Friday, November 30, 2007
No posts
I'll get back to posting as soon as I'm back in the land of the living.
-Yuri
Monday, November 26, 2007
I agree completely!
Click here to read the article and click here to sign the petition.
"John Browning Day
By Mike S. Adams
Monday, November 12, 2007
It is difficult to decide just what the greatest achievement of John Moses Browning was. Some may say it was the 128 different patents issued to him in less than half a century, which resulted in the production of over 80 distinctly different firearms. Other may say it was the fact that his guns ranged from those hurling a .22 short to those hurling a 37 mm projectile. Still others may say it was his willingness to change – from lever actions, to pump actions, to semi automatic actions, to automatic actions.
But I disagree with all of the above. I believe that John Browning’s greatest achievement is the example he set for all Americans with his work input not his work output. Indeed, he showed us that we can only be set free through hard work, a love of country over self, and a refusal to take credit for the achievements of others.
I think the time has come for us to acknowledge formally the man who helped us win two world wars and save countless lives with his inventions. In the process, we may begin to see that our greatest civil rights struggle is really a battle against the unholy trinity of complacency, selfishness, and economic entitlement."
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Plate Match Today

Here are a couple videos I took at the match. I'm not in these but I thought people would find them interesting.
In this first one, John Goss is in the foreground with Jim Breen on the other side with Jeffersonian officiating. They are each shooting .22's with red dot's.
Here we see Jeffersonian taking on Jim Breen for the overall match winner. The best two out of three wins. Jeffersonian is shooting his GP100 in .357 Mag while Jim is shooting a .22 again.
I was also going to sight in my SKS with the donated red dot after the match today, but the honest truth is I was so cold at that point that I chickened out and came home. I'll try and get it sighted in asap though. When I do I'll be sure and take some pictures!
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
SCOTUS Takes the Case!
UPDATE: Moments after I posted this, the Brady's sent me an email wanting more money. They're clearly worried about this case and the effect it will have on gun bans and gun control laws nationwide. Follow me in giving a donation to your favorite gun rights organization!
----------
High Court to Hear D.C. Gun Ban Case
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 20, 2007; 1:08 PM
The Supreme Court announced today that it will decide whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns violates the Constitution, a choice that will put the justices at the center of the controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years.
The court's decision could have broad implications for gun-control measures locally and across the country, and will raise a hotly contested political issue just in time for the 2008 elections.
The court will hear the case after the first of the year. A decision likely would come before it adjourns at the end of June.For years, legal scholars, historians and grammarians have debated the meaning of the amendment because of its enigmatic wording and odd punctuation:
"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."
Gun rights proponents say the words guarantee the right of an individual to possess firearms. Gun-control supporters say it conveys only a civic or "collective" right to own guns as part of service in an organized military organization.
The court's last examination of the amendment was in 1939, when it ruled in United States v. Miller that a sawed-off shotgun transported across state lines by a bootlegger was not what the amendment's authors had in mind when they were protecting arms needed for military service.
Since then, almost all of the nation's courts of appeal have read the ruling to mean the amendment conveys only a collective right to gun ownership. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit broke ranks last spring, becoming the first to strike down a gun-control law on Second Amendment grounds.
A panel of three Republican-appointed judges voted 2-1 that the amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms" and that "once it is determined -- as we have done -- that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them."
The District law, enacted in 1976, soon after the city won home rule, is one of the toughest in the nation. It prohibits residents from registering and possessing handguns in almost all circumstances. The District also requires that rifles and other long guns kept in the home be unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with trigger locks. The court struck down that law as well, saying it rendered the right to possess such a weapon for self-defense virtually useless.
It is unusual that both the losing party and the winners of that decision asked the court to consider the case. But Robert A. Levy, a wealthy entrepreneur and lawyer who is also a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, has worked for years to bring the matter to the Supreme Court.
He and others, including co-counsel Clark M. Neily III and Alan Gura, assembled six D.C. residents to challenge the District ban. Their idea was to present the courts with law-abiding plaintiffs who wanted the weapons for self-defense rather than people appealing criminal convictions for possessing weapons.
A federal district judge ruled against the residents, but the appeals court overturned that decision in a strongly worded opinion written by conservative Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman.
The District argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that the decision "drastically departs from the mainstream of American jurisprudence."
The petition filed by District Attorney General Linda Singer said the appeals court was wrong for three reasons: because it recognized an individual rather than collective right; because the Second Amendment serves as a restriction only on federal interference with state-regulated militias and state-recognized gun rights; and because the District is within its rights to protect its citizens by banning a certain type of gun.
"It is eminently reasonable to permit private ownership of other types of weapons, including shotguns and rifles, but ban the easily concealed and uniquely dangerous modern handgun," said the petition. "Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die." (There's irony for ya! -Yuri)
Monday, November 19, 2007
No Post Today
In the meantime, may I suggest some of the many blogs I've linked to for you reading pleasure?
I'll be back as soon as I can, I promise!

