Friday, May 06, 2005
And of course, the Raleigh, NC gun show is this weekend. I plan on attending the Saturday session. If you chose to be there, I'll be wearing a black t-shirt with something that looks like an eye chart on the front. (It's a gimme from someone who wants to become one of my vendors.) Say hello.
Otherwise, see you all next week.
William Shatner, The Icon.
I don't know that I'd go quite that far, but I'm glad there are other people out there who don't think Shatner is some sort of joke. This homage has some great facts that I didn't know about Star Trek and about William Shatner himself.
Pity that Paramount managed to screw up the franchise by hammering the fans who had supported it. I wonder how long it will take Hollyweird to learn that giving some away will return a lot more than trying to sell every last scrap?
Thursday, May 05, 2005
A Marine corporal who was videotaped shooting an apparently injured and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque last year will not face court-martial, the Marine Corps announced Wednesday.
It seems that despite everything Kevin Sites and the rest of the Legacy Media had to say on the subject, the Marine was within the rules of engagement.
I wonder if Mr. Sites will have anything further to say? If he does, I'm sure it will be interesting and informative.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
One of the scribes for Time magazine thinks the recent Florida bill clarifying/expanding a citizen's right to self-defense is a Bad Thing.
Apparently Michelle Cottle's parents tried to give her good upbringing, since she points out that
I grew up surrounded by firearms and the boys who loved them. My father is a bona fide hunting nut who threatened to buy my son a lifetime membership to the National Rifle Association for his first birthday. I myself have mowed down a variety of defenseless woodland creatures. I used to be a decent shot with a pistol, and once during the Clinton years, I spearheaded an outing of lefty political scribes for a round of skeet shooting.
Well, either it didn't take or she's just trying to create some bona fides for herself, since shortly after a lengthy quotation apparently from the legislation itself:
The law decrees that a person under attack "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
She spouts the typical Liberal lunacy that
I can picture a stressed-out Tampa soccer mom drawing a bead on an approaching panhandler and shrieking, "Go ahead, make my day!"
Which is shortly followed by
Some drunk spoiling for a fight at your favorite bar? Don't "retreat" to another barstool. Flash the .44 Magnum in your shoulder holster and ask the punk if he feels lucky.
Those of us who have any understanding, however brief, of the laws governing self-defense in general know that either of the above scenarios, whether in Florida, my native North Carolina or Alaska are going to get you in hot water with the local authorities. We also recognize these sorts of examples as the sort of nonsense that the antis spout whenever there is any pro-gun or pro-self-defense legislation passed.
Predictably, there is also some NRA and Republican bashing, along with a lament for the late AWB.
However, this piece of "journalism" brings to mind last night's conversation with a good friend, where the topic turned to the new Florida law. He opined that the reason the antis are so upset by this is that Florida led the way on shall issue concealed carry permits, and they're afraid that this law will be a repeat.
"With all the non-existent gunfights in the streets, shootings over parking places, etc. that we're all still waiting for." I replied.
Of course, he hit the nail on the head:
A triumphant N.R.A. has vowed to get "stand your ground" laws passed in every state. "We will start with red and move to blue," LaPierre has declared, adding ominously, "Politicians are putting their career in jeopardy if they oppose this type of bill."
Gee, I guess it's a Bad Thing if a lobbying group the antis don't like decides to push legislation their members support, or a politician gets voted out because his constituents think he doesn't represent them properly.
I don't think so, but I guess Liberal Land is a different place. All the evidence points to it.
Grandpa, go ahead and get that kid the NRA membership--you may still be able to save him.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
I hope you can get worked up about the Law of the Sea Treaty, also known as LOST. Various and sundry unsavory groups, including but not limited to New World Orderers, One Worlders, socialists, communists, Democrats and Republicans support this treaty, which seems to have the distinct feeling of being not only a US sovereignty giveaway, but the mechanism to that gives the United Nations *spit* one thing it has been actively seeking for years--the ability to levy taxes.
WorldNet Daily has a pretty good piece on this, along with some useful links. If you prefer to do you own research, remember that Google is your friend.
I've already written my Congresstypes last year, but I'm going to do it again. This thing needs to be nipped in the bud.
Monday, May 02, 2005
So of course, we need a law to protect us from the e-e-e-vil and scwary guns. Into the breach steps Diane Feinstein (Loon-CA) with a proposal to make the .50 subject to the NFA (National Firearms Act).
I suspect this bill (if it's even a real bill and not yet more political posturing) stands little to no chance of passing. Both parties have learned that anti-gun legislation can lose elections. Ask Bush 41. I agree with those who say that his anti-firearms actions cost him the election. (I know other things helped as well, but if the pro-gun people had showed up and voted for him, I think he would have been reelected. Remember, it was a close election, with Perot siphoning off a lot of Bush support. 2-3 million votes in the right places would have made a tremendous difference.)
However, I also thought the same thing in 1994 before the AWB, and ignored the people who told me that I had "better buy one now". So while it isn't at the top of my acquisition list, I'm going to start researching and shopping. I may also start buying ammo. It's still relatively cheap, and if I don't buy the gun, I can sell the ammo for a tidy sum more than I paid for it in a few years, I'd bet.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
I've been keeping up with the case of Marine Lt. Ilario Pantano (previous posts 1 2 3), and somehow (I guess I ought to read his Mom's website more often, huh?) It seems his Article 32 hearing (roughly the equivalent of a civilian Grand Jury proceeding) was this week.
WorldNet Daily points us to this article which summarizes the week's happenings. I'm heartened that the government's star witness Sgt. Daniel Coburn
abruptly left the stand Wednesday when he was told he was suspected of violating orders prohibiting him from giving interviews about the case. He told Marine officials he wouldn't return unless he was granted immunity from prosecution, and came back briefly Friday only to invoke his right against self-incrimination.
Coburn testified Saturday that he was ordered to return to the stand after he was granted immunity. He spent about seven hours testifying as Gittins relentlessly unveiled inconsistencies within statements Coburn has made to investigators, reporters, his wife and in court.While this is a good thing, remember that military justice, as embodied in the UCMJ, is a very different thing than justice here in civilian-land. Even with this turn of events, and the testimony of some of the other players who tend to support his story, Lt. Pantano is still in legal jeopardy. I'll be watching more closely for developments.