One couldn't wish for a more suitable punishment.

I find it another example of "Darwin Rules" that idiots would actually storm a GUN SHOP! But that's exactly what happens in this "Well Armed Americans" vignette. [Link] Sadly, one of the owners died, but three of the criminals were severely wounded.

On the afternoon of January 9, numerous robbers allegedly stormed a Shawnee, Kansas' "She's A Pistol" gun store; three were shot and left in critical condition. According to Kansas City's KCTV 5, the incident took place 2:30 p.m. local time. The male co-owner of the business, his wife, and the other co-owner were all in the business when the robbers came in. The male co-owner was shot and three of the robbers were shot. Of the four total, three were listed in critical condition.

He died defending his wife and employees. All in all, a victory for the brave John Biecker, one most men would be willing to accept in defense of our beloved ones. Raise a drinking horn Valhalla for me, John.

One would think Texas would be the one state where gun rights rule, but it isn't. However, Governor Abbot is preparing to move Texas forward—maybe not to Constitutional carry, but at least to adding open carry to the rights permitted to Texans. [Link]

The Texas state Senate has given final approval to Senate Bill 17, a measure that would allow Texans to carry handguns openly in a shoulder or belt holster. The bill passed on a 20—10 vote, with yes votes from every Republican and no votes from every Democrat, except the one who was absent. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has been a vocal supporter of the measure.
"Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, was the only senator to speak against the legislation on Tuesday, a day after the proposal was hotly debated before it was given tentative approval. Whitmire said the bill would be a "great mistake."
The measure by Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, would join Texas with most other states in authorizing open carry of handguns—as long as the person has a state handgun license. Currently, about 826,000 Texans have a concealed handgun license, nearly 3 percent of the state's population.
The bill would be effective on Jan. 1, 2016. Texans can already carry long guns, like rifles, openly. Estes said Texans with handgun licenses "have been vetted and trained, and can decide what is best for them. I have great confidence in our license holders that they will do the right thing." "

Note that the bill STILL requires one to purchase permission from the state prior to exercising your 2nd Amendment rights, so this is by NO MEANS a perfect solution. But it IS a step in that direction.

It seems to me that this is proof that carrying might well protect you from this asinine "Knock Out" game that is still running rampant. Link. After all, "players" in the "game" don't actually want to risk their OWN health and safety in order to "play.

On July 31, a Neptune Beach 15-year-old walked up on a man who was alone, minding his own business. The teenager asked the man if he had a Glock. The man, confused, told the boy that he wasn't carrying a weapon. That was all the teenager needed to hear. He punched the stranger in the face, making him the latest victim of the "knockout game," a dangerous pastime that involves knocking out innocent and unsuspecting strangers. Several victims have been killed as a result of the game, and the Neptune Beach victim didn't want to see that happen. He drew a knife after being attacked, a move that was apparently enough to send the teenager and his compatriots running.

15 years old or not, that little bastard forfeited his right to breathe when he deliberately verified that his victim was defenseless.

Not that I DO read The Atlantic magazine, but I sure as shit won't read it now. Apparently, like most media these days, they don't respect the Bill of Rights (EXCEPT, of course, for the 1st Amendment). [Link]

Though published on April 1st, there's no indication that the ludicrous ramblings of The Atlantic's column on concealed carry laws was meant as an April Fools' joke. Nevertheless, the reasoning used by the columnist and his insistence that law-abiding permit holders pose a threat to society could only convince a fool that we should roll back our Second Amendment freedoms.
According to the liberal magazine, concealed-carriers put police officers in danger and lead us to a culture where we must "fear our armed neighbors." Apparently, the columnist believes—as many anti-gun liberals do—that people can only be armed if the law gives them explicit permission to carry a weapon. That this is proven wrong on a daily basis is of no consequence. As long as we don't know the guns are there, it doesn't have the social ramifications these liberals so fear.
They fret that concealed carry laws put Americans in fear of saying the wrong thing or insulting the wrong person. After all, they could have a gun. Once again, though, they could have a gun whether or not the laws permit them to carry one. And while no one really wants to live in a world where you could be shot for insulting someone, maybe that tension could help us improve civility. Personally, the fact that loose gun laws might lead us to be more careful with our words...that's not a social consequence I'm going to spend too much time crying about. And, judging from what I've seen, it's not going to happen anyway.
What are you going to do, the columnist asks, "if you become a target for would-be George Zimmermans?" Hmm, well, I suppose I'll refrain from physically attacking people and pounding their heads into the concrete. I don't know if that will keep me safe from every would-be shooter, but it will definitely keep me from winding up in the unfortunate shoes of Trayvon Martin. If we're going to cite specific cases, let's be honest about the specific facts.
Finally, The Atlantic sneers at the NRA's argument that Americans are responsible for their own personal safety. According to the columnist, the police response times in Aurora and Newtown prove that law enforcement can arrive on the scene with extraordinary speed. And indeed they can. They got to the movie theater in Colorado within 90 seconds and they got to Sandy Hook Elementary in three minutes. And yet, look how many people were maimed and killed during that miniscule window of opportunity.
Neither James Holmes nor Adam Lanza, by the way, were permit holders. Neither the Aurora theater nor Sandy Hook Elementary allowed guns on site. Still, somehow or another, these murderers managed to carry out their deeds. Strange how that works.

One must wonder exactly where the brains of the reporter for The Atlantic are located. My guess is, he keeps them in his ass.

For years, now, the banks have been required to file "SARs" (Suspicious Activity Reports) if you do anything the government considers suspicious—like take your money out of the bank in sums greater than $10,000 at a time. Or if you take out $5000 cash twice in one week. Supposedly, this will help stop terrorism. (Feeling safer yet?) Now, the government appears to be going to the next level. [Link] Banks are being told to call the cops on you for engaging in such "suspicious activity" as withdrawing as little as $5000 cash. And for good measure, the bank ought to seize your money (temporarily, of course) until the government can "justify" letting you have your property by "Proving that you will use your money for approved purposes."

In an ongoing effort to stop terrorism, the government has now instituted a new policy for all banks.One that, if not complied with, could send bank executives to jail.
The new program is asking banks to notify the government of large cash withdrawals—and is even asking banks to seize your money so they can investigate what you might be doing with it.
How crazy is that?

If this type of behavior doesn't bother you, you have something severely wrong with you.

One wonders where doctors and cps get their brains—I think it's from the meat counter. Wouldn't it have been easier (and FAR more humane) to check the lady's claims BEFORE committing her? [Link]

"In this day and age the state will try and make money off you any way they can.
Even going so far as to lock you up for telling the truth as they try and diagnose you with a disorder you don't have.
These kinds of cases are few and far between, but they do show how powerful and unjust the U.S. government can be.
Recently, a woman was held against her will because she told police Obama followed her on Twitter. (Not that that's a good thing, but I digress.)
After detaining her for 8 days they released her and asked her to pay over $13,000 for the trouble."

Yup—they hospitalize, drug, and coerce this poor woman into signing an affidavit that the truth ISN'T true for telling the truth—like many politicians, Obama follows many constituents' social media accounts. And to top it all off, they try to make HER pay the bill for THEIR criminal assault on her rights and body.

Our sole Quote of the Week—

"I believe that there aremore instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual andsilent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."-- James Madison

Here's hoping I have time to do this again next week.