Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 794, October 26, 2014

Governments on this planet are operated solely
by the most evil, stupid, and insane among us,
That's the final sad result, the last, ironic
reward, of democracy, plain and simple.

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Neale's Gun Rant for 10-26-2014
by Neale Osborn

Bookmark and Share

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

We always start these off with the wise words of mama Liberty. And we are doing so again. [Link]

Did you ever walk down a street and have the strong sensation that someone was watching you? Ever enter a room and just KNOW someone else was there (or recently had been), even if you could not see or hear them? Have you locked the door, walked to your car, and then decided to go back into the house because you knew you forgot something, even if you didn't know what it was until later? Ever meet someone who just struck you wrong, whom you instinctively distrusted without any overt signs of hostility or malevolence from that person?

What did you do then? Did you pay attention and take evasive or defensive action? Or did you discount your own unease and continue into the situation without further thought or caution? Nine times out of ten you might be lucky enough to avoid trouble anyway, but the consequences could be serious, or even fatal. Once is too many, especially since your own body and mind work constantly to evaluate your surroundings, read the emotions and actions of people and animals, and give you early warning of danger. If you let it...

That's how humans have managed to survive from the beginning. Your natural instincts are seriously important, and you can do a lot to improve and make good use of them. That's the good news.

Do I REALLY need to tell you what to do next? Didn't think so.......

In NYC, we have yet another Ebola case—another doctor who followed ALL the protocols and still got infected. Sometimes, I think it might be better if I agreed with Tom Kratman. But, as he knows, I don't. Mostly.

This one contains a wee bit'o mixed feelings. Of course the idiot has the right to protest against anything she desires. It's called the First Amendment. Of course, HE has the right to carry where and when he wants! [Link]

One can have legitimate disagreements about the Second Amendment, but what this Minnesota woman is doing is bound to make gun rights advocates more than just a little angry (via KAAL tv)[emphasis mine]:

A sign posted in a front yard brings an interesting debate. At the center of it, your constitutional rights. In the past few weeks there's been a number of stories involving guns on school property in Olmsted County. The issue Friday is a gun near school property and the way one woman is voicing her concern.Matthew Halleck brings his two girls to and from the outskirts of Harriet Bishop Elementary in Rochester every day. "I'm going to protect my children anyway I can," said Halleck.

For Matthew, that means carrying a concealed gun that he has a permit for, while adhering to all legal boundaries. "It's not crossing the street here, where the crosswalk is, it's making sure it's concealed so the kids can't see it," he said.

But Matthew is no longer the only one who knows he's carrying a gun. Recently a sign went up in a front yard across the street from the school. It has Matthew's picture on it and reads, "This man carries a loaded gun around your children every day."

"Since we don't have a way to stop him, we felt it was important to notify the neighborhood and the parents that there is an armed man in their presence," said Kimberly Edson, a Rochester resident who put the sign up. "The first couple days of school he had it very visible, we saw it and were quite concerned," she said.

Kimberly called the police the day the picture was taken, but they said Matthew has a legal right to carry off school property. Matthew also contacted authorities concerning the sign, and while they briefly took the sign down, it was eventually determined that Kimberly was also breaking no laws. "He has a 2nd Amendment right to carry the gun, I have my 1st Amendment right to say that I don't like it," said Edson.

That's all fine and dandy, but why on Earth does Edson think Halleck is a threat? The vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens; Halleck is just doing what any father would do for his children: protect them. Ms. Edson's antics have compromised that goal as he's lost tactical surprise.

On the other hand, would-be criminals might think twice about messing around in Halleck's neighborhood knowing that he is armed. One this is for sure: Mr. Halleck should consider open carry from now on thanks to Edson.

Be advised that in Minnesota, there are no concealed carry permits—only carry permits that permit both open AND concealed carry—so he was not guilty of "flashing" his piece—a crime in many idiotic states (like mine) that will punish a CCW holder for allowing the weapon to be seen. One thing is for sure—a thief walking through that neighborhood knows which house it's safe to rob—that idiot, Kimberly Edson.

We shall start off a series of "good guys with guns" stories (something most Democrats do not acknowledge as existing—in fact, they poo-poo their existence) with a Democrat politician with a gun. Of course, he's a STATE senator rather than a national senator, so he's allowed to be pro-gun. And he used his quite well. [Link]

When Marty Flynn and Ryan Bizarro were on their way back to the Pennsylvania State Capitol late on a Tuesday evening, they were brazenly attacked by four young teenagers.

The teens had just come off a set of robberies the day before and were feeling emboldened and confident as they strolled up to the two men and pulled guns on them.

What they weren't prepared for was what happened next...

Flynn, a former prison guard and expert level martial artist, wasted no time in drawing his concealed handgun and opening fire on the attackers. Flynn exchanged fire with his assailants, who then fled after encountering resistance.

The boys, ages 15 to 17, were apprehended just a short while later and will be tried as adults for their violent crime.

It's a shame these experienced criminals who happen to be young survived their encounter with Marty, but probably better for Marty's future with the Democrat Party. One would hope he'd switch to Libertarian, where this type of person belongs.

Self defense and defense of others moves on to Canada, where concealed carry is rare, but they DO allow some people, like veteran RCMP Sargent at Arms Kevin Vickers, serving at the Canadian Parliament, to keep a pistol IN HIS OFFICE, NOT ON HIS PERSON. So after a recent Muslim convert decided to kill himself some Canadian government officials, starting with a soldier, Vickers was able to go to the office, retrieve his weapon, and shoot the bastard. WHY the Sargent at Arms is not actually armed is not known to me! [Link]

The Washington Post (WaPo) published a story on October 23 expressing thanks to God that Canadian Sergeant at Arms Kevin Vickers saved an untold number of lives and further carnage in Canada's Parliament when he drew a gun and shot and killed Michael Zehif-Bibeau--the recent Islamic convert who had shot and killed a Canadian Forces reservist and was running through Parliament trying to reach the gallery of MPs.

On October 22, Breitbart News reported that Vickers, a good guy with a gun, ended the terror attack by ending Zehif-Bibeau's life. This point is not lost on The Washington Post, which on October 23 ran a story thanking God for Vickers and his gun. According to WaPo, "In numerous news reports, Vickers, 58, is already being held as a national hero who eyewitnesses say prevented a massacre that would have been nothing short of a national tragedy."

The article continued:

By all accounts, the white-haired grandfather, a decorated veteran of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, kept cool amid the chaos as dozens of bullets flew in the corridors, went in his office, retrieved his weapon and with a firm hand and a steely eye shot a killer before he could kill again. Vickers, who is 6 feet 4 inches tall, then walked away, gun-in-hand, having "taken care of business," as one news outlet put it.

NOTE AGAIN—The Sargent at Arms (meaning the guard at the door) had to go to his office to get his gun. Yeah, his "steely eye and firm hand" won the day, but why the hell did this man have to go get his gun, rather than draw his weapon from his holster?

And finally, in the self defense annals, we just KNOW that the anti-Constitutional victim disarmers will find some way to blame this brave man for his actions. [Link] Is the Grampa white? Then it was racism. The "boys" look like innocent young choirboys (or will, when Mommy breaks out their grammar school photos) who couldn't have actually done what Grampa says—they were probably shot for showing up to take his granddaughter out on a date. And of course, we'll discover that he didn't pass a background check when he bought the gun (using that infamous non-existent gun show loophple), so he needs to be prosecuted for that, too.

LUMBERTON, NC—A grandfather shot back and is believed to have killed a suspect in a home-invasion and attempted rape of his teen granddaughter on Monday night, Robeson County Sheriff's officials said. The grandfather was also shot—but he also managed to shoot the 2 other suspects in the home-invasion and attempted rape, said Maj. Anthony Thompson with the Robeson County Sheriff's Office. The incident started around 10 pm at a house on Yedda Road in Lumberton on Monday night when someone knocked on the home of the grandfather, his wife and their 19-year-old granddaughter, according to the sheriff's office. Two of three men—all wearing black clothes, ski masks and gloves—stormed into the house and demanded money, officials said. The grandfather and his wife ended up in the back of the house and were directed at gunpoint to open a safe. The three men were all armed and tried to rape the teen girl, officials said.

One tough old bastard—I wish him a speedy recovery. I wish his assailants peritonitis and a painful slow death. Yeah, I mean it.

Chicago's already pulling out all the stops in order to ensure a Democrat victory in November. [Link] [Link]

A Republican candidate in Chicago, Jim Moynihan, tried to vote for himself in early elections and was surprised to find that the voting machine registered a vote for his opponent, a Democrat:

While using a touch screen voting machine in Schaumburg, Moynihan voted for several races on the ballot, only to find that whenever he voted for a Republican candidate, the machine registered the vote for a Democrat in the same race. He notified the election judge at his polling place and demonstrated that it continued to cast a vote for the opposing candidate's party. Moynihan was eventually allowed to vote for Republican candidates, including his own race.

Isn't that spacial (using David Spade's voice) that they finally allowed the man to vote for himself instead of his opponent. Now, before some asswipe whines that Republicans have been caught doing the same thing, from the same article we have this --

Of course, this issue has been widely reported on when it comes to Democrat votes being switched to Republican. The documentary Hacking Democracy showed how easily Diebold voting machines could be hacked. Of course, the film-makers pointed to a vast right-wing conspiracy to change votes and steal elections. But it has been less widely publicized when a voting machine turns left. When a voting machine votes Democrat, it's a computer glitch or a hardware error. If it turns Republican, it's the center of some Republican conspiracy.

How about this, though? It's likely that machines go both ways. It's very likely that both parties has people within them that are willing to do whatever it takes, even cheating the system, to get their own people elected. And if it is the case that a voting machine could easily be tampered with, perhaps we should just return to paper ballots and a bipartisan counting committee which has to agree on numbers before they are released. Otherwise, we'll never really know.

An important quote, often attributed to Joseph Stalin, applies here, "I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how." Indeed.

I agree. I hate voting electronically—I don't trust either side of the Boot-On-Your-Neck Party (the Democrat-Republican Party, (trading clones whose only differences are skin color (occasionally) and whether the graft goes to the military-industrial supply companies or to "green" companies like Solyndra) to respect my vote. I want a fucking paper ballot, not an electronic one. Democrats call it a "calibration error" rather than what they called hanging chads—"Republican voter fraud"—because THIS time it favors the Democrats. One wonders if ALL of the dead will vote Democrat in Chicago this year......

So I just finished watching an episode of "Counting Cars" from the DVR, and the TV goes to live. It's the local news—WENY CBS out of Elmira NY—talking about a SS raid on a man in town. No one knows why, except for vague comments about "He may have made threats against the President.", but here's what they DO say—First, they took "several guns" and "home-made weapons" from the home. within an hour of the raid, the local building inspector has condemned the home. And neighbors don't know why the SS was here, but they DID find one old drunk man to say he's glad they "tooked away dem weapons, cuz dey's kids in da neighborhood". (this is a rough translation—the dude had no teeth, and appeared to be at least 3 sheets to the wind). Considering last week's story of the SS trying to get cops to lie about having a warrant in order to gain access to a home in another state (where the cops told the SS to effectively fuck off) the Glorious NYSP sturmtroopers gleefully aided the federal sturmtroopers in the takedown. I wonder if there actually was a warrant this time...............

Let me be blunt—Religious objections to gay marriage, while perfectly legal, are ridiculous. Gay marriage CANNOT harm hetero marriage, it doesn't harm the family, and God, if he exists, made gays gay, so I doubt if it would bother him/her/it. That being said, NO ONE can be coerced to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple that person's religion considers sinful. Now, to the meat of the matter. [Link] Some of you will read the link and say "But it's a business, so they cannot discriminate!". WRONG. Despite the growing number of cases of government forcing (or punishing refusal) businesses for refusing service to gay couples, it is their RIGHT to refuse to engage in what they see as sin—even if the rest of us find that "sin" stupid.

A pair of Christian ministers in Idaho may face up to $1,000 in fines and six months in prison for refusing to perform same-sex weddings at their for-profit wedding chapel.

Although no charges have been filed yet, Donald and Evelyn Knapp have preemptively filed a lawsuit against the city of Coeur d'Alene, claiming, "For the past several months, the City has privately and publicly threatened to apply [the city's nondiscrimination] Ordinance to the Knapps if same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho and the Knapps declined to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony at The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel."

"Each day the Knapps decline to perform a requested same-sex wedding ceremony, they commit a separate and distinct misdemeanor, subject to the same penalties. Thus, if the Knapps decline a same-sex wedding ceremony for just one week, they risk going to jail for over 3 years and being fined $7,000."

Even though they are not currently facing charges, it only seems smart to pre-emptively file a suit to eliminate that possibility. What say you?

I'm not gonna end this one the same way, Pilgrim. Th' HELL I'm not! It's time for the Quotes of the Week. Today, it will all be about why I carry a gun, and it came through Viner Mark in Wyoming—

I don't carry a gun........ kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in this world.
I don't carry a gun because I am evil. I carry a gun because I've lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don't carry a gun because my sex organs are too small. I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose they were intended for a good long time to come.
I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because a real man knows how to take care and protect their property, themselves and the ones they love.
I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing armed thugs I am inadequate.
I don't carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
I don't carry a gun to shoot to kill someone. I carry a gun and would shoot as necessary to stay alive. If the assailant dies as a result of a desire to harm me, it's no loss to society.

And that's a wrap, friends.

Was that worth reading?
Then the author suggests
Pay TLE's Editor

payment type

This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)

Big Head Press