Category Archives: Gun rights philosophy

She’s my people (*Video*)

She’s a 51 year old black grandma from Detroit with short bleached hair, questionable fashion sense, and I don’t know what in her ears. But I recognize her as a member of my tribe.

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

(RSS Readers click HERE for video)

Note how happy the reporters are telling us with a great deal of excitement that a black woman hauled out a gun and shot someone. We are winning.

She needs to be front and center at the next Moms Demand anti-gun rally in Detroit. I’d live to see her tell the Demanding Mommies where to stow their anti-gun BS.

Full story here.

With his head so far up his backside it’s no wonder he has such a crappy outlook

Sometimes you have to gaze into the abyss if only to remind yourself that it actually exists. We sometimes forget who our enemies are. We often make the mistake of believing that the people who oppose us are people much like ourselves, just a bit misguided. Luckily these enemies have the same access to the internet as we do and frequently violate the old “better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt” rule.

The title of the piece is “NRA crowd cheered story of Milwaukee janitor killing two teens.”

During his speech at the National Rifle Association’s national convention in Indianapolis last week, Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. said he considers the law-abiding armed citizen to be “the great equalizer.”

He then told three anecdotes from Milwaukee in which legal gun owners used their firearms. The first was about Jeremy Rossetto, a Cudahy man, attacked while working at an apartment building in Milwaukee in March.

“He was being savagely beaten by three suspects, one wielding a small club,” Clarke said. “He told me afterwards he thought he was going to die. He was able to pull his firearm from its holster and deliver two shots, killing two of the suspects and saving his own life.”

The crowd cheered and whistled.

Now does that sound like a story of a janitor killing two teens? Or is it really the story of the NRA convention cheering the story of a man saving his own life?

The story continues with him relating how Sheriff Clarke talks about two more incidents, one where no shots were fired and one where one of three robbers was killed. He show what he really thinks of us here.

[Quoting Sheriff Clarke] “Those firearms, in the hands of law-abiding citizens, saved lives,” he said.

Theoretically. Maybe the dead perpetrators would have killed someone during their crimes, maybe not. Actually, those guns killed three people.

That’s his point. That’s what he can’t get past. You see, in his mind, these criminal assailants had as much right to remain living as the people they were attacking. In his tiny mind it is wrong to take the lives of the criminals and it is right to risk the lives of the victims. If you find yourself attacked by three people, one with a club, he would prefer you die or be grievously injured rather than allow you to use deadly force to preserve your life.

The last bit is just concern trolling.

The gun owners in Clarke’s anecdotes were found to have been acting within the law, and there are many who believe that such stories will eventually deter crime. But does it help that cause to cheer stories of people being killed?

Yes, Bruce, it does. Whenever an innocent person’s life and health is preserved, we rejoice. Whenever a criminal attack on a citizen is foiled, we rejoice. Whenever good triumphs over evil, we rejoice.

Killing can be a very ugly thing. Some people are very traumatized by it. Those are the very people who most need to hear our voices raised in praise so he never has to wonder if we think he did the right thing by preserving his own life or the life of another innocent person.

Here’s the speech

I guess we should be glad that they didn’t title the story “Gun-toting, racist mob applauds black Sheriff.”

“Bateman, Colonel Bateman” is at it again

The Left’s second favorite anti-gun (LT) Colonel (After full bird Colonel Jack Jacobs) is at it again. This time he ventured forth from Firebase (Formerly Great) Britain into the wilds of Suburban AmeriKKKa. And he didn’t like what he saw. (link safe, it goes to Captain’s Journal)

Last month I was traveling, in part with my wife and daughter, and I began to notice something. There were a lot more concealed weapons there than I remember seeing before. Four times in the space of just a few days I noticed men carrying pistols under their shirts, in restaurants, stores, and even in a children’s play area of a shopping mall. This craze, which seems new to me because I have been serving overseas for so long, is taking place not just on the streets or in bars, but in family restaurants and places where we all shop. So that is a part of the solution.

“Four times in the space of just a few days” this desk jockey noticed a concealed carrier. All men, none women.  Let me show you how it looked.

Get Shorty Airport Scene from Adam Fletcher on Vimeo.

There are times where I wish I had a movie (or even a cartoon) production company on hot standby. For your entertainment, here’s my script.

Scene: A restaurant in Suburban AmeriKKKa. It’s crowded, it’s lively, but there’s an undertone of menace.


  • LTC BATEMAN: In uniform
  • MISS BATEMAN: His Daughter
  • MRS BATEMAN: His Wife
  • BABY


LT COLONEL BATEMAN (From Behind): (In a BAD British accent) (to perky hostess) I’d like a table for three please.

HOSTESS: What name, please?

LTC B: (from front) (like James Bond) Bateman, Colonel Bateman

The camera pans upward from his shiny boots to his face and we see a flash of all his medals.

YOUNG BOY: (In awe) Are you a Soldier?

LTC B: Yes, I’m a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army

YOUNG BOY: Can I see your medals? What’s this one.

YOUNG BOY points to a Bolo Badge with 4 ladders below it

LTC B: That’s my Power Point Badge. See, it has 4 levels. “Indian Burn, Minor Injury, Serious Injury, and Death!”


The undertone of menace grows a bit. LTC B stands and addresses the hostess.

LTC B: (To HOSTESS) I didn’t see a “no guns allowed” sign on the door

HOSTESS: Why would we put one up? It wouldn’t stop the criminals. They’d just ignore it.

The undertone of menace becomes the dominant theme, LTC B looks around the room, seeing bulges everywhere, in all sorts of unlikely places. It’s the first 40 seconds of the above scene from Get Shorty.

The final shot “gun” is a nickel plated Baretta 92FS in the hands of a 3 year old in a high chair. He’s holding it upside down by the barrel and the handgrip, with the trigger guard towards his mouth. His mouth has peanut butter and jelly on it.


LTC B reenacts the Elias death scene from Platoon right there on the floor of the restaurant. We look over his shoulder to see that the “Gun” is actually the remains of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich that the child is eating.

YOUNG BOY: Does your dad have PTSD from being “in the shit?”

MISS BATEMAN: Naw, he got it from playing Call of Duty for 6 months while deployed to England.

Scene shifts to a mental hospital. LTC B is fingerpainting.

DOCTOR A: I told you that he wasn’t ready to be released

MRS BATEMAN: You were right, doctor.


Anyone want to make this?

How serious are we?

The organized gay Left collected a scalp a few days ago when the took down Mozilla CEO and co-founder Brendan Eich for giving $1000 to backers of a, depending on how you view it, “Traditional Marriage” or “Anti-Gay Marriage” ballot proposition in California. Proposition 8 passed quite handily, but was later overturned.

It is neither here nor there what you or I think of this particular issue. My views on “Gay Marriage” are tolerably well known. What is important is that the Left has told us that they believe that driving a person out of his own company for financially supporting a cause is a legitimate method of winning a political argument. The hoary old cliché often misattributed to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!” has gone by the board. It is now “Say what you like, but if you say it publicly, give our enemies money, or refuse to bake us a wedding cake, we will destroy you.”

I think there are some lessons to be learned here.

Modern “Campaign Finance Reform” forces you to publicly proclaim all of your campaign donations. This was originally supposed to discipline politicians, but in reality is only good for finding and attacking people who participate in the political process. Does anyone imagine that politicians really care if you disapprove of their donors?

This act of rage will not likely harm this particular person. He’s got money and can survive. How many people will now refuse to give money to a political campaign if half a dozen years later they face the possibility of losing their job? The victim here is not the target. In the formulation attributed to Sun Tzu, he is just the one who was killed to frighten the one thousand. He was taken down so the thousands of others will close their checkbooks and shut their mouths so that the Left doesn’t wreck their lives.

What goes around, comes around. When you proclaim that a tactic is valid by using it against your enemies, you can’t exactly complain when it’s used against you. The old military joke was “Tracers work both ways.”

Are Donations to Brady Campaign, CSGV, MAIG, Moms Demand Action, etc. publicly available? How can we get those records? Who’s life can we ruin?

We people who believe in personal responsibility, personal liberty, limited and Constitutional government, and freedom are either going to adopt the tactics of our enemies or we are going to let them win. They have decided that we are subhuman. We can be punished by public campaigns to take our jobs. We can be attacked in a complicit media that will gleefully publish any possible negative information about us that government employees dig up.

Our choice is clear. It’s either Mutual Assured Destruction, or surrender. It’s time to identify some anti-gun campaign cash donors and take their jobs away. We can’t hit Michael Bloomberg. He’s rich and funding it himself. We can’t hit his employees in Moms Demand Action Against Guns. But we can find someone who gave them money and make his or her life hell. And I strongly suggest some other conservatives and libertarians identify some targets as well.

It’s either that or we just go ahead and surrender now.

The #BullyMoms of @MomsDemand Action are Sad Pandas today

NC Attorney General Roy Cooper dashed the hopes of Moms Demand Action, a wholly owned subsidiary of Michael Bloomberg, Inc. today.

Domestic violence claimed 108 lives in North Carolina in 2013, according to a report released by the state Department of Justice on Monday.

That’s 14 fewer domestic violence homicides than the year before. That coincides with a 6.9 percent drop in all homicides nationwide during the first six months of 2013, according to the FBI. Final North Carolina crime statistics for 2013 will be available later this year.

While you and I will rejoice that crime, especially domestic violence homicides, are down, the Demanding Mommies are going to be really upset. They need dead bodies. They need an increasing crime rate. They can’t keep telling us that everyone (especially women) is in extreme danger if the crime rate keeps falling.

Unexpectedly, crime rates are down even though gun ownership is up and Concealed Handgun Permits are up (375,000 CHPs as of October 1, 2013). It’s completely inconceivable!

The anti-gun harridans of the Women’s (non)Christian Temper Tantrum Union are going to have a hard time convincing everyone to give up the Demon Gun when our world is getting safer every day.

You can read the NCDOJ report HERE.

Michael Bloomberg Demands Action

Take one billionaire former New York City mayor with a Napoleon complex, dress him in drag, and what do you get? “Moms” Demand Action for Gunsense in America. We’ve already been told that Moms Demand has “merged” with MAIG. But did you know that they’ve finally announced that they are just a “campaign” of MAIG? Here’s their “donate” page. Look closely at how they describe themselves and where they ask you to send the checks.


They’ve finally admitted what we all knew from the get go. “Moms” Demand Action is, and always has been just another front group for Nanny Bloomberg’s overweening pride.

Moms Demand Action has continued to hold protests at the district offices of lawmakers they believe are persuadable. (Their specialty is the “stroller jam,” where moms with strollers and small kids cluster in a corridor or office to make their presence felt.) Bloomberg is assisting this effort by covering travel costs and helping groups bring on family members and survivors as full-time staff.

The billionaire gun hater and scold demands that we give up our guns. He saw a “stay at home mom” and former corporate communications executive for Monsanto running a Facebook page against guns and thought to himself, “My anti-gun mayors are getting put in jail. My other mayors are realizing that by ‘illegal guns’ I actually mean ‘all guns’ and are abandoning me. I could give these women some of my petty cash and spend the rest of my life hiding behind their petticoats.” And so he rummaged around in his pants pockets, pulled out more money than you and I together have ever seen in one place, and bought himself some feminine human shields. Allegedly baby carrying feminine human shields.

Do not be fooled. This is a slick corporate campaign run from the top down by slick corporate communications professionals. The money that Nanny Bloomberg paid for Moms Demand was money well spent, because without at least the appearance of grass roots, even their media allies will have to admit that it’s just an obnoxious billionaire trying to impose his will on the rest of us.

Moms Demand claims 10 full time staff members in North Carolina alone. If they managed to convince these Moms to work for just $25,000 a year that’s still a quarter of a million dollars a year just in salaries. And can you imagine their leader her in NC, the far left activist and PhD degreed Kaaren Haldeman working for just $25K a year and no benefits?

This is Nanny Bloomberg’s stock in trade. He uses his money to attack our rights while surrounding himself with cannon fodder. He uses guards armed with guns to ward off physical assault and women armed with babies to ward off criticism. Without his cash, the whole gun control movement would have imploded already, and even without matching funds, we’re still beating him. What could we do with real money? Where are the pro-gun millionaires and billionaires? Why aren’t they opening their checkbooks and helping the rest of us counter this guy?

If you have a lot of money and live in North Carolina, don’t give your money to the NRA. Give it to Grass Roots North Carolina. GRNC does all the work that the NRA takes credit for around here. And even if you don’t have a lot of money, spend the $30 and become a member. Then volunteer. None of us gets a salary, unlike the hired guns (pun intended) over at Moms Demand. We need the help. Without you, how can we counter 10 full-time Bloomberg employees?

Moms Demand Action, a wholly owned subsidiary of Michael Bloomberg, Inc.

How to lie with statistics, or Rape in Canada

I am going to show you a well sourced graph that uses very good governmental data. All the data is good, but the graph is a lie.

US vs Canada Rape

OMG! Canadian women are getting raped at rates FAR FAR higher than American women. Are Canadian men all monsters covered in maple leaves?

NO. You’ve been hoodwinked.

Here’s the data.

US Crime Stats, including state by state forcible rape statistics

Canadian Crime Stats including Sexual Assault level 1-3

Do you see the difference? The Canadian crime stats don’t measure the same thing that the US crime stats measure. Let’s look at the US crime stats definition of “Forcible Rape.”

Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.

Data collection

The UCR Program counts one offense for each female victim of a forcible rape, attempted forcible rape, or assault with intent to rape, regardless of the victim’s age. A rape by force involving a female victim and a familial offender is counted as a forcible rape and not an act of incest. All other crimes of a sexual nature are considered to be Part II offenses; as such, the UCR Program collects only arrest data for those crimes. The offense of statutory rape, in which no force is used but the female victim is under the age of consent, is included in the arrest total for the sex offenses category. Sexual attacks on males are counted as aggravated assaults or sex offenses, depending on the circumstances and the extent of any injuries.

Now let’s look at the Canadian definition of Sexual Assault levels 1-3

Uniform Crime Reporting Survey (UCR2)

The incident-based Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR2) Survey captures criminal incidents that have come to the attention of the police, which includes 4 different types of sexual offences as defined by the Criminal Code.

Sexual assault level 1 (s.271): An assault committed in circumstances of a sexual nature such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated. Level 1 involves minor physical injuries or no injuries to the victim.

Sexual assault level 2 (s.272): Sexual assault with a weapon, threats, or causing bodily harm.

Aggravated sexual assault (level 3): Sexual assault that results in wounding, maiming, disfiguring or endangering the life of the victim.

Other sexual offences: A group of offences that are meant to primarily address incidents of sexual abuse directed at children. The Criminal Code offences included in this category are: Sexual interference (s.151), Invitation to sexual touching (s.152), Sexual exploitation (s.153), Incest (s.155), Anal intercourse (s.159), and Bestiality (s.160).

So in addition to spelling things differently, Canadians count things as Sexual Assault that would be not be counted in the US as Forcible Rape. Canada counts Sexual Assaults whether they are unwanted kissing or rape, while the US statistics are limited to just the rapes. You can see why our numbers would be a great deal lower if we’re only counting a subset of the crimes that Canada is counting.

Why do I point this out? Because whenever we are treated to a discussion of how scary and violent the US is, the anti-gunners dump a lot of statistics on us comparing the US to whichever countries they are currently enamored of. There’s no attempt to determine if those statistics are collected in the same way from one country to another. When we compare countries, we try to stick to Murder and Non-Negligent Homicides because dead bodies are fairly easy to count. There’s not a lot of fudging the numbers you can do. Or at least we thought.

We now know that the UK murder numbers are tainted by the fact that in the UK, they don’t count it as a murder until someone gets convicted of the crime. The coroners in the UK don’t even return a finding of Homicide on obvious homicides. They write a narrative of their findings and hand it off to the cops. But if no one gets convicted, it’s possible that even though they have a dead body, it never gets counted in the official statistics.

We also know that in Japan, police officers routinely lie on their criminal records and categorize obvious homicides as suicide, or even “found body.” Japanese police detectives get promoted based upon what percentage of crimes get solved. If there isn’t an obvious perpetrator standing over the body for the cop to arrest, the pressure to mark it down as suicide or “found body” is enormous. In many cases they even refuse to do an autopsy.

Whenever someone tries to show you some statistics, remember this graph. Remember that it’s not always obvious if all the data is good and that the data is comparable from one country to the next.

Lies of the Antis

I wanted to expand on a comment I left over at Weer’d Beard’s place. He was mocking Jim Jones wannabe “Baldr Odinson” Jason Kilgore.

As for “Felons Obtaining Guns”, did I miss a memo where the NRA is for repealing GCA ’68? Its a crappy law, and need of revision, but overall its a law where its heart is in the right place. I subscribe to the philosophy that if somebody isn’t trustworthy enough to own a gun they shouldn’t be able to freely walk around the same streets that I do, but as a pragmatist we simply can’t lock up or execute every violent felon out there. On the other hand, somebody who is convicted of perjury like Martha Stewart is no more a threat to anybody’s safety than the dude on the corner who’s never been arrested for anything. Non-Violent felonies are a bit of a red herring in the idea of gun ownership.

He is talking about a graphic that Jason posted somewhere that makes the claim that the NRA is working to get guns for felons.

Like I posted in my comment, this is one of those typical anti-gunner lie that mixes just a hint of truth with about 10 gallons of horseshit. When talking about the things that the gun haters say, it’s often helpful to go back to the source material they got their info from. And who publishes the talking points for the left? Why Media Mutters Against America, that’s who!

Under current Georgia law, individuals claiming immunity from prosecution under “Stand Your Ground” must be complying with Georgia gun laws when they use their firearm.

However under H.B. 875, “Stand Your Ground” claimants would no longer be required to have been in compliance with Chapter 11, Article 4, Part 3 of Georgia’s criminal code. That part of Georgia’s code includes provisions on carrying weapons on school grounds, carrying a handgun without a license, the possession of firearms by convicted felons, the possession of handguns by minors, and the discharging of a firearm “while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.”

Georgia media have largely overlooked this significant change in law that could grant legal immunity to individuals who possess guns illegally.

There you have it. The latest Outrageous Outrage in gun laws is the part of Georgia House Bill 875 that says basically “If it was a good self defense shoot, then you get immunity for any other laws you broke as well.”

I don’t think this is a problem. As a matter of fact, I doubt most people would have a problem with this. So that’s why it’s not being presented like this. It’s being presented in a far different way.

Yet, the most insidious part of this bill, which has been mostly missed by the media, probably makes this the most extreme gun legislation to have ever been considered in this country. I’m having a hard time typing this it is so ridiculous, but here it goes. Those using a Stand Your Ground defense—you know, for when someone comes along with the especially threatening jumbo bag of Skittles—would no longer have to be in compliance with Georgia’s Criminal Code. That’s right, a felon who has illegally obtained a gun (it is by definition illegal for a felon to have one) can now fire at will at someone playing that newfangled rap music in their car extra loud as long as they “saw” that person reach for something. The fact that they’re committing a crime by even having a gun will not get in the way of the Stand Your Ground defense.


Well, we can’t expect anything like an approach to the truth out of Cliff Schecter.

So let’s break it all down for you. The Georgia Legislature is planning on passing a relatively innocuous pro liberty bill. It shortens the list of places where the State demands you remain unarmed. It makes clear that necessary self defense trumps other considerations. And it advances liberty just a little bit more. The gun haters can’t stand the idea that liberty will advance even one more step. Not even in Georgia, a state they would prefer never to be caught dead in. They’ve got millions from Michael Bloomberg and so they’re going to play goal line defense in every state. And they’re not afraid to lie while they do it.

Gun grabbers lie. They have to. It’s all they have.

In compliance with the new rules for gun blogs, here are some links to the actual bill and the actual Georgia law


A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, 16-3-23, 16-3-23.1, or 16-3-24 shall be immune from criminal prosecution therefor unless in the use of deadly force, such person utilizes a weapon the carrying or possession of which is unlawful by such person under Part 2 or 3 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title.

Note how “or 3″ is struck out.

Chapter 11, Article 4, Section 3

2010 Georgia Code


Criminalizing a difference of opinion

The best way to win an argument with someone is to convince them not to even show up. Failing that, you convince him to leave. That’s what the anti-gunners at Moms Demand is trying. Check out this comment left for me.

You appear to have some “stalking” characteristics yourself sir. Very obsessive over the Moms group aren’t you?

This was left on a post about a domestic violence attempted murder that I posted yesterday. The local Demanding Mommies have said the same or worse to me on Twitter.

Let’s consider the logic of this. I watch, counter protest, and report on the group Moms Demand Action, a wholly owned subsidiary of Michael Bloomberg, Inc. Calling my work in countering MDA “stalking” is basically accusing me of a crime for working to win a political argument.

So why do they do it? We’re “bullies” for standing up to them. We’re “stalkers” for counter-protesting them. They misuse language in a deliberate attempt to make us stop. They know that they can’t win against a dedicated group of gun owners and liberty lovers. The only way to win is to get us to give up. So they attack us as “bullies” and “stalkers,” they play the victim card, and they hope that our natural decency will cause us to back off. You must resist this.

Of course they call us names. I suspect that worse will happen soon. The first chance they get to have one of us arrested for “stalking,” they’ll take it. They want us to cede the field to them. They want us to shut up so that they can lie and propagandize without fear of contradiction. Don’t give it to them.

What happens when both sides make a list?

I’ve sincerely wondered about this. We know that the gun grabbers (at least the government sponsored ones) are making a list. Should we make a list as well? What are the ramifications of making that sort of list? Who would go on it if that list was made?

The reality is that so long as we are left alone, we won’t start any trouble. To mangle a phrase, “We like our Constitution and so we’ll keep it.” But what happens if the war is brought to us? What happens if the unthinkable occurs and someone really starts trying to collect guns? I’m relatively safe here in NC. But the people in Connecticut are facing a State Police who have said they will conduct door to door confiscations. Should they stay in their homes and go down one by one? Or should they take the fight outdoors where they can choose the battlefield and the time and the targets? In any case, it might get a bit sporty in Connecticut soon. And by “sporty” I don’t mean fun.

One person has made a list. It’s the list of all Connecticut politicians who voted for the gun ban. They are mad at him, but all he’s done is tell them what is going to happen to them. If you’re late to work, you don’t get mad at the clock. If the bullets start flying, they will fly both ways. This isn’t a threat, it’s reality. No one wants this, but if it is forced upon us, we’re not just going to lie down and die.

I’ve said for years that the police and the government depend entirely on our willing cooperation. If they don’t get that cooperation, they will never be able to rule us. We’re too well armed to be bullied. We have to be convinced. It’s almost as if Marko was right.

I know that the anti-gunners will point to this and call me a terrorist. That’s what happens to people who are rude enough to point out that they are living in a fantasy world. They enjoy the fantasy that if everyone submits to government authority that everything will work out nicely. And I’m a big old meaniehead for pointing out that their fantasy is not even remotely possible. No one likes the guy who reminds them that their fantasy isn’t real. The reality is that attempting to enforce this law or any other law like it will cost blood. That blood will not be limited to the people in uniforms that the politicians send. Maybe the only winning move in this game is not to play.