♫ That’s what we are. ♫ (with apologies to the late, great Nat King Cole)
From Caleb @ Gun Nuts:
Carrying a gun does not make me special. It doesn’t make me different, it doesn’t make me a sheepdog, and it shouldn’t be treated like an occasion. The act of every day concealed carry should be no more interesting or dramatic than the act of buckling your seatbelt, washing your hands during flu season, or changing the batteries in your smoke detectors.
Stop treating CCW like it’s special. It’s not. You’re just carrying the most effective tool available to defend yourself from violence. It’s a fire extinguisher. There’s nothing special about keeping a fire extinguisher under the kitchen sink. I want owning and carrying a Glock 19 to have the same level of remarkableness as owning a Toyota Camry.
You should really go to the link above and read Caleb’s entire editorial.
He is correct, of course. Unless you are military, spec ops, civilian police or private security, you are NOT a sheepdog, superhero or James Bond. You are just a piece of flotsam out there taking some responsibility for your own protection. Good for you (as far as that goes) but your adrenaline and bp shouldn’t go up just because you gear up.
Putting on an IWB holster should be no different than picking up your keys or clipping your folding knife in your pocket!
There is no big red S on your chest.
Says an Oregon Democrat! (in part)
Calling it the “civil rights battle” for millennials that will decide who controls the the country for the next three decades, Democrat Rep. Kurt Schrader of Oregon says immigration “will decide who is in charge of this country for the next 20 or 30 years,” the Portland Tribune reported Monday. Schraeder’s observation highlights a contention made by Gun Owners of America that amnesty is a threat to the right to keep and bear arms. That position has so far been avoided by other national gun rights groups which refuse to acknowledge the issue, or to score political ratings and endorsements accordingly.
That avoidance is in spite of the fact that Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has stated illegal aliens have “earned the right to be citizens. It’s in spite of all credible polling showing the foreigners to be overwhelmingly Democrat and anti-gun in their sympathies. (…)
Potential new citizens being given the many gifts of citizenship, after having already being given gifts as
illegal aliens migrants , it only stands to reason they would vote for the party that gave them all the free stuff. And align themselves with the Democratic progressive agenda who provided it.
Not knowing part of doing so would further
The Republic’s The Nation’s The Oligarchy’s ability to deny their rights!
Quid Pro Quo
(and what sort of name is Jeh, anyway? Inquiring minds want to know.)
h/t David Codrea
At least 400 non-existent Borak rockets loaded with Sarin nerve gas were secretly purchased and destroyed by the CIA in 2005 and 2006, despite Saddam Hussein’s regime, as we all know, having been merely pretending to possess undeclared WMDs as a bluff.
New York Times:
The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.
The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States’ acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
The effort was run out of the C.I.A. station in Baghdad in collaboration with the Army’s 203rd Military Intelligence Battalion and teams of chemical-defense and explosive ordnance disposal troops, officials and veterans of the units said. Many rockets were in poor condition and some were empty or held a nonlethal liquid, the officials said. But others contained the nerve agent sarin, which analysis showed to be purer than the intelligence community had expected given the age of the stock.
The buying of nerve-agent rockets from an Iraqi seller in 2006 was the most significant recovery of chemical weapons until that point in the Iraq War.
A New York Times investigation published in October found that the military had recovered thousands of old chemical warheads and shells in Iraq and that Americans and Iraqis had been wounded by them, but the government kept much of this information secret, from the public and troops alike.
So, President Bush LIED about those WsMD* to get us into a war in the Middle East to (pick a conspiratorial answer involving oil profits and V.P. Chaney). And there was no evidence of them (except those they already found in Syria, moved across the border from Iraq) and these.
And Saddam Hussein would never have used them, especially against his own people.
*I simply refuse to write WMDs, as it’s grammatically poor. Just as as I refuse to say Favre as FAHR’VE.
For years, it was pointed out that Richard Nixon believed he was an imperial president. He even made statements to the press in that regard.
And the Democrats ran with that.
And sometimes won.
Now, we have one of the current President’s closest advisors making this assertion…
Valerie Jarrett: Americans ‘hungry’ for Obama to act like an imperial president
With regard to the State Of The Union Address, Ms. Jarrett stated the following (in part):
On Tuesday, White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that Americans are “hungry” for Obama to take unilateral action, bypassing Congress wherever he can to get things done, CNS News reported.
“People around our country are hungry for action,” she said. “And what you’ll hear from the president tonight is going to be all about action — creating opportunity — and it’s going to be a very optimistic speech.”
According to Jarrett, Obama will “set forth very specific, concrete proposals that he thinks will move our country forward — create opportunity for hard-working Americans who want to succeed.”
Although Obama will prod Congress to act on his agenda, Jarrett said Obama “will make clear tonight that he will take action on his own,” bypassing Congress when he sees fit.
Can we invoke Nixon now?
I can only speak for me, but I don’t want a President from any party “bypassing Congress when he sees fit.”
I’m not that hungry.
I mentioned John Locke (author of The Social Contract, philosopher extraordinaire, and unwitting mentor to Thomas Jefferson) in this blog the other day.
Then, quite serendipitously, I took note on an early blog post by Joel…
I haven’t read this blog, The Art of Not Being Governed, very extensively so if it turns out to be a neonazi or everytown front, don’t blame me, okay? But so far I’m enjoying it.
It’s got a recurring feature called Statist Fallacies, basic stuff but pretty good so far. Here’s a lovely take-down on the mossy old “social contract,” which TUAK readers probably know is a particular bugaboo of mine.
Enjoy. I’m going out to play now.
I’d forgotten about Joel’s distaste for ‘the concept of The Social Contract’. So I thought WTH?
Libertarian, statist and sovereign citizen alike – what do you gentle readers think about this?
I’ve posted before about sharing ‘the facts of life’ with my daughter. Not reproduction (although we did speak of such things) but letting her know I was discretely armed in her presence, and providing a few basic signals for her to keep safe.
Should terrible things happen.
Hand signals and verbal commands. To be acted upon without question.
I.E. We’re in a shopping mall, and I observe bad guys attempting to shoot other bad guys. The signals mean find cover immediately, and failing that, hit the deck! Things are getting serious very soon.
This doesn’t necessarily mean I’ve plans on engaging multiple gang members.
Molly didn’t know much about my immersion in the gun culture, except not to touch any firearms without permission, and sometimes Dad went shooting, until she was six. Then I shared the ‘facts of life’ (that I carried whenever possible for all our protection, and it was no one else’s business) and devised the signals.
It never occurred to me to consider my tactics when she was younger. A preschooler, a toddler, a baby.
And I think of that mother who was shot to death in the Walmart by her two-year-old!
LIMATUNES opened my eyes!
IF you are an armed mother (or father) involved in the protection of your charges, you should go and read her. She has THREE children of a young age, and considers things I never have.
Armed, with children, of any age is wholly different from just being armed.
(I believe the ‘and helpless’ part was photoshopped in, and unnecessary.)
Of course, they may be part of a conspiracy to lure in unwitting bank robbers to their death, but I doubt it.
h/t David Codrea
For WOMEN! By Randi Rogers!
In your opinion do most women wear inside-the-waistband (IWB) or outside-the-waistband (OWB) holsters? What is the biggest difference other than in or out?
Confused in Canton
Now, I’m going to make you visit the link to see Randi Roger’s answer!
Holster decisions are very personal and individual, and when it comes to women (what with their different configurations, and all) even more ethereal. Some of this might apply to you men of different shapes, as well – I’m not saying who!
h/t Women’s Outdoor News
Or simply Affirmative Action?
Bloomberg said that we should restrict guns to minorities. Then, he asked everyone not to release any video and they complied. But here’s the audio. (SayUncle)
First a NEGATIVE, in part…
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
From time to time I read about proposals for a national law requiring reciprocity of concealed carry permits between the states. The most recent example is the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, introduced by Senator John Cornyn, R-TX.
Sadly, I have some bad news about this proposal, and about a national CCW reciprocity law in general: It would be unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. (Fill Yer Hands)
Second, a POSITIVE response, in the comments…