A Significant Failure in the Victim Selection Process

… seems to be a bit of an understatement.

Thugs Try Brazen Robbery, Get Shot by 3 Workers, Each with their own gun

Nice! I expect they needed new underwear after that little fiasco.


A DGU the Anti-Rights cultists won’t count

Because no shots were fired and no one died (Autoplay warning).

CCTV images captured how a man walked into the Missouri shop and pulled out a handgun, apparently demanding money.
However, shopkeeper Jon Lewis Alexander, a former Iraq veteran, calmly pushed the robber’s gun aside and drew his own handgun, pointing it at the man’s mouth.
The would-be armed robber then backed away and ran out of the store.

If the embedding didn’t work, the link should. Check out the video at the link – Mr. Alexander appears perfectly cool, calm, and collected as the would-be-robber waves his gun around like a magic talisman.

No shots fired, but unfortunately the bad guy got away and the cops are still looking for him.

This also earned the “stupidity” tag, because from the video it looks like Mr. Alexander was openly carrying his gun, yet the crook didn’t seem to notice until he was looking down the barrel.


[Source: The Telegraph article, retrieved 9/5/13]

A Second Amendment Epiphany

Linoge linked to a couple of articles last week, and one of them – once I finally got around to reading it – tripped one of those switches in my brain that said “Oh! Now I get it!” regarding the deceptively clumsy phrasing of the Second Amendment.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. – U.S. Constitution, Amendment II

The relationship between the two clauses, and how or even if they cause the Right to relate to militias, has been debated for at least a century. A popular argument among those who favour gun control – whether outright bans on all guns, or bans of “assault weapons” – is that the 2nd Amendment is preconditioned on membership in a militia, and that the National Guard and/or the advent of professional police forces has superseded the founder’s model of local militias. As a result, they argue, the 2nd Amendment does not apply to ordinary citizens, only to police and National Guard members.

While this argument certainly ignores the fact that the unorganized militia is still embodied in US law, it is flawed on a much more basic level – the 2nd Amendment clearly and specifically assigns that right to the people, not to the militia or members of a militia. This is the classic dependent/independent clause argument – that the reference to a “well regulated militia” explains the necessity of protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but does not limit that right to membership in a militia.

But there was a point in reading that article where something else clicked for me, though I can’t point to any one sentence or paragraph and say “this is where I understood”. It’s a surprisingly simple concept.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, so that they may quickly and easily form a militia should the need arise.

When the Right for each and every citizen to own, possess, and carry arms is restricted, a militia cannot be formed without those people first going out and obtaining arms. If the government is allowed to restrict how, when, and if a citizen can purchase firearms – yes, even military weapons – then the government can restrict or prevent the formation of any militias.

But why, you ask, in our modern society, would anyone need to form a militia so quickly that they couldn’t wait for the government to approve it if it truly was needed?

Leaving aside the assumption that the government a) would approve it in the first place, and b) would do so quickly enough to do any good, it also ignores the speed in which bad situations can develop. A perfect modern day example of this is the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in 1992, and the events that took place in Koreatown during those riots.

With the police overwhelmed (and, by all accounts, not terribly motivated to intervene in that neighborhood anyway), it fell to the citizens there to defend their homes, livelihoods, and their lives themselves. They banded together in small groups for their own defense – the very definition of an unorganized militia. Once the riots started, they didn’t have time to go to a store and buy a gun. They didn’t have time to sit through a background check. They were dependent on the guns they had at the time.

Without the protections afforded by the Second Amendment, Koreatown would have been destroyed by the rampaging mobs.

What would have been more effective in Boston last month – unarmed citizens cowering in their homes with the police and National Guard imposing martial law (lite! with only half the jackboots!) while searching house to house, or armed citizens standing watch over their own neighborhoods while directing the police towards any suspicious activity?

I’ll say it again. The Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms does not depend on membership in a militia, it is what allows us to form militias where and when they are needed.


Gun control doesn’t work

As our “leaders” and their media figureheads bloviate about how we must pass a new “Assault Weapon” Ban now to prevent another massacre, I would just like to remind everyone about this.


Yes, that is a functional AK-clone, built from a shovel.

You see, the technology for manufacturing guns is centuries old. Now that the truly intelligent people have come up with the ideas of the metallic cartridge, removable magazines, and recoil or gas powered loading, anyone with half a brain and the proper tools can build a fully functional “assault weapon” – or even a real assault weapon (as I understand it, a full-auto action is actually easier to make than semi-auto).

Gun control, and especially gun bans, will always fail. Just ask anyone in the Khyber Pass.


Yet again, armed self defense works.

An armed employee stops a robbery.

A gunshot, fired by an armed employee, interrupted a store robbery in northwest Roanoke late Tuesday.Officers responded to Annwil Grocery in the 200 block of 24th Street near Shenandoah Avenue about 11:50 p.m., according to police spokeswoman Aisha Johnson. Investigators were told that a male had entered the store and showed a gun to the employee at the register, Johnson said. She said the cashier also produced a gun and fired one shot, scaring the male out of the store.

We see it again and again. Most (though certainly not all) criminals, when confronted with deadly force in response to their own threats of deadly force, will turn tail and run. Contrary to the claims of the gun banners, self defense can work. While a gun is not a guarantee of success, it is still the most effective tool for defense against violence.

Carry your gun!


[Source: Roanoke Times article, retrieved 8/10/12]

Grandmother survives armed robbery and shootout

By a miracle it would seem. Take a look at the picture in the article. Eight bullet holes in the hood, one in the grill, and both front windows shot out (the bullet hole in the windshield was apparently from her gun). From what I can tell from the article (all standard MSM caveats apply), the bad guys took a pretty tactically sound approach, with one in front of the vehicle and one on the driver’s side. They ordered her to unlock the truck and give them “the money,” probably referring to the nightly deposit from her convenience stores. She decided to fight, assuming that they were going to kill her anyway – and probably rightly so, considering that she later realized that she recognized them as regulars at one of her stores and probably would have been able to identify them later – and drew her pistol. In the firefight that followed, she hit one robber in the chest and forced the other to retreat. It’s more than likely that they had followed her before to plan this out. She survived because she was willing to fight.

But Jay G does a pretty good job covering that angle. Like he says, “Give them just what they’re asking for – hot lead.” I want to look at something else from that article.

Campbell said she owns several guns of all calibers, and given that she owns 13 convenience stores in Macon, Fort Valley and Columbus, she always keeps one on her hip and one in her car. Each store also has at least one gun.

If you listen to the anti-Rights cultists, this is a sign of paranoia, and evidence that she is mentally unfit to own firearms (of course, to the anti-Rights cultists, wanting to own any gun is evidence of being mentally unfit to own firearms). After all, why would anyone need* more than one gun, right (or at least one of each type – rifle, shotgun, and pistol)? And look at those numbers – that’s a minimum of fifteen guns that she owns – why would any one person need that many guns? And why would anyone need to carry one all the time? It’s paranoia!

Well, maybe because you never know when and where you’ll need one. Here’s one good example of the fact that a certain amount of “paranoia” is both normal and healthy. In fact, it looks like she was just “paranoid” enough to keep herself alive. While there’s no guarantee they would have killed her, they sure didn’t hesitate to start shooting when it looked like she was going to resist! And we all know that compliance does not guarantee safety.

Yet the anti-Rights cultists would rather have her robbed, probably murdered, and possibly raped (what, do you think someone willing to commit armed robbery and probably murder would hesitate at committing rape?) than have a violent criminal killed.

Remember, it may be “just money”, but the criminal has already decided whether it’s worth your life or not. You will never know what that decision was until it’s too late, so your best bet is to act as if the answer is “yes”, and give them what they want. Hot lead.

Remember, self defense works. And always CARRY YOUR GUN.

*Not that “need” really has anything to do with it.


[Source: Article in The Telegraph (Macon(?), GA), retrieved 4/25/12]

(h/t Jay G at MArooned)

Open carry police encounter in Blacksburg

First, let me make it clear (for reasons to do with my private life) that it is not me in or filming this video. I got the link by way of the VCDL email list.

I’m not going to say that this unnamed carrier handled this the right way or not. I’m not sure. But I will note that with this being a college town (with the attendant prevalence of liberal attitudes) and the high-profile events that have happened here over just the last few years, having the cops come to check you out if you’re open carrying is something that should be expected. Open carry is a bit of a touchy topic around here (as Linoge noted when he visited). Another thing to remember is that all thta the officers who show up usually know is “there’s someone with a gun walking around” and that someone else was worried enough about it – for some reason – to call 911.

A couple of points. First, notice the officer as he gets out of the car. His index of suspicion is obviously pegged solidly at “normal.” You can see his left hand adjusting the volume on his radio, which is necessary because they have to turn it down when they get in the car to avoid feedback, but his right hand is not resting on or near his gun. In fact, that right arm is swinging pretty freely the entire time it’s visible. That is not the approach of a cop who has any real concern at all about the person he is approaching. (Because guess what? It’s extremely rare for a criminal, or someone with criminal intentions, to walk around openly carrying a gun. They like to try and be sneaky about things like that.)

The second point is the officer’s reaction once he gets the “silent treatment”. You can see he goes from “open and friendly” to “open and friendly but irritated” to “purely businesslike”. Considering that, ordinarily, the full silent treatment is pretty rude, his reaction is understandable. Yet he remains courteous throughout the encounter, and never becomes demanding or unprofessional.

Now, here I do need to disclose my potential bias. I know this officer from my many professional encounters with him while running EMS. My impression has always been that he is friendly, easygoing where his job allows it, and generally a good guy. I have never seen him act unprofessionally to people he has to deal with in an adversarial or investigatory capacity, or aggressively when aggression wasn’t called for, even when off camera.

I know that the person taping the encounter had no way of knowing it, but from my knowledge of this officer, and his body language in that video, I can say with pretty good confidence that he didn’t expect this to be anything more than a quick “make contact and log that he’s not doing anything illegal” encounter. He was also doing everything in his power to make it a friendly and quick encounter, and defuse any implied insult that might arise in a law abiding person from being stopped and questioned like that.

Personally, assuming I didn’t know the officer in question, I probably would have at least acknowledged the “Do you care not to speak” question. I think that was the point where he got irritated and shifted into “pure business” mode, and doing so might have avoided antagonizing someone who should be on our side, and who we want on our side. It also would not, I believe, have been anything that could be used against you legally. But I’m not going to go so far as to say that would have been the “right” way to handle it, or that the person in the video was wrong, just because I would have done something differently.

I would like to see an honest analysis from someone like LawDog or Matt G, or other LEO gunbloggers. I think it would be enlightening.


Oddball joins the club!

It seems congratulations are in order for Oddball – he just got his concealed carry permit.

Congratulations! May you never actually need to use your gun.


Remember, the news media lies

… and sometimes we don’t learn about it until 40 years later.

Kitty Genovese was beaten, stabbed, raped, and killed in full view of dozens of New Yorkers on March 13, 1964. It became an infamous case, an example of urban disinterest and apathy. Nobody called the cops. Nobody cared. She was horribly killed in front of people who just didn’t want to get involved.


Or is that really how it really went? Again, not exactly.

Most of the basic elements of the story are accurate. Miss Genovese was stabbed to death while crying “help me!” by apartments containing 38 people. One witness later on admitted that he “didn’t want to get involved.” But here’s the rest of the story.

See, it turns out that the attack happened at 3am, only one person was woken up to witness it, she was only attacked twice, and one of those attacks was in a secluded location where nobody could see it.

Go. Read. Learn.

And remember how the media lies. Remember that story (any story) you saw on a subject you know about, and how they got easily researched information totally wrong? Why do you then trust them to get the details right on the very next story? This is known to many as the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

Remember all this when you hear all the news media reporting about how the “racist monster” Zimmerman “stalked and chased down” Treyvon Martin and “killed him in cold blood”. When you go and look at the verifiable facts (police reports, 911 tapes, etc.) and compare them to what is being reported by the media, two things become apparent.

  1. The media is lying through it’s teeth, by omission, by malicious misquoting, and by the use of images designed to prompt specific reactions and biases.
  2. What actually happened is not as clear-cut as most people believe.

I think Tam has the best summary of what is known.

An honest assessment would say that this is what we know:

  1. Zimmerman was out doing his neighborhood watch thing and saw Martin.
  2. He called 911 and followed Martin in his vehicle.
  3. When Martin walked someplace that Zimmerman couldn’t follow in his vehicle, he got out of his vehicle and followed on foot.
  4. ???
  5. In the process of getting his ass beaten, Zimmerman busts a cap in Martin.

The entire case turns on what happened in the ???, but don’t tell that to the media, the folks playing poker with a deck full of race cards, the victim disarmament crowd, or apparently the frickin’ President of the United States of America.

Note that the police and prosecutors are saying that they are not releasing all the evidence in order to protect the investigation and prosecution. This is normal procedure in any investigation where there is a possibility of charges being filed. So, how about everybody drink a big glass of calm the frell down and wait until all of the real facts are known before calling for Zimmerman’s public lynching? And while you’re at it try and remember how our legal system is supposed to work, too – they have to be able to prove that Zimmerman did something to nullify his self-defense claims, not just say “no it wasn’t”.


[Source: Word Around the Net blog, retrieved 3/26/12]
[Source: Seeker Blog, retrieved 3/26/12]
[Source: View From The Porch, retrieved 3/26/12]

(h/t Firehand)

The Bradys want me dead

Why do I say that? Because their desire to restrict legal gun ownership and carry into oblivion would leave me without a viable method of self-defense right now. If I were to be targeted for, just as an example, a gay bashing, without a firearm my two options would be to fight bare-handed against what would most likely be two or more assailants, or to try to run away (“giving them what they want” would not be an option in such a case, because what they want is me severely injured, crippled, or dead – and they don’t have to want me dead for it to happen anyway).

Right now, if I tried to run away from a week-old kitten I couldn’t do it. I suspect I wouldn’t make it more than half a dozen steps before ending up on the ground curled up in a little whimpering ball of pain and suffering. Trying to fight would be almost as bad, since my mobility is severely compromised and if you can’t maneuver during a fight, you’re going to lose.

So, without a gun, against 1 or more healthy assailants I am seriously disadvantaged, and probably would not survive any serious attack. With a gun, my odds are significantly better, and against the average assailant are tipped back in my favour.

But the anti-Rights cult wants to take that advantage away from me. Because a dead fag is apparently better than having a gay-basher get shot.


%d bloggers like this: