An American expat living in Italy for the last 20 years decided to blog a bit about my last post. Mike said:

"Does that sound a little paranoid to you? It certainly does to me. Where is the line between reasonable precaution which constitute preparedness and over-the-top paranoid delusion? Can planning for every contingency to this degree become a trap for some people which itself diminishes freedom? Or, does it make sense to plan meticulously for the extremely rare event of armed home invasion and the even rarer event of home invasion by a team of commandos?"

I typed up a response for Mike, and thought better of it. Chances are, since he did not have the courage to post a comment on my blog, he would simply delete my comment on his. So, I preserved it here prior to posting it. To wit:

Mike, we all form our opinion of the world around us based on our personal experiences. I do not "prepare for violent contingencies as if a squad of commandos is liable to attack at any moment" as you put it. I prepare for a violent and quick moving encounter that has me behind in the OODA loop. That is much more likely to be one or two criminals than a squad of crack commandos. Regardless, if I am behind on the OODA loop, chances are I will be impaired for life or dead unless I have the means of rapidly reversing the unfolding events.

Mike, the reason why a high school drop out failure at life thug can defeat and put down a well trained college graduate in a violent confrontation is not because he is smarter. It is because he has a plan and he is familiar with human behavior in violent encounters. To be able to survive such a situation, a person can depend on luck, or they can prepare themselves through training and education. To adequately prepare, they must understand the nature of a violent encounter and what their inadequacies are when attacked.

A gun does not protect you Mike. The ability to use the gun swiftly, effectively and decisively are what protects you when you are down to your last option. You will note, however, if you took the time to read before you decided to type out your screed, that I advocate first recognition, then avoidance and evasion of threats. To remain safe, the threat must first be recognized.

The fear of appearing "not normal" leads many people walking around totally unprepared for a violent encounter with a criminal. I do not know if you are a person such as this, or if you are a gun owner who simply believes that having a gun is enough. Honestly, it doesn't matter to me. I do encourage you to become a gun owner if you are not, and get solid, professional training in self defense if you are. Your lack of understanding of the nature of a violent encounter is readily apparent.

I took a look at your sidebar, and I saw "I'm an American expat living in Italy these last 20 years." That about sums it up, doesn't it? I'll put it to you this way Mike. I'm a law abiding citizen of a country where I can carry an effective means of self defense. I chose to do so. Because I do so, I invest the time to learn to use it effectively.

Now you can peck away all the you like about it, but that will not change. Am I paranoid? Are you talking clinically paranoid? Paranoia is a term that delusional people use in a derogatory fashion to describe those better prepared than themselves. It makes them feel more secure as they smugly cite statistics and anecdotes. All the while, people continue to die in violent encounters, while others manage to survive. I encourage you to investigate why some victims survive while others do not.

I'll answer a couple of your questions as well. Have I been a victim? Yes. Did it lead me towards gun ownership? No. I already owned guns. It did lead me towards effective, realistic training.

I recently had a friend, a police officer, die as the result of a violent encounter. He was holding a taser on a criminal instead of his gun. The criminal pulled a gun and shot and killed him before his partner could return fire, or before my friend could transition from his taser to his own gun. Should he have tased the criminal? IMHO, yes. However, he followed his training and went for his own gun when he saw the criminal produce a gun. As a result, he was behind on the OODA loop, was shot and killed.

These encounters happen with breathtaking speed. Training is essential, but more importantly, recognizing and understanding the threat is imperative. It is this aspect of self defense that so many people ignore, and if you had taken the time to read a bit deeper, perhaps you would have found it.

Excessive gun fanaticism? It's a gun blog Mike. Oh, occasionally it gets into photography, bicycles and such, but my core readership is gun owners and those who care about defending themselves if need be. I know my readers, just as you know your readers.

Rather than just address your blog post, I went searching through your blog for your true feelings on guns. I found it, I think, at the end of this post.

"Let me be perfectly clear. My own, extremely biased opinion is there are too many guns in the hands of too many people and something should be done about it."

I should have known. Have a good life Mike. Enjoy your blogging. Goodnight.

Interesting.

A New Target

The City of New York and Mayor Bloomberg are wanting Michael Littlejohn's rifle, but so far he has been able to say ""from my cold, dead hands." According to the Penal Law of New York:

The Penal Law definition of antique firearm is generally applied to muzzle loading black powder firearms, but also applies to pistols or revolvers "that use fixed cartridges which are no longer available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade".

Muzzle loading pistols or revolvers do not have to be registered on a pistol permit if the owner never intends to fire them.

If they are possessed in a loaded condition or are simply possessed simultaneously with the components necessary to make them fire, they must first be registered on a valid pistol permit.

Note: Should a manufacturer begin to produce ammunition for a pistol or revolver for which ammunition had not been available previously, that weapon no longer meets the criteria of an antique weapon and is required to be registered. A pistol or revolver, regardless of age, when possessed with the ammunition necessary to make it discharge, is required to be registered.

So, as long as Mr. Littlejohn does not purchase any black powder or pick up a piece of flint on the street, he appears to be untouchable. That hasn't stopped Mayor Bloomberg from sending out his detectives to harass a legal gun owner in New York.

A flintlock rifle with no powder is no more a threat than a push broom, but hatred of firearms is irrational and runs deep. Contempt of gun owners knows no bounds. If gun owners abide by the law, gun control nuts will simply twist and manipulate the law to try to violate the rights of the gun owner anyway.

For years, the ability to own antique and replica antique firearms has existed unnoticed by New York's gun control activists. No more. When a convicted felon shot State Trooper Amanda Reif with a black powder rifle a few years back, the gun control nuts got out their pitchforks.

Never mind that a convicted felon could not legally own the rifle. Never mind having the rifle in a condition to fire, indeed, owning the rifle in conjunction with gun powder without a license is illegal in New York. In response, the gun control militants have decided to pursue law abiding citizens who legally possess such rifles, investigate them, and trample on their rights. Of course, portraying law abiding citizens as criminals and taking their property is easier than disarming criminals.....

No Guns For Negroes

House Resolution 45

Go here to read the text of H.R. 45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.

An except:

It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license--

‘(A) under title I of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under that title; or
‘(B) pursuant to a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under State law.

‘(36) The term ‘qualifying firearm’--
‘(A) means--
‘(i) any handgun; or
‘(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; and
‘(B) does not include any antique.’.

Contact your congress critters. Now.

Truth

Once again, the testimony of Suzanna Gratia Hupp. Greater truth was never spoken.

BOHICA*

Of course, we knew this already.........From President-Elect Obama's website under Urban Policy:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama 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 who shouldn't have them. 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, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Get ready.

*BOHICA- military acronym for "bend over here it comes again."

Update: The page referenced is now gone the way of the dodo bird. Fortunately, Google remembers.......

An Outlaw's Worst Nightmare

Imagine

This ad refers to a 2003 incident when a Wilmette, Illinois restaurateur named Hale DeMar shot and wounded a burglar who broke into his house. DeMar was prosecuted by the town of Wilmette, which had, at the time, a ban on the possession of handguns. To prevent a reoccurance, Illinois lawmakers introduced legislation to offer legal protections to individuals who use firearms in self defense. The bill passed the Illinois state House by a vote of 86-25, and the Illinois state Senate by a vote of 39-20. Illinois state Senator Barack Obama voted against the bill.

Gun Owners For Obama

Here's your card.

The Second Amendment

Gunbanobama

The NRA Political Victory Fund is in full swing trying to educate gun owners about the stakes in the upcoming presidential election. If you are a gun owner, it is time to start educating yourself, your friends, neighbors and acquaintances. Never has there been a greater threat to the cherished rights of gun owners than the Obama/Biden ticket. Whether you are a lifetime NRA member, or whether you think the NRA has forsaken us all in the past, it's time for all gun owners to come together, and work together to protect the second amendment.

Send your friends to Gunbanobama. Go there yourself. Knowledge is the first step to applying the power of the ballot effectively.

Fact Check

I was reading a letter from John Harmer to the editor of the Baker City Herald. Regrettably, I was not able to respond, as there was no allowance for comments. Here is an excerpt:

"Fact: It is demonstrably untrue to assert that Barack Obama wants to confiscate firearms, a blatant lie.

Fact: Obama, who received the endorsement of the American Hunters and Shooters Association, a non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting hunting and common-sense gun policy, is on record as affirming gun ownership rights."

How about another fact....... The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) is a shill organization involved in advocacy for gun control. The AHSA is a front geared towards dividing second amendment advocates by pointing to AHSA members' bias against private ownership of many popular modern firearms. AHSA leaders have donated money to gun control groups and have ties to individuals and organizations who advocate gun control. Possibly the most damning evidence of the ASHA's collusion with gun control advocates is the statements of Paul Helmke, the President of the Brady Campaign, who says of the AHSA, "I see our issues as complementary to theirs". The AHSA exists only to supply apparent pro-gun credibility to anti-gun policies and legislation........ and anti-gun politicians.

Thanks for the facts. Try again John.

Clinging to Religion and Guns

Guns and God. This is what it may very well come down to in November 2008. Senators Obama and Biden are struggling to act as though their past record as anti-gun politicians is irrelevant. On the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, Obama felt compelled to say "If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it." When he saw skeptics in the crowd, he began pandering and vacillating. "Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress. This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns."

Old news, perhaps, but an examination shows Barak Obama's voting record and his proposals on gun control to be only exceeded by that of his partner, Joe Biden. If Obama had the same influence and length of time in office as Biden, his history on gun control might be even more appalling.

On Jan 15, 2008, at the Democratic debate in Las Vegas, when queried about licensing and registering gun owners as President, Obama stated: "I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen."

Regarding a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois, Barak Obama claimed "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all out ban on handguns."

Actually, Obama's views were clear on a 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit group, Independent Voters of Illinois, asked these simple, direct questions, Obama's answers are in bold:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama's presidential campaign claims a staffer filled out these questionnaires, not Senator Obama. "There are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views," they say. Yet now he makes it clear that he knows he does not have the votes in Congress to do just that. Men who have no intentions of disarming the populace have no need to examine whether they have the political power to do so.

In a 2004 survey conducted by the Chicago Tribune of Democratic primary candidates for the U.S. Senate, Barak Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carry legislation except for law enforcement is needed. Obama elaborated, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." But there is more.......

From the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999:

"Sweeping federal gun control legislation proposed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-13th) would increase the penalties on gun runners who are flooding Chicago's streets with illegal weapons.

At an anti-gun rally held at the Park Manor Christian Church, 600 E. 73rd St., headed by the Rev. James Demus, Obama also said he's backing a resolution being introduced into the City Council by Alds. Toni Preckwinkle (4th), Ted Thomas (15th), Leslie Hairston (5th) to call for a "shot-free" millennium celebration.

Obama outlined his anti-gun plan that includes increased penalties for the interstate transportation of firearms. The maximum penalty now for bringing a gun across the border is 10 years in prison. Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.

He's proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antique" weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms license.

He's also seeking a ban on police agencies from reselling their used weapons even if those funds are used to buy more state-of-the-art weapons for their agencies. Obama wants only those over 21 who've passed a basic course to be able to buy or own a firearm.

He's proposing that all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park. He's also banning the sale of 'junk" handguns like the popular Saturday Night Specials.

Obama is requiring that all people working at a gun dealer undergo a criminal background check. He's also asking that gun manufacturers be required to develop safety measures that permit only the original owner of the firearm to operate the weapon purchased.

Additionally, he wants an increase of the funds for schools to teach anger management skills for youth between the ages of 5-13. Obama is also seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths."

When questioned by the Chicago Tribune in 2007 regarding Heller v District of Columbia, Obama stated the "DC handgun law is constitutional."

A quick synopsis from CNN regarding Obama's record on gun control:

"Voted against a 2005 law prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers stemming from acts committed by others using their products.
Supports instant criminal background checks on people purchasing guns and believes law should apply to gun sales at gun shows. Calls for permanently reinstating assault weapons ban. Voted for 2005 amendment placing restrictions on rifle ammunition that is "designed or marketed" to be armor-piercing. Supports making guns childproof and voted for 2005 child safety lock amendment. Would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which allows the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to share data on history of sales and transfers of firearms used in crimes only with federal agencies for national security purposes, or prosecutors needing it for an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. Regarding the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, Obama did not sign a friend-of-the-court brief that urged the Supreme Court to overturn the District of Columbia gun ban. At a debate, when asked about case, Obama said he believes "that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right." Voted for 2006 amendment prohibiting confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency."

The Washington Times noted:

"In 2000, for example, the NRA mounted a massive direct-mail and TV/radio campaign against Mr. Gore's candidacy and his gun control voting record. Voter exit polls in that election showed that about 48 percent of all voters owned guns that year, up from 37 percent in 1996."

How many Americans own guns in 2008? How many American carry concealed for self defense in 2008? As the 2008 election heats up, it is incumbent on gun owners to avail themselves and others with the facts concerning the greatest threat to gun ownership ever to close in on the White House. Senator Obama said "This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back?"

Yeah, we can hear you in the back Senator. These are damned good reasons not to vote for you. Gun owners have the power to keep Barak Obama and Joe Biden out of the oval office and the power to protect our freedoms. It's time for us to again rise up and be heard.

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." — Winston Churchill

Evanston Capitulates

Evanston Illinois has become the latest Chicago suburb to repeal it's unconstitutional handgun ban. Not surprisingly, it is the NRA's lawsuit against Evanston that brought about the change.

"I find the Supreme Court decision repugnant. [But] this city was facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses," Evanston Alderman Steve Bernstein said. "We'll be better off getting [the ordinance] off the books. We want to put as many restrictions on as we think will pass the Supreme Court muster. We don't want people to have handguns in Evanston, but right now the law is against us. This was pragmatic. We're being sued. It'd be nice to fight for principle but we don't have the money to fight."

Morton Grove Repeals Handgun Ban

In 1981, Morton Grove Illinois, a northern Chicago suburb, banned the possession of handguns. This evening, the Village of Morton Grove Board of Trustees has voted 5-1 to repeal its ban on the possession of handguns in response to District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller.


How ironic, when I go to the village's website, that I should find a photo of the minuteman......

Wilmette Illinois Handgun Ban Dead

Wilmette`s handgun ban is gone. The village board voted Tuesday night 7-0 to repeal the 19 year old ban, after deciding they would get their asses stomped in litigation over whether they had a right to infringe on the Constitution.

Shoot a few rounds at the range for the citizens in Wilmette.

Concealed Carry Permit Holders

Concealed Carry Permit holders.
Law-abiding gun owners.

If you have questions about gun ownership, please visit this website.

Just doing my part.

Thanks Robb.

Agendas and Common Sense

It really came as no surprise to most gun advocates. The US Supreme Court. 5 to 4. The Washington DC gun ban struck down. The second amendment solidly defined as an individual right. ¤POOF¤*˜¨¨ The notion of the right to gun ownership being somehow tied to a militia as a collective right to be enjoyed by National Guardsmen was shot full of holes as surely as an IDPA target in front of Rob Leatham.

What the Supreme Court's ruling on District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller means to gun owners will be up to them. Historically, a biased mainstream media has misinterpreted the second amendment. Gun owners can likewise expect them to misinterpret the meaning of DC v. Heller. Expect them to continue to cling to believing "shall not be infringed" means "walk on me if I do not resist." Even as the Supreme Court's ruling was released, the mainstream media has splashed a video of an anti-gun Presidential candidate's take on the implications of the historic ruling.

"You know, I have said consistently that I believe the second amendment is an individual right, and that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on, and it also recognized that even though we have an individual right to bear arms, that right can be limited by sensible reasonable gun laws," claimed Barack Obama, "The DC law, according to the Supreme Court went too far, and now the key is going to be for us to come together and say people do have an individual right, and there's nothing wrong with common sense gun laws, background checks keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill, and creating what I think is the common sense belief among people that we can uphold our traditions with respect to firearms and prevent the senseless killings that we see on the streets of so many American cities."

Some will say that District of Columbia v. Heller was about Washington DC and the right to own a firearm in the district. Others will say it was about the right to own an assembled firearm in the district. District of Columbia v. Heller was about much more. It has reverberating implications across American society. Expect the Supreme Court's ruling to be painted many different colors, with many different brushes, in the months to come. As politicians are forced to change their platforms, simply to maintain political viability when confronted with the paradox of their unconstitutional stance against the rights of American citizens, their agendas will be exposed. Expect the talking heads of the mainstream media to do the same. Ideas die hard, even wrong ideas. I do not believe that any of them realize just how broad reaching this ruling is. The defining of the meaning of the second amendment, after so many years of debate with those who seek power through oppression, is a reaffirmation of the ideals the United States was founded on. The government is founded for the people, by the people and it serves the will of the people. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment to prevent this ideal from becoming twisted, masquerading as "common sense" and being used against the people.

Common sense to one man is often not common sense to another. Indicative of this is the fact that many people cited the now defunct DC gun laws as common sense laws. Senator Obama is on record as advocating the abolition of the right to own handguns, any handguns, to the point of confiscating them from their rightful owners. He is also on record as advocating the repeal of concealed carry legislation that was hard won across the nation on a state level. Nay.....Senator Obama's common sense is not the common sense shared by commoners. His common sense is the same elitist fear of the common man's ability to depose him from his lofty perch that he sneers at the common man from. His "common sense laws" are only a foil to gain what is on his hidden agenda. That hidden agenda is one of power, control and oppression. But Obama is not alone. His agenda is shared by all who seek to strip the common man of his ability to protect himself. Fortunately, the Supreme Court upheld the common man's right to own and carry a firearm not only for self defense, but also so that he might again rise up against an oppressive government and regain the liberty endowed to all men by their creator. That is the ultimate protection, and the greatest fear of the elitist firearms abolitionist.

More