Posse Incitatus

Random shots

Here’s a fun thought:  Michigan’s newest voters will have to hearken back to their elementary school days to recall a time when the state’s economy was actually going somewhere.  It’s been that long.  I guess we’re getting used to the pain.

Driving ‘round town and tuning into the radio, I can’t help but wonder how much those ads with Tim Allen urging us to stay where we are and go places we’ve already been are costing.  Is anyone encouraged by this tripe?

First off, they are terribly written. The phrases are awkward and full of faux grandeur.  It’s like a parody of Victorian prose.

More importantly, Tim Allen is a lousy narrator.  Good comedian, but bad at reading stuff.  Hey, he’s a Michigan guy, I get it, but so is James Earl Jones.  We couldn’t we get The Voice do this stuff?  Jones can make reading a soup can label dramatic and compelling.

Anyhow, I can’t help but wonder how much Obama’s anti-NAFTA remarks will hurt him here come November. If I were McCain, I’d play those in continuous loops in Automation Alley and Grand Rapids – and in Port Huron and the Soo.

I hope to begin overhauling this site, including revising the links over the next few weeks.

Also, where did the Carnival of Cordite go?  Anyone still interested, email me.  I’ll host it with a target of maybe next weekend.

Gun control at bay

One of the interesting effects yesterday’s Keller decision has been to drive the few remaining gun control supporters into a frenzy. Meagan McCardle noted this and does a good job of showing why so many of the stats they are using to argue against gun ownership are worthless.

The first commenter, “Greg” offers this statement which immediately got my attention:

In an ideal world, laws on the books would keep guns out of the hands of these people [repeat criminals]. I am still hoping for an ideal world.

I do not hope for an ideal world.  I know it is impossible.  What I do hope for is a world where rational people accept that they cannot prevent every crime; that the price of liberty is that sometimes people will abuse it. 

The thing is, there is evidence that our laws are effectively disarming the criminal class.  As documented on this very blog (and I believe utterly ignored almost everywhere else) the three Operation Falcon sweeps netted some 30,000 violent felons – and only a tiny fraction – 1.9 percent - had firearms. Note that even this number is a high-end estimate, because it assumes that these were equally distributed. 

This is fairly compelling evidence that criminals are not as heavily armed as gun control supporters would have us believe.  In fact, it in many ways indicates the exact opposite – they are as disarmed as they are likely to get.

By contrast, half of American households are believed to have a firearm.  So the ratio good guys to bad guys is somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 1.  Logic tells us that additional efforts to whittle away at that percentage of felons is likely to take an even larger share of law-abiding guns with it. This is basically what has happened in the UK and Australia. 

Disarming the populace at large makes therefore has the effect of making guns even more desirable to criminals.  Again, this isn't theoretical, we have seen it in practice.

At some point, perhaps reality will intrude on gun control advocates.  In the meantime, we need to keep them as far away from positions of power as possible.
   

SCOTUS: "People" actually means "people"

By now, all people of good will and common sense know (and are rejoicing) at the news that the Supreme Court has found the Second Amendment to be an individual right.

I don’t usually go in for judicial opinions, but this one is truly amazing.  Justice Scalia pulls no punches in tearing down the dissenters’ arguments:

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

Read the whole thing. [Courtesy of ScotusBlog.] 

One of the most telling features of the anti-gun movement is how much it has to twist, contort and outright destroy the truth in order to make its points.

This opinion reveals the depths to which these people have to go to claim that the words a “right of the people” really mean “the right of the states” or “the right of state militias.”

We can argue about whether the Second Amendment is a good idea.  We can have honest differences of opinion on how easy it should be for people to own and carry firearms, but there can be no honest debate over what the Second Amendment actually means.  It’s right there.

If people want to repeal it, fine.  I would give the gun-control zealots a lot more respect if they openly campaigned on repealing the Second Amendment, but they don’t.  They lie about it what it says, and pretend that the Constitution has no real contemporary meaning.

Justice Scalia nails that argument as well:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g.Reno . American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

I have actually had people claim this.  “Well, it was written a long time ago, and guns are more dangerous.  But I support your right to own a musket.”

To which one can only respond:  “Then I assume you support government restrictions on television, radio, the internet and telephones, because those aren’t mentioned in the Constitution at all.  Just speech.  Look it up.”

There is divided opinion over whether this helps John McCain or hurts him. I think it hurts him.  The latest polls show that around 75 percent of the public agrees with this decision, and McCain will be able to make a powerful argument that this essential individual right was but one vote away from being denied to us for a generation, if not forever.

If Obama wins, he will appoint a court able to reverse this narrowly-won victory, and, like all Democrats, shrug and say “Hey, wasn’t me” and leave it to our unelected black-robed masters to the heavy lifting of creating their progressive socialist utopia.

Gun-free zones claim more victims

The Posse is saddened (but not surprised) to learn that there has been yet another public shooting in a “gun-free” zone.

Bill Quick (via the hated Instapundit) has the relevant passage of the Northern Illinois University handbook.  Apparently the shooter overlooked that little detail as he plotted his mass (and ultimately self-destructive) mayhem.

There are two lessons to take from this – two lessons that anyone with a shred of logic must embrace and immediately move to implement.

1. Gun-free zones are nothing more than preserves for easy victims.  Their abolition is an immediate, overriding necessity. 
2. Responsible media organizations must develop policies that omit the name of the shooter in the same manner that they protect the privacy of rape victims.  The practice of “delving into the mind of the killer” must cease, as it provides a powerful incentive to other disturbed individuals.  Want fame?  Kill enough people and you will get it.

I feel terribly for the victims – may God rest their souls – and their bereaved families.  This horror need not have happened.

The “tragedy” in this is in the traditional sense of tragedy – that hubris (on the part of liberal gun-fearing administrators) – led them to create a disarmed and helpless pool of victims.

Like all formal tragedy, there have been countless warnings.  The audience is veritably screaming to the stage for the hero to change his ways – all to no avail.  Thus, this tragedy – like classical ones – is inevitable because those who could stop it are simply too proud to do so.

Enough already.  I will not send my children to a school where they cannot lawfully protect themselves.  I ask other parents to make the same pledge.  The market works, and we need to use it.

The magic of gun-free zones

One of the strangest things about the anti-gun movement is its belief in magic solutions.  Almost every time I get into a debate with one of them, they use the phrase “if I could wave a magic wand and make guns disappear,” which is great in terms of sentiment, but it is worthless in terms of practical application.

I guess the next best thing to a magic wand is to post a “GUN FREE VICTIM ZONE” sign and wait for the killer to show up and do his job.

A lot of ink is being spilled over what new laws can be put into place to stop this sort of thing from happening, (and of course condemning law-abiding gun owners as knuckle-dragging thugs just waiting to go insane) but rare is the newspaper editorialist who understands that two simple measures would all but eliminate the public shooter phenomenon:

1. Eliminate “gun-free” zones, and
2. Deny the shooters the overwhelming publicity they reap for their actions.

The people who perpetrate these crimes are crying out for attention.  The Columbine shooters openly speculated on who would play them in the movie version of events.  Fame is a major motivator.

The media is therefore the primary enabler in these events.  They have far more to do with causing these crimes than the firearms.  If the guns went away, they’d use bombs, or knives, or something else.  The goal is to kill and get attention.

Of course, if you get dropped after only one or two shots, your mission has failed, which is why the killers almost always seek out places where they know no one else has a gun.

Look, if guns by their very presence cause crime, why is it that you never have shootouts at gun stores and shooting ranges?  Why are gun shows – which are allegedly no more than Third World arms bazaars – so damn safe?  You’d think that Jethro and Cleetus would immediately have a falling out and settle the matter with shotguns and 12 paces, but – amazingly – it never happens.

I’ve spent much of my adult life trying to understand gun control supporters, but the logic behind the “gun free zone” has always escaped me.  Even as a kid, I noticed that some folks followed the rules, and some folks didn’t.  Later on, when I got to understand that there was a dangerous criminal element, I thought the signs were amazingly ironic – if someone is bent on murder, why would they care about picking up an extra misdemeanor?

A cynic might well argue that the purpose of the zones is to incrementally ban guns from everywhere, until we reach the state of disarmed mayhem that now characterizes the United Kingdom.  It could well be.  Certainly groups like the Brady Bunch and their allies aren’t above lying like rugs when it suits them.

But I’m sure there are people who sincerely buy into the emotional appeals.

Some years ago, at a former place of employment, I carried on the job.  I kept quiet about it (you never know how some folks will react) but eventually it became known.  The initial reaction was pretty much what I expected:  some employees expressed unease and even hostility.  “Better keep your distance from him!”  “Don’t make him mad!” and so forth.

Then we got a death threat.  In addition to locking doors and using pass keys, a panic button was installed at the work stations.  Suddenly the attitude changed.  People walked up to me and wanted to know what my plan was – and now the jokes were “Get behind him!” “Screw the panic button, just get behind his desk!”  Several employees asked me about teaching them to shoot, and I was happy to oblige.

The lesson was that while we didn’t want bad thing to happen, they could – and if they did, it was better to have a plan other than passively standing there and taking it.

If you strip away the rhetoric and mystical power anti-gun folks invest in guns, you are left with a simple tool.  It is a tool that can be used for good or evil.  It is a tool that gives you options.

Twice I’ve been in a situation where I thought I might need my concealed pistol.  In one of them, I actually drew it.  In both cases I was profoundly relieved that the problem was resolved without any more violence.

The gun didn’t solve the situation, it didn’t make it go away, but it did give me more options.  Without it, as we have seen, people are reduced to victims.  I refuse to be a victim, as does Sithkitten.  That is why we carry and, when they are old enough, the Younger Posse Members will also have the training to protect themselves.

It is a shame that we have to keep having these lessons written in blood, but the least we can do is learn from them.  “Gun Free Zones” don’t work.  Time to get the clue and move on.

Hunting monsters

Having a few minutes before the four-hour Halloween marathon kicks off, I thought I'd link to what is clearly the all-time most-read and most-commented upon thread ever at the posse:  Shooting zombies.

Even now, years after it went up, I'm still getting useful advice about what kind of weaponry would work best against shambling hordes of the undead.

Well, maybe not undead, more of the not-quite-dead.

What is perhaps a little surprising is that a follow-up thread about hunting vampires got almost no attention.

This Halloween, we ask our readers to name this supernatural prey of choice and what they would use to take it down.

In the land of sheep, the wolf is king

Last week the Posse was involved in a youth camp, which left us precious little time to follow world events.

Needless to say, we enjoyed the break immensely.

This week we are on vacation, so we intend to avoid the computer as much as possible.  However, we must note one observation we picked up last week.

While the camp was an excellent opportunity for young people to experience a variety of physical and mental challenges, there remained a sense of unease where the topic of firearms, marksmanship and the like came up.

Similarly, when one of the Younger Posse Members decided to join the Girl Scouts, we were surprised to find that archery was excluded from the list of merit badges.  "Art in the Home," "Yarn and the Fabric Arts," and the obligatory "Global Awareness" badges were there along with myriad other ones that have absolutely nothing to do with scouting, at least in the sense of "scouting outside of a shopping mall or home."

We now understand why girls would want to join the Boy Scouts.  The Boy Scouts actually get to go outside and learn survival skills; they practice marksmanship, archery, and learn something that may prove useful in an outdoor environment.

If one were to drop an experienced Boy Scout off at a northern Michigan roadside with only the contents of a modest backpack to sustain him for a few days, one would have a reasonable degree of confidence that he would survive.

A girl scout in similar circumstances would be able to organize a rally, or seek out discounts, but would otherwise be at a total loss.

This is supposed to empower women?

Similarly, we are constantly told by gun control advocates that children should never be exposed to firearms, period.  Guns should be the exclusive province of law enforcement.

This begs the question: if all children are raised to fear and avoid guns, where is the next generation of police supposed to come from?  The entire premise of gun control (and pacifism, incidentally) is based on the idea that there will always be "sheepdogs" to protect the righteous but otherwise defenseless flock.

But if the dogma of these groups became the law of the land, if society as a whole accepted and embraced their values, only the criminals - the wolves - would retain the ability to fight.  In this case, the wolf would become king.

It's all about the context

Serial commenter Dan Simon raises several issues with some of our recent posts, but perhaps the most telling is his comment on our Memorial Day:

How is it strange that reports focus on american losses? We live in america, and its a big deal when our soldiers die. You want the press to operate as a propaganda machine, with only positive messages. Too bad theres only negative reality to report on. This is not the great Iraq war.

The same could be said of any conflict, however.  Over three days in 1863, the main Union army lost about 23,000 men - about one-quarter of its total fighting strength.

One could imagine how that would be reported in today's media:  "Union losses in tens of thousands, Confederate army escapes; no end to war in sight."

The above statements are true, what they lack is context.

The context was that this was the decisive Battle of Gettysburg; the Confederate Army of Northern Virgina would never again threaten the North with invasion.  Robert E. Lee's last gamble on ending the war had failed.

The same is true in any conflict.  Simply reporting that one side - the American side - has lost troops only gives one side of the picture.  What of the enemy?  What of their losses?  What of their fears?

By reporting losses without gains, one lacks the full picture and comes to regard any operation as doomed and hopeless.

Having established this viewpoint, the following came as no surprise:

The Iraqis would have most likely behaved better if we did not perpetrate 2 large massacres in fallujah (before the fighting there). Also, our "security contractors" go around shooting civilians. You can see videos of this on you-tube... no joke.

Here we see again the abdication of context - and, for that matter - moral judgement.  Only America takes losses and only America can do wrong.  It is because of America's transgressions that the enemy now blows up schoolchildren and hacks the heads off of its captives.  If only we'd bombed them with fruit snacks and cupcakes, the terrorist jihadis would follow the laws of war.

For the liberal, there is always an excuse for wrongdoing - unless it is American wrongdoing.

Buddy, you jacked the wrong car

Via the hated Instapundit we have a rather unusual story of succesful self-defense right here in Michigan:

A robbery and crime spree aided by an unloaded gun came to a halt late Thursday when the gunman met more than his match: a gun with bullets.

Charles Parker Jr., 18, of Detroit was killed when a 53-year-old man pulled out a 9mm handgun and shot the teen, who was armed with an unloaded .22-caliber handgun.

What is noteworthy is not that the criminal was stupid enough to attempt armed robbery with out a bullet handy, or that an armed law-abiding citizen thwarted it.

No, what is unusual is the tone of the article.

The victim is clearly identified as such and no effort is made to apologize for the attackers, who outnumbered him four to one.

[Question to Tim Lambert:  How would the absence of guns in this scenario have made self-defense more possible than it actually was?]

Can it be that after years of countless examples and first-hand experience, even reporters are coming to figure out that armed citizens are part of the solution to violent crime?

Every year, the Michigan State Police are required by law to publish a summary of violations by concealed pistol licensees within the state.  You can see them here.

This is a veritable gold mine of information on people with concealed carry permits.  One can see the raw numbers, sliced and diced every which way on how law-abiding armed citizens behave.

The fact is, they behave very well indeed.  All of this is anathema to the gun-control crowd, but for those who are still capable of rational thought, it is worth taking a look at.

The conclusion to this piece is priceless:

After the shooting, police questioned the 53-year-old man and released him, noting that he had a valid concealed weapons permit.

Then they gave him back his gun.

Indeed.  Carry on, citizen.

America Haters

The other night Bill O'Reilly read a spiteful email sent in from a Canadian woman regarding the Virginia Tech shootings.  This snide, smug leftist said something like, "America doesn't have to worry about terrorists; it will self-destruct from within."

Sure enough, the leftists of the world are gleefully pointing to this horrible incident as more evidence that America is a total mess, awash in guns, violence and out of control, nihilist youth.

This despite daily horrific violence in Iraq as Sunnis and Shias wage their centuries old, vicious war; continued atrocities in Darfur; and drug and gang violence in South America that makes Detroit look like Mayberry.

Monday's Washington Post featured a story about drugs, gangs and the high mortaility rate in one of Rio de Janeiro's miserable shanty towns.  The story, headlined "In Rio, Death Comes Early," stated 1,857 minors were reported murdered in Rio from 2002 to 2006, according to the Institute of Public Security, a state research center.

Here's an excerpt from a story in today's Washington Post: "Shootouts involving rival drug gangs and police in Rio de Janeiro on Tuesday left at least 19 people dead and sent pedestrians scrambling for shelter, intensifying the Brazilian city's growing concerns about deadly violence."

Without question, the number of countries where lawlessness, squalor, violence, murders, and child exploitation go on routinely every day is too numerous to mention. The United States is definitely NOT one of those countries.

But you wouldn't know it from the selective indignation of the leftist kooks who Hate America First.