They're still doing these things? I thought by now common sense had taken over and people realized that "guns for ..." well, anything was nothing but stupidity. Then again, since liberalism still lives, things like this will certainly continue. After all, these "gun exchanges" are a true example of total style over substance.

In this particular article, a person traded in a missile launcher for a pair of sneakers (which YOU paid for). These stupid, taxpayer money wasting events are supposed to "get guns off the streets." Others claim they make the streets safer because there will be less guns on the street. So, how many people honestly think that we're safer because this fellow turned in his rocket launcher? Seriously.

Do you think he was planning on using the darn thing? Do you think he was getting ready to fire at the police station, but at the last minute thought, "gee, I can turn this thing in for a pair of sneakers. I think I'd rather have those!" Incredibly, those people who support these things (and FORCE you to pay for them with your money) actually do.

Instead, do you think it's more likely that this missile launcher had already been used? There's a lot of people that think there was a US Airliner shot down in NY years ago using a missile launcher. What a perfect way to get rid of any evidence against you, huh?

The vast majority of guns that are turned into these stupid events are either broken or tainted. Even having such a system in place gives criminals a perfect way to get rid of any firearm used in a crime without any chance of punishment. What a great system we have, huh?

Gun trade-ins do less than nothing to reduce crime -- instead they're more likely to give people a way to get away with a crime than have someone not commit a crime. But that is classic liberalism -- it feels good, so they do it -- no matter what the real consequences might be.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:09 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

Apparently the Supreme Court in New Hampshire has serious problems with freedom. That's really unfortunate, because New Hampshire is the site of The Free State. Then again, that's why freedom-oriented people (over 400 of them) have already moved to New Hampshire -- to advance freedom, somehow.

However, the recent election of Democrats in NH has definitely slowed the advance of freedom. And now the supreme court there is doing it's part to ensure no one shall be free. They have ruled that people just don't really have that whole right to bear arms. The court seems to think that people have that right, but if government wants to take that right away, that's fine too.

The news article points out the case and makes it more complicated than it really is. However, the article does point out that the court basically ruled that the government IS free to restrict and regulate the "right" to bear arms any time it wants to. Sigh. I guess the word "rights" doesn't actually mean RIGHTS any more. If it's subject to restriction and regulation, then it was never a right to begin with. The whole point of a right is that the government CANNOT remove it. But no longer in NH (although there may be an appeal to the US Supreme Court).

If you want more gory details (with graphic, but accurate word usage), see what Bruce has to say about this horrible, horrible blow to freedom. After all, if the supreme court rules that government can, at will, restrict and regulate anything they want, what was the whole purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? According to the NH Supreme Court, those documents literally mean NOTHING because the government can remove or adjust them any time they want.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.

Once again, a politician illustrates that he is a stupid moron. Sorry, I don't like to call names, but still, Sen. Nicholas Scutari is a stupid moron. Well, more likely he just hates guns and freedom, so he's working hard to destroy them, but in doing so he looks like a stupid moron.

This is yet another stupid Senator that's trying to do something to demonize guns. This time he's trying to ban the sale of toy guns to minors. Yes, adults should be able to buy toy guns because they will be responsible with the molded plastic -- but children, with their billions of dollars of disposable cash, should not be permitted to have plastic things because they might, well, he's not really clear what the kids would do with a plastic toy gun, but whatever it is, Sen. Nicholas Scutari doesn't want them to be doing that.

The bill is quite incomplete. You see, if Sen. Nicholas Scutari wants to stop kids from using toy guns, he's going to have to do more. He's going to have to ban adults giving toy guns to children. You see what Sen. Nicholas Scutari apparently doesn't know is that the vast majority of toys that children have are obtained as GIFTS from parents and others who work for a living (unlike Mr. Scutari). Perhaps he can license kids who want plastic guns, but only if they pass a test.

But even if the bill stops adults from buying those evil pieces of molded plastic, that's not going to be enough. I've often driven home from work and seen children using sticks as toy guns. This bill, if it's really going to stop kids from playing with toy guns, is going to have to ban sticks that are shaped like guns. Perhaps Mr. Scutari can arrange a new government department that can spend their time checking all sticks that fall on the ground for "gun-shapes." Then they can take the "gun-shaped" sticks and put them in a chipper before the children can get their hands on them.

Oh, but that's not quite enough yet. You see the other day I was in a mall and I saw two kids pointing their index fingers at one another and making shooting sounds. If Mr. Scutari wants to really make this bill effective -- if he REALLY wants to stop kids from playing with guns, as is his clear intent -- then we need to start removing children's index fingers and thumbs. I wonder if Mr. Scutari will support a new government program to surgically remove all children's thumbs and index fingers at birth to absolutely ensure that they don't "play with guns."

Sen. Nicholas Scutari is a stupid moron. Only a moron would suggest that "banning" a toy would have any effect on anyone.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:07 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Oh fercryinoutloud. This is going TOO far. What? Are we going to actually have to have a government oversight group to make sure this is done? Kiddie patrol cops? For toys? Damn. Guess this means we have to ban rocks. And rubber bands. And twigs. And all the other natural things that kids play with and make toy weapons out of. (rolling my eyes)

Posted by: Raven at July 12, 2007 10:01 PM (A/eo+)

2 We either have to ban kids or ban stupid moron politicians...

Posted by: Ogre at July 12, 2007 10:47 PM (eS08K)

3 I'll go with the latter. Of course, that would leave about 5.

Posted by: William Teach at July 13, 2007 01:13 PM (doAuV)

4 5? You think that many?

Posted by: Ogre at July 13, 2007 01:55 PM (oifEm)

5 Wasn't there a story a while back about a kid who got suspended for pointing a chicken nugget at another kid & saying "bang!"?

Posted by: Harvey at July 13, 2007 02:06 PM (L7a63)

6 Well, EVERYONE knows how dangerous pointy chicken nuggets are!

Posted by: Ogre at July 13, 2007 02:12 PM (oifEm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The government-run socialist school system continues to brainwash unsuspecting youth. Note this essay by Danielle England and Kori Nunes. They support complete removal of the Second Amendment. Why? Because they don't trust me. I guess since their god, the US government, claims I'm a terrorist, they believe their god and don't trust me. But they really think the world will be safer without guns. Guess they haven't heard about Japan. Good thing they don't have guns and are only beheading and dismembering people.

But this is a result of the government school system. The government run system is telling your children that all guns are bad all the time. They are being told that you cannot trust anyone with a gun because you will kill people. The government run system is pointing out and teaching this vulnerable kids that anyone with a gun, other than government agents, is a bad person. And the kids believe them.

Arm yourselves now, because when these kids get to voting age, they're going to do all they can to disarm you so that only the government will be armed. Of course, the kids are also not taught that every single time that has happened in all of human history, government then starts killing anyone they don't like.

And once again, government schools illustrate their utter worthlessness to a free country.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

This fellow sure was wise beyond his age.

There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism—government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:45 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

Surely this news cannot be true. Fox News is reporting that somewhere between one and eight people have been shot on the campus of VA Tech this morning. I find this very hard to believe and am convinced this must be some sort of conspiracy.

You see, we're told again and again that guns cause crime. And Section V.W.: Weapons of the VT Student Programs Policy clearly states:

Unauthorized possession, storage, control of firearms and weapons on university property is prohibited, including storing weapons in vehicles on campus as well as in the residence halls.

Therefore, this story must be a complete hoax.

Either that, or the Brady Campaign is once again shown to be total idiots who have no idea what they're talking about...

*** Update: Wow. Now they're reporting at least 21 dead. They're reporting that the "shooter" walked from one room to another, shooting at will. They're claiming he had a vest with clips of ammo. Of course, as this develops, details are confusing. For example, they're reporting just one shooter, but that the shooting incidents on opposite ends of the campus are "not related."

Yes, this is an absolutely horrible incident. But I wonder how many more would be alive right now if just one student or teacher had been armed.

Oh, and CNN is already calling it "a lone gunman." I haven't seen anyone directly claiming that it's not terrorist-related, but that statement sure implies it, doesn't it? Nope, nothing to see here folks, move along.

*** Update #2, 1:33PM EST: ABC News has now upped the count of the dead to 29 and rising. So far only one news agency has released anything about the shooter (while most of them actually have the gall to call him the "alleged" shooter) -- and that report says that a student claims it was an "Asian-looking" person. I wonder where that one is going to lead.

In addition, most news sites are already claiming this is the "worst" shooting on a school campus ever and are listing "timelines" with other school shootings. No news report has reported that guns are prohibited by law at VT, nor whether the
"alleged" shooter would have been charged with a crime is he were not dead.

CBS News is, however, complaining that the weapon was a "high-capacity weapon" -- but they don't know what it is. At the same time, NBC is reporting the shooter used "Two 9mm handguns."

*** Update 3, 2:02PM EST. There it is. No one knows any details. They don't know the shooter. They don't know if he's a student. They don't know if he shot himself or if the police shot him. But know what the FBI spokesman Richard Kolko already knows? It wasn't terrorist-related. Nice to know they can figure that out before they even know the identity of the "alleged" shooter, isn't it?

Fox News has updated the number dead now to "at least 32."

*** Update 4, 2:41PM EST. CBS News is now reporting "a young Asian male, used two handguns in the shootings before taking his own life." I guess that will give the Brady folks some ammo to ban guns. MSNBC says the shooter had a 9mm and a .22 cal "gun." And yes, dozens of commenters on the news sites are calling for "banning those evil high-capacity assault rifles" -- which had nothing to do with this event at all -- except that if someone had one in a dorm room, there might be a few less dead today.

*** Update 5, 2:58PM EST. Some comments from random news message boards about the shooting today: "Only in America." Yeah, no one has ever been shot at a school before in any other country. Like Beslan, Russia.

"How many more innocent people have to die before we have sensable gun control." Gee, maybe we should ban guns on campus. Or maybe require a waiting period before this shooter could buy a handgun. Maybe that would help. Or better yet, maybe we should make it against the law to shoot people.

"This is too high a price to pay for the so-called freedom to carry firearms." Yeah, instead we should take all guns away from anyone who might defend themselves. Then this would never happen because this shooter would absolutely be sure to obey the law and would never have done this if it were illegal.

"If this guy did not have guns he could not have killed 22 people and wounded 28." Because I'm sure that if his mind was so warped that he's never use chemicals, a baseball bat, or a knife.

"We're fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq, when there's issues here that has been ignored for too long. Something as tragic as this was almost likely to happen. " There it is! Yes, folks, this mass murder is Bush's fault! You just knew someone was going to blame him, didn't you?

And another: "George Bush has taught our kids that killing is a legal and effective way of getting your way, and gaining power." Bush derangement syndrome just doesn't have a cure, does it?

"I think the Second Amendment is way past its prime. We need to void it, like we did with the Eighteenth Amendment." Yup, no reason that anyone should be capable of resisting the government under any circumstances. Only the government should be armed to keep people in line.

"First thought: Let me guess, RED STATE..."

"just another day in Baghdad and not a particularly bad one either...... if it is only 22 dead." I don't even know what to say to that one.

Strangely enough, there are many comments about people sending their "thoughts and prayers" to those affected by this horrible tragedy. I, indeed, have already been praying about this event. However, I'm not sure that this particular government university is allowed to accept prayers, what with that "wall of separation between church and state."

*** Update 6, 3:23PM EST. A few unconfirmed reports are claiming that the gunman had a fight with his girlfriend the night before; headed to her dorm room and didn't find her there, but shot her roommate; then headed to the building where her first class was, but didn't know which room it was in, so he just started shooting everyone. When cornered, he shot himself.

Totally unconfirmed, but hey, rumors can explain a lot. And I'm not sure anyone is reading this today, anyway...

*** Update 7, 3:49PM EST. ABC News is now running with the headline, "2 Semi-Automatic Pistols." For those who don't understand, that means about 99% of all pistols ever made in history. "Semi-automatic" means that when you pull the trigger, a bullet shoots and another loads. Revolvers from the old west were semi-automatic. I'm not sure I have ever actually SEEN a pistol that wasn't semi-automatic.

*** Update 8 (Last Update today), 5:07PM EST. I really cannot believe all the blaming going on. People (including reporters and students) are blaming the police, the University, the campus police, the NRA, President Bush, guns, America -- and NO ONE is blaming the miserable, EVIL bastard who actually DID THE DAMN SHOOTING. It's not Bush's fault. It's not the police's fault. It's not the university's fault -- IT'S THE ASIAN MALE WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER WHO IS TO BLAME!!!

Posted by: Ogre at 03:47 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 1261 words, total size 7 kb.

Yes, as you read this, Ogre will be away for the day, out teaching young children how to shoot guns. This time it's 7-9 year olds, and I'll be showing them how to shoot targets with BB guns. I'm sure it will be cold (damn algore's man-made global warming), but I'm even more sure it will be lots of fun. And it does remind me of the joke (I know it's not a true story, but it should be):

This is an extract of an National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Army Lieutenant General Reinwald about sponsoring a Boy Scout Troop on his military installation.

Interviewer: "So, LTG Reinwald, what are you going to do with these young boys on their camping trip?"

LTG Reinwald: "We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting."

Interviewer: "Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?"

LTG Reinwald: "I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range."

Interviewer: "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?"

LTG Reinwald: "I don't see how, we will be teaching them proper range discipline before they even touch a firearm."

Interviewer: "But you're equipping them to become violent killers."

LTG Reinwald: "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?"

End of the interview

Posted by: Ogre at 04:02 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I gotta get back to shootin too one of these fine days Ogre! ..last time the shotgun knocked me over..lol

Posted by: Angel at April 16, 2007 03:31 AM (RwDN3)

2 don't you think that children have to be tested by a psychologist before teaching them how to shoot?

Posted by: Sammy at April 16, 2007 07:52 AM (OmPxo)

3 Yeah, shotguns can do that to ya, Angel! And Sammy, I tested them myself (without any training in psychology at all). If they could recite the safety rules, they were good to go! I even had a chance during the discussions about firearms to slip in about how government is evil. That was fun!

Posted by: Ogre at April 16, 2007 11:42 AM (oifEm)

4 tehe, tehe. I'm anxiously waiting until my grandsons are old enough to learn how to handle real guns... even of the BB kind. Not sure why anybody needs psychological testing before learning how to properly handle guns... criminals don't. They don't even care about proper handling or even the legalities of gun ownership ... they just shoot to kill with their illegal guns.

Posted by: Steph at April 16, 2007 12:05 PM (AC9Dc)

5 Guns truly are the great equalizer. Tiny little old ladies can defend themselves against huge men. One person can defend themselves against a group of attackers. And a small, dedicated group can hold off an oppressive government for a long time.

Posted by: Ogre at April 16, 2007 01:24 PM (oifEm)

6 There's a town in FL... can't remember the name of it but the citizens there have full rights to bear arms... at all times. The crime rate there is almost zero. I have yet to figure out how taking guns away from law abiding citizens inhibits crime when the criminals don't care whether the guns they use are legal or not.

Posted by: Steph at April 16, 2007 04:11 PM (AC9Dc)

7 There used to be a place called "America" that allowed that too. But that was when the Constitution was the law of the land.

Posted by: Ogre at April 16, 2007 05:17 PM (oifEm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

When I started reading HR 1096, my jaw dropped. I was honestly shocked that such a bill would even be introduced in the United States House. The title of this bill is "Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007." And it only gets better from there.

Public Law 103-159 is repealed, and any provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF SPORTING PURPOSES DISTINCTION.

SEC. 4. REPEAL OF THE CHILD SAFETY LOCK ACT OF 2005.

Then I re-read the beginning:

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

Posted by: Ogre at 01:07 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

So, are you allowed to defend your own property in America?

No.

Of course, to even consider this question, you have to actually believe you can OWN property in America -- and you simply cannot. If you think you own property, I challenge you to not pay your yearly rent to your Lord and Master and watch how quickly you find yourself arrested and in your own personal 6x8 space.

This time it's Sacramento (what a shock) that has determined that it is a felony to attempt to defend your own property. This case is about a man who was approached by 3 teenagers at 3am at his home.

Now stop right there and imagine that situation. It's 3:00 in the morning. 3 teenagers who you don't know are coming towards you outside your own home. I'm betting they weren't wearing suits and ties. So what are you thinking?

Apparently, these three thugs were trying to steal the man's car. He shot one of the slimeballs in the chest. So, as usual in a land dominated by lefist thought, the car thief goes free and the crime victim goes to jail on a felony charge with a $30,000 bail.

The argument, according to the thugs in Sacramento with blue uniforms is:

What we try to stress to people is that deadly force, the use of a firearm, is never justified under any circumstances to protect property.

Of course, the big mistake made by the man was that he was honest. In today's current legal system in America, being honest will only get you in trouble. You see, if the man had uttered the magical seven words, this would be a completely different situation -- even if they weren't true: "I was in fear for my life."

But that is the reality of today's horrible, degenerate, backwards "civilization" in America: the guilty are free, crime victims are punished, and being honest with the "authorities" only makes things worse. Oh, how I yearn for freedom.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:02 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Ogre - Texas recently approved "the castle doctrine" which clearly states that no one in the state has a "duty to retreat" before using deadly force. Unfortunately, in this situation, it would not apply, as it states the only time I (as a Texan) can use my firearm (and I own one, have a license to carry it, I do carry it, know how to use it, and so on, cold dead hands, you know) can use "force" to protect my home/car/business is if I am in it, and am in fear for my life. One good piece of advice to anyone. If approached by thieves/idiots/wackjobs/whatever, IF you use your weapon, EMPTY THE CLIP and keep pulling the trigger until the gun is PRIED FROM YOUR HANDS! Trust me, you probably will anyone, but this only re-enforces the view of "being in fear", but if you are in fear, you'll do just what I said above. Also, remember, you did not draw and use your weapon to kill the attacker, you were only trying to "stop the attack", remember that line!

Posted by: Smokey at April 08, 2007 03:30 AM (FP0+7)

2 It's a shame that you have to give instructions to follow in order to avoid being punished for defending yourself. And TX now requires a "license" to exercise 2nd amendment rights? Things are worse than I thought.

Posted by: Ogre at April 08, 2007 11:40 AM (1gBFf)

3 A cop friend of mine suggested the same thing. I remember a few years back when I found out about personal property tax - where if you have anything of value (cars, art, jewels, etc) in certain states they can even thax that on a yearly basis. I was in total shock. (*)>

Posted by: birdwoman at April 09, 2007 12:04 AM (Sc2Wh)

4 NC has personal property taxes. They're crushing. But yes, the magic words that should come with every firearm sale, are "I was in fear for my life." At 6'1 and 200lbs, that's harder for me to pull off than most women.

Posted by: Ogre at April 09, 2007 12:12 AM (1gBFf)

5 At least while I lived there, in TX you could shoot people who were running away with your property. Threat to you over...but they had no right to your property and you had the right to do what was necessary and within your power to do in order to recover that property. And Ogre, don't you think you could pass yourself off as a 6'1, 200lb compassionate type, prone to fearing for your life when people say, "boo?" The big teddy bear type?

Posted by: Dana at April 09, 2007 04:55 AM (GqmxR)

6 That's how it ought to be, Dana, but more and more I'm seeing that's not the case any more. Deadly force is simply not permitted in a liberal society by anyone -- well, except for government representatives because they know better. And I can go for the "Teddy Bear" look, but I have a hard time selling it...

Posted by: Ogre at April 09, 2007 10:57 AM (oifEm)

7 i have had to draw my weapon twice in my life, the first time was to stop a fleeing inmate that had jumped the fence at the county jail and was running down the sidewalk still in his jumpsuit... the CO that took my statement threatened to have me put in jail for improper display of a firearm... the second time was oddly similar to the above mentioned story.. i was approached in a parking lot by two black "youths" at around 2 AM... i had a giant yellow "rob me" sign on top of my car (pizza delivery) and it was very apparent from the way they were walking that they weren't selling Girl scout cookies... they were intelligent enough to back off once they saw that i was armed, but things could have turned out much differently... i will say this much... i have enough experience with my carry weapon that it would have only taken my first two shots to down both of them... but you can bet your ass that i would have emptied all my rounds in their direction... the first thing i was taught in weapons training is that a person in fear for their life never fires just one shot... the second thing i learned is that a person in fear for their life never has all his rounds hit their target.... i bought my handgun because of my profession and the fact that i was commonly carrying upwards of $600 in cash after 2 am in areas that were rather unsafe... but when i bought the weapon, i made sure that i knew how to use it... i spent hours at the range and went through over 5000 rounds of ammo before i would carry it... i knew that i had to be able to draw blind and hit my target every time or it wasn't something that i needed to carry... most importantly i knew that it wasn't a toy and that its sole purpose was to stop a very bad situation from getting worse... just before i bought it, one of my co-workers was pistol-whipped and robbed at gunpoint, and the robber took his wallet... i was determined that no one would get my identification and my home address that easily... unfortunately a lot of states have very draconian gun laws that require law abiding citizens to jump through hoops that most criminals don't bother with... the one that i think is the most ridiculous are the laws against assault rifles/automatic weapons... as if the guy that robs the local gas station is going to use a $9,000 gun to do it... 98% of all gun crime happens with a weapon that costs less than $300... but for some reason they ban the ones that cost a small fortune...

Posted by: chris at April 09, 2007 01:21 PM (rBjHa)

8 Excellent, and accurate, points! I drew a gun once myself. I had just closed the local Quick-E-Mart at 2am and was in the parking lot, alone. A very loud and boisterous group of "youths" crossed the (very busy 4-lane) street when they saw me walking to my vehicle. One of them smashed a bottle on the ground (of malt liquor) as they got closer. I tell you, it's just amazing the power the sound of a semi-auto shotgun chambering a round can have. I don't know the last time I've seen people scatter and run like that. Would I have shot them? I was outnumbered about 6-1. I would have emptied the gun. Very unfortunately, the only survivors would have been those that ran quickly. And very fortunately, they chose to run!

Posted by: Ogre at April 09, 2007 01:36 PM (oifEm)

9 you aren't lying... there is something about the sound of a pump action shotgun cocking that makes people see things your way... its amazing how quickly people re-think their stance on an issue

Posted by: chris at April 09, 2007 02:06 PM (rBjHa)

10 And it's amazing how many people can so quickly and easily recognize that sound...

Posted by: Ogre at April 09, 2007 02:38 PM (oifEm)

11 even people that have never in their life even fired a gun know that sound... its odd

Posted by: chris at April 09, 2007 02:56 PM (rBjHa)

12 I bet Democrat politicians know that sound, too...

Posted by: Ogre at April 09, 2007 02:59 PM (oifEm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If you were watching the national news last weekend, you probably missed some of the biggest news regarding gun rights, well, in a VERY long time. You see, the typical anti-gun press (CBS, ABC) completely ignored this gigantic ruling. Only NBC actually covered the decision (even if it was followed up with strong criticism of the decision).

The decision was that the second amendment was found Constitutional. This is the first time that has been the case in a very, very long time.

Most gun cases you see or read about hinge on other factors -- usually technicalities, wordings, economics, etc. But this case was argued on just the one factor -- the defense basically was just one line: I have the right to own a firearm based on the second amendment to the Constitution.

Most legal experts refused this case. The NRA didn't want to touch this one. NO ONE wanted a ruling on the second amendment because once it was ruled on those grounds, this would affect guns laws around the country. Almost no government ban of firearms would be able to stand under this decision.

So, of course, the liberals in DC are appealing the case. First it goes to the entire appeals court, and then it will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court (no matter which way the entire court rules). The only way this can really get sidetracked now is if the majority of the appeals court can get with the lunatic opinion of one judge who actually claimed that the Constitution doesn't apply to DC because they're not a state. Any other option will either firmly prove in judicial opinion one way or another: either individuals have a right to bear arms or they don't.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:06 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

1 second amendment was found constitutional..since when do we follow the Constitution anymore?..lol hey Ogre..I tried to copy and paste some of your article but u seem to have coded that out because I couldnt..

Posted by: Angel at March 13, 2007 05:50 PM (9Ky3J)

2 That's why this is such big news! Because a judge actually ruled that we CAN follow the Consitution! I don't know why you can't copy and paste, I don't have anything coded to stop you.

Posted by: Ogre at March 13, 2007 05:52 PM (oifEm)

3 yeah that is huge, although it was interesting to note that the dissenting judge remarked that the states rights didn't apply to the district because it wasn't a state... now all we can hope for is that states pass laws like Oklahoma where it is illegal for companies to tell their employees that they cannot have firearms in their cars...

Posted by: chris at March 13, 2007 06:06 PM (rBjHa)

4 Wasn't that judge certifiable? I bet the residents of DC would be rather surprised to find out they don't have ANY rights. And it's also weird to think that this judge likely thinks the legal residents of DC aren't protected by the Constitution, but I bet she thinks the illegal criminals who keep invading America are.

Posted by: Ogre at March 13, 2007 06:11 PM (oifEm)

5 I forget the original reasoning on DC not being a "state". It may have made sense then, it no longer does...but then I hate folks messing with the constitution, so I guess I'll pipe down.

Posted by: DagneyT at March 13, 2007 09:16 PM (AAEEI)

6 DC isn't a state. In no way, shape, or form should it EVER be considered a state. That would be a really bad move. But it's still part of the United States -- the capital. So the Constitution applies.

Posted by: Ogre at March 13, 2007 09:46 PM (kft0e)

7 isnt there some ruling that the DC representatives in the house and senate aren't allowed to vote on bills or something like that?

Posted by: chris at March 14, 2007 03:17 PM (rBjHa)

8 Correct. They have a representative in the House who just gets paid to sit and watch everyone else (and complain).

Posted by: Ogre at March 14, 2007 03:21 PM (oifEm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Apparently blogless Chris mentioned Gun Watch (a blog site) in response to my post about good gun news. It's a nice site:

Monitoring people's right to effective self-defence..

Posted by: Ogre at 04:10 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

It's nice to hear some good news now and again. And it's good news when guns are used for their purpose: to defend one's self. In New Mexico, three criminals were shot dead by homeowners defending themselves. The article also lists various other uses of guns across the country by law-abiding citizens who simply wanted to live.

In each case, a criminal was trying to either kill or deprive a citizen of their inalienable rights. Now if the citizens did as the anti-gun people suggest, run away and call the police, they would have lost their property and may have lost their lives. In no case would the police have actually been able to stop the criminal in the act because the police were not there! And that's not the purpose of police (to stop crimes) -- their job is to come in AFTER the crime.

In addition, if the citizens had fled, the criminals would not only have taken from those citizens, but would also still have been free to continue on and deprive others of their life, liberty, or property. These citizens should be heralded as heros and hailed as good for the community because they have done what the police and criminal justice system in this country cannot do any more: they have stopped criminals from repeating their crimes.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:41 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 1 kb.

Well why not? You see, everywhere else this has been tried it has worked. My only complaint about this proposal is that the legislature wants to "ensure the teachers are properly trained" -- and that will just turn into another bloated government program.

You see, if you're a lunatic, but you want to attack people, where is the safest place in America to do so? Yes, in the schools! There are dozens and dozens of laws on the local, state, and federal books that ensure that every single person you will find anywhere near a school will be unarmed! There's nowhere else you can find that is so perfectly safe for a criminal!

Israel had a problem with terrorists in schools a few decades ago. But when is the last time you heard of a school being attacked there? A very long time ago. Why? Because all parents and teachers are permitted to be armed. Therefore, the terrorists now know that one of the most dangerous places to be, if you're a terrorist, in Israel is the school. Wouldn't that be nice to have in America? I wouldn't mind going someplace that was considered SAFE instead of a place that is 100% guaranteed to be safe FOR CRIMINALS.

Hey, here's a radical new concept that hasn't been tried in a long time: freedom! Let's allow people to have some freedom to do what they want to? And then hold anyone responsible for their actions. Yes, it's a radical, strange idea, but it has worked every time it's been tried throughout history.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:02 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Today is indeed a good day. I just bought one of these:

And know what? The Democrats couldn't stop me.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:12 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Very nice! I'm jealous.

Posted by: Always On Watch at July 15, 2006 06:24 PM (Ffvoi)

2 HEY, that's nice! I want one too. Can I come help you test it? I'll bring food and iced tea for while we are out, and beer/sammiches for after.

Posted by: Smokey at July 15, 2006 09:15 PM (DiOns)

3 Come on over! If you're bringing all that, I'll spring for a pile of clays!

Posted by: Ogre at July 15, 2006 09:32 PM (o2crh)

4 No Democrat would want to stop you from buying THAT you stupid idiot. I'll say it again, there are as many Democrats that want to ban guns like that one as there are Republicans who want to bomb abortion clinics and think Jesus will be proud of them. Personally, I always preferred my double barrel, if you can't hit it with one shot, modified or full choke, then you shouldn't be shooting.

Posted by: Robert P at July 15, 2006 11:25 PM (ahl/o)

5 Wrong yet again. Here is one big list of Democrats who would do anything they could to stop me from buying this gun: Akaka (D-HI), Boxer (D-CA), Clinton (D-NY), Dodd (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Levin (D-MI), Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Schumer (D-NY)

Posted by: Ogre at July 15, 2006 11:27 PM (o2crh)

6 So you got one. Now think about it. Your neighbor also has one. So has the guy down the street. To make sure you are always on top, better buy one for the misses also. Feel safe already? I bet it was pretty expensive. By the way, do you have kids? If so, better tell 'm not to play with it. How many people are killed by guns in the US every year? Is that higher or lower than Honduras?

Posted by: richard at July 16, 2006 01:17 PM (ORbHW)

7 And it's not the Democrats that should have stopped you. Your mum should have.

Posted by: richard at July 16, 2006 01:19 PM (ORbHW)

8 Yup, I do feel safe. I've used one similar to this to protect myself before and it worked. And no one had to die, either -- especially me. How many people die in car accidents a year in the US? Is that higher or lower than in Liechtenstein?

Posted by: Ogre at July 16, 2006 01:35 PM (o2crh)

9 Welcome aboard the Hillbilly Ecosystem!!!

Posted by: butch at July 16, 2006 05:04 PM (lRmHb)

10 Thank you! I think this was indeed a good post to start out with for that one, eh?

Posted by: Ogre at July 16, 2006 06:05 PM (o2crh)

11 Mmmmm, gun pr0n! Hey, Ogre... The Beloved Husband and I are kinda-sorta starting to look for a good shotgun. It's going to have to be something *I* can handle, but also some proper stopping power. So, any suggestions for a gun which would be a good compromise? -- Kat www.CatHouseChat.com

Posted by: Kat at July 16, 2006 07:58 PM (qUL/P)

12 They call this one the "defender" for a reason. This one has an 18-inch barrel (the shortest legal length), so it's not very heavy. It's a 12-gage, so you can get about any load in it. Best of all, it's a pump and every single bad-guy on the planet knows that sound. Unfortunately, this one is a Winchester, and from what I understand, they're not making them any more. It might take a little looking to find one of these.

Posted by: Ogre at July 16, 2006 08:07 PM (o2crh)

13 Oh, and Richard, my husband and I *DO* have a child. We also live in the country, where guns are the norm. THEREFORE, I am a responsible parent and give our child solid training in how to handle a gun, and WHEN TO GET OUT if someone *else* is handling a gun improperly. I don't keep my child away from all possibility of harm: I train her to threat assess and make wise and informed decisions. Ultimately, when she's out of my supervision, she will have been trained in the skills to avoid and manage trouble, instead of encountering bad situations with no preparation at all. I plan to raise an ADULT, not an eternally co-dependent, whining baby who can't take care of itself. -- Kat www.CatHouseChat.com

Posted by: Kat at July 16, 2006 08:09 PM (qUL/P)

14 I actually had fun in the store I was in where I bought the gun. When I was waiting for all the federal paperwork, a kid came up to me and asked me a question. I explained exactly how the gun worked and showed him how to chamber a round. (With his parent's permission, of course)

Posted by: Ogre at July 16, 2006 08:12 PM (o2crh)

15 In the infamous words of that ignoramous George W. Bush: "Just wait."

Posted by: Len at July 16, 2006 11:56 PM (QpPFe)

16 For what?

Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 12:00 AM (o2crh)

17 Nice amigo. Nice.

Posted by: Big White Hat at July 17, 2006 02:21 AM (0/c8m)

18 Looks like a fun addition (or start of) your collection! Yeah, teach your kids that it's not a toy and treat is just as you would anything else in the house that could harm them. I laugh in the face of everyone who says that guns are too dangerous to have in a house with kids, but think nothing of buying household chemicals. Niether are more dangerous than the other, but you can't convince short-sighted people of that. FACT: in 2003 there were 102 accidental deaths of kids 0-17 in the United States. FACT: that same year, there were 287 accidental poisonings in the same age group. :: source: CDC Website: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html ::: Go ahead and play with the site for awhile, it is fun and informative!! ;~D

Posted by: ParaTed2k at July 17, 2006 03:07 AM (ngLJ+)

19 Gun Porn, Gun Porn, Gun Porn, I love Gun Porn. I am green with envey. The Winchester Defender is nice.

Posted by: Michael at July 17, 2006 04:04 AM (W0Vxv)

20 Thanks, everyone. ParaTed2k, you're dead on. Exactly right -- and it's a nice addition to a collection that's starting to outgrow it's own display case... It's my first pump shotgun, but not my first shotgun. Next on the dream shopping list is a .45-cal level action rifle -- just because they're neat.

Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 08:52 AM (o2crh)

21 "If gun kill people then spoons made Oprah fat." "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun."

Posted by: The Reckoning at July 17, 2006 12:37 PM (mQauu)

22 Og: Looks like an excellent home defense weapon. Do you load your own? I heard of a guy who kept his "progressively" loaded: rubber pellets, half-bird, full-bird, buck. He figured that gave him license to unload freely with built-in warning shots and not worry about killing anyone -- at first.

Posted by: JAT at July 17, 2006 01:53 PM (dH2ZC)

23 No, I don't load my own. But I used to keep mine loaded that way, too. However, in today's legal society, it's acutally worse for the perp to survive injured. Mine is loaded with buck shot and slugs. The only warning the scum gets is the sound of the pump chambering a round.

Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 01:58 PM (/k+l4)

24 Ogre, Show me one fact that suggests those Dems would want to stop you from buying a pump shotgun. One fact. I might be wrong, just show me the fact. Not some talking point from the NRA, just a fact. Not about street sweepers or automatic weapons, a fact about pump shotguns. Just one.

Posted by: Robert P at July 17, 2006 06:46 PM (5swqh)

25 Their vote opposing the government being allowed to seize and confiscate weapons at will.

Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 07:01 PM (/k+l4)

26 Oh, and the magazine capacity is "too large" for them -- votes re: weapon bans.

Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 07:02 PM (/k+l4)

27 And let's not forget Feinstein, in referring to this exact gun: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate...for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it!"

Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 07:31 PM (/k+l4)

28 Uhmmm, which vote was it that would have allowed the government to seize and confiscate weapons at will? How many shots does that short barrel allow? Can't be more than five, right? Can you link to the Feinstein quote where she said that about this gun. To recap: 1. There was no vote to ban hunting rifles and shotguns, like this one, ever. 2. Your shotgun might have an unbelievable capacity to hold ammo, but in general there is no vote to ban shotguns that hold a reasonable amount of ammo. 3. There MIGHT be one quote from ONE Democrat saying it was okay to ban this gun.

Posted by: Robert P at July 17, 2006 07:44 PM (5swqh)

29 That was the vote that failed in the Senate last week. I mentioned it here: http://ogresview.mu.nu/archives/186094.php I can get six in the barrel. That's "too many" Feinstein's quote is common, general knowledge, search the internet and it will come up quickly. It was about 1994. And yes, if I put the dreaded "pistol grip" on this gun, it would fit in that category of "evil assault weapons." They were banned, even if you deny that. The Democrats listed hate guns, period. You don't have to admit it for it to be true. You can like shotguns all you like, but Schumer and Feinstein are staunch absolute haters of ANY firearm in my hands, ever, under any circumstances.

Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 07:53 PM (/k+l4)

30 Holy cow. I just realized something while driving home. Robert P, you actually believe what you're typing. You're not just being a pain or a troll, you honestly believe that Schumer, Feinstein, Clinton, and others actually don't want to ban guns! Wow. I'm amazed at the incredible, willful ignorance you have to employ to have those beliefs. I guess that's why those people keep lying -- people like you actually believe them.

Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 09:48 PM (o2crh)

31 That's funny because I am constantly amazed that you buy the right-wing talking points like "Democrats want to take away your guns, burn your bible, and turn you all into homosexuals." But, I guess that is why large corporations keep telling the right-wing spokespeople to spout those lies, because people like you buy them. Did you notice that once again you can't prove any facts to back up what you said? See, when I make an argument, I can provide facts. You can't. That means, wait for it, YOU ARE WRONG. Your talking points are just that, talking points. Lies, exaggerations. If you can't back them up with independent verification, then it's a lie.

Posted by: Robert P at July 17, 2006 11:22 PM (ahl/o)

32 p.s. Yes Democrats and most sportsmen with a brain want to ban street sweepers, true assault rifles, and Saturday night specials. Yes, we think people should have to register their guns. NO, it's not so they can be taken away some day (what a stupid talking point). And, yes there are some Democrats that want all guns banned (as in some foreign countries). That is NOT at all a "Democratic" position, just as murdering doctors that carry out emergency abortion is a "Republican" position. They are both extremists positions that will never see the light of day. You are welcome to fight that battle since I don't agree with it either. Of course, it is a HUGE waste of time, but that seems to be what your leaders want you to do. So, go about it, mindlessly, carelessly, stupidly.

Posted by: Robert P at July 17, 2006 11:26 PM (ahl/o)

33 Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're not facts. In your dream world, you clearly make up your own facts. But here in the real world, facts are facts. You once seemed capable of intelligent conversation, but I'm going to have to go with the initial reaction to your insanity-laced rants: you're a raving lunatic who wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the face.

Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 11:53 PM (o2crh)

34 Wow. It's funny, it's like we're Superman and Bizarro. We could not be more complete polar opposites. I think the psychologists are correct, we are completely locked into our beliefs and nothing the other one says makes any difference. I see you as just another Kool-aid drinker, who believes whatever they are TOLD and never looks for independent verification. But, maybe that is just because I am a scientist and I don't take anything for granted. I insist on facts and verifiable information.

Posted by: Robert P at July 18, 2006 12:04 AM (ahl/o)

35 Sure, you look for facts -- facts in bizarro world. You believe only what you want, period. Anything that conflicts with your world is simply not true in your mind. It's scary that I can provide you with facts and they have absolutely no effect on you. Instead, you go into some wacko rant that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've posted, the current post, or anything I've ever said or believed. I could provide you with scientific evidence of how and why the sky is blue and you'd complain that I hate homosexuals and want to destroy all the rainforests. Yes, insanity is scary.

Posted by: Ogre at July 18, 2006 12:11 AM (o2crh)

36 Oh, my God. Okay, I give up on you. I do think you are intelligent. I just think you want to be one of the sheeple and do whatever Newt and gang tell you to do. Dear readers, if you look back through you will find one link in all of Ogre's rantings, linking back to another of his rants. He has no facts or else he would show them. He only knows what Rush, Sean, and Rove tell him. Bye, bye Ogre. Someday we'll be at the same bar watching football, downing beer, eating jalapeno poppers and frieds and never even know we hate each other.

Posted by: Robert P at July 19, 2006 12:54 AM (ahl/o)

37 Thank you for so eloquently proving my point. Still don't get it? Watch once again: Hey Robert P., the sky is blue. No, I don't have any links. Therefore, in Robert P's world, the sky isn't blue because I said it was. Bye, Robert. Perhaps one day you will join the rest of us in the real world -- but I doubt it because it so conflicts with the imaginary world in which you live.

Posted by: Ogre at July 19, 2006 09:07 AM (o2crh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Since two children in Florida started a fire that has burned more than 1,500 acres, the ONLY logical solution is to ban fires. We need an investigation to determine how those kids got access to fire. We need to register all fires. We need to make it a crime to leave matches or lighters where children can reach them. We must make child-proof safety locks on all matches to ensure that children cannot use them. We should pass laws banning the possession of fire by anyone under the age of 21. We need to ensure only federally licensed dealers (who pay large fees) are permitted to sell matches. We need to ban large-capacity matchbooks -- for the children, of course.

While this may seem silly, it is just as silly as all the above arguments when applied to firearms. Seems to me like fire is a whole lot more dangerous than firearms if two kids can destroy 1,500 acres...

Posted by: Ogre at 01:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

Andrew Marra, writer at the Palm Beach Post is reporting that guns are traveling throughout the community, attacking people at will! Beware, people, guns are attacking people!

Fed-up Riviera Beach leaders, troubled by a recent spurt of assault-rifle attacks that left an innocent bystander dead last week

But that's ok, because the city officials have a plan. They can solve this problem of weapons assaulting people. Are you ready? Pay attention people, for if guns ever jump up and start attacking you, this may be the solution you need to save your life:

"We think we ought to be able to say we don't want handguns in this community," City Manager William Wilkins said.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:05 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

On Saturday the people of Florida will have a very basic right restored to them that had been taken away by the courts of the state. I only hope other states will follow this example and stop taking away rights of individuals.

At issue is the "force with force" law. Previous to this law going into effect, if you were attacked or threatened by a criminal, you were required, by law, to retreat, and you were not allowed to defend yourself. If you defended yourself against a violent attack, you could be arrested for attacking, too.

Fortunately, that all is about to change. The new law will actually allow citizens to use force to defend themselves when they are attacked. It is an excellent law, and should be simple common sense -- but the courts in Florida removed all common sense and made criminals out of victims and victims out of criminals.

The wack-jobs that oppose freedom, as might be expected, are yelling and screaming, and trying to discourage people from traveling to Florida. To show their ignorance, people like Representative Eleanor Sobel (Democrat Loon from Hollywood, FL) said:

We're the wild, wild West and I think criminals will abuse it

In addition, it shows the incredibly warped liberal mindset. Did you catch that part? "Criminals will abuse it." So if you're a criminal, which is someone who breaks the law, then you will use force to defend yourself when attacked, and that's abusing the law. Am I the only person left on the planet that actually knows that a "criminal" is someone who ALREADY breaks the law?

Nice job, Florida.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:01 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I am so with you!!!

Posted by: Angie at September 30, 2005 12:31 PM (pjdag)

2 I posted on this earlier today and just updated with a link to you here - can't get trackback to work, tho'. And the blogroll hasn't updated all day, so thought I'd add a comment here!

Posted by: leftbrainfemale at September 30, 2005 03:24 PM (M7kiy)

3 Yipeee! Florida did something right... good thing we didn't have any chards.

Posted by: vw bug at September 30, 2005 06:44 PM (J3xJ9)

4 They've done big articles on that here... I read all the pros and cons and the cons made me shake my head. This whole 'return to the wild wild west' attitude just renders me speechless. Idiots. Really. I'm very excited about this new law... you come in my home to harm me or my family... you die. Period. It is my right to protect myself and my family and we will do so. Everyone *I* personally know is happy about this law. I think they had to dredge up these naysayers. I don't personally know any and I don't run in strictly conservative circles.

Posted by: Bou at September 30, 2005 11:17 PM (5JHEt)

5 Every step forward is a surprise. Thanks for the post. Allan

Posted by: Allan at October 01, 2005 12:40 AM (C/dUM)

6 There has got to be some law of Conservation of Socialist idiocy. Check out this post on the wilful rejection of the will of the public in the EU: http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/index.php/blog/individual/dutch_didnt_reject_constitution/

Posted by: Tom at October 01, 2005 01:53 AM (5NkvP)

7 I may have to move to Florida.

Posted by: David Earney at October 01, 2005 10:16 AM (1douf)

8 Some 34 new laws went into effect today in Florida, but this one is the most important by far, IMO. I think Texas has had this sort of thing in place for quite some time...

Posted by: pam at October 01, 2005 09:45 PM (l6NIn)

9 Every now and then someone gets one right, and I like to point it out. Here in North Carolina, the opposite is true -- you must run. If you shoot someone in your doorway, you're likely to be charged with murder -- even if they were breaking in your house with intent to kill you.

Posted by: Ogre at October 02, 2005 07:37 PM (iJFc9)

10 I just saw the funniest poster about this, too. http://cube47.blogspot.com/2005/09/anti-gun-propaganda.html#comments beware! Beware! BEWARE! of going to florida, where people now will shoot at you just for looking at 'em funny... (*)>

Posted by: birdwoman at October 03, 2005 11:53 AM (vR7Sl)

11 Oh yes, that's part of the anti-gun propaganda team at work!

Posted by: Ogre at October 03, 2005 11:59 AM (/k+l4)

12 I thought that stuff only existed in liberal socialist contries in Europe. Can't believe that happened in Florida.

Posted by: Shotgun Shells Conasure at November 08, 2005 03:25 PM (sxO+3)

13 Shotgun, I hate to break you the news, but the United States is pretty much a liberal socialist country today.

Posted by: Ogre at November 09, 2005 04:49 AM (7PCNv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I've previously mentioned a time or two about how I believe government has gone way out of control in response to Katrina. I've specifically mentioned how severely wrong it is to remove basic rights of people because of flooding. Finally, there's at least one federal court that is actually attempting to slow the tyrants.

I haven't seen any news stories about this in the major media outlets -- and I'm not really surprised -- this is one way a media bias can be shown, by not covering certain news items and events. The Washington Times does have the story.

In a recap, the government in New Orleans decided that they wanted to take all guns from all private citizens, rendering the second amendment null and void. The NRA finally got off their collective rears and screamed in federal court. The U.S. District Court for Eastern Louisiana agreed and issued a retraining order to stop authorities from stealing private citizens' weapons on a whim.

There really is no excuse for taking weapons from houses that are locked up, or ones in which the person is actively defending themselves from looters. This stealing of weapons by the government is like the police walking up to a fight between a homeowner and a looter and trying to take the guns away from the homeowner.

People, police are not responsible for your individual safety -- courts have ruled that way again and again. YOU are responsible for your safety -- the police are responsible for general public safety and are charged with responding AFTER lawbreaking, not before. You need to protect yourself, you are responsibly for yourself, and you should have the tools to do so. Thanks to this federal court, the people in Louisiana do...at least for now.

(Linked to Cao's Open Trackbacks).

Posted by: Ogre at 09:23 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, I've finally gone and done my shooting for the e-Postal Handgun Match #1. The official results? I stink. Next time I'm using a shotgun.

The first round I fired one of my favorites, and a gun I'm normally really good with - a Makarov 9mm (9x1 . It's small and thin, so I usually use it as my primary carry gun - I can take it pretty much anywhere. My results (20 shots at 10 yards):

(Click to Enlarge)

Yikes. This was my SECOND try. I knew others said it would be hard, but damn. I thought I'd get 10 for sure. My score? 5. The first time I only got 3 of the damn flies. Bleh. Well, at least all 20 shots are in the paper, I suppose.

Next up I tried my .357 Magnum. Big cannon of a gun with massive recoil. Tons of fun to shoot, of course. I love the "deer stopper" ammo -- .357 magnum overstuffed with powder -- huge flames literally shoot out the sides of the gun about 2 feet on each side. I thought using a larger bullet might up my chances:

Nope. Same thing: 3 flies on the first round, 5 on the second. Again, all rounds in the paper, so if you're charging me, I think I'm still going to hit you, but man this was hard. Fun! But hard!

So anyway, I'm submitting my massive scores to the match master for official scoring. I can see a last place coming up soon...but if you haven't tried this, go read the rules and give it a shot!

Posted by: Ogre at 04:01 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

Want to enter a shooting competition across the blogosphere? It sure sounds interesting to me! Mr. Completely is sponsoring a "handgun e-Postal series" competition.

He provides a link to a target that you download, rules for the shoot, including range, caliber, and instructions. Next you go shoot. When you're done, you take a picture or scan of the target and sent it to him. He will post the scoring results after the deadline -- August 8.

I don't know about you, but I have GOT to find time to get to the range and participate in this one!

Posted by: Ogre at 07:02 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.