GraniteGrok

Guest post by Dan Itse (NH House of Representatives)

First, the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that all citizens of a State were treated equally before the Law.

Second, you don't have to go to the Second Amendment to see the right of self defense protected. This reliance on the Federal Constitution is dangerous as it relies on a distant government for protection.

The privileges and immunities clause Article IV, Section 2 along with the Constitutions of the States (which are far more protective of our rights) establishes all you need. The privileges and immunities clause defines that every State a member of the United States recognizes the rights enumerated in each State. Since Pennsylvania has the explicit enumeration of the individual right to keep and bear arms and Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Virginia have the implicit individual right to keep and bear arms in their recognition of the right to defend life and liberty and protect property, the individual right to keep and bear arms has been absolute since before June 21, 1788, before the ratification of the Bill of Rights and long before the 14th amendment (1865).

The Articles of Confederation also include this concept.  Article IV has the same clause of privileges and immunities of each State being recognized by every State. Therefore, the recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms of member States has been recognized since 1781.

Basically, in regard to the member States of the United States, the Second Amendment is at its least irrelevant or maybe at its strongest, redundant.

Does it is recognition under the incorporation doctrine (progressive doctrine of centralization) weaken the Tenth Amendment? Only psychologically since the Constitution for the United States already required the recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms by the States. The danger is that it makes us less aware of our rights recognized by the States.

The concept incorporation of the Second Amendment via the Fourteenth Amendment can not ultimately damage the Tenth Amendment.  The only thing that can damage the Tenth Amendment is the failure to enforce it.

Posted by Skip at 8:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The best course of policy for a any liberal is to use the law to disadvantage law abiders at the expense of law breakers.  Speech, choice, rights, and even self defense should be filtered, tempered, or simply prohibited to people inclined to follow the rules.  This makes you beholden to the state for everything, including your self defense, making it almost impossible to defend yourself when the state is the one you need defending from. (Brick throwing is the preferred form of dissent for lefties.)

Into this fray comes Gene Chandler with HB 1693, a bill that would strip the facilities commission (overwhelmed by meddling democrats) of the authority to prohibit weapons for self defense in the State House and relevant surrounds, as well as rescinding the recent restrictions placed on such lawful possession.  The point of course is to ensure that even in the vacuum of common sense created by three years of a democrat controlled Gold Dome in Concord that people have and maintain a right to self defense even when surrounded by an overwhelming number of liberal weenies.

The bill’s hearing starts today.  And it affords us another opportunity to see who amongst the elected supports the right to self defense.  So as the legislation moves forward, pay attention to the votes cast.   We will get another snap-shot of who the brick throwers are, and who actually trusts law abiding gun owners to protect themselves and even the liberal weenies around them

Posted by Steve at 7:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the quotes I found in the article that gave rise to my post here was this

Diane Feinstein's claim that "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

You know, the current meme making the rounds is that "Government is broken".  Well, no kidding, Sherlock - when Progressive / Liberal politicians keep deciding, in order to justify their own existence, that Government has to keep doing more and more, of COURSE it is going to get broke.  Not only operationally (as there is no way that is can do everything for everyone), but go broke financially trying too.

But it is this striving to create more "positive" Rights, as Obama calls them (what Government has to do to you) and assuming things that have no basis in reality.  How is Government going to make people feel safe in any circumstance?  Did the people in New Orleans feel safe as their local and state governments were failing them?

And hypocrite of hypocritical actions, doing a bit of Google brought this up from Alpha Dog Web: 

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

--U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Associated Press 11/18/93

Compare Ms. Feinstein's comments to this one:

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin

Along with a bit of a story:

"Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. ... I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home."

"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."

[During her comments at this hearing Sen. Feinstein made no disavowal of carrying a concealed weapon or of people arming themselves as she has done (and presumably still does) in California.]

Please note that in almost all California cities it is nearly impossible for a citizen to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.  In fact, the City of Los Angeles did not issue a single permit for over six years with the exception of issuing one to a new police chief who was not yet certified in California.  In San Francisco only those who are police or have influence with the police department are issued permits.  In the city of San Jose (in Silicon Valley) the previous police chief refused to issue any permits at all, no matter how endangered a citizen was.

Senator Diane Feinstein - yet another Liberal / Progressive politician that believes what she wishes to deny us is perfectly ok for her; "Fine for me but not for thee".

Posted by Skip at 7:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

A quick take from a post over at American Thinker by Chuck on Concealed Carry in Arizona.

• 56 deaths (The Violence Policy Center - in the US between 5/2007 & 4/2009 [in a study that has been highly criticized -Skip])
• 1 in 10,000,000 -(your chances of being gunned down by a CCW permit-holder in AZ

• 1 in 6,061,000 (death by lightening, or 28% greater than by a CCW holder)
• 1 in 18,700 (death by food poisoning, or a 400-times-better shot at killing you with over-the-hill thousand-island dressing in the restaurant than by a CCW holder)

Other:

• Law-abiding Americans brandish handguns in 2.5 million defensive incidents a year -- once every 12½ seconds.
• In most cases, a gun's mere appearance settles a brewing conflict.
• The National Center for Policy Analysis found that major crime plunges when law-abiding citizens carry concealed handguns.
• The same NCPA study, covering every American county, found that murders dropped by 8.5 percent, while rapes and serious assaults fell up to 7 percent in states with licensed concealed carry.
• Estimate: if other instituted liberal (heh - I get to use that word in a GOOD way!) CCW laws, 1,570 murders, 4180 rapes, and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would not happen each year.
• The National Academy of Sciences reviewed hundreds of studies and found not "a single gun regulation that reduced violent crime or murder."

Why bring this up?  The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (which really should be named The Brady Campaign to Make It All But Impossible For Free Citizens To Purchase Even A Cap Gun) pushed out a study that showed that the northernmost states in New England had horrible gun restrictions:

• NH - 9 out of 100
• VT - 8 out of 100
  
• ME - 11 out of 100 
  

So, that should mean that gun violence is rampant - "it's the Wild Wild West with shootouts all over the place!!!".  Er, not so fast, kimosabe.  In fact, the opposite seems to be true.  My friends Chan and Brent over at Weekend Pundit had a couple of posts on this topic:

Chan states: But one thing the Brady campaign has chosen to ignore: crime rates in those states as compared to the laxity of their gun laws.

He also points this out - where to get the stats on the actual gun crime rates:

Hmm, last I checked, there was less gun deaths in those scoring lowest as to highest (NH is #8 lowest for [percent] by population with a 6.1 versus 10.2 US average). Oh look, as of 2008, NH was the second lowest in murders at 50 (out of 51) versus California being a 12 (51 is lowest, 1 is highest on the scale). Also, last I checked, pointy objects were the cause of as many deaths as guns in NH (4 a piece with general beating deaths just behind at 3).

Brent has this:

David Hardy of Arms and the Law Blog writes, "A good correlation: the worse your Brady grade, the lower your homicide rate." Yep.

True!  Look at Britain - the most restrictive gun laws around (think of them as a "big state") and far higher gun crime rates than NH, VT, or ME.  The wrong premise, also, that the Brady folks, or any folks wishing to restrict guns, do is to focus on the object rather than on the person.

And as the 'Grok as stated over and over and over again, we believe that the internal "governors", often instilled by the absolute values taught by traditional and religious values, focus on personal values first.  What the Brady Center believes is that we cannot be trusted to behave responsibly with things that can be dangerous if used improperly.

I am thankful that I live in NH - and I get to agree with Chan on these definitions:

Gun Control (New Hampshire Dictionary): Hitting what you're aiming at.

Gun Registration (New Hampshire Dictionary): 1.) Making sure the trailer you use to haul your gun collection is registered. 2.) Ensuring your scope is aligned properly so your round goes where it's supposed to at 500 (or 1000) yards.

I also like this anecdote:

Continue reading "How many permit-holders use guns to commit crimes? " »

Posted by Skip at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sorry for the light blogging - yesterday, normal life intruded with TMEW "suggesting" the agenda.  Not all bad - part of her agenda was the almost weekly visit to the range for lighting off a few rounds.  We had previously bought 1K rounds for her Walther P22; this time, it was the same amount for the 9mm (it sounds like a lot, but as I am rapidly realizing, one hour of shooting can mean a whole lot of quarters flying down range at supersonic speeds.  As in other areas, size matters - in this case, the size of the purchase drives down the marginal cost).

Of course, just as they say that a boat is a hole in the water into which one tosses dollars, saving in one area means throwing it into another - this time, a "range bag for two".  She's happy that we no longer have to lug my old wide mouth piece of luggage from Land's End and no longer have to crunch the gear in. Enough room for two sets of headsets, three pistols, two sets of eye protectors, three pistols, and of course, ammo.

And room left over for other stuff to come.  Like I said, she's happy, so I'm contented....

Back to normal blogging the rest of the day....

Posted by Skip at 9:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Own and wear a gun in public - you are unhinged!

Update to my post on here on NH bills HB 1635 and HB 1654 where the Democrats are, against the national trends where States are making it easier to posses firearms, trying to make it more difficult to have and carry arms in the state.  From the Laconia Daily Sun today (P8) on an article titled "Many express outrage over banning guns from Statehouse" we get the "why" - or, at least the publicly stated reason:

Guns at the Statehouse became a concern last March when a number of people with guns stood and shouted at lawmakers from the House gallery. It happened during debate and votes on a resolution to reaffirm the state’s freedom from interference by the federal government, except in areas where the U.S. Constitution gives it powers. The measure failed to pass, upsetting supporters.

“I think we were all unsafe” that day, said Rep. Valerie Hardy, D-Litchfield, the bill’s sponsor. She said her research shows that 46 out of 50 states don’t allow guns in state buildings. She believes it’s time for New Hampshire lawmakers to take stronger steps to protect themselves as well as other employees and visitors to the Statehouse, who often include schoolchildren.

Hardy pointed out mass shootings in places like Virginia Tech and Fort Hood and said if there were a similar attack at the Statehouse, legislators would be held responsible for deaths and injuries because they did nothing to protect security.

“I don’t want that burden, do you?” she said.

I won't get much into the line of reasoning of "why should elected officials and government workers be treated differently than the general public" (that would be a whole HOST of posts). Thus, let me start in.

No, you don't, Ms. Hardy, since (cynically written) most politicians don't even want to be responsible for the outcome of ANYthing they legislate when the intended results are not met. That is especially true when legislation often yields a very much negative outcome as it interferes with Job #1 of most politicians (getting re-elected).  Thus, being responsible often times gets in the way.

The obvious phrase that caught my eye was "I think we were all unsafe" - in short, the implication is that anyone who is open carrying (or worse, concealed) who is telling you are wrong in a forceful manner is DANGEROUS!  They cannot CONTROL THEMSELVES!

Is that what you truly believe in your constituents?  That for the voting public at large who might wear a filled holster, trying to hold you accountable for your actions in a loud manner - that makes them serial killers?

Are you really that ideologically fixated?  Or just that daft (thus, putting Elmer Fudd in a good light)?

I assert that pulling out the hackneyed  It's For The Children argument ("who often include schoolchildren") is simply for those that have no other logical reasoning to offer.  In fact, Ms. Hardy, many of those folks who do go armed ARE doing it For The Children - their children.  Most people who are armed, while perhaps just plain enjoying the sport of hunting, making expensive (and sometimes, seemingly random, holes in paper or making steel sing, are most often very concerned with the security of their children as well.  Why? That idea that Democrats often deride (until it comes to ante up more for taxes):

Responsibility

THEY are responsible ones for the safety and well being of their families, and then their friends - and do not wish to outsource that responsibility to the State. 

Ms. Hardy, I will ask the obvious "if it were up to you, would you disallow any citizen to own a firearm?  And if not, why are public buildings oh so special?"  Or are you just scared of a hunk of metal?

Or worse - you just don't trust the citizens of New Hampshire?

Let me add and turn the argument around: isn't part of the Progressive / Liberal mantra is that criminals are only the victims of the overall society around them, that criminals are provoked by the conditions that society has placed them into?

Thus, couldn't it be said that you, Ms. Hardy, and others like you, would have been responsible for any actual criminal behavior as your arguments provoked them?

Note to Sun: the page 8 section says "GUNS from page one" - it actually started on page three.

Posted by Skip at 12:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

(H/T: Tim)

The Democrats are about to have hearings on HB 1635 and HB 1654; the first makes possessing a firearm or knife in any public building a felony:

No person shall knowingly and openly carry a loaded or unloaded pistol, revolver, or firearm or any other deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V, whether such person has a license under RSA 159:6 or is unlicensed, upon the person or within any of the person’s possessions owned or within the person’s control while inside a public building. Whoever violates the provisions of this paragraph shall be guilty of a class B felony. 

The second is basically a regurgitation (albeit, more narrowly defined):

No person shall knowingly carry a loaded or unloaded pistol, revolver, or firearm or any other deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V, whether open or concealed or whether licensed or unlicensed, upon the person or within any of the person’s possessions owned or within the person’s control in the state house or legislative office building. Whoever violates the provisions of this paragraph shall be guilty of a class B felony.

Do the Democrats believe as they do in Britain?  There, they have basically outlawed guns for anyone.  They are now in the process if putting draconian laws in place to the point that even steak knives are going to be illegal for possession by the ordinary Brit (and are getting to go after "clubs" - mere pieces of wood).

Effectively - are the NH Democrats starting down the road that NH Citizens do not have the Right (nay, the obligation) to self-defense?  NH's own Mark Steyn has this story from Britain that all but screams "You are not allowed to defend yourself!!" (emphasis mine):

An Englishman's Home Is His Castle Dungeon

The motto of the Canadian Mounties is that they always get their man. The motto of the British police is that they always get you. Frankly, it's a lot easier:

The TV presenter and Marks & Spencer model Myleene Klass has been warned by police for waving a knife at teenagers who were peering into a window of her house late at night.

Klass was in the kitchen with her daughter upstairs when she spotted the youths in her garden just after midnight on Friday. She grabbed a knife and banged the windows before they ran away.

Hertfordshire police warned her she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an "offensive weapon", even in her own home, was illegal.

Klass's spokesman, Jonathan Shalit, said the former Hear'Say singer was "utterly terrified" by the intruders and "aghast" at the police warning. "All she did was scream loudly and wave the knife to try and frighten them off," he told the Sunday Telegraph.

Continue reading "Democrats in NH - denying womens Rights to self-protection?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Yup, Democrats in the NH Legislature really believe that is all it takes - make a law, put up a sign,  and all the bad folks will stop dead in their tracks, lay down their arms, and go home (or turn themselves in?).  At which time, will those same Democrats whine that society has made them do this?

(H/T: Tim)

As a result of the last NH Legislative session where some of the public in the Gallery were "open carrying" their legally owned firearms, the Democrat controlledJoint Committee on Legislative Facilities (which oversees how the State House building (e.g., the Legislative Office Building, the Upham Walker House, legislative parking garages and lots, and any other facility that the Legislature controls.), ruled that no firearms are to be present (here).

Essentially, the Democrats believe that by simply making it illegal to have guns at the State House, by saying the magic words, they can prevent a Columbine or Virginia Tech style assault from ever happening.  What they refused to see or listen to is that the only thing that they are doing is punishing law abiding citizens, from exercising their Constitutional Rights to bear arms and "seek redress for wrongs" at the same time (yet, as opposed to the perceived danger to them by their constituents, they never will admit to the harm they themselves do by just their increased taxation and the use of legsilation to further their view as "Government sponsored social engineers").

Just like the TSA did in the aftermath of the Pantybomber on Christmas - in effect, all the TSA did with their new, hastily thrown out rules (like no electronics, books, blankets, and the like on one's lap during the last hour of a flight and not bathroom visits during that time either) was not to make things safer but to punish the 99% of the traveling public.

No, those rules did NOT make anyone safer in the skies, and neither will this rule by the NH Democrats.  In fact, the TSA rules, instead of making anyone safer, made the US a laughingstock among those serious folks that really know what it takes to increase air safety instead of acting like fools.  This rule by the NH Democrats does the same thing - it punishes lawful citizens and does nothing against that extremely rare occurrence of a deranged person.

Or does that make them the "Panty Gunner Fools"?

Posted by Skip at 12:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Update: just after putting this up!

There is already a petition to protest this action by the Democrats to limit a Right enumerated by the NH Constitution - please sign it here!

While some may see this as merely a "gun issue", it is not - this is truly a constitutional issue.

MANCHESTER, N.H.― In a surprise action today, a cadre of anti-liberty lawmakers in Concord acted behind closed doors to ban guns at the State House, the Legislative Office Building, the Upham Walker House, legislative parking garages and lots, and any other facility that the Legislature controls.

In a partisan, 8-3 vote, progressive Democrats sitting on the Joint Committee on Legislative Facilities today used a policy-making authority for legislative buildings to impose their out-of-touch and unconstitutional agenda on citizens, lawmakers and state office workers who would want to protect themselves from criminals who might try to harm them in these buildings. Section 2(a) of the New Hampshire constitution clearly protects the right to bear arms.

"The Democratic legislators on the Joint Facilities Committee are a rouges gallery of the strongest opponents of personal and economic liberty in New Hampshire," said Andrew Demers, chairman of Citizens for Sensible Legislation. "These are extremists who have failed in their attempts at restricting liberty through the legislative process, so they've now turned to an unprincipled and underhanded tactic. Clearly, these legislators are out of touch with average citizens on this important issue.”

"The citizens of New Hampshire are undoubtedly less safe and less free because of the Joint Committee's actions today," Demers added.

Democratic committee members Sylvia Larsen, Terie Norelli, Margaret Hassan, Mary Jane Wallner, Lou D'Allesandro, Marjorie Smith, Daniel Eaton and Martha Fuller Clark were behind today’s vote against liberty and safety, while Republicans voted to honor citizens’ right to defend themselves.

Republican leadership condemned the scheme by progressive Democrats. “It won’t allow people working in the buildings to protect themselves from someone just walking in with a weapon,” said Gene Chandler, senior assistant House Republican leader. “Once again, we are favoring the criminals.”

According to Chandler, state Rep. Mary Jane Wallner slipped in the measure at the last minute. It wasn’t on the agenda and no one from the public had the chance to comment. He said a law to ban guns in state buildings failed measurably a few years ago, so the anti-gun extremists turned to dirty tricks to impose their will on the people. A similar law has come up again for the 2010 session, which will likely be defeated.

“Senate President Larsen and House Speaker Norelli are the architects of the Democratic Party's progressive anti-freedom policies. This underhanded deal, done four days before Christmas, shows the utter contempt that they have for New Hampshire citizens", said Andrew Demers, chairman of Citizens for Sensible Legislation.

About Citizens for Sensible Legislation

Citizens For Sensible Legislation is a volunteer coalition of residents committed to educating the people of New Hampshire about candidates, legislation and issues that affect individual and economic liberties.

Citizens For Sensible Legislation – P.O. Box 5114 Manchester NH 03108 – info@cslnh.org – http://cslnh.org

Posted by Skip at 11:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Free men - the right to defend themselves is a moral question. "

A gaggle of numbnets who would try to  tell me they will dictate where, how, and if I can defend myself"

"Am I weird?"

No, Ted, you're not.  We as a society are socializing the bad decisions made by evil people and refuse to call a spade a spade.  

The anecdotes that Ted enumerates?  In each case, society "mitigated" the bad, immoral, evil behavior of the perpetrators and allowed them to continue, under the guise of being society's victims", to victimize the innocent.

Once again, Progressive policies, enacted or ruled to be compassionate, show themselves to be utterly the opposite.

No, Ted, you're not - you're normal (er, what IS wrong about punishing those that commit violence?)

Posted by Skip at 8:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Update and bumped:  Well, it seems that Sheridan, Brent, and Judy in the Comments (thanks folks) are all correct - while not explicitly written into the current bill, there is a lot of wiggle room to allow a "health Czar" (current, the HHS Secretary) to pretty much do what s/he wants to do.  

In other words, the chuckleheaded weasels that are foisting this on us (from NH: Senator Shaheen, and CongressCritters Carol Shea-Porter and Senator-wannabee Hodes) have abdicated their roles as decision makers.  Instead of doing the jobs we elected them to, they're all set in letting a bureaucrat do the dirty work for them.

All the scenarios that these loyal readers brought up are certainly possible - The best explanation was done by the Volokh Conspiracy (a law blog):

Let’s look at the bill. The rules for a “Wellness Program” begin on page 87. In brief, if you participate in a Wellness Program, you can get a health insurance premium discount of up to 30%. Stated another way, if you don’t participate in a Wellness Program, you will pay a substantial insurance rate penalty for not doing so.  The definition of a “Wellness Program” begins in paragraph (B) on page 88:

“(B) The wellness program shall be reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease. A program complies with the preceding sentence if the program has a reasonable chance of improving the health of, or preventing disease in, participating individuals and it is not overly burdensome, is not a subterfuge for discriminating based on a health status factor, and is not highly suspect in the method chosen to promote health or prevent disease.”

Pages 29–30 mention some of items that “Wellness and Prevention Programs” “may include.” The phrasing does not appear to exclude other items. In any case, the item for “Healthy lifestyle support” is broad enough to include almost anything.

This definition is extremely broad, and the assertion that it is not broad enough to encompass gun ownership appears to be incorrect. There is a very large body of “public health” scholarship which claims to show that gun ownership is a very large health risk to the family that has a gun in the home. I believe that much of this scholarship is of poor quality, and some of it is mere junk science. However, the existence of dozens of articles in public health and medical journals would almost certainly be enough for an anti-gun definition of “Wellness Program” by the Dept. of Health and Human Services to pass the deferential Chevron standard of review.

A regulation which said that a Wellness Program may (or “shall”) include a discount for not owning a gun (or not owning a handgun, or not owning a so-called “assault weapon”, or for not owning more than a certain number of guns) might be argued to be “overly burdensome.” But there’s no guarantee that a reviewing court would consider a mere discount for people who don’t own guns to be “overly” burdensome on gun owners.

Pages 29–30 of the Reid bill mention some of items that “Wellness and Prevention Programs” “may include.” The phrasing does not appear to exclude other items. In any case, the item for “Healthy lifestyle support” is broad enough to include almost anything.

================================================================

Caught this last night - can anyone cite section / page number?

“The conservative group Gun Owners of America sent out an action alert to its 300,000 members on Friday warning that the Senate legislation would mandate that doctors provide "gun-related health data" to "a government database," including information on mental-health issues detected in patients, which could jeopardize their ability to obtain a firearms license.

In addition, the group said the legislation's ‘wellness’ provisions -- designed to encourage more healthful lifestyles -- would allow federal officials to mandate that companies charge higher insurance premiums for employees who own guns.”

Own a gun, now you're a higher risk?  Perhaps.  But there are FAR more riskier behaviors that are leading to higher percentages of adverse outcomes (e.g., drug abuse, sexual practices, et al) that are being given a pass?

Once again, this is not about healthcare - this is all about stealth control...

Thoughts?

Posted by Skip at 10:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

...clueless.  Why?  Clueless Administrations like this one:

An 11-year-old Des Moines girl was at home on suspension Tuesday for bringing a handful of empty shotgun shells to school last week.

Jazmine Martin, a sixth-grader at Brody Middle School, picked up the shells as souvenirs during a family trip to a ranch in South Dakota, where the rounds were fired as part of a show. They were blanks.

"I didn't think they were going to hurt anyone," Jazmine said. "I wanted to show them to my science teacher because he's into stuff like this."

She said she didn't have time to show her teacher, but she did show a couple of friends. This week, she was called into the office and suspended.

Principal Randy Gordon said the shells were considered ammunition even though they were empty, and were therefore against school policy.

A copy of the school policy shows that it specifically bans "live ammunition or bullets" but makes no reference to empty shells or casings. However, the policy says it is not limited to the items specifically listed as being banned.

I am fairly new to the world of exercising my own 2nd Amendment Right (and TMEW had a nice birthday present in the same vein as well!) but my step-dad went deer or bear hunting every year and my father-in-law went hunting in his "north 40" pretty much non-stop here in NH.

I know a live round....from a used one.   The ONLY way a used one could be harmful is if you chucked it at someone at really close range.  Frankly, this is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction by a Principal who should be suspended himself.  Suspending a student for empty shells? 

Common sense is what is needed - a real good reason why conservatives need to "take back" the school boards starting with this election.  Conservatives need to go back to the schools because of this reaction to cluelessness.

What SHOULD have been the right reaction Randy "just stick a 'stupid' sign on my forehead" Gordon?

Simple: "Jazmine, I know that these are from your family get-together.  You and I both know that these were used at your family get-together and cannot be used in a gun right now.  But some kids [and liberal gun hating teachers...oops, sorry!  snarky] might not know that, so tell you what I'm going to ask you to do - let me hold these in my office until the end of the school day, then come and get them after school, ok?  Bring them home - and please, keep them there.  Thanks!"

Common sense - can that be taught to the edu-crats?

Posted by Skip at 8:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Dean over at Blue Hampshire has a post about open carry - it is obvious that he is not in favor of anyone exercising their Second Amendment Right in public.  Bad for tourism (according to Mr. Travel, Arthur Frommer) and makes the assumption that "reasonable" people wouldn't do such (thus trying to make the inference that anyone who would is "unhinged"as Ray Buckley might put it):

But will open carry have an opposite effect? Are there better ways to support the 2nd amendment that don't freak reasonable people out?

But freak out, running around screaming "OMG, OMG! Quick Matha, hid the young 'uns!"

Adding, tangentially:  What do you think would have happened if, in October 2002, a dozen or so protesters had shown up with loaded semi-automatic rifles outside a Bush town hall while he was fearmongering the Iraq invasion?

Well, gee, guess what!  There was such an incident (Dean, meet Google):

Some information on the picture:

PAUL BEGALA, co-host: David Axelrod, I think, of course, as a Democrat, I think that you're right. And one of the things that's going to move things in Gore's favor is our next topic, which is the gun laws in Texas. I'm from Texas, and I own a gun. It turns out, Farai Chideya, that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that allows Texans to carry guns in church. And today, we saw at the Texas Republican Convention members of a group called the New Black Panther Party carrying guns on the streets of Houston, protesting the Republican Convention.

Posted by Skip at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Ted Nugent speaks his mind on Texas PBS. He reminds us that while the Second Amendment is important, we must remember that it is a right we are BORN with, regardless...

[One wonders whether the poor PBS host will ever be right again... ]

Posted by Doug at 9:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As I've noted before, when pondering instances of tragic school campus slaughter, or any mass shooting incident for that matter, I always come up with the same conclusion: The only defense against some random nut crashing into a classroom or other place with guns blazing is to have somebody in the room packing heat and trained to shoot back. Sure, there still may be some initial injuries or even death, but the number might be kept to a minimum if potential victims turned the tables on such an attacker. After all-- what is a "gun free zone" to an attacker but an easy target?

Some news from Michigan shows that at least one college is taking a step, albeit a small one, in the direction that makes sense. From WSBT News, via the NRA on Facebook:

Michigan State University has approved an exception to its campus weapons ban allowing people with permits to carry concealed weapons to walk or drive through campus with a gun.

This is certainly welcome news, and we hope that this is the start of a trend that will ultimately spread across the Nation. My children, both of whom will sit in college classrooms this year, as it stands right now, remain basically defenseless is the face of rampage event. After all, if would-be murderous crazies knew they faced a high possibility of being greeted with return fire, they might think twice before attempting their twisted acts in the first place, thus actually REDUCING gun violence by the addition of MORE guns.

Sadly, that isn't fully the case in Michigan, despite the decision. WSBT News further reports:

Guns still are banned inside campus buildings and sports stadiums.

THAT needs to change next...

Posted by Doug at 6:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

[H/T Marcus via Kevin on Facebook]

Posted by Doug at 8:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

[H/T Sue P.]

Posted by Doug at 8:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Have you ever stopped to ponder the fact that most mass-shootings happen in places where guns are banned? As I have often stated here on the 'Grok on this subject-- the only real defense against such tragedies is for law-abiding, properly skilled people to carry, thus being able to shoot back.

Here is a lighthearted video that makes this serious point:

[H/T 9-12 Project]

Posted by Doug at 8:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I think that this is going to be the theme of the Obama administration: say one thing, do another.  Say what he has to to mollify and comfort the Center and Right but act like the card carrying ultra-Progressive / Liberal / Socialist that he really is.  Remember, he did say as much in his autobiography - Audacity of Hope - which spawned a lot of Audacity of Stupidity on the part of voters.

On the Stump:

Remember back in February 2008 when President Obama came to Boise and spoke at a big rally? He made a big point of saying, "I won't take away your guns," because those nasty, dishonest Republicans were saying that Obama was going to do that.

I guess that we are ALL learning that lesson that Sherlock Holmes gave us about the dog not barking - what is often NOT said is often more important than what IS said.  Well, now that the vote is in, the unsaid words are coming out:

From WhiteHouse.gov:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Eric Holder lit this match now with this:

At a press conference announcing the arrests, Holder also suggested that re-instituting a U.S. ban on the sale of assault weapons would help reduce the bloodshed in Mexico, where last year 6,000 people were killed in drug-related violence.

U.S. officials have a responsibility to make sure Mexican police “are not fighting substantial numbers of weapons, or fighting against AK-47s or other similar kinds of weapons that have been flowing to Mexico,” Holder said.

As SnowFlakesInHell noted:

So we are going to lose our gun rights because our government can’t secure its borders, and the Mexican government can’t secure law and order and weed out corruption in its military, which is no doubt a large source of firearms for drug cartels.

Naw, with the escalating Narco-trade violence in Mexico, that's just an excuse.  Any excuse will do; if one doesn't work, trust me, there will be others trotted out in the lame attempt to self-justify their stance.  The actual problem is that they just will not admit to the real problem:

Sometimes, men are so evil, they just want to kill other people.

And as Britain has found out, take away the guns and knives become the weapon of choice.  Regulate the knives (they are ALMOST down to the kitchen steak knife level now), and bats / clubs will become the next target.  Until these morons start figuring out OR admit that it is PEOPLE that commit crimes, this nonsense will continue.

No, they won't take away your guns - they just won't let you use them via regulations.  I'm a n00b to the 2nd Amendment Club, but even "I" know that no gun is childproof - the technology just does not exist.  If criminals want Assault Weapons, just stroll down to Mexico - easy to get!.  And commonsense measures will most often make sense to only those that believe that inanimate objects are evil.

Make no mistake, the Obama Administration truly believes that "politics is war by other means" and in that good old Chicago style of politics, anything is on the table to achieve an end.  And frankly, the Progressive / Liberals want to disarm us (one reason why I joined the Club in the first place - I tend to be contrarian in nature; after all, I DO live in the LIVE FREE OR DIE! state).

(H/T: Instapundit)

Posted by Skip at 9:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Just got this from our friend Sue. Truer words were never spoken on this subject:

My old grandpa once said to me, "Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin'.

I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to Heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because, unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Free citizens must protect themselves. Police do not protect you from crime; they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin'."

..author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

Remember the average response time to a 911 call is over 4 minutes.

The average response time of a 357 magnum is 1400 FPS.

Posted by Doug at 8:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

.

First there was this somewhat innocuous bit in the "Merrimack County indictments" listing from the Citizen newspaper back in November:

A Londonderry man who allegedly leveled a handgun at a Northfield man was indicted for criminal threatening. He is alleged to have placed Paul Difilippo in fear of imminent bodily injury or physical contact on August 20. The charge is a Class B felony potentially punishable by 3.5 to seven years in the New Hampshire State Prison upon conviction.

Innocuous, unless you happen to be that person, of course. Unfortunately, for him, it was the ongoing process of what must surely have been a stretch of living hell. You see, he had the audacity to defend himself as he saw fit in a situation that caused him to fear for his personal safety and well-being (gasp!) with a gun. Shame on him (at least according to certain NH officials that sought to make him pay for such an act). Luckily, according to today's Citizen, the ordeal is over. What isn't is what the story reveals about the state of a citizen's right to keep and bear arms and their use in personal defense and preventing further physical violence:

A Londonderry man who was arrested in Tilton last August in connection with an alleged road rage incident no longer faces a mandatory three- to six-year prison sentence because authorities have dropped or "nol prossed" the case in the wake of the witness' death.

The Manchester attorney who represented him said, "It would have been intellectually interesting to have challenged [the charges]" because he believes the case demonstrates law enforcement's desire to keep guns away from law-abiding citizens.

The gentleman maintains that he felt his life was in danger when he was forced off the road and he showed his licensed firearm to the man, hoping it would deter the man from further provocation.

Police saw it differently and charged him with the Class B felony of criminal threatening.

How dare he intrude on the cops' turf. Doesn't he know it's THEIR job to do that? So what if some lunatic forced him off the road. He should have waited for the cops to come. And if the lunatic wasn't going to wait, perhaps, to commit some act, then what? Of course, we all know that if Mr. DeFilippo had run a POLICE OFFICER off the road and ended up shot as a result, most likely it would be found "justfied" like it always is (but I digress...)

Continue reading "You just know if the government and many of its law enforcement officers had it their way, you would NOT be allowed to own a gun or defend yourself..." »

Posted by Doug at 6:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Skip at 8:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Nation of marksmen? (Ruger Mini 14~ official 'Grok "ranch rifle")

Given the events in India, and the general downward spiral of public safety in an era of terrorism, this is something that merits some thought and attention. Says the Second Amendment,

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Indeed. As has been demonstrated time and again, when certain tragedies occur in which people get killed with safety and security forces "en route," had there been armed citizens on the scene-- trained and able to shoot back-- perhaps the final tolls might have been less. It goes without saying that when an entire populace of honest law-abiding folks are well-armed and practiced in their use, any potential intruder must take heed. And sometimes, such weapons can become the instruments of freedom...

According to their website, The Revolutionary War Veterans Association (RWVA)  pays tribute to the events of April 19, 1775 (the "shot heard round the world")

"through awareness, learning & marksmanship."

To that end, they have created the Appleseed Project:

The Appleseed Program is designed to take you from being a simple rifle owner to being a true rifleman. All throughout American history, the rifleman has been defined as a marksman capable of hitting a man-sized target from 500 yards away — no ifs, ands or buts about it. This 500-yard range is traditionally known as "the rifleman's quarter-mile;" a rifleman can hit just about any target he can see. This skill was particulary evident in the birth of our country, and was the difference in winning the Revolutionary War.

This country was founded and won by riflemen who fought and beat British forces. We invite all interested marksmen to learn the skills and techniques necessary to shoot proficiently; and then hope you'll participate in teaching and practicing with others so that together we can save this great land. Why you? Well, that's simple: if you're on this page we're betting you're a patriot, and we hope you answer the call.

What's a rifleman?

In short, a rifleman is an armed American, trained in the tradition of American Liberty. It's a man who has learned to shoot a rifle accurately — accurate enough to score "expert" on the Army Qualification Course. Until you can do that, you're considered a "Cook," unprepared and unqualified to carry a rifle on the firing line of freedom. But after attending an Appleseed AQT shoot, you'll have the credentials necessary to be a true rifleman, and will understand the critical need for defending freedom in this country.

The RWVA is dedicated to the Appleseed Program and encourages every American to learn to shoot.

I absolutely couldn't agree more. They have even gone so far as to define exactly the qualifications each and every "rifleman" should aspire to attain:

Continue reading "The Appleseed Project" »

Posted by Doug at 8:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson Issues Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's History in the Illinois Senate
 

Continue reading "Does this sound to you like a "friend" to the law-abiding gun owner?" »

Posted by Doug at 2:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ask Yourself... Why should those nutcase Jihadis and the crazy Arab "street" gangsters we see on TV have all the fun? You know what I'm talkin' about-- every time they're happy... or sad... or anything in between, they always get to shoot bursts of machine gun fire hither and yon. While this is done in a much more controlled fashion, it will surely be great fun nonetheless. That's right-- after skipping a year, the "annual" machine gun shoot is back!

The Public is invited to a:

MACHINE GUN SHOOT

October 26, 2008, 9 AM to 4 PM 

Presented by the Pemi-Baker Valley Republican Committee

Held at the Pemigewasset Valley Fish & Game Club located in Holderness, NH

Cowboy shoot                                          Pistol shoot 

                      Trap shoot                                             Rifle shoot  

Silhouette shoot     

MACHINE GUN SHOOT

(My kid shot something similar to this at the last shoot-- M1A1 Thompson Submachine Gun with 30 Round Magazine.)

$25 cover charge

Pancake Breakfast starting at 8 AM, $10 all you can eat until 11 AM

Lunch will be available until 4 PM

Bring the family for a day of fun

For more information contact: Jerry Thibodeau 786-9659 or email: jerry "at" thibco.com

Posted by Doug at 7:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As certain people remain unsure about voting for John McCain, asserting that he is somehow not conservative enough for their liking, they MUST take a serious look at the alternative, and the consequences of a Barack Obama presidency. In addition to what will most likely still be a Democratic-controlled US Congress, classic anti-gun rights liberal Obama won't stand as a bulwark against a sudden erosion of Second Amendment Rights.

Additionally, while it was certainly an excellent and correct ruling issued by the US Supreme Court in the landmark Heller Case, the reality is that it was a 5-4 decision. Any guesses as to what a Court comprised of a few Obama nominees might hand down for opinions in the future? Here's a hint about what types we WON'T see, from the Rick Warren "Saddleback Civil Forum" held this past Saturday, as Pastor Rick asks Senator Obama a question on that specific topic:

Q: Which existing  Supreme Court justice would you not have nominated?

Obama:  That's a good one. That's a good one. I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution. I would not nominate Justice Scalia although I don't think there's any doubt about his intellectual brilliance because he and I just disagree.

Q.  How about John Roberts?

Obama: ... I find him to be a very compelling person, you know, in services individually. He's clearly smart, very thoughtful. I will tell you that how I've seen him operate since he went to the bench confirms the suspicions that I had and the reason that I voted against him.

Of course, we all know where the three mentioned came down on Heller.

If you doubt the gun grabbers are on the move, consider this press release we just received, from the group Stop Handgun Violence. Is this not deja-vue? Are the antigunners in a stronger, or weaker position since the last time the so-called "gun show loophole" meme was attempted? And what will be their strength should Obama win this November?

Stop Handgun Violence to Unveil Dramatic New Billboard Calling on Congress to Close the Gun Show Loophole that Gives Criminals and Terrorists Easy Access to Guns

(BOSTON) John Rosenthal, Founder and Chairman of Stop Handgun Violence, along with Mayor Thomas Menino; Public Safety Secretary Kevin Burke; Mass. State Police Commander Colonel Mark Delaney and Boston Police Superintendent Bruce Holloway, will hold a Press Conference on Tuesday, August 19 to unveil Boston's newest campaign to reduce gun violence and keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.

America's largest billboard, a 252-foot long sign along the Massachusetts Turnpike next to Fenway Park, will be unveiled with a new powerful and provocative call- to-action message to close the "gun show loophole" in federal gun laws that allows terrorists and criminals to purchase firearms at gun shows "no questions asked" without a criminal background check or ID. This new message will be seen by more than 250,000 people every day. The billboard unveiling marks the kick-off of a national public awareness campaign by Stop Handgun Violence to pressure Congress to act on this critical public safety issue.

 

Continue reading "You don't think the next election matters? Make no mistake... the gun grabbers are on the move." »

Posted by Doug at 1:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Even though it's over a year old, the first time I saw this video was this weekend over at Instapundit. I'm sure at one time I heard about the story of the old granny on Fox. Seeing it alongside the others' strories was all the more chilling. I haven't been able to get it out of my mind ever since viewing it....

Scary. Very scary. The Founders were very wise to be so distrustful of government, given the natural tendencies of men. Do the tendencies exhibited by the "lawmen" following the Katrina disaster make you comfortable in the state of liberty in the present age? [NRA story here]

Posted by Doug at 5:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

By Grant Bosse

By upholding an individual right to keep and bear arms, overturning the oppressive handgun ban in Washington D.C., but leaving room for local and state regulations, the court has put Congress and state legislatures front and center. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is already pushing for strict gun control restrictions "near schools," without saying how wide such a zone would be. 

After Heller, we can follow Pelosi's lead and start to rebuild the wall between law-abiding citizens and their 2nd Amendment rights, or we can roll back the unneeded and harmful restrictions still on the books.

The first step would be to restore the right to carry in our national parks. Current policy prevents Americans from bringing their legal firearms onto many public lands, despite the threats hikers and campers face from predators, both animal and human. By turning our parks into "gun free zones,"  we've told criminals where to find unarmed victims miles away from any law enforcement.

We should also recognize the right to carry legal firearms across state lines. A national reciprocity law would give law-abiding citizens the freedom to bring their guns with them when they leave home. Cities like Chicago and states like New York would not be able to infringe on their 2nd Amendment rights just because they were passing through. These local gun control laws are likely to face their own legal challenges after Heller, but reciprocity would put a dent in them immediately.

The Supreme Court has read the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and five of the nine justices understood what they read. But the anti-gun lobby will not stop. Neither can supporters of the 2nd Amendment. After Heller, just about everyone will say they support the 2nd Amendment, but voters need to look deeper. Even Barack Obama, who not only supported the D.C. handgun ban but has gone on record calling for even stricter gun control, now claims that the court got it right in Heller. Don't believe him.

Grant Bosse is seeking the Republican nomination for NH's Second Congressional District seat presently held by Democrat Paul Hodes.  Visit his website here. GraniteGrok Q & A here.

[This is exerpted from today's Union Leader. Please read the entire piece here.]

Posted by Doug at 8:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

.

It was a very good day for the individual American Citizen, as the US Supreme Court issued its landmark, history-making ruling on the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The NRA's website reports that its Executive Vice President, Wayne LaPierre declared,

“This is a great moment in American history. It vindicates individual Americans all over this country who have always known that this is their freedom worth protecting. Our founding fathers wrote and intended the Second Amendment to be an individual right. The Supreme Court has now acknowledged it. The Second Amendment as an individual right now becomes a real permanent part of American Constitutional law.”

Last year, the District of Columbia appealed a Court of Appeals ruling affirming that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the District’s bans on handguns, carrying firearms within the home and possession of functional firearms for self-defense violate that fundamental right.

“Anti-gun politicians can no longer deny that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right,” said NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. “All law-abiding Americans have a fundamental, God-given right to defend themselves in their homes. Washington, D.C. must now respect that right.”

Click here to visit the NRA homepage, and here to get to the link to download the entire ruling as released by the Supreme Court today. This is great news! Now I can carry even when outside New Hampshire! I can get to RI, through MASSACHUSETTS, even, without having to disarm. Hmmm. I wonder what we ought to do this weekend?

CELEBRATE? You bet...

Click here to check out prior 'Grok posts on guns and the Second Amendment.

Posted by Doug at 7:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

At the monthly meeting of the Belknap County Republicans, Jeb Bradley, seeking the nomination to run for NH's 1st Congressional District seat, answered a question about the Second Amendment. There's no doubt where Jeb stands on this issue...

I'd like to hear the incumbent, Democrat Carol Shea Porter, answer the same question. My guess is that you'd need an Enigma machine to decode her answer.

Posted by Doug at 8:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Running for the GOP nomination in NH's Second Congressional District, Senator Bob Clegg visited with members of the Belknap County Republicans last Wednesday evening. He was asked where he stands on the Second Amendment. Check it out...

I wonder how the incumbent, liberal Democrat Paul Hodes,  stands on the issue?

Posted by Doug at 8:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Since we're on a roll here, we thought we should include 2nd CD candidate Grant Bosse's take on the Second Amendment too. His is a message Americans cannot hear enough: The Second Amendment is one of our important civil rights in that it helps protect the others...

You just know that as long as Paul Hodes is down in Congress, if Nancy Pelosi decides to push new gun control laws, he'll be right there with her. Can we risk another two years of this Pelosi rumpswab? I think not!

Posted by Doug at 8:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Florida, like New Hampshire, allows citizens the right to carry concealed firearms. Would-be criminals never really know who's packing and who is not. The Palm Peach Post reports on a recent incident at a West Palm Beach supermarket:

Grant was a daily customer who'd never been a problem, said Hernandez, who manages the large supermarket at 1000 36th St.

On Monday afternoon, Grant and Hernandez argued after he tried to enter the store through the exit.

"I said, 'You know what? Take your business elsewhere,'" Hernandez said.

Grant then drew a handgun. Assistant manager Roberto Espinal, behind a side counter, drew his gun. When Grant turned that way, Hernandez pulled his gun.

Heh. Two to one against the bad guy. Read the whole story, as, in addition to the fact that a gun crime was prevented with yet more guns, the "good guys" also show a level of clear-headedness and decision-making that are indicative of the qualities of most of the gun owners that I know.

As I've often said, the only way to stop some random nut that pops up hell-bent on a rampage of destruction is the ability to immediately return fire. In this  Florida instance, firearms effectively bridged that gap of time from when the act began till the cops arrived on the scene. Who knows what might have happened were the supermarket located in some "safe" no gun zone. This applies to school campuses as well...

Posted by Doug at 1:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

..

With the subject of guns and gun owners suddenly becoming a hot topic between the Hillary and Obama camps, I thought I'd repost a GraniteGrok YouTube VLog we made back in December that might be of some interest. During a campaign stop right here in Gilford, NH, an audience member asked Hillary about gun control and the "proliferation of guns.". Of course, it should be watched in light of the most recent events proving Hillary's need to have listeners "willingly suspend disbelief"...

.

Posted by Doug at 9:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Yes, even though I do not own any guns (or do I?), I do know that Doug does - and enjoys them.  My stepdad used to own a number of long guns and my father-in-law owned a number of rifles, shotguns, and handguns (first time I ever fired a .357 Magnum revolver was on his property - woohoo!).

There is also a phrase that absolutely drives anti-gun folks crazy: "an armed society is a polite society".  Oh, the gnashing and wailing that occurs.

Well, it could be said that the reverse, an unarmed society, is more crime ridden than one that is armed.  From today over at Neal Boortz:

Now some of you may not have seen this information in a while, if not at all. But here's what happened in Australia just one year after gun owners were forced to surrender their means of protection. By the way, "disarming" Australia cost the taxpayers $500 million.

A dramatic increase in criminal activity has been experienced.

OBSERVABLE FACTS, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:

• Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
• Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
• Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
• In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
• Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
• Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
• There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly
• At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm"

Dear, can I get one of these? 

Posted by Skip at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Not this year...     

A follow-up to the controversial "machine gun" fundraiser that drew hundreds of area Republicans to a local firing range last summer is in danger of being cancelled.

The Manchester Republican Committee's executive board recently voted to "table" plans to bring the event back for a second year, committee Chairman John Castelot said. Two people active in the party said the event has already been nixed, purportedly because the board worried it would put "undue pressure" on Republican candidates on the ballot this November.

There were no politicians in sight. Only happy, ordinary Republican folks enjoying a good day celebrating the 2nd Amendment with friends and family. I'll take that over a room filled with pompous politicians any day-- Democrat OR Republican!

Posted by Doug at 7:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Go ahead. Make my day!

As I ponder the most recent school campus slaughter, once again I come up with the same conclusion: The only defense against some random nut crashing into a classroom with guns blazing is to have somebody in the room packing heat and trained to shoot back. Sure, there might be initial injury and death, but the number might be kept to a minimum if potential victims turned the tables on such an attacker. After all-- what is a "gun free zone" to an attacker but an easy target?

Well, it seems that I'm not alone in my thinking that we need MORE guns in the classrooms and campuses, not less. Newsweek has the story about a new group formed whose goal is just that: The Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. This is a great idea!

The group, whose 12,000 members nationwide include college students, faculty and parents, champions legislation that would allow licensed gun owners to carry concealed weapons on campus, in the hope that an alert and well-trained citizen could stop a deranged shooter before he or she could do serious damage.

Before all you gun grabbers get your undies all in a bundle and pass off the notion of shooting back as mere fantasy, consider this from the same Newsweek story:

There was the example at the church in Colorado Springs back in December where they actually allowed members, encouraged certain members who had a concealed-handgun license to carry their guns at church. These people were not licensed security guards. They had not been through the state-mandated security guard training or any of that. These were simply people who had concealed-handgun licenses, and the church said, "You know, we'd appreciate it if you would carry your guns at church for the protection of this church." And this woman actually managed to shoot a guy as he was walking through the door armed to the teeth, like Rambo. So concealed carry has mitigated dangerous situations like this in the past.

Perhaps if would-be murderous crazies knew they faced a high possibility of being greeted with return fire, they might think twice before attempting their twisted acts in the first place, thus actually REDUCING gun violence by the addition of MORE guns... As a parent with a child in college and one in high school, that would certainly make my day!

Posted by Doug at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 7:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

A 51-year-old man stopped a masked man from robbing a Southside grocery store and held him at gunpoint until police arrived.

.

[snip]

.
While the suspect was demanding cash from the workers, the police report states that Merrell pulled his own handgun, pointed it at the robber and ordered him to put down his weapon.

.
When the suspect hesitated, Merrell racked the slide on his gun to load a round in the chamber, Officer Jason Bockting wrote in the report.

.

The suspect placed his gun and a bag of cash on the counter, dropping some of the money,

Posted by Doug at 2:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Every day in this country, according to the Department of Justice and other studies, armed, law-abiding citizens stop dangerous, violent confrontations from escalating into death and tragedy simply by having a gun handy to provide real "equality" on the mean streets of America.

.

Dedicated cops will tell you that they can't possibly be there to protect us. By the time the police show up, many innocents will likely perish at the hands of evil while good people hang around hoping and praying.

.

I would highly recommend that we finally learn from all these senseless tragedies. Get real. Get rid of politicians who support gun-free slaughter zones. Get rid of gun-free zones. Get a gun, learn to use it and do the right thing.

.

Bad guys should be shot dead, not Christmas shoppers.

Posted by Doug at 10:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 9:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

...........

Continue reading "Q: When was the last time the Supreme Court ruled on a 2nd Amendment case? " »

Posted by Dave at 7:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There are a number of ways to put a silly grin on Doug's mug....and this one will do.

"The goal of National Ammo Day is to empty the ammunition from the shelves of your local gun store, sporting goods, or hardware store and put that ammunition in the hands of law-abiding citizens."

(H/T: Op-For)

Posted by Skip at 12:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

DC city hall bureaucrats are shaking in their federal government subsidized boots again.

Today, the Supreme Court is expected to state whether or not they will hear an appeal regarding DC's long-standing ban of personal firearms. Back in March, a DC appellate court ruled that the 1976 ban on handguns in the District was in violation of the Second Amendment.

Oddly enough, the March suit was brought forth not by a big time gun company or a conservative activist group; but by a federal worker. Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard at a federal building brought forth the lawsuit to the DC appellate court in hopes that he could gain the right to keep his firearm at his home for personal protection.

DC, which has its very own massive federal appropriation to help feed its gluttonous diet for erroneous and failed government programs, hasn't seemed to have curbed crime after almost three decades of banned firearms in the District. In fact, while the national homicide rate has fallen by 2% since the 76’ ban, DC's actually rose.

John Lott from the National Review Online writes:

Continue reading "Constitutional rights might invade D.C." »

Posted by Dave at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I get that there are untold numbers of sloppy-minded people stumbling around America wearing vacant expressions and living mindless lives, but I have yet to figure out why so many of them are drawn with such zeal toward endeavors such as political punditry that only highlight their ugliest, most brazenly ignorant facets.

Posted by Doug at 8:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

There were no politicians in sight. Only happy, ordinary Republican folks enjoying a good day celebrating the 2nd Amendment with friends and family. I'll take that over a room filled with pompous politicians any day-- Democrat OR Republican!

.

Posted by Doug at 4:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Machine Gun Shoot

Sunday, August 5   

10am-4pm

Pelham Fish & Game Club

100 Simpson Mill Rd.

Pelham, NH

$25 + cost of ammo

All are welcome!  Bring your family and friends!

Posted by Doug at 7:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My father owned a .22 rifle when I was a kid. He made sure that I, and my brother and sister, knew proper gun safety; how to safely handle weapons, load, unload, clean and everything connected with gun safety that he knew, he passed along to us. I will be forever grateful to him for his teachings, and he may have even saved my life.

I have great memories of growing up in Oklahoma City and going out to some remote location where our family would spend a day hiking, picnicking, finding a stream, floating cans and bottles and taking turns shooting at them or at targets. It was a very different time in America (yeah, I know, but nobody was concerned about the environment in those days), and we did not live in fear, as do many people today.

From a very young age thanks to my Dad, I became comfortable and confident in handling any weapon and did not grow up in fear of guns because of it. I did grow up respecting firearms and always handle a firearm assuming it’s loaded. Years later, my later father-in-law and I went out so he could show me how to handle a gun. I didn’t have the heart to tell him I already knew, since he took great pride in instructing me.

After I put six rounds pretty much in the bullseye, he beamed that he had done such a good job teaching me how to shoot. Years later, we shared great laughs about it when he learned about my background with firearms from my Dad when they had an opportunity to meet.

When I lived in Fairbanks, Alaska during the pipeline project in the 1970’s, when there were an over abundance of men compared to woman, I spent many nights alone. I always felt secure knowing I had a loaded handgun on my nightstand. While I always hoped I’d never have to use it, I was happy to have it when one night someone attempted to break into my home in the middle of the night.

Continue reading "Shoot the B#*!#^+s!" »

Posted by Judy at 7:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"Does anybody join me in realizing that 32 people were killed because the killer wasn`t stopped?"

Continue reading "Ted Nugent on "gun free" zones" »

Posted by Doug at 9:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (2)

Posted by Doug at 7:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Check out this opinion by Judge Laurence Silberman.  Reasoning from the text of the Second Amendment and the contemporary understanding, he concludes that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.  Then compare it to the dissent.  Who's right?  At the risk of simplifying matters, it depends on whether the Supreme Court precedent is controlling, the effect and meaning of the preamble about the "well regulated militia," including whether the term "State" means a nation or means the states. 

 A bit of trivia -- President George H. W. Bush passed over Silberman in favor of Souter.

Posted by Ed Mosca at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)