Monthly Archives: January 2011

Why Castle Doctrine is so important (with video)

Imagine that three people are actively firebombing your house with you inside. They are so depraved that they even firebomb your dog’s kennel. What would you do?

Here in American, you’d probably be ok to shoot and kill all three of them. Attempting to burn your house down with you inside is certainly attempted murder. Unfortunately for the guy whose house it was in the video above, it’s just not done in Canada.
Ian Thomson moved to a rural homestead in Southwestern Ontario to lead a quiet life investing in a little fixer-upper. Then his neighbour’s chickens began showing up on his property. He warned his neighbour, then killed one of the birds.
The incident began six years of trouble for Mr. Thomson that culminated early one Sunday morning last August when the 53-year-old former mobile-crane operator woke up to the sound of three masked men firebombing his Port Colborne, Ont., home.
“I was horrified,” he said. “I couldn’t believe it. I didn’t know what was happening. I had no idea what was going on.”
So Mr. Thomson, a former firearms instructor, grabbed one of his Smith & Wesson revolvers from his safe, loaded it and headed outside dressed in only his underwear.
“He exited his house and fired his revolver two, maybe three times, we’re not sure. Then these firebombing culprits, they ran off,” said his lawyer, Edward Burlew.
Cool, right? He doesn’t need a ticker tape parade, or the keys to the city, but at least a little “we’re very sorry that we were unable to get to your house in time to catch these arsonists, sir,” would have been nice.
His surveillance cameras caught the attackers lobbing at least six Molotov cocktails at his house and bombing his doghouse, singeing one of his Siberian Huskies. But when Mr. Thomson handed the video footage to Niagara Regional Police, he found himself charged with careless use of a firearm.
The local Crown attorney’s office later laid a charge of pointing a firearm, along with two counts of careless storage of a firearm. The Crown has recommended Mr. Thomson go to jail, his lawyer said.
What planet does the Canadian Crown Attorney live on? Here in the US, you could shoot them dead and probably not be charged with anything. The 911 call would have been interesting.
“911, what’s your emergency?”
Yeah, some assholes just tried to burn my house down with Molotov cocktails, and they even threw one at my dog!
“Are they still there, sir?”
Yeah there still here, I shot them dead. They are lying in my front lawn.
“That’s understandable, sir. I’ll send the fire department immediately. Do either you or your dog need any immediate medical assistance?”

So the fact a person has “registered weapons” is grounds for SWAT?

Here’s another reason I don’t support registration of firearms.
Did you catch that? When the drug raid squad is considering using a SWAT team to bust in your door and shoot your dog, one of the considerations, apparently equivalent to having a criminal background, is whether or not you have a weapon registered to you. I guess I now know what the police in Maryland think of gun owners.
Ht: Radley Balko, who’s quoted in the article.

Renee Ellmers plans on carrying (With Video)

This is my Representative in the US House of Reps. They make this out like she is suddenly starting to carry, but she’s had her permit for almost a year now. (RSS readers click here for video)

Here’s the WRAL version

I love what the Sheriff says. “I go back to the fact that she’s a citizen of this country and has that right.” Renee has a permit to carry because she’s a citizen of this country, not because she’s a politician. Good for everyone involved.

Roberta was right. I was wrong. Mea Culpa

Roberta warned me. I didn’t listen. Stupid me.
When you go debating an anti, you are teaching them. Knock it off! Address their questions and concerns, if you must, on your own blog where they are unlikely to go. In the spaces they control, you’ve got to cut them off at the knees. Don’t touch their asinine points, don’t give them new factiods to miscontrue or practice at framing their hoplophobic, nannying notions. Instead, hit our hard truths — ask them Joe Huffman’s Just One Question, ask why it is they don’t want skinny cheerleaders, grannies and gayboys to be able to fight back when baddies try to beat them up, why a retired African-American man should be denied the right to defend his home and family from thugs. Make them confront their wickedness because the antis are in the wrong; they are against human rights and they empower thug rule, bullies, beatings. And we need to call ‘em on it. Every time. Every damn time.
I’m done with japete and Baldr. These two have no intention of changing their anti-gun opinions. They think we are stupid and that they are here to educate us, to bring us into the light. I have deleted them from my RSS feed reader, and I will not be following their comments like I have been previously. I’m done sending them traffic, and it would be nice if everyone else stopped as well. I think it’s time to let them wither away. Japete claims that she writes for an audience larger than us “gun guys.” Well she can see if they can fill up her comments section.

First Amendment or Second, You choose!

In Massachusetts, you are only allowed to own a gun if the cops say it’s ok for you to own a gun. If they change their mind, you lose your guns. After Gabrielle Giffords got shot, TJIC posted “1 down, 534 to go.” It’s in poor taste, but I can appreciate the sentiment.
Right before the election, a poll came out saying that 65% of those polled favored getting rid of every member of the Congress and starting over. I said at the time that the reason it was 65% rather than 85% was that the question said “replace” rather than “machine gun.” God knows that if they just got replaced, they’d just come home to their districts and screw things up here. At least in Washington they are far away. I also said that if they had made clear that we wouldn’t have to pay for the ammunition in the machine guns, the number would be 95%. I guess that makes me a bad person.

It appears that in Massachusetts, you get to chose, express yourself under the 1st Amendment, or own a firearm under the 2nd. Either/or, but not both. This is what happens when rights are treated as privileges, subject to state approval and control.

Now we get to the heart of the problem

Joan Peterson posted on Monday about Martin Luther King Jr. She seems to believe that because Dr. King didn’t shoot his political opponents, that the entire movement was “non-violent.” Several commenters have tried to point out to her the key role of the Deacons for Defense and Justice.
Sevesteen…
After a lengthy discursion where Joan accuses her commenters of supporting the KKK and calling for anti-government violence, she posts this
Why, you might ask, does she cling so bitterly to the idea that the Civil Rights era was entirely without any armed resistance on the part of the blacks? I mean, lets face it, if a few KKK members got shot down in the street, who’d complain? They were a terrorist organization, and when they burned a cross in someone’s yard, it wasn’t to welcome them to the neighborhood with S’mores and toasted marshmallows.

I think that the real difficulty for her is that she is unable to see the difference between ‘violent and predatory’ and ‘violent and protective.’ The fact that some of the blacks in the South armed themselves to protect their families invalidates the whole Civil Rights movement in her eyes. Like many on the Left, she prefers to see blacks as second class citizens “saved” by right thinking Northern whites. Instead of seeing that blacks chose their own paths and fought their own battles, she wants to think of herself as the hero of the story.

So who do you want to believe? A little known liberal white woman from Minnesota? Or Dr. Condoleeza Rice.

AWESOME!! California’s stupid ammunition law struck down!!!



WIN!

Joan misses the point again. Probably deliberately

It must be my day to object to Joan Peterson’s foolish ideas. New Trajectory posted something about Michael Moore on the Rachel Maddow show, where they tried to compare US and Canadian “gun violence” rates. Joan Peterson added her two cents


Here is what I have said in response.

“In addition, Moore pointed out that one bullet at Wal-Mart cost 17 cents. What is a life worth, he asked? A 17 cent bullet can end a life in an instant.”

I don’t know which Wal-Mart Mike is shopping in, but I never see ammo there in a reasonable self defense caliber at $0.17 ($8.50 for a box of 50). Why do you insist that self defense should be expensive? Do you really want to price the poor out of that market?

“Maybe we should be taking about the economics of guns and “gun control”.”

This underscores a significant point. People like Joan Peterson wish to restrict firearms ownership to “the good sort.” They wish to prevent the poor (who are largely people of color) from owning the best means of self defense ever devised. She will never admit that her intention is to disarm blacks and Hispanics in the ghettos, but that is exactly what her policies will cause. You see, the concept of an armed lower class terrifies people like her. It is why we call people like that bigots. They think that if they restrict guns to just the “good sort,” then they will have disarmed the criminal element. The fact that they have disarmed the poor, who are the primary target of the criminal class, is just too bad for the poor.

It saddens me that a woman whose sister was murdered by a rich white man is working so very hard to disarm poor blacks and Hispanics.

This is what we are dealing with. This is exactly why we call them bigots. They rage against self defense without ever caring who pays the price. How sad.

Quote of the Day, In Jennifer’s Head Edition



Very true. She goes on to point out how we can tell that they know that they are lying. If they really thought we were violent, they’d quit screwing with us.  

Leftist calls for “civility” are just a fancy way by the losers of the last election to tell the winners to shut up. This guy likens the new calls for “civility” to the concept of “Hudna.” I agree.

Chuck U Shumer pretty much knows that gun control is dead (Video)


He says he’s being civil and respecting the views that are different, but what he is really saying is that he’s just going through the motions. He doesn’t want to get emotionally committed to something that isn’t going to pass. Enough depression over repeated losses and they are all going to be calling the suicide hotline. 


It’s going to get ugly when the antis figure out that they can’t capitalize on their shining chance to force more gun control down our throats.