Happy New Year!

Here's hoping for the advancement of our gun rights in 2008! Happy New Year to all of my readers!

Good deal or not?

"This is Russian 7.62x39 Golden tiger ammo, with the 124gr FMJ Boat Tail bullet, lead core, bi-metal jacket, steel case. New production, with Berdan primer and fully non-corrosive."



1,000 rounds for $169 at J&G Sales.

CeaseFire's Goals

From their website:

"CeaseFire PA Goals:

• Reduction of illegal handgun trafficking by requiring gun owners to report lost and stolen firearms, and by limiting most handgun buyers to no more than one handgun purchase per month.
• Closure of the gun show loophole at the federal level.
• Public access to federal crime gun tracing data.
• Effective product safety standards for firearms.
• The eradication of needless gun violence."

I wish they were honest and came right out and say what their ultimate goal is, the complete ban and confiscation of all legally held firearms, but that wouldn't get them anywhere. It's the same reason that HANDGUNCONTROL.ORG changed its name to the friendlier Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. I guess it was the word CONTROL that was throwing many people off. I mean who could be against preventing gun violence? Of course this still follows on the anti's fixation on the method of violence instead of the violence itself. With people like these it's all about control, period.

Anyway, going down the list. I don't think anyone is against reducing the amount of weapons in the hands of criminals, but I have serious problems with the stated remedies. For one, putting a legal requirement on law abiding gun owners to report a gun theft within a certain time frame will do nothing to stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals. Also, every gun owner that I know would willingly tell the authorities if their property was stolen. Another problem with this is what if the gun owner is out of town or doesn't realize his property is missing. There is no legal way that a criminal can be compelled to give up that his gun was stolen, so why are they trying to make criminals out of good people? This is one of those ideas, like microstamping, that may sound good on paper, but in real life it just won't work as expected.

One hand gun a month will stop or reduce gun violence. Yeah right. Didn't you folks learn anything from Virginia Tech? The killer in this case followed the law and purchased his handguns one at a time; one a month. That's because this absurd proposal was/is the law in Virginia. Nice try guys, but this just isn't going to work.

My rights aren't a loophole! Did you know that less than 1% of guns criminals used in crimes come from gun shows? Turning that on it's head, this means that more than 99% of the guns sold in the USA aren't used by criminals. There are no evil gun rays that suddenly turn the bearer into a raving, homicidal lunatic. Give it up guys, another strike for you.

The current acting director of the ATF has gone on record as saying that the trace data is already being shared with the law enforcement agencies that need access to it. In addition, public disclosure of this data could put undercover agents and operations at risk. The only reason for wanting the public to have unfettered access to the data are fishing expeditions, looking for information to bolster your rhetoric. If I had as few facts and figures on my side I'd want the same thing, but luckily the facts are on my side. I don't have to resort to pure emotion to win over public support.

I'm not really sure what they mean by "Effective product safety standards for firearms." Firearms are one of the most heavily regulated product in existence. The manufacturers already go through extraordinary lengths to make sure that their products are free from defects and malfunctions. Maybe if instead of the JHP's my Kahr CW-9 spits out at close to the speed of sound it should be shooting out fluffy bunnies instead? How about rainbows and unicorns? No, my carry gun shoots out hot and hard chunks of lead and copper with the sole purpose of stopping a threat to my and my families lives.

I don't know anyone that is against the eradication of criminal violence. Exactly what they consider "needless gun violence" is open to debate. Is me defending myself and my family from a lunatic bent on my demise considered "needless gun violence?" They don't specify. Perhaps "needless gun violence" is a gun being used by anyone except the military or police? Again with the fixation on the tool and not the person using it. Is it better if I'm killed by a criminal with a knife instead of a gun? Inquiring minds want to know...

With the addition of the anti-gun troll ATR, etc... I can tell where their sympathies really lie. As has been demonstrated time after time, they aren't looking for a dialog, they just want a vacuum chamber in which to promulgate their opinions, unencumbered by such silly little things as facts and logic.

Christmas/Birthday...

"You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt"

- Tennessee Ernie Ford

Or in my case, another year older. In addition to the mountain of clothing (which I needed, thank you guys!) I received a book from my sister and brother-in-law called: The World's Great Handguns from 1450 to the Present Day by Roger Ford. Do they know me or what? :-) I know it's not a gun or ammunition, but It's definitely up my alley!

I don't have a review ready for you yet as I have just started reading it, but I'll probably post something more about it later on when I've had a chance to read it.

Sorry for the short post, I'll get something more entertaining up later...

What do his students think of him?

Thanks to RateMyProfessors.com we get an inside look at what kind of person ATR is in real life. Does any of this sound familiar? LOL

Thanks to Robb at Sharp as a Marble for uncovering this gem!

"terrible. 8 AM class where he lectures often times about nothing we are doing. he will go on tangents for about 20 minutes. his tests are insane where he will give you a fill in the blank and the answer is just a random word (cool,boring) that you barely talked about in class. AVOID."

"He scares me. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!"

"He seems to hate all students, especially the kind of student who is really not smart enough to be in college but whose parents bought his way in anyway."

"alexander...needs to be more organized. tests are unpredictable... memorization--nothing conceptual. he talks to fast toward the end of class and gets on random tangents about things that arent important to testing. this class scares me. who knows about grades. hes kinda funny tho. interesting guy--shouldnt be a teacher"

Alexander Tristan Riley

aka Culturologist aka ATR aka NRAfourever aka BUSTED!

This pimple on societies ass left several steaming piles of crap in comments on my blog, which being rather vulgar and insulting in nature, I deleted. He also attempted to do the same on my other blog, but I intercepted those. He then proceeded to do the same at several other 2A blogs.

Shortly after this pustule did this, he started his own blog (actually third or fourth) with the sole intention of portraying gun owners as vulgar, racist and illiterate rednecks. Shortly after this another blog was opened with the sole purpose of attacking Mike Adams, with whom he apparently disagreed.

While looking through my logs and the posted logs of the other bloggers he'd hit, I noticed that all of the attacks came from Lewisburg, PA. Alex is a professor at Bucknell University which just happens to be located in Lewisburg, PA. Hmmm... BUSTED!

Shortly after this the blogs began to disappear. What would cause ATR to remove the blogs? Turns out he just became a board member of CeaseFire PA. Gee, wouldn't all of those disgusting things he'd said on his blogs and YouTube profile be an embarrassment if they were to come to light? Maybe even enough that CF PA would disavow him? You'd think so wouldn't you. That still remains to be seen. I know I wouldn't want his kind associated with me or an organization I was involved with.

Read more about this at Sharp as a Marble, Days of our Trailers, Armed and Safe, Say Uncle, Snowflakes in Hell and The War on Guns.

Dreaming the implausible dream...

Consider this editorial by Joe Klock, Sr. of the Coral Gables Gazette. I've tried to break it down into manageable chunks, but just when I thought he'd stopped with the $#!^, there was even more.

I'll comment only on parts of his editorial, if you'd like to read the whole thing click here.

"As written, B.O.R. #2. reads, "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."

Some hold that this only protects our right to have well-organized militias, while others read the same words as sanctioning the private possession of lethal weaponry.

What Madison really meant was interred with his bones, leaving interpretation to generations of English majors, history buffs, pacifists, gun-fanciers and, in their current session, the oracular whizzes of our Supreme Court."

He would have to pick the version with the most commas wouldn't he? Different versions of the second amendment exist with varying numbers of commas. With or without the commas it makes perfects sense when read in context and by studying other things the founders had to say about it.

"After extensive thought, exhaustive research and pleasurable study of "Eats, Shoots & Leaves," I have taken two firm positions on the issue: I will not speculate on what Founding Father Madison had in mind in 1789 or how he'd advise our Supremes in 2008.

Furthermore, I care not a rat's butt about that, although it might be interesting to know how he'd feel about private citizens owning AK-47s.

I do care that 30,000 Americans die annually as a result of guns in the hands of evil and/or irresponsible shooters."

Apparently you didn't do too much thought, exhaustive research and pleasurable study did you. Perhaps you'd have been better off researching the origins of the second amendment instead of a book of punctuation. Then again, since you don't care not a rats ass about the subject, you're just going to empty your gray and black water tanks on us in the form of this editorial.

Personally, I think Madison would have been fine with private ownership of Ak-47's by the unorganized militia.

Joe, would you care to back up your statistics from a non Brady or Joyce Foundation sponsored, or discredited study? I didn't think so.

"I also respect the rights of all people to defend themselves, their loved ones and their possessions against criminals, using firearms if need be.

Neither would I prevent millions of hunters from engaging in their chosen pastime, although such peculiar pursuits as shooting doves barely seem to qualify as sporting events.

Finally, I recognize that total prohibition of private gun ownership would be only a tad more popular and effective than the ill-fated banning of John Barleycorn in the Roaring (but seldom boring) 20's.

I submit, though, that those claiming the right to bear arms, either for fun or protection, assume concomitant obligations of responsibility and competence - not unlike those imposed on those who drive automobiles or perform heart transplants.

This question to those on both sides of the gun control controversy: Why not make training and licensure pre-qualifications for weapon ownership, with really heavy fines and jail sentences for those who don't comply?

No law-abiding and well-intentioned citizen should object to such a restriction, given its obvious benefit to society."

Oh my, where to start. First you respect the rights of individuals to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property with firearms. Second, you recognize hunters being able to pursue their sports whether you agree with them or not. Thirdly, you state (and I agree) that a total ban on firearms would be about as popular, and effective as prohibition was in the 1920's. Good on you for that, but then you had to flush it all away with your next statement. You state that you can't see how anyone would have an objection to treating gun ownership like driving a car. For someone who seemed to understand the rights of individuals earlier on, you prove that you really don't get it. I shouldn't be surprised.

Read the Bill of Rights Joe, I have. It's okay if you have to look them up online and read through it, I'll wait.

Done?

Okay, where in the Bill of Rights does it mention anything about driving a car, erm, horse and buggy? No? Okay, now what does the second one say? Okay, and no, it doesn't mean the National Guard or the government giving itself permission to form a militia (how stupid would that be). Now, how many times do you see "The People" and "The State" mentioned? Okay, now read the other nine (original BOR) and tell me whether or not it's clear on who has which right? Now why is the second amendment somehow different than the others? What's that? It says "Well Regulated?" Do yourself a favor and research the meaning of the phrase as it was used at the time for the correct context. Oh that's right, you really don't care about the "technical woo-woo's" as you put it.

Completely aside from this Joe, I and millions of other gun owners like me will never submit. Every gun confiscation in history was always preceded with registration. How do you think they knew where all the guns were? It sounds cliche, but "Legislation, Registration, Confiscation" has a lot more truth going for it than you'd imagine.

"This would counter the argument that if guns were banned entirely, only the criminals would be armed.

As to that lot of scoundrels, use of firearms in the commission of a violent crime could be raised to the level of a capital offense, with appropriate punishment. (Cruel and unusual, you say? Tell that to the victims and/or their families!)

Spare me, puh-leez, the legalese woo-woo and technical hair-splitting.

Simplistic though it may be, the remedy I suggest would save thousands of lives, make society safer and still allow private citizens to protect themselves, their loved ones, their hobbies and their worldly goods.

The doves are another matter, perhaps for another column when I really feel fearless."

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!" *sigh* Okay, yes, it's true. Following your plan though, the government could decide to take them at anytime they want. As to more severe punishment for criminal misuse of a firearm. Before they start doing that, I think they should make murder, robbery, rape, etc... against the law first. Oh wait, murder is against the law already and many states have the death penalty. You'd think with that in mind there'd be no murders. Aren't criminals afraid of capitol punishment?

Also, regardless of what the Brady Bunch say, there are well over 20,000 gun laws already in existence with more being added all the time. It's a constant battle to make sure my rights aren't being infringed.

Simplistic? Nah, I'd never say that...I'm too polite to tell you that you're full of crap!

UPDATE: Robb over at Sharp as a Marble has an excellent post concerning the 30,000 firearm deaths a year the anti's like to crow about. Go read!