Donations for the Ammo Budget
“Like” me on Facebook
- GunBlog VarietyCast Episode 136 – Vault 7 Sorcery, REEEEing Ted Cruz, and Perfidious Senators
- GunBlog VarietyCast Episode 135 – The Spotlight Effect
- GunBlog VarietyCast Episode 134 – Condiments and Cutlery
- GunBlog VarietyCast Episode 133 – I’m Not Saying “Your Negro”
- GunBlog VarietyCast Episode 132 – Weer’d Science
Monthly Archives: January 2011
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?”
Ht: David Codrea
Here’s another reason I don’t support registration of firearms.
When given a description of the circumstances that led to the Calvo raid—in which drugs were sent to an address whose residents had no criminal background or registered weapons—McSwain said a SWAT team wouldn’t necessarily be used. “We would go through the risk assessment,” he says. “Unless there is a reason to believe that the warrant service would be high risk, we would not automatically assume the risk.”
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.
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 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.
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.
ARLINGTON (CBS) – A blog threatening members of Congress in the wake of the Tucson, Arizona shooting has prompted Arlington police to temporarily suspend the firearms license of an Arlington man.
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.
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.
The notion that defense will only escalate the violence is not supported by the facts. The KKK was fond of drive-by shootings–until they started taking return fire. At that point, the KKK decided that maybe drive-by shootings weren’t a good idea.
It is immoral to use violence to achieve political goals. However, it is also immoral to stand by and allow innocents to be harmed when you have the means to effectively resist–I would much rather see the instigator of a drive by killed than their intended victim injured.
After a lengthy discursion where Joan accuses her commenters of supporting the KKK and calling for anti-government violence, she posts this
I am just amazed that you guys are trying to rewrite commonly held American views on what happened during the awful period with the KKK and civil rights. It is disconcerting that you actually believe this stuff and you are not in the majority. You can keep trying to send me things and convince me otherwise, but I would suggest you stop. It will do no good.
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.
Via Days of Our Trailers,
In a dramatic ruling giving gun owners a win in an National Rifle Association / California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation lawsuit, this morning Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled that AB 962, the hotly contested statute that would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition” to be registered, was unconstitutionally vague on its face. The Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, so mail order ammunition sales to California can continue unabated, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law.
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
This is what needs to be said over and over again. In addition, Moore pointed out that one bullet at WalMart cost 17 cents. What is a life worth, he asked? A 17 cent bullet can end a life in an instant. Maybe we should be taking about the economics of guns and “gun control”.
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.
Via Link P at What’s so Funny About Peace, Love, and Ammunition
If we conservative gun owners were as violent and angry as the left proclaims, we wouldn’t have liberals. We would have already shot them all.
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.
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.
Icon from Robb at Sharp as a Marble
Ht: Gun Politics NY