Yee-Hah!

Posted with no further comment than Read.The.Whole.Thing:

And yet, so far no reporter has raised the possibility that Yee supported tighter restrictions on guns in order to keep gun prices high and his own services in demand. Economist Bruce Yandle popularized the idea of the “Bootleggers and Baptists” coalition. The apocryphal Baptists want to ban alcohol. Bootleggers don’t make much money when liquor can be bought legally at a grocery store or bar. So the bootleggers bankroll the Baptists’ effort to ban booze.

Now I sincerely doubt that Yee was that clever. The more likely explanation is that he believes in gun control and he’s a greedy hypocrite (and maybe not too bright either). The fact that gun-control policies are to his advantage is just a happy coincidence.

A Quote I Absolutely Believe In!

It comes to us courtesy of Michael Barone in his Washington Examiner piece, Concealed-weapons laws have changed America regardless of national debate on gun control:

One lesson, I think, is that responsible citizens tend to behave like responsible citizens, even if — or perhaps especially if — they’re armed. Another lesson is that the national political dialogue can be totally irrelevant to what really happens in American life.

Hat tips to the Instapundit and Ace.

A Quick Message To You Open Carry "Activists"

Don't.Just.Don't.

Sparked by this over at Shall Not Be Questioned.

Okay, Libs, Bet MZW: Strong Runner-Up for Quote of the Year

I have a ruler, a camera, and $50.  Would you actually like to take this bet?  Or does the sour grapes metaphor apply here? - See more at: http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/#sthash.uV0OWmmg.dpuf

I have a ruler, a camera, and $50.  Would you actually like to take this bet?  Or does the sour grapes metaphor apply here? - See more at: http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/#sthash.uV0OWmmg.dpuf

I have a ruler, a camera, and $50.  Would you actually like to take this bet?  Or does the sour grapes metaphor apply here?

For context, please read his entire post.

This is Why I Don't Trust The Idea of a Constitutional Convention

Because they can muster enough motivated folks to pass sh!t like this while the rest of us unwittingly sit on our fat, lazy, and complacent @$$es.:

A New Second Amendment?

 The 'National Constitution Center' has put up a proposal for a 'new' Second Amendment. It reads:

CURRENT VOTE: Better defining the constitutional right to bear arms.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT: “Because a well-regulated National Guard and Reserve, and well-regulated Federal, state, and local public safety departments, are necessary to the security of our free states and our free nation, the rights of citizens, while serving in their capacity in the aforesaid organizations, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Colorado Recalls

Just had to check Colorado out before heading off to bed. The good guys won and, apparently, it's a twofer!

Many thanks to the dynamic Pennsylvania duo of Sebastian and Bitter for all their hard work keeping track and keeping everyone informed and rallied. However, seriously guys, "crappy bottle of white and mix it with some Pellegrino to improvise" in lieu of champagne? You deserve a LOT better.

Updated: How NOT To Do This (Unless Trying to Prove Point That Guns = Evil)

My Month With a Gun: Week One [emphasis mine]:

Yes, I bought a handgun and will carry it everywhere I go over the next 30 days. I have four rules: Carry it with me at all times, follow the laws of my state, only do what is minimally required for permits, licensing, purchasing and carrying, and finally be prepared to use it for protecting myself at home or in public.

I think I'll just file this under the "idiots" portion of idiots and knaves. 

Hat tip Instapundit

Updated: Also Check Out Bryan Preston's Ms. Magazine’s ‘My Month with a Gun’ Story Shooting Blanks?, as well as more from the Instapundit.

Personally, I smell a set-up by Ms. Yewman.

Update 2: Rich Hailey feels that Ms. Yewman entirely Ms'[ed] the Mark; however, he certainly doesn't.

Heidi Yewman fails to take the necessary steps, and instead of proving that the law is too easy, proves only that she is an arrogant, reckless woman who is willing to endanger others to score a political point.

She should be ashamed of herself.

Finally, I do want to point out that even in this worst case scenario, an untrained, highly emotional, nervous wreck of a woman carried a loaded gun into a public space, and nobody got shot. There were no children harmed in the making of her post.

Why? Because guns do not have volition. Unless the person wearing one decides to pull it out of the holster and pull the trigger, it will not go off. The gun is not the problem; the person carrying it, as so aptly demonstrated by Ms. Yewman, is.

Bring. It. On. [Term Deleted for Decency]!

'Nuff said:

Professor: What America Really Needs Now Is a Violent Civil War to Kill Off the NRA

They Stood Still and Did Nothing

We should all be sickened by what happened this week in Woolwich, England—not just by the crime directly perpetrated, but also by that indirectly through the inaction of the onlookers. Have we become a flock of sheep idly bleating in some form of, "Thank Gaia [can't thank God any longer unless it's Allah] that's not me!" whilst the wolves devour one of our own?

I offer this compare and contrast...

First, review this from Richard Fernandez in his PJ Media post, The Manhood of the West:

The women came forward. Children in nearby schools were locked down by their teachers.

This incident illustrates, if nothing else, the endpoint of the social engineering of the West. It has been remarkably effective.

From a certain point of view, the British crowd behaved perfectly and this is the way “they” all want us to behave. The populace sheltered in place, didn’t do anything rash, talked to the perpetrators as people. They waited for the police to come and the hospital helicopter to take the corpse away. Some will doubtless get counseling to overcome their shattering experience.

And then they will congratulate themselves on how tough British society is; resilience and all that. The more caring will leave some flowers by a railing and hold a few candle vigils for healing and peace, until these wither and blow away and the news cycle washes up a new object of attention.

The attackers knew they were actors in a drama — as keenly watched in their communities as on the BBC. And in that other audience they were asking: “How will the locals behave?” We know now. And that other audience may derive an entirely different lesson from this tableau: “See? Only their women act like men. They follow orders. They are nothing anymore — these Westerners. They are a civilization whose core has been destroyed.”

Now, let's contrast it to Leslie Loftis's thoughts on The Essence of What It Means To Live In A Gun Culture:

...Taking the time to “earnestly contemplate” self defense is the essence of the gun culture. So much so that we hardly notice it.

I didn’t until the London Riots of 2011. While friends described locking their doors and hoping for the police, Zoe Williams wrote that she had never contemplated defending her home. This shocked me. But then I thought back to the 2001 massacre in Norway, when the shooter rampaged for about an hour, taking 77 lives. They waited for the police.

Most people outside the gun culture have been conditioned to wait for the police. Unarmed, without good options for self defense, they’ve never considered it. They assume we haven’t either, hence their worry that every charged situation would collapse into a shootout at the OK Corral. But in a gun culture, we plan self defense. In a gun culture, we accept that ultimately it is our responsibility to defend ourselves.  Follow Bolyard’s series. She’s asking, learning, and practicing while guided by those who have already done so. This is commonplace.

Sometime after the Batman massacre, five men sat at my dining room table discussing not whether they would have acted, but how. Things like how to move the non-combatants into cover and how to charge a shooter. During my shock at the London Riots, I asked a friend if he would “step off his porch and defend his neighbors from violent rioters.” He gave me a look that suggested I was being a bit thick and replied, “Leslie, I don’t have to step off my porch. That’s what the long guns are for.”

Amen.

Yet Another Bigoted Credit Card Processing Company

I may have to start a label for Dishonorable Mentions...

I'm an FFL and have a small firearms sales and instruction business outside my employment as an HR Sith Lord. It's not much but it lets me continue to pursue my passion for promoting fun, safe shooting opportunities and communities at a higher level than I used to be able to. Being small, I operate on some pretty tight margins and was really taking it on the chin to accept credit/debit cards. It seems like once I'd made the commitment, everyone decided they'd rather pay cash.

So, after having battled with my former merchant services provider to cancel my agreement, I took the plunge and invested in a smartphone and a 2-year contract, with data plan, so that I could go with one of those companies that's been all the recent rage, Square. No more having the hide the POS terminal in a drawer around the home office. No more stiff monthly fees that I had to pay regardless of whether or not I'd had any sales (don't get me started on minimum monthly sales amounts).

All seemed right with the world and I even had a new business toy to play with (no, the iPhone's not going back!). Joyous!!!

And, then comes today's email letting me know that:

From time to time we update our agreement governing the use of Square's payment processing services, Square Reader, and Square Register.
...
The vast majority of changes result from either reorganization, clarification of language, the deletion of duplicative text, or other aesthetic changes, although there are a few substantive modifications. (See, for example, Section 6 [Your Square Account]...
...
The updated agreement will take effect on June 9, 2013. If you continue to use our services after June 9, 2013, you agree to the terms of the new agreement.

Okay... I've been burned by the fine print before... So I go in and decide I'd better check out Section 6.

Exhibit A is Section 6 from the soon-to-be-superseded agreement:

By creating a Square Account, you confirm that you are either a legal resident of the United States, a United States citizen, or a business entity authorized to conduct business by the state in which it operates. The Services and your Square Account may only be used in the fifty states of the United States of America and the District of Columbia. You may not export the Services directly or indirectly, and you acknowledge that the Services may be subject to export restrictions imposed by US law, including US Export Administration Regulations (15 C.F.R. Chapter VII).

By creating a Square Account, you also confirm that you will not accept payments in connection with the following businesses or business activities: (1) any illegal activity, (2) buyers or membership clubs, (3) credit counseling or repair agencies, (4) credit protection or identity theft protection services, (5) direct marketing or subscription offers or services, (6) infomercial sales, (7) internet/mail order/telephone order pharmacies or pharmacy referral services (where fulfillment of medication is performed with an internet or telephone consultation, absent a physical visit with a physician including re-importation of pharmaceuticals from foreign countries), (8) multi-level marketing businesses, (9) inbound or outbound telemarketers, (10) prepaid phone cards or phone services, (11) rebate based businesses, (12) up-sell merchants, (13) bill payment services, (14) betting, including lottery tickets, casino gaming chips, off-track betting, and wagers at races, (15) financial institutions offering manual or automated cash disbursements, (16) financial institutions offering merchandise and services, (17) sales of money-orders or foreign currency by non-financial institutions, (18) wire transfer money orders, (19) high-risk merchants, including telemarketing merchants, (20) service station merchants, (21) automated fuel dispensers, (22) adult entertainment oriented products or services (in any medium, e.g., internet, telephone or printed material), (23) internet/mail order/telephone order firearm or weapon sales, (24) internet/mail order/telephone order cigarette or tobacco sales, (25) drug paraphernalia, (26) occult materials, (27) hate products, (28) escort services, and (29) bankruptcy attorneys.

By accepting this Agreement you confirm that you will satisfy these requirements.

Seems Reasonable, doesn't it?

Now, Exhibit B [emphasis mine] is the revised Section 6, effective June 9, 2013:

By creating a Square Account, you confirm that you are either a legal resident of the United States, a United States citizen, or a business entity authorized to conduct business by the state(s) in which you operate. The Services and your Square Account may only be used for business purposes in the fifty states of the United States of America and the District of Columbia. You may not export the Services directly or indirectly, and you acknowledge that the Services may be subject to export restrictions imposed by US law, including US Export Administration Regulations (15 C.F.R. Chapter VII).

By creating a Square Account, you also confirm that you will not accept payments in connection with the following businesses or business activities: (1) any illegal activity or goods, (2) buyers or membership clubs, including dues associated with such clubs, (3) credit counseling or credit repair agencies, (4) credit protection or identity theft protection services, (5) direct marketing or subscription offers or services, (6) infomercial sales, (7) internet/mail order/telephone order pharmacies or pharmacy referral services (where fulfillment of medication is performed with an internet or telephone consultation, absent a physical visit with a physician including re-importation of pharmaceuticals from foreign countries), (8) unauthorized multi-level marketing businesses, (9) inbound or outbound telemarketers, (10) prepaid phone cards or phone services, (11) rebate based businesses, (12) up-sell merchants, (13) bill payment services, (14) betting, including lottery tickets, casino gaming chips, off-track betting, and wagers at races, (15) manual or automated cash disbursements, (16) prepaid cards, checks, or other financial merchandise or services, (17) sales of money-orders or foreign currency, (18) wire transfer money orders, (19) high-risk products and services, including telemarketing sales, (20) service station merchants, (21) automated fuel dispensers, (22) adult entertainment oriented products or services (in any medium, including internet, telephone, or printed material), (23) sales of (i) firearms, firearm parts or hardware, and ammunition; or (ii) weapons and other devices designed to cause physical injury (24) internet/mail order/telephone order cigarette or tobacco sales, (25) drug paraphernalia, (26) occult materials, (27) hate or harmful products, (28) escort services, (29) bankruptcy attorneys or collection agencies engaged in the collection of debt.

This may mean I have to drop accepting credit cards for a while.

What a crock of goody two-shoes crap! I'd heard this about PayPal and, apparently, this is true with Intuit Merchant Services as well.

I chose the term bigoted very carefully, because that is exactly what it is.Words beyond that just fail me at the moment.

Now, That's [EXPLETIVE DELETED] Chutzpah!

So, once again, our fearless leader is denouncing his country and attempting to single-out a significant portion of its citizens:

"Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States," President Obama said during a speech at Mexico's Anthropology Museum. 

First, look within your own administration, Mr. President.

Despite the rest of his speech, where he states that to uphold the rights of the Second Amendment, this repetition of such a long-discredited canard is not the mark of a person who intends to uphold our Constitution.

So, where's your game going, Barry, to decide to replay this card and disrespect the country that re-elected* you?

*Just what does this say about us, as a nation?

Senator Begich on Gun Control

One of my shooting buddies emailed this to me the other day:

Alaska Senator's Gun Proposal Looks To Fix Existing System

QOTD: 03/06/2013

Mininerd's Julia discusses how Colorado Democrats really have declared war on women and aptly summarizes:

These people are disgusting.  Women have the right to murder babies, but not defend themselves from physical attacks?  What a sad set of priorities.

Kiss Your 870's Goodbye, Colorado

Under the new law that Governor Hickenlooper is indicating he'll sign:

Popular Standard Shotgun Could Be Banned Under Proposed Bill

Brophy points to a section of the bill that defines a high-capacity magazine as one capable of accepting or — that can be readily converted — to accept more than 15 rounds or eight shotgun shells.

“This is where shotgun shells go inside this tube here,” Brophy showed Boyd, “You can screw this part off the top and screw on an extender to this tube to allow it to hold more than eight rounds. It is readily convertible, which by definition in the bill, makes the whole thing a high-capacity magazine.”

...

“The law is specific as of July 1. You can keep it, but only if you maintain continuous possession of it,” Brophy said. “If it breaks, you can’t give to a gunsmith even to fix it. You can’t hand it to your son to use. It’s all now outlawed because of this 1224, the bill that Gov. Hickenlooper says he’s going to sign … this is most extreme thing anybody’s ever done related to firearms.”

Boyd asked Senate Democrats about Brophy’s concerns. They sent her a statement saying an amendment dealing with thats issue is currently being drafted and will be presented in a committee hearing Monday. What that amendment looks like and whether it passes remains to be seen.

Hat tip to Drudge.

Slicing Gun Control's Throat...

Over at The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse, where Michael Z. Williamson brings us Gun Control, Summarized:

Pretty soon you can't get a gun for under $1000 with several hundred $ a year in legal maintenance.

Thus fucking everyone living in poverty from defending themselves, and ensuring that only rich white "liberal" cocksuckers can own them.

It is immoral, it is racist, it is statist, it is classist, it is indefensible, and we need to start calling people on it.

Check it all out and, as always:

Be Seen. Be Heard. And Stand Firm!

Juneau Day of Resistance 2/23

Or...
There were a bunch of kooks with guns (and no one got shot or hurt)!

That was how I'd almost sarcastically titled this post. I'd found out about the Day of Resistance rally at the Capitol back on Thursday, when someone passed along a heads-up about the event with a statement from someone else that essentially said that there would be people carrying assault weapons in front of the Capitol and all it would take is one wacko to set it all off. Naturally, I had to go check it all out and give at least a quick report.


I wasn't carrying but, in hindsight, maybe I wish I was.

I'll be honest that I'm not really a big fan of open-carry at events such as this. I've always felt that it only provides ammo for an already hostile media to keep trying to portray us exactly as wackos; however, I'm seriously re-thinking my stance on this. As my dad related to me in a phone conversation after I'd got back, we can't do anything without them portraying us as such, anyhow, so might as well be proud of who we are (this, from the man who years back passed on membership to a respectable Cape Cod gun club because they required NRA membership).

Something else that was continually said by the speakers and attendees of the half-hour gathering was the reaffirmation that there were so many visible with their guns and not a single person in any near proximity ever felt endangered.

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

As you can see from the first photo, this was a typical winter's day for Southeast Alaska (sideways blowing sleet and 27-degree windchill).

There were maybe 30-35 hardy souls gathered when I first got there.

The weather conditions certainly gave meaning to "cold, dead fingers."

At the peak of the rally,  I counted approximately 50-plus people, about half of them women.

Along with about 10 children that I counted at various points in the crowd.

Among the attendees and speakers were State Senators John Coghill (speaking) and Fred Dyson (standing to the left). Senator Dyson read the text to Senate Joint Resolution Number 6.

Also speaking were State Senators Lesil McGuire (above, with organizer Thom Buzard) and Pete Kelly (not pictured).

The cold crowd may have been small, but it was certainly noticeable...

I found it really interesting that the car in this photo has a "Do No Harm" and an "Obama/Biden" bumper sticker.

I'll quickly conclude with something that organizer Thom Buzard said:

I'm tired of being quiet. I'm tired of being afraid.

As always:

Be Seen. Be Heard. And, Stand Firm.

Tell Me What You Really Think, Michael

I'd first caught this care of the Bayou Renaissance Man and wanted to comment and post about this a while back but, alas, I am once again behind the times...

Over at The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse, Michael Z Williamson decides to write The Post in Which [He] Piss[es] Off EVERYBODY. In summary:

First they came for the blacks, and I spoke up because it was wrong, even though I'm not black.

Then they came for the gays, and I spoke up, even though I'm not gay.

Then they came for the Muslims, and I spoke up, because it was wrong, even though I'm an atheist.

When they came for illegal aliens, I spoke up, even though I'm a legal immigrant.

Then they came for the pornographers, rebels and dissenters and their speech and flag burning, and I spoke up, because rights are not only for the establishment.

Then they came for the gun owners, and you liberal shitbags threw me under the bus, even though I'd done nothing wrong.  So when they come to put you on the train, you can fucking choke and die.

Definitely worth a complete read!

Way To Go, Guys!

Sebastian brings some good Counter-Protesting in Westfield, NJ.

Go check it out!

Oh, Bull!

I have to agree with Chris, over at Arma Borealis, on this: DisArmalite Funnels Arms to Chicago & NY Law Enforcement.

Like many other firearms manufacturers, Armalite has been hit with requests that they sell gear which is compliant with the law for civilians to law enforcement officers and LE agencies in states which ban their citizens from having AR-15 rifles.  That is, one set of sales policies for citizens and for civilian police officers.

He quotes Armalite's initial response and summarizes it as:

Well now.  That's a big serving of "shut the hell up, you stupid serf!"

Armalite's president then released a statement, which Chris quoted, in which he states that although Armalite will not sell to those states which deny it's honorable citizens the right to own ArmaLite's products, they not halt sales to individual officers even in problematic states. Chris isn't buying it:

When an otherwise law abiding citizen in upstate NY is safely shooting his undocumented AR-15 with undocumented standard capacity magazines on private property, he could be confronted by a DNR or Forestry Department officer with an ARMALITE rifle.

When a NY LEO kicks in a door to raid a house containing undocumented AR-15 rifles, that LEO could be carrying a personally procured ARMALITE rifle.  He may use that ARMALITE rifle to shoot an innocent dog and terrorize a family.

When a NY LEO arrests a good man for possession of a box with a spring, he could have an ARMALITE in his trunk equipped with identical mags to the ones he is confiscating.

Armalite perpetuates the idea that our civilian law enforcement officers are for some reason better than the civilians who they ostensibly serve.

I also believe that if Armalite is selling a firearm to an individual officer that is illegal within a given state and, not to that officer's employing law enforcement agency, they are essentially selling to a private citizen. At the least, they are being hypocrites, talking out of both sides of their mouths in a bunch of bullsh!t none of us needs. At worst, they are essentially engaging in an illegal sale.

Updated: That's Why Sand People Ride Their Banthas in Single File

From Days of our Trailers:  Only Imperial Stormtroopers Are So Precise

See also Chris's great post,"Only Ones:" Accountability, ROEs, and Heroism, over at Arma Borealis.

By now it is widely reported that the police in California shot up two vehicles belonging to innocent civilians, wounding two.

As a reminder, the police were looking for a 270 lb black guy in a black nissan pickup.

Read the whole thing!

UPDATE:
Steven Greenhut describes how the Dorner Manhunt Reveals Police Contempt for Public Safety:

Last weekend, police opened fire on a 71-year-old newspaper carrier and her 47-year-old daughter who had the misfortune of driving a pick-up truck police thought might be Dorner’s. The Los Angeles police detectives who opened fire on them, putting two bullets in the older woman’s back, didn’t do much double checking. The carriers' truck was a different make and color from Dorner’s.

As the women’s attorney told the Los Angeles Times: “The problem with the situation is it looked like the police had the goal of administering street justice and in so doing, didn't take the time to notice that these two older, small Latina women don't look like a large black man.” This could be written off as a sad fluke, except that 25 minutes later different officers opened fire on a different truck—once again getting key details wrong. Can’t officers at least check the license plate, and issue a warning, before opening fire?

...

“Simply put, the police culture in our country has changed,” argued former San Jose Police Chief Joe McNamara, a Hoover Institution scholar, in a Wall Street Journal article in 2006. “An emphasis on ‘officer safety’ and paramilitary training pervades today’s policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn’t shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed.”

Courtesy of a great hat tip and summation by the Instpaundit, who writes:

Nope. An armed citizen who acted this way would be in jail now. Except that armed citizens seldom act this way.