborate a little bit on the topic.

I don't think you're going to see a widespread armed uprising. What you're going to see is individuals and small groups who've simply had enough arming and striking - and probably dying in the process. If you've read John Ross's Unintended Consequences you'll get the idea, but I don't expect anything like the level of response he writes of. Not enough people are pissed off enough to do that.

Of course the media will spin it as "lone deranged gun-nuts" or "anti-government militias," but if you pay attention you'll note an increase in the numbers over time.

Someone once wrote; "If you're not boiling mad, you've not been paying attention."

Mencken wrote: "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Note this post by Dodd Harris:

Say Goodbye To Your Right To Free Speech

Well, Spoons may have seen it coming, but I sure as hell didn't: The Supreme Court has upheld most of the provisions of McCain-Feingold, a law that the Court's own precedents marked out as blatantly unconstitutional.

You'll recall, I was a bit perturbed about SCOTUS dodging the Silveira case last week, too.

I'd like to remind you of the recent Klamath Valley incidents in which the government denied water to farmers in order to protect an "endangered" fish. This drew a lot of media attention, because instead of affecting one person or one family, it affected everyone in the valley. But a lot of other incidents in which the rights of individuals are trampled on by government bureaucrats occur that fly under the media radar. Generally, government is treated by the media as a vast benevolent force (unless, of course, that same government is defeating an enemy totalitarian government or unseating a murderous tyrant - then it's eeeeeevil. - UPDATE, 10/23/2011:  Unless there's a Democrat in the White House, that is.  Then the media and the anti-war Left is A-OK with it.  End edit.) Whatever actions that government takes for the benefit of an endangered species, or "for society" is more important than what it does to the people who are directly affected by these actions.

Oh, occasionally something really egregious will pique some reporter, and we'll get a "human interest" story that pisses off the few of us who are paying attention. Sometimes our ire will get the government to back off, claiming it was all a big misunderstanding or worse, the government doesn't back off at all. The recent incidents of Melvin Spaulding in Florida, George Norris in Texas, Dennis Pryslak in New Jersey, Stratford High School in South Carolina, and many others come to mind. Scroll through the archives of this site. There's probably at least one a week that will raise your blood pressure.

I've quoted Jefferson's letter to William Smith several times recently, but this part is the one I find most interesting:

Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

It seems, in the main, that we aren't informed at all, much less well. Lethargy? For the overwhelming majority, yes indeed.

Until it happens to you. Then you get pissed right quick, and wonder why nobody hears your side of the story.

I think a lot of people are getting fed up with ever-increasing government intrusion into our lives. With our ever-shrinking individual rights. More than one of Jay's respondents noted the apathy of the majority, though, and I agree. Government interferes lightly on a wholesale basis, but it does its really offensive intrusions strictly retail. So long as the majority gets its bread and circuses, it will remain content.

But not everyone.

I think one example of this is illustrated by this story from Greenwood, S.C. (hat tip to Ravenwood for the link):

Suspect in standoff claims self-defense

One of the three family members charged with killing two Abbeville County officers said he was just defending his parents' home against something like the standoffs between federal agents and armed citizens in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas.

Steven Bixby, 36, along with his 71-year-old mother Rita, were in court Tuesday for an arraignment on charges in Monday's standoff with police, but when a judge paused to track down the warrants against Steven Bixby, he spoke to reporters in the courtroom.

Bixby said he acted in self-defense because sheriff's Sgt. Danny Wilson, 37, tried to force his way into his parents' home along state Highway 72 just west of downtown Abbeville.

Authorities say Wilson did not have any arrest papers or warrants when he went to the home, he just went to talk to the family. Transportation Department workers widening the two-lane road in front of the Bixby home reported someone threatened them as they laid out survey stakes.

"If we can't be any freer than that in this country, I'd rather die," Bixby said.

Read the whole story. Yes, these people were extreme. Killing two officers and then engaging in a gunfight with many more over 20 feet of property certainly is excessive.

But I don't think this is going to be an exceptional case as time goes on.

I think more and more individuals will be pressing the "RESET" button in the future.

With about the same effect.

UPDATE: I note that this piece has been linked from Wikipedia's "Gun Politics in the United States" entry with the notation:

An analogous popular saying of less eloquent modern day gun rights advocates is that the amendment is "the government's reset button".

"Less eloquent"? Whoever made that entry is cordially invited to bite my left buttcheek. Check the sidebar. I've got eloquence in abundance.

I'm Baaaack!

For a couple of days, anyway.

Thanks to everybody who kept checking the site. I still averaged over 200 hits a day, even after I told you I'd be gone!

(I'm not sure what that says about you guys, though...)

I'll try to post some crunchy goodness before I leave for a couple more days. (The project is running long, though they didn't want us to work over the weekend.)

Oh Sweet Freaking Jeebus!

(Still on hiatus, but my trip has been slightly delayed.)

L.A. police chief William Bratton gives some remarkable advice to UK police:

'Avoid Slippery Slope of Armed Police' - U.S. Chief

British police should not move down the “slippery slope” towards carrying guns, a top officer from the United States warned today.

Los Angeles police chief William Bratton – who achieved worldwide attention for his remarkable crime-busting results in New York – said unarmed police were part of Britain’s character.

“I don’t think you want to go in the direction of increasing the armament of your officers,” he said.

“It’s part of what England is, and also your gun control laws.

“I’ve recently in LA had four incidents where my officers were attacked – completely unprovoked – with machine guns.

Guess what, Chief? Machine guns aren't all that legal here, either. And the legally owned ones have never been a problem in the hands of the average citizen.

You're giving credit where none's due.

“If anything, don’t go down that slippery slope.”

No? They've gone down the slope to the point where the only people with firearms are the government and the criminals, and the result? Now the cops there need to be armed.

For that matter, so do the citizens subjects.

You're advising them to just give up?

Mr Bratton, who was police commissioner of New York from 1994 until last year, made the comments after delivering a speech hosted by think-tank Civitas and a new London civic movement Mind the Gap.

He added that it was “laudable” that surveys of British officers showed the majority were against routine arming of officers.

“They feel that would weaken the bond between police and the community,” he said.

“Both symbolically as well as practically it is not necessary.

“In your country anyone who uses a firearm against a police officer needs to go to jail for the rest of their life because a social obligation has been broken.

Don't you just love the way that police officers are now special? Apparently the Chief isn't aware that the first metropolitan police force was established by Sir Robert Peel in 1822. His nine principles of policing were as follows:

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Apparently every police force extant has forgotten this.

Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

I think, had the people retained these ideas, the police wouldn't be having near the problems that they are.

But you know what we're constantly advised: Let the police handle it. You're not qualified.

“The first time anyone uses a gun against a police officer that needs to be treated seriously, having violated that contract.”

Mr Bratton’s work in New York led to a 32% reduction in crime and murder rates halved.

He arrived in Los Angeles 18 months ago and in December expected to announce figures showing a 27% decrease in the city’s murder rate and a 5% fall in overall crime, he told an audience at the Athenaeum club in central London.

A poll of 11,635 Metropolitan police officers published last month showed 10% wanted to be armed on and off duty and 26% wanted to be armed on duty only.

I don't have time right now to pull up the stories, but police have been threatened - and shot - at the station in England. How effective are the police? Well, I've reported in this blog numerous accounts of the problems of violent crime in the UK. Just today Ravenwood reports that the police in London are advising women not to jog alone because some wacko is stabbing women joggers just for the fun of it.

But God forbid that women have some weapon with which to defend themselves.

Much less the police.

I Think it I Fixed It

About two years ago I had an 1896 Swedish Mauser "sporterized." I know some of you purists just winced at the thought, but this was a $100 rifle, no bluing, surface pitting on the barrel, considerable wear and tear - certainly not a collector piece. I had the action rebarreled with a medium-weight chromoly Shilen tube, 1-in-8" twist, cut to 24". I had the 'smith turn down the bolt handle, narrow the trigger guard, then polish and blue the barreled action and install a two-piece scope base. I then installed a Timney trigger and glass bedded the action into a Fajen thumbhole stock, making sure the barrel was free-floated.

I then proceeded over the next two years to try just about every combination of 140-grain bullet and powder to see what it would shoot well. The answer? Nothing. I tried 155 grain bullets. No good. I tried 120 grain bullets. A bit better, but still no great shakes. The gun simply would not group better than 2.5 to 3 MOA, and that only if I was lucky. Since I had built the rifle in order to shoot Metallic Silhouette, which requires you to shoot offhand up to 500 meters, that wasn't going to be good enough.

Finally, I decided I'd try preloading the barrel. I took an old expired credit card and cut it into strips, then stacked the strips in the barrel channel of the stock, and reinstalled the action. The plastic strips, located about 1/3rd of the way down the barrel channel from the forend, put an upward pressure on the barrel and change its natural vibration frequency.

I loaded up some test ammo last night - 139 grain Lapua boattail hollowpoints over Reloder 19. Here's my best group of the day, but not by much:

If you can't read the micrometer, it shows 1.016" outside to outside. Subtract one bullet diameter of .264", and the group size is 0.752"

I think I fixed it.

Spoke too Soon

Publicola has a post up I think everyone ought to read.

I mean everyone.

He doesn't title his posts, but if he did, I'd recommend Patriots & Tyrants, because it reminded me of something Thomas Jefferson wrote to his friend William Smith after Shay's Rebellion in 1787. The first time I read it, I thought to myself "What a radical SOB Jefferson was."

Now I read it, and I understand his fear. He feared apathy, and believed it could be the downfall of the nation.

This is what he said:

The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

Death-by-a-thousand-cuts. Frog in a pot. Use whatever analogy you want, we the people have been lethargic since 1865, and it has cost us - dearly. And the worst thing is, we haven't misconceived, we've ignored obvious wrongs. And not so obvious ones. Lethargy indeed.

Tytler was right. The cycle is: bondage, faith, courage, liberty, abundance, selfishness, complacency, apathy, dependence, and then back into bondage.

How far into dependence are we?

Read the post below it, too. And the link.

And wonder what happened to our liberty.

(Edited to add:) In light of Jefferson's advice, I think Claire Wolfe is wrong. It's not too early to shoot the bastards, it's too late. They're too entrenched to respond as Jefferson advises they should.

Which brings to mind Churchill's quote...

Blog Hiatus

My apologies, but I'm going to be out of town for about a week, with no internet access. Therefore I will be unable to update this blog until Friday evening 12/12 at the earliest. I might get something in tomorrow, Sunday 12/7 - Pearl Harbor Day, but I might not. I've got a lot of things to do, not the least of which is prepare for this trip.

See you next week. Thanks for tuning in.

Another Story You Won't Be Reading in the English Papers

(Via Acidman) The Atlanta Urinal Constipation Journal Constitution reports - very briefly - on a defensive gun use:

Would-be robber slain by intended victim

A suspected armed robber was shot and killed by his intended victim in Clayton County, police said Wednesday.

The incident occurred shortly after midnight at Independence Park on Thomas Road near Jonesboro.

A man was walking with his 11-year-old daughter when the suspect "approached them and attempted to rob them," said Clayton County police Lt. Joseph Woodall.

Gotta wonder what the father and daughter were doing in the park at 11:00 PM, but this is America - they're allowed. Being in a park at night does not give someone the right to rob you.

"The victim pulled his own firearm and fired some rounds at the suspect," Woodall said.

"The suspect fled about 30 yards and fell over."

The suspect, who was in his late teens or 20s, died at the scene. "He still had in his hand a stolen Glock pistol," Woodall said.

Hmm..."late teens or 20s." That means that to the Brady Bunch, the victim goblin was a "child?" A stolen Glock. Gee, if no one had guns, they couldn't be stolen, right? Well, not exactly. According to this story (registration may be required):

Federal agents in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, were looking for guns stolen from an agent's car.

The missing high powered weapons are an automatic rifle and a Remington shotgun with a ballistic vest.

The FBI weren't sure if it was a random break-in or if the thieves knew the weapons were there.

The FBI is offering a reward for any information leading to an arrest.

And when they say "automatic rifle," they mean "machine gun." This means we've got a guy with a machine gun and body armor out running around. Marvelous. Remember also, the federal government reported "losing" several hundred guns just last year. And there's this charming story of how a police officer managed to leave an AR-15 laying by the side of the road. Anyway:

A stolen vehicle that police believe was the suspect's getaway car was also found in the park.

Stolen Glock, stolen car, attempted armed robbery, in his 20's.

How long was his record, and why wasn't his ass in jail?

Police say the father acted in self-defense and will not face charges in connection with the shooting. The names of the two men have not been released.

Nice of them not to arrest and jail the man like the cops in Florida did to Mr. Spaulding.

I wonder if he got to keep his pistol?

OUTRAGE! (continued)

Publicola updates us on the status of 71 year-old Melvin B. Spaulding, who was arrested and jailed without bond for the audacity of defending his friend against three young attackers rather than dialing 9-1-1 and waiting to be rescued by the AUTHORITAHS!

Seems Mr. Spaulding, who has since been released, and has not yet been charged with anything has been told that, even though he has a concealed-carry permit, he's not allowed to have a firearm.

The story is here.

Bastards.

We've Got RSS!

I think.

Via Blogstreet, I think this provides an RSS feed for The Smallest Minority (about a day late, but better than nothing?)

http://www.blogstreet.com/rss/13828.rss

Pardon my ignorance on the subject.

This is NEAT

Being a South Park Republican type, I found this little tool pretty entertaining. (Via the Everlasting Phelps) The South Park Create a Character. Here's my interpretation of me on the average weekend:

Only I don't look that young.

This, however, is NOT neat: Read Phelps' post on the abuse of eminent domain in Norfolk, Virginia.

Now do you understand why my character is holding a rifle evil bullet-hose militia weapon?

I Thought the Idea was to PUNISH Criminals

Oh sweet bleeding Jebus. Kim linked to this story about an Austrailian police officer:

He faces one charge of wounding with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm.

He also faces three charges of firing a firearm in a manner likely to endanger the safety of any other person.

Why? Because he shot at a man trying to run him over.

But that's not the best story! From a link on that page, we get this:

Prison punishment concern

PRISONERS losing privileges and being moved to higher security areas as punishment has been criticised by the state Ombudsman.

In his annual report, Eugene Biganovsky raises concerns a section of legislation allowing prisoners to be moved at the discretion of prison officials or losing privileges was being abused.

He cited three cases:

A prisoner who allegedly threatened to take an officer hostage was stripped of electricity in his cell and had his phone calls limited.

An inmate wrongly accused of being involved in building and operating a still at Cadell Training Centre was moved to a high security jail yet faced no charges.

A television was taken away from a prisoner accused of "abusing a nurse".

Poor babies! They should file suit because they're not being tucked in at night!

First the police can't do their jobs, and second the prisons can't either!

And they wonder why violent crime is on the rise in Australia!