Colt Tells Connecticut, “You Can Keep Your Unions, Gun Bans, and Taxes”

Colt Tells Connecticut, “You Can Keep Your Unions, Gun Bans, and Taxes”…
Hello Florida!
Posted by Andrea Ryan on Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 4:30 AM

Colt is joining all the other innovative American manufacturing companies in the great stampede to the Right to Work South.

From RedState…

Colt Firearms appears to be one of the many Connecticut companies looking for a less hostile home.

To clarify, Florida is a Right-to-Work state and Connecticut is not. Which may be why the UAW is so concerned about keeping jobs in the anti-business state:.

via The Miami Herald:

Colt Manufacturing Co. announced earlier this month it is bringing 63 jobs and a new regional headquarters and product manufacturing center to Kissimmee, Fla., next year.

Of course, Colt’s move may also have more to do with the hostile nature Connecticut has toward businesses, or the largest tax increase in the state’s history that was just imposed in June.

To read the rest, click on the title of this article.




 Current Mood: Awake
 Current Music: Macho Man - The Village People
My Carry Pistol: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm NATO

Skype Call Recorder

Riviera for Skype is a Skype call recorder. It automatically records Skype calls and conversations to MP3 files. It's very convenient for recording interviews, tech talks, conferences, audio casts, pod casts for learning later, and probably other applications I've not thought of yet.

If you use Skype, give this program a try. The free trial version has no functional limitations. It has a 14 day trial period only. After the trial period is over, you must buy it or stop using the software.

When will it end?

I know this blog is mostly about guns, but sometimes, it has to be more.

The latest "alert" on American Family Association's OneNewsNow website is about Gays in the military seeking EQUAL recognition for marriage rights. First, Gays and Lesbians weren't "good enough" (make that moral enough) to fight for our country. Now, those that fight for our country, aren't entitled to the same rights as the straight community is. When will this blatant new form of "racism" end? Yes, I said racism. while not strictly a separate race, the LGBT community is being treated pretty much like African-Americans were 50+ years ago. Actually, in many ways, worse.

A little over half a century ago, in some areas, it was illegal for Blacks and Whites to marry one another. Until President Truman changed it, Blacks in the military were mostly segregated with a few exceptions. (Most cooks on navy ships were Black.) Quite honestly, I'm surprised someone isn't calling for segregated units now, putting all Gays and Lesbians in their own units. I guess maybe I shouldn't give them any ideas.

I get it that for the most part, when most of the highly prejudiced straights out there think of Gays and Lesbians, and other, non-traditional (in a sexually oriented way) people, they think of the flamboyant types you see most often in the Gay pride parades. However, I would say that for the most part, those are the minority in the LGBT community. Most live a quiet life, unobtrusive, and for the most part, unnoticed. And, along with the flamboyant ones, STILL denied some of their basic human rights.

Complain about it all you want, I don't care. The LGBT community has just as much right as the rest of you to be married, and live in total abject misery for the rest of their lives, if that's what they really want. The idea that allowing same sex marriage will cause the downfall of this country or civilization is total and complete, utter BULLSHIT!

And before any of you reply, bringing up those pedophiles in NAMBLA, please don't bother. Those deviants should all be taken out and shot, several times.

The above is simply my opinion. If you don't like it, tough titty said the kitty but, we all gotta suck it.



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

Welcome to the United Soviet States of America

Federal appeals court backs
Obama's health reform law

BY TRESA BALDAS
DETROIT FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

A federal appeals court today upheld key provisions of President Barack Obama’s landmark health reform law, ruling that Congress can require Americans to buy health insurance or face penalties.

The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld an earlier decision from a federal judge in Detroit, who found that Congress did not overstep its constitutional authority in requiring most people to buy insurance. That was the argument made by the Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor-based Christian legal center that had challenged the health care reforms along with four plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh ruled against the law center and refused to issue an injunction to halt preparations for putting federal health reforms into full effect in 2014.

Federal judges in Washington and Virginia also have upheld Obama’s health care reforms. A Florida judge, though, has ruled against it. Attorneys general from 12 states, including Michigan, are also challenging the health care reforms. The issue is expected to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

In other words, we are NOT Citizens of the USA, we are subjects, and Obama is the king.

 Current Mood: Extremely disappointed
 Current Music: Macho Man - The Village People
My Carry Pistol: Rock Island Armory M1911-A1 .45ACP, Bulgarian Makarov PM 9x18mm for backup.

A small setback for Open Carry and Freedom in Michigan

For those of you who were not aware, there was a case in Ingham County Circuit court, Michigan Open Carry, Inc. (MOC), vs. Capitol Area District Library (CADL). MOC's contention was that CADL did not have the authority to ban open carry of firearms in it's libraries, as CADL was created by various local units of government, and answered to the same.

CADL's position is that they are an "authority" and are not mentioned specifically in Michigan's Preemption law, which forbids local governmental bodies from creating firearm laws stronger than the state. And if that didn't work, CADL also claimed they fit into the list of Pistol Free Zones, as they are sometimes used by schools, and they claim they lease their property from a school district. For reasons unknown currently, they dropped that claim in court.

CADL also proposed that openly carrying a firearm in a holster was "brandishing," under Michigan law.

Judge Rosemarie Acquilina, apparently went with her feelings, and not the law. She had made her pre-disposition to this case known earlier, when she granted a temporary injunction against openly carried firearms several months ago. This injunction is now permanent, at least until the appeals process is exhausted.

The judge did not rule that OCing of a firearm was brandishing, so I guess CADL lost that count.

As I understand it, OCing in a CADL library is out now. Concealed carrying is still OK... so far. I guess we'll see how long that lasts.

Judge Acquilina, it's long past time for you to step down. When you let your feelings get in the way of the law, you are no longer a fair and impartial judge. Do the state of Michigan a favor, and step down NOW!

There will be more to come on this subject.

 Current Mood: Hugely disappointed
 Current Music: Bonnie Tyler - Holding out for a Hero
My Carry Pistol: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm

Equality Matters twisting the truth to fit their agenda

Below is the start of their trumped up story on the NRA. If you want to read the whole thing, click on the name of this article, which will take you to their site.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) dropped the law firm King & Spalding shortly after the firm announced their decision to not defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives. King & Spalding had previously represented the NRA on important cases, including the Supreme Court decision McDonald v. Chicago.

King & Spalding announced late last month that they would not defend DOMA after pressure from groups suggesting the firm's work on DOMA would be in violation of their own non-discrimination policies.

Now you might ask, if not because of their dropping DOMA, then why? Well, actually, it is because they dropped defending DOMA, but not for the reason you think. It's because they caved under pressure, to drop a client.

So who's to say they wouldn't cave in again, and drop the NRA? The leadership at the NRA doesn't want a law firm that will drop clients at least little pressure. They need legal representation that will stick with it for the long haul. And apparently King & Spalding is not that firm.

The NRA, as an organization is NOT Anti-GLBT. While there may be some individuals within the NRA that are, the organization is not. When the Cease Fear/Pink Pistols Seattle chapter was first starting up, the NRA, SAF and other pro-2A groups gave full support, including financial to that chapter.

The thing to keep in mind with "Equality Matters" is they are part and parcel of Media Matters. A far left wing media watch dog. People who make it their business to stretch the truth to fit THEIR perspective. In other words, it's a lie.

 Current Mood: Calm
 Current Music: Rocky Horror Picture Show - Sweet Transvestite
My Carry Pistol: RIA M1911-A1 .45ACP 100 years old and still going strong

Yet another reason to NOT visit Philadelphia.

Philly Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun

A story in today's Philadelphia Daily News shows why it's so important that citizens be allowed to videotape cops - it can be citizens' only way to fight back against police abuse of power.

This incident happened several weeks ago in Philadelphia to Mark Fiorino, a 25-year-old IT worker who carries a gun on his hip at all times for self defense. He got the gun after several friends were mugged.

But he didn't count on attacks by police:

On a mild February afternoon, Fiorino, 25, decided to walk to an AutoZone on Frankford Avenue in Northeast Philly with the .40-caliber Glock he legally owns holstered in plain view on his left hip. His stroll ended when someone called out from behind: "Yo, Junior, what are you doing?"

Fiorino wheeled and saw Sgt. Michael Dougherty aiming a handgun at him.

What happened next would be hard to believe, except that Fiorino audio-recorded all of it: a tense, profanity-laced, 40-minute encounter with cops who told him that what he was doing - openly carrying a gun on the city's streets - was against the law.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
"Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty asked, according to the YouTube clip.

"Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino said. "It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive."

Fiorino was right. It was perfectly legal to carry the gun. But that didn't matter to the cop:http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-harass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun#ixzz1MdFZoFu0

To read the "first" reason to not visit Philly, click here.

To think, that at one time, the seat of our national gov't sat in Philadelphia, it makes the blood boil to see our freedoms treated with such disdain by city government employees. I do hope that Mr. Fiorino gets a lawyer and sues the city and the police for millions.



 Current Mood: Awake
 Current Music: The Rolling Stones - Paint it Black
My Carry Pistol: Makarov PM 9x18mm

The Life and Death of Osama Bin Laden

Click image to enlarge

Via: BurialInsurance.org



 Current Mood: Amused
 Current Music: Moby - Extreme Ways (closing theme from Bourne Identity movies)
My Carry Pistol: Rock Island Armory M1911-A1 .45ACP

Go see this movie

Atlas Shrugged, the long awaited movie of the book by the same name. If you're a fan of the Ayn Rand book, you must see this movie. And make sure you you contact all the movie critics and tell them how wrong they are.

To find a theater near you showing the movie, click on the title of this article, or click here.




 Current Mood: Awake
 Current Music: Extreme Ways - Moby
My Carry Pistol: Rock Island Armory M1911-A1 .45ACP

Some observations on Canadian Gun Law

The following came from one of the many email lists I subscribe to. It struck me as something that needed further exposure, so I copied it here with just a few minor changes, mostly for spelling and/or grammar, where I thought necessary. (Comments by the original poster are in red.) The original started out with:

From a friend in Canada:

Heaven save us from this!

Here in Canada our government does not have a monopoly on justified self-defense, but they sincerely believe they should have a monopoly on all effective tools of self-defense!

While we ostensibly have here the legal mechanism for the carrying of a pistol to be allowed, only fourteen such 'carry permits' have ever been actually issued in the entire country, with a population of over thirty million! Virtually all such applications are arbitrarily rejected by isolated bureaucrats, with never an explanation.

There are some permits issued for 'wilderness carry,' but only to licensed guides, and, even then, they have to endure their own bureaucratic circus.

For us peons, one not only needs a license to possess a 'restricted firearm,' a category which includes all pistols and many rifles (all ARs, for example), the applicant must, in excruciating detail, chronicle to the government such irrelevant facts as his personal romantic history and also go through an interminable approval process prior to taking delivery of the gun.

Still with me? We're not through yet!

He must also be a member, in good standing, at a 'club,' and be vetted for an 'authorization to transport,' which allows him to take his pistol between his house and the range 'via a direct route,' unloaded, and secured in a double-locked box.

The most minor, insignificant infraction or paperwork glitch, your fault, their fault, doesn't matter, and you will find yourself charged with a criminal offense. Your home will be invaded, all your firearms will be seized, and the crown attorney will enforce a lifetime firearms prohibition against you, even when you are found not guilty!

After all that, getting your guns back from the police is nearly impossible, even with a court order. When you do finally re-claim them, they will be little more than a pile of rusted junk!

Even carrying a knife can make one vulnerable to charges of 'weapons dangerous to the public peace' or 'carrying a concealed weapon.'

OC is prohibited, at least for the purpose of use against humans. It may be carried for use against animals. Here, it is always called 'dog repellent,' by law.

Tasers and other ERDs are strictly verboten.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifgif

Our gun laws are, in fact, based on fat politicians, sitting safe and secure behind an army of personal bodyguards (all heavily armed), intently watching cheesy Hollywood movies! In fact, many firearms are prohibited by 'order in council,' and, when you read the list, it is painfully obvious that such prohibitions are based solely on appearance. That is why we can't have AKs, FALs, ARs, and AUGs, but XCRs and Tavors are okay, at least for now, since they've come on the scene relatively recently."

Comment: The foregoing are the kind of "reasonable" measures liberal politicians constantly push for. They never get specific, of course. Autocrats never do! But, this is the practical result of their never-ending assault on our personal freedom. When they can't prohibit the private ownership of guns outright, they'll, in effect, have the same practical result through bureaucratic regulation.

They love to hypocritically talk about our "right to personal, unilateral, self-defense," but then deny us any possibility of exercising that right!

They live to lord it over people. That is the only thing that really motivates them, and ever has!

However, there is some good news:

We are turning things around up here!

The draconian, failed-at-every-level, 'system' we currently have in place was put there by governments of the 80s and 90s, consisting mostly of elitist, geriatric, flower-children who, like Socialists/Communists everywhere, never earned an honest dime in their lives!

Back then, gun owners did not have a strong voice. The by-word in Ottawa was 'social engineering,' as they attempted to smother the life out of us us with interminable laws and 'regulations,' enforced by an army of erstwhile unemployed bureaucrats who worried infinitely more about keeping their jobs than they ever did about doing them.

Things have changed! Debate about the private ownership of firearms has become the most polarizing issue in our current political landscape. Our side is now politically active, alert, and has excellent communication. We are now a powerful symbol for the new direction in which our country is heading.

Virtually all current Leftists in government are still overtly in favor of yet additional restrictions on private gun ownership, in spite of its amply demonstrated failure to reduce violent crime, or, for that matter, even to be administered intelligently.

Last Friday (25 March, 2011), these very Leftists were toppled in a non-confidence motion, which automatically triggered an election. This spring, we are likely to see a Conservative majority government that has promised to turn Canada away from the Liberal/Socialist/Communist trend that began in the 1970s.

We have promised to hold their feet to the fire!

Comment: The biggest problem Leftists have, no matter where they are, is personal vanity and arrogance! They invariably think they deserve to be kings, and that we peons exist only to serve them.They just can't admit to themselves that they're wrong, have always been wrong, and have never been anything but wrong.

They will accept no species of correction. The are absolutely incapable of repentance. They would rather die!

I would just like to add, at one time, I considered moving to Canada. It is a beautiful country, and I have a great affection for many things, Canadian. But, after researching their gun laws, it occurred to me that I could not live the same life there, that I have here. So for now, for me, Canada is a great place to visit, but I just cannot live there, knowing my God-given/Natural right to self defense is severely denied there.

BGA


 Current Mood: Painful
 Current Music: None
My Carry Pistol: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm NATO

Quote of the Century.

This came from an email list I'm on. I think it says a lot.

QUOTE OF THE CENTURY, MAYBE EVEN THE MILLENNIUM

Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out. We have a lot of work to do.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

 Current Mood: Awake
 Current Music: Moby - Extreme Ways
My Carry Pistol: Rock Island Armory M1911-A1 .45ACP

Comic Relief

(Comic Relief)

So, Big Gay Al is driving down the road in his big Pink car, when he's pulled over by Michigan State Police for color violation. (No pink cars allowed on the highway on Sunday, part of a new agenda by the extremist religious zealots.).

As required by Michigan Compiled Laws, Big Gay Al informs the officer that he has a Michigan Concealed Pistol License, and he is packing. The Rest of the conversation goes like this:

MSP officer: Ok, what do you have, and where is it?

Big Gay Al: I have a .45ACP 1911 on my right side, in a hip holster, a Taurus PT92 9mm under my left arm, in a shoulder holster, a Makarov in the small of my back, and a Ruger .357 magnum in the glove box.

MSP officer: Is there anything in the trunk?

Big Gay Al: Oh yeah, the Yugoslavian SKS. Sorry, forgot about that.

MSP officer: Are you going to the range or something?

Big Gay Al: No, just to my sister's house, then the store.

MSP Officer: So, what are you afraid of?

Big Gay Al: (momentary pause) Not one damn thing.

 Current Mood: Happy
 Current Music: Haddaway - What is Love
My Carry Pistol: Rock Island Armory M1911-A1

Open Carry in Lansing, MI (Part 2)

CADL Granted Restraining Order Against Michigan Open Carry
The Capital Area District Library makes a move to help keep guns out of their building. On Wednesday they were granted a temporary retraining order by the INgham County Circuit Court against members of Michigan Open Carry or anyone affiliated with them......

...One of the attorneys for CADL, Gary Bender, said that CADL's goal is to maintain a safe, gun free zone for children and adults who frequent the library....

The last part I quoted above, shows a major flaw in their thinking. There is no such thing as a SAFE gun free zone. Gun free zones, by their very definition, are not safe. The only people who don't bring guns to a Gun Free Zone (also known more accurately as a Criminal Empowerment Zone) are law abiding citizens.

The sad thing is, the liberal weenies in charge of the CAD Library system, will never get it. They'll just keep pushing for "feel good" laws that will only make the library less safe, and they'll feel like they did a great service for the city, the state, and who ever else agrees with them.

In any event, until they remove their stupid "No Weapons" rule, I will not be using their library. I won't feel safe there, if I can't take my pistol with me.

 Current Mood: Amused
 Current Music: The Village People - San Francisco
My Carry Pistol: Rock Island Armory M1911-A1

Open Carry in Lansing, MI (Part 1)

...When told Tyler and Hofmeister open carry at the library for their own safety, (CADL Director Lance Werner) Werner said, “In my opinion, that’s utterly ridiculous.”

“I’m sorry he feels that way,” Werner said. “I hope he feels like he’s in some living room. That’s how we want everyone to feel.”

If you want to read the whole story, click on the title of this blog post. I only quoted the last 2 paragraphs, as I think they highlight a bigger part of the problem.

CADL Director Lance Werner says he wants us to feel like we're "in some living room." I don't have security guards in my living room, do you? Besides which, if I'm in my living room, where ever I am, there's my gun too. So, if he wants me to feel like I'm in a living room, then I should have my gun with me.

My gun has never been turned away from anyone's living room. Most don't notice it, and some of those that do, ask to see it.

This is not about feeling safe. If it were, everyone would be encouraged to carry a gun. It's about control. Government control of the citizens. MOC and other Open Carry groups across the country are trying to get people used to seeing law-abiding citizens openly carrying firearms.

Now, I'll grant that Tyler's OC of a shotgun in downtown Lansing was not the best idea, what's he supposed to do? Lansing PD has been dragging their feet on another issue that's delaying his being able to buy a handgun. His only real means of self defense in the meantime is a long arm. So, what's he supposed to do, go unarmed? That's what the government wants. His only legal recourse, currently is to OC a long arm.

I don't know if I'd do that, if I were in his position, but I'm not in his position now, so it's not fair of me to say. He has the right of self defense, and his only current legal means is a long gun, so I guess that answers that.

Back to the original point. Anti-Gun liberals always say one of the following, they either think they have the "right to feel safe" where ever they are, the right to not see a gun, or they have the right to feel as safe as they would in their own home.

Show me in the Constitution of the USA, or of any state where it says we have the "right to feel safe." You can't. So don't try. Liberals like to insert non existent rights into our constitution, and they'd like to take out some of the inconvenient rights, like oh, the 2nd Amendment, and the 1st amendment, when it gets in THEIR way. But that's how liberals treat all laws. They like them, until they get in the way of their agenda.

 Current Mood: Awake
 Current Music: The Village People - In the Navy
My Carry Pistol: Rock Island Armory M1911-A1

I beg to disagree

'Gay conservative' is oxymoron
Star Parker - Syndicated Columnist - 2/14/2011 10:15:00 AM

CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, has been an annual gig for me for years. But this year I concluded it was not my place and I declined to participate in the various venues at the event for which I was invited.

Yes, the reason I declined was the inclusion of GOProud, a group identifying itself as representing "gay conservatives and their allies," as a sponsor of the event.

And it's the reason why some of the nation's most important conservative organizations -- the Heritage Foundation, the American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, Family Research Council, Media Research Center, and the National Organization for Marriage -- did not participate.

The founder and chairman of GOProud removed any doubt on my part that not participating was the correct decision by dismissing these groups as "losers," "clowns," and "not relevant."

I, of course, have been accused of being worse than a clown. The barrage regularly comes in from the left. But this is a first that I've had to listen to this kind of stuff from a group that postures as "conservative."

I became a conservative in church. I thought I was doing okay in my previous life -- scamming the welfare system, going to the beach, soaking in my welfare-subsidized hot tub, treating sex as a hobby, and abortion as birth control.

In our culture today that views material prosperity as the ultimate barometer of success, the truth is becoming unfortunately lost that the evil man can prosper. And if there is nothing more than what is before our eyes in this world, what does it matter?

When I understood how the culture of welfare state materialism was destroying not just my life, but also all of black America, there was no dividing line in my mind between "social issues" and "economic issues." The only dividing line I saw was between right and wrong, good and evil.

The idea of "gay conservative" is an oxymoron.

"Gay" is everything that "conservative" is not.
(to see the whole post, click on the title of this post.)

So, you can't be "Gay" and Conservative at the same time? Says who? Who makes the rules on that? If a Gay man or woman want to believe in God, country and honor, as well as the US Constitution, a smaller, fiscally responsible government, and the majority of other, traditionally conservative ideals, what would you call him or her?

I can tell you what the liberals would call such a person. "Fool," for taking sides with a movement that would deny them the right to marry whomever they choose. "Idiot," for joining sides with people who would cherry pick the bible, over things "they" think should be part of law. Part of a Christian "Sharia style law" if you will. If we did everything according to the rules set in the bible, over 1000 years ago, African-Americans would still be slaves. Once every 28 days or so, husbands of families would be sending their wives into exile until their menstrual period was over. No one would eat pork, and oh, no more cheese on hamburgers either. Of course, the good side, men could have more than one wife. I guess a little good does come with the bad, sometimes.

I don't agree with everything in the so called list of conservative ideals, but I do agree with the vast majority. Would you throw away my potential support, just because I don't agree with everything? Is it written somewhere that ALL conservatives have to agree on everything?

Frankly, I'm starting to think that the "compassionate conservative" is an Oxymoron. I'm not seeing very much compassion from the "mainstream" conservatives for their Gay and Lesbian supporters.

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

Now this, is a law I'd obey. Thank you, South Dakota.

South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to Make Point About Health Law

Published: February 01, 2011

A group of South Dakota lawmakers has introduced a bill that would require almost everyone in their state to buy a gun once they turn 21.

Turns out it's not a serious attempt. Rather, the lawmakers are trying to make a point about the new health care law -- that an individual mandate is unconstitutional, whether it requires everyone to buy health insurance or, in South Dakota's case, a firearm.

Rep. Hal Wick, one of five co-sponsors, told The Argus Leader newspaper that he expects the bill to fail.

"Do I or the other co-sponsors believe that the state of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance," he said.

The South Dakota proposal would require anyone over 21 to purchase a firearm by Jan. 1, 2012, provided they are not legally disqualified from owning one. It would extend a six-month grace period for residents who turn 21 after the beginning of 2012.

Read more: FoxNews

Too bad it's not a real law. It should be the law of the entire USA. But, that's just my opinion.



 Current Mood: Awake
 Current Music: Moby - Extreme Ways (Theme song from Bourne Identity)
My Carry Pistol: Rock Island Armory M1911-A1FS .45ACP

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

TheHighRoad.us has moved

Unfortunately, Oleg has apparently lost use of thehighroad.us 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 thehighroad.org and/or thehighroad.us, your registration should still be good for gunrightsmedia.com.

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

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

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

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

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