Monday, January 31, 2011

The top Eight Reasons why gun control works.

1. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

2. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

3. Germany established gun control in 1938, and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

4. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

5. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

8. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Yup, just ask all the dictators and despots who enacted gun control laws, they'll tell you gun control is wonderful. It cuts way down on the violence. Specially since their victims couldn't fight back.

 Current Mood: Awake
 Current Music: None
My Carry Pistol: Rock Island Armory M1911-A1 .45ACP

Monday, January 24, 2011 has moved

Unfortunately, Oleg has apparently lost use of domain name. I imagine a result of the lawsuit settlement between him, and a certain person we shall not name. In any event, if you were registered on and/or, your registration should still be good for

Spread the word. We don't want our friends going to the wrong site by accident.

 Current Mood: Awake
 Current Music: The Village People - In The Navy
My Carry Pistol: Ruger Police Service Six .357 Magnum

Friday, January 21, 2011

Michigan House Bill 4009 and 4010

Michigan House Bill 4009 and 4010, introduced by Representative Richard LeBlanc (D), if enacted will repeal MCL 28.425o, eliminating all the pistol free zones, areas where those of us who have a Concealed Pistol License, are currently prohibited from carrying concealed. As it currently stands, we can legally carry in these so called "Pistol free zones," as long as we openly carry our pistols.

If these bills become law, we won't need to OC our firearms in those places, and consequently, everyone else there should feel more comfortable, as they won't see our guns anymore.

So, contact your state representative and ask them to support this bill.
And don't forget to sign the online petition here.

 Current Mood: Happy
 Current Music: The Village People - San Francisco
My Carry Pistol: Ruger Police Service Six .357 Magnum

Just a note to my readers

In case you haven't noticed, I changed the basic layout. In the process, some links got dropped. I still have them, I just haven't put them all back yet. If you're one of those who paid for a link to be on my blog, and you don't see it, let me know, I'll get it up there ASAP.

Thanks for your patience.

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: Rob Zombie - Dragula
My Carry Pistol: Rock Island Armory M1911-A1 .45ACP

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Another case of the pot calling the kettle black

Before banning ‘crosshairs,’ CNN used it to refer to Palin, Bachmann
By: Byron York 01/19/11 8:08 AM
Chief Political Correspondent

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

January 19, 2011

CNN’s John King is attracting a lot of notice — and some ridicule — in the blogosphere for his on-air apology after a guest used the word “crosshairs” during a report on Chicago politics Tuesday. (The guest, a former Chicago reporter, referred to two rivals of mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel, saying Emanuel is “in both of their crosshairs.”) “We were just having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race,” King told viewers. “My friend Andy Shaw…used the term ‘in the crosshairs’ in talking about the candidates out there. We’re trying, we’re trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend, he’s covered politics for a long time, but we’re trying to get away from using that kind of language. We won’t always be perfect, so hold us accountable when we don’t meet your standards.”

King’s statement comes after widespread discussion of whether Sarah Palin’s now-infamous “crosshairs” map targeting vulnerable Democratic candidates in last November’s elections somehow caused the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson January 8. There has been plenty of that kind of speculation on CNN, including on Tuesday, the day of John King’s statement, when one brief discussion of Palin used the word “crosshairs” five times.

Now, King says, CNN is “trying to get away” from such terms, suggesting that in the wake of the Tucson shootings, such language should no longer be part of the public conversation. But if Palin is to blame for using crosshairs in her much-discussed map, then CNN, by its own use of the allegedly inflammatory term “crosshairs,” might also share some blame for creating the atmosphere that led to the violence in Arizona. A look at transcripts of CNN programs in the month leading up to the shootings shows that the network was filled with references to “crosshairs” — and once even used the term to suggest the targeting of Palin herself. Some examples:

"Palin's moose-hunting episode on her reality show enraged People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and now, she's square in the crosshairs of big time Hollywood producer, Aaron Sorkin," reported A.J. Hammer of CNN's Headline News on December 8.

"Companies like MasterCard are in the crosshairs for cutting ties with WikiLeaks," said CNN Kiran Chetry in a December 9 report.

"Thousands of people living in areas that are in the crosshairs have been told to evacuate," Chetry said in a December 21 report on flooding in California.

"He's in their crosshairs," said a guest in a December 21 CNN discussion of suspects in a missing-person case.

"This will be the first time your food will be actually in the crosshairs of the FDA," business reporter Christine Romans said on December 22.

"The U.S. commander in the East has Haqqani in his crosshairs," CNN's Barbara Starr reported on December 28, referring to an Afghan warlord.

"We know that health care reform is in the crosshairs again," CNN's Joe Johns reported on January 3.

Seven uses of "crosshairs" in just the month before the Tucson attacks, and just one of them referring to an actual wartime situation. And one reference to Sarah Palin herself as being in "crosshairs."

And not just Palin. On September 14, Mark Preston, CNN's senior political editor, referred to another controversial politician, Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, as being "in the crosshairs." "Michelle Bachmann is raising lots of money, raising her national profile," Preston said on September 14. "She is in the crosshairs of Democrats as well."

It turns out Preston was back on CNN's air on Tuesday, discussing Palin's recent interview on Fox News. "We saw her on Fox News last night where she is a paid contributor," Preston said. "A kind of a friendly setting, but she defended herself from all the criticism that's been directed at her regarding a Web site that she had put out where she had used crosshairs over 20 Democratic candidates. Now a lot of people said that her rhetoric is inciting violence. She said that that is not true…"

"Crosshairs" again. Just for the record, CNN anchors, reporters and guests did absolutely nothing wrong with their use of the word in the last month and before. It would be impossible, at least for any reasonable person, to argue that the network's use of "crosshairs" in any of the various contexts it was used, was an incitement to violence by anyone, anywhere. But by announcing that "we're trying to get away" from "crosshairs" and other allegedly incendiary language, CNN is aligning itself with those who blame "rhetoric" for the killings. And by doing that -- plus inviting the public to "hold us accountable" -- CNN could open itself up to an examination of its own uses of the word and accusations that it helped create an environment that led to violence. Does that make any sense at all?

Disappointing, isn't it.

Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: The Village People - Hollywood
My Carry Pistol: Rock Island Armory M1911-A1 .45ACP

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Time to boycott New Jersey and New York City

High court denies man's gun arrest appeal

By Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press – Tue Jan 18, 11:20 am ET

WASHINGTON – Missing a plane connection cost Utah gun owner Greg Revell 10 days in jail after he was stranded in New Jersey with an unloaded firearm he had legally checked with his luggage in Salt Lake City.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court without comment refused on Tuesday to let Revell sue Port Authority of New York and New Jersey police for arresting him on illegal possession of a firearm in New Jersey and for not returning his gun and ammunition to him for more than three years.

Revell was flying from Salt Lake City to Allentown, Pa., on March 31, 2005, with connections in Minneapolis and Newark, N.J. He had checked his Utah-licensed gun and ammunition with his luggage in Salt Lake City and asked airport officials to deliver them both with his luggage in Allentown.

But the flight from Minneapolis to Newark was late, so Revell missed his connection to Allentown. The airline wanted to bus its passengers to Allentown, but Revell realized that his luggage had not made it onto the bus and got off. After finding his luggage had been given a final destination of Newark by mistake, Revell missed the bus. He collected his luggage, including his gun and ammunition, and decided to wait in a nearby hotel with his stuff until the next flight in the morning.

When Revell tried to check in for the morning flight, he again informed the airline officials about his gun and ammunition to have them checked through to Allentown. He was reported to the TSA, and then arrested by Port Authority police for having a gun in New Jersey without a New Jersey license.

He spent 10 days in several different jails before posting bail. Police dropped the charges a few months later. But his gun and ammunition were not returned to him until 2008.

Revell said he should not have been arrested because federal law allows licensed gun owners to take their weapons through any state as long as they are unloaded and not readily accessible to people. He said it was not his fault the airline stranded him in New Jersey by making him miss his flight and routing his luggage to the wrong destination.

Prosecutors said it doesn't matter whose fault it was: Revell was arrested in New Jersey with a readily accessible gun in his possession without a New Jersey license.

Lower courts have sympathized with Revell but refused to let him sue the police.

"We recognize that he had been placed in a difficult situation through no fault of his own," wrote Judge Kent A. Jordan of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. However, the law "clearly requires the traveler to part ways with his weapon and ammunition during travel; it does not address this type of interrupted journey or what the traveler is to do in this situation."

The case is Revell v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 10-236.

I don't know what it's going to take, but we have to find a way to show our displeasure with the way legal, law-abiding citizens are treated in states, cities and towns who seem to think gun ownership is bad. After all, we are simply exercising our constitutionally protected right of self defense. We are a threat to no one, except maybe bad people.

So, I don't know about you, but for me, I am going to be looking to see if anything I buy comes from New York or New Jersey. And if it does, I won't buy it. And if given the opportunity, I'll pass on to the manufacturer WHY I'm not buying their products. I know, it's like throwing pebbles at an Abrams tank, but sometimes you do get their attention.

 Current Mood: disappointed
 Current Music: Southern Voice - Tim McGraw
My Carry Pistol: Rock Island Armory M1911-A1 .45ACP

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Tucson Shooting starts another "feel good, do nothing" gun control debate.

While I feel bad for the victims of Jared Loughner's Saturday shooting spree, I deplore it's use as a political weight to hang around the necks of law-abiding gun owners.

Representative Peter King (New York, R) is proposing a law to create a "gun free zone" around certain elected officials. This would have the effect of creating a roving GFZ* of 1000 feet around representatives, senators, and so on. Never mind that this law would NOT have deterred Jared Loughner. Never mind that this law would not have deterred Lee Harvey Oswald, Leon Frank Czolgosz, Charles Guiteau, or John Wilkes Booth.

Why, you ask? Simple, only law-abiding citizens obey laws. Criminals, including the assassins I named above would NOT obey any such law. Hell, it's against the law brandish a firearm in public, in most places, it's also against the law to discharge a firearm inside city limits. Loughner broke at least 2 laws before he killed anyone.

All these laws do is make the left "feel good," like they're doing "something" to fight crime, when in reality all they're doing is helping to disarm the law-abiding, and create more potential victims.

The really disappointing thing for me, this law is put forth by a Republican, and until a day two ago, someone I thought was a conservative. I guess I should have known better, he's just another politician, already campaigning for re-election.

*=Gun Free Zone

 Current Mood: Disappointed in our law makers
 Current Music: Macho Man - The Village People
My Carry Pistol: Ruger Police Service Six .357 Magnum