Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Police: 82-year-old Mo. man shoots intruder

Via Cousin John

Charles L. White (Source: Vinelink)


Police say an 82-year-old Ellsinore man shot a man who reportedly broke into his home Friday night.
It happened shortly after 7:30 p.m. on North Herren Street.

According to Carter County Sheriff Richard Stephens, Charles L. White, 30, of Ellsinore, broke into the residence and assaulted the 82-year-old. White reported fled after being shot.

After the sheriff's office obtained a search warrant, White was found at a home in Ellsinore.
The 82-year-old homeowner was taken to a Poplar Bluff hospital and then by air ambulance to a St. Louis hospital with head injuries.

White was taken to a Poplar Bluff hospital and treated for a gunshot wound to the arm.
An arrest warrant was issued for White for assault first degree and burglary first degree. He was being held in the Butler County Jail under $500,000 bond or cash surety.

Some goodies from Ol' Remus


"Why does anyone need a 30-round magazine? What use is that, except to commit mayhem?" Translation: You dumb ignorant unwashed cracker, you can't wait to let loose on some harmless crowd of African Americans, can you? Get back to your cabin and jar of corn liquor and relatives with six fingers. You shouldn't be playing any part in the life of the nation, with your crazy religion and your reactionary social ideas.
John Derbyshire at takimag.com 

 Do you think that our government is incapable of doing to American citizens what other governments have done to their citizens across history? Did America not get its start because a few men recognized that tyranny could take root here, and so wrote a document enumerating what powers the federal government could not have?
Michael Kane at thesandpaper.villagesoup.com (Mr. Kane is a long time reader and friend of Woodpile Report) 

Statistics - 95.1 percent of all murder victims and 95.9 percent of all shooting victims in New York City are black or Hispanic. And 90.2 percent of those arrested for murder and 96.7 percent of those arrested for shooting someone are black and Hispanic.
Jonathan Capehart at voices.washingtonpost.com 

I would be more than happy to believe this, but........
How to arm the unorganized militia at their own expense - Could all our recent gun-buying frenzy be a "poison pill" defense to make any yet-to-come coalition of large and increasingly well-armed Asia countries rethink any plans for confrontation with the USA?
George Ure at urbansurvival.com 

A government that lets the gray areas go is a good thing; a government that treats the gray areas as an opportunity for prosecution is tyranny. And that's where we are.
Mark, comment at jaltcoh.blogspot.com art-link-symbol-tiny-grey-arrow-only-rev01.gif article 

 Every law, every regulation, every tax, every fine, every ban is nothing more than a thinly-veiled threat of violence. Pay and/or obey, or be physically kidnapped and placed in a cage. Resist physically in any way, and if the armed agents cannot manage to otherwise subdue you, you will be killed. All actions of government boils down to this simple, foundational, and undeniable equation. If that kind of barbaric and entirely unnecessary arrangement does not constitute an "enemy," then I am left to wonder precisely who or what does.
Alex Knight at strike-the-root.com 

Take my liberty and give me money - Had we remained vigilant about the enumerated powers of our Constitution, none of the problems that now threaten our nation would exist. We would have fought no undeclared wars, created no welfare state, or have any national debt. Hard to imagine, but true.
Bruce Karlson at westernjournalism.com 

 Really ?
The reason that the Chinese got the neutron bomb is that the design was sold to them by Albert Gore in order to acquire sufficient funds to get Bill Clinton re-elected along with many other classified military secrets back in the 90's. It was possibly the highest level espionage operation ever discovered in the history of the United States.
Texas Arcane at vault-co.blogspot.com 

  We done did it:)
Three members of the National Labor Relations Board were found by a federal court to have been appointed unconstitutionally. In response, the NLRB board, including those three members presumably, said their work was too important to be interrupted by a decision which will surely be overturned, and disregarded it. Defenders of the Second Amendment who are relying on the court to uphold our civil liberties may wish to consider this.
Ol' Remus at woodpilereport.com

Feds accused of fomenting 'blood in our streets'

Via Cousin John


The highest levels of the U.S. government are fomenting “civil unrest” that soon could leave “blood in our streets,” a key Christian pastor said Tuesday at a pro-Second Amendment rally in Washington.

Rev. Bill Owens, president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, said America has in many ways has passed the point of no return and its citizens will have to be “chastised” before they awaken to the reality of their situation.

His goal now is “strengthening the [righteous] remnant.”

At the foot of the Capitol Tuesday, Owens was joined by other leaders to pledge to protect the Second Amendment and the Christian principles of America’s founding.

Owens was joined by Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America; Eric Pratt, the group’s communications director; Day Gardner, founder and president of the National Black Pro-Life Union on Capitol Hill; and William Cook, founder and executive director of the Black Robe Regiment.

“From what we see in our mail, hear from our members, we are at the line in the sand moment,” Larry Pratt told WND after the event.

 More @ WND

How to Make armor piercing ammo

The cop-killer bullet myth



Give the administration credit for its creativity. The theatrical show President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. are putting on in their effort to foist gun control on the public disguises a more subtle push to disarm America in the name of protecting cops. On Monday, Mr. Obama invited police chiefs from towns that have had mass shootings to the White House for a discussion on firearms and, more importantly, a photo opportunity.

(This is a four-part series on dispelling gun myths. Click here to read part one: The Assault Weapon Myth. Click here to read part two The High-Capacity Magazine Myth.)

The administration is harnessing the respect the public has for officers who keep them safe to undermine the Second Amendment. That’s why the White House’s “reduce gun violence” to-do list included a call for banning armor-piercing ammunition, or in the words Mr. Obama used in his Jan. 16 announcement, “bullets designed to inflict maximum damage.” After meeting with law enforcement last month, Mr. Biden called them “cop-killer bullets.”

Their concern is entirely imaginary, but effective in confusing Americans.  According to a Gallup poll last week, 67 percent of voters would support a new law banning possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than the mlitary and law enforcement — even though ammunition of this sort has been banned under federal law for over 25 years.

The Second-To-Last Step


 We would greatly prefer to protect our rights peacefully--but we WILL protect our rights 

For a while now, St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner has argued that Senator Feinstein's (D-CA) grotesquely over-the-top bill to ban regime change rifles (she still calls them "assault weapons," and has certainly shown no inclination to adopt the Department of Homeland Security's name for them: "personal defense weapons") is political theater--a decoy.

The Firearms Coalition's Chris Knox probably described it best, as a political analog to Muhammed Ali's "rope-a dope" strategy, by which Ali wore down a bigger, stronger George Foreman, by letting him expend all his energy on ineffectual blows on a well covered-up Ali in the early rounds, only to overwhelm him in the later rounds, after he had exhausted himself.

The gun prohibitionist lobby would of course love to pass Feinstein's abomination, but they are not counting on it, and will instead be more than happy to settle for a "TKO," in the form of an outright ban on private gun sales. We have noted that, inexcusably, neither the NRA nor the GOP look particularly interested in fighting more than a token battle on that front (although at least the NRA is finally countering the "40% of gun sales are transacted without a background check" myth)--at least if the private sales ban can be confined to gun shows.

More @ Examiner

One veteran on gun control



[Editor:  This was originally sent to a local newspaper disputing their editorial seeking a "middle ground" on gun control, which of course means gun owners give up more of their rights with nothing in return.]

I read your editorial on the middle ground of gun control.  You were correct that there are many things you don’t understand.

I will begin by stating that combat veterans like myself not only swore an oath to defend the Constitution, but we actually risked our lives for it.  I know very well that freedom isn’t free and its payment was made in real blood.  Over my relatively short lifetime, though, I’ve seen politicians use that same document like toilet paper before handing it over to people in the media who seem all too eager to reduce it to pulp for a paycheck.  That alone is a sad commentary on one of the many divides that exists in America today.

I gather from your writing that you’ve punched a few holes in paper and some small furry creatures outside of suburbia.  Keep in mind that you did those sporting activities in a safe peaceful environment.  You might think this gives you some understanding of the ways of the world, its long history and what men are really capable of, but given my experiences I can see you hit far off the mark.  Using a target as a metaphor, you missed the paper completely.

For you to label warnings from your fellow countrymen against possible future government overreach as “paranoia”, you further demonstrate willful ignorance of our history.  In order for you to gain a better understanding of history and dispel your illusions of how things really work, I’d suggest you sit down with veterans from our many past and current wars.  It would do you well to include Native American veterans among that group.  The elders of those tribes could also educate you about a massive domestic genocide about which you are apparently clueless.

The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights and other founding documents, has nothing to do with sporting purposes.  It’s about limiting government power and curtailing its ability to inflict harm on people.  Once you understand that you might see the realm that the big boys play in and know they gamble with lives on a vast scale.  It’s not a game for the faint-hearted, so I understand why the majority of Americans are in collective denial about this.

Seattle Gun BuyBack Gets JACKED! Turns Into a Damn Gun Show! LOL


Police officers in Seattle, Washington held their first gun buyback program in 20 years this weekend, underneath interstate 5,  and soon found that private gun collectors were working the large crowd as little makeshift gun shows began dotting the parking lot and sidewalks. Some even had “cash for guns” signs prominently displayed.

Police stood in awe as gun enthusiasts and collectors waved wads of cash for the guns being held by those standing in line for the buyback program.

People that had arrived to trade in their weapons for $100 or $200 BuyBack gift cards($100 for handguns, shotguns and rifles, and $200 for assault weapons) soon realized that gun collectors were there and paying top dollar for collectible firearms. So, as the line for the chump cards got longer and longer people began to jump ship and head over to the dealers.


Boomstick Control

Via It Ain't Holy Water

Militia and the Rule of Law

Via Way Up North


So just what is the Militia? Well that is an interesting question that varies not only throughout history and geographical areas as a whole but even particularly within the United States depending on time period and other outside influences.

What some would call a militia at times was the only "military" some countries really had. To offset the cost of a standing military most nations attempted to rely on a militia configuration of one type or another to fill the gap requiring citizens to arm themselves according to their station, property owned and local responsibilities. In many ways it was a hold over from feudal obligations as well.

I don't think anyone can argue that in colonial America as well as the early Constitutional United States that the militia was comprised of all Men between a certain age range who were free. The age range varied and so did the perception of who was actually free but those are minor issues that have no bearing on my point. Since the actual make up, or more importantly the Constitutional removal of a militia has never been enacted then the actual make up of the militia is for the present entirely made up of those who wish to volunteer and are willing to become the militia themselves.

King George III


On 29 January 1820 died King George III, deaf, blind, and insane. Although the myths of American history paint him as a tyrant, he was in fact a pious and serious man. Unlike all his relatives, he married at 22 and never kept a mistress. He was devoted to his wife, by whom he had 15 children. He was often sneered at as "Farmer George" because of his devotion to scientific farming.

Truth is, George III was a constitutional monarch with limited powers. It was the Parliament that sought to tyrannize over America, and actually, to get the Americans to pay for some of the cost of defending themselves by new taxes.

That didn't work out. Still, if you look at how little government interfered in the citizens' lives under King George III, & how little they paid in taxes, how free they were, it's enough to make you nostalgic for "Farmer George."

Bar Girls and why Not: Chapter Two of How to Marry a Third-World Woman and Live Happily Ever After, Somewhere Else

 Wonder where Aut 75 is these days?:)

When I posted the first chapter of the book of this title that I never finished writiing, response was heavy with requests for further chapters. OK, here are one.

Bar girls are a mistake that countless guys make when they first leave the United States. Bar girls are a mistake in two ways. First, lots of gringos think that the girls are typical of the women of the country. Second, they get tangled up with a hooker and perhaps marry her. This is bad juju. Not a good idea at all.

Let’s use Thailand as an example. Everyone has heard of the sex trade there. Most Americans seem to think that Thailand is a nation of prostitutes, and that seven out of every three have AIDS. This isn’t true. The sex trade exists, but the overwhelming majority of women have nothing to do with it. The problem is that very few outlanders get beyond the whorehouses, so they think there is nothing else to Thailand.

The fact is that the Thais are culturally conservative, have fairly high standards of sexual morality, and regard foreigners (farangs) as depraved barbarians who want only sex. This typically is accurate. But the women you first will meet will be hookers. Let’s go through the drill.

You land in Bangkok and check into your hotel. Of course that evening you head for one of the farang bar districts because, well, it’s easy, and although in principle you are looking for a wife, in practice a little practice never hurts. I mean we are, after all, guys. And Bangkok at night is a sexual candy store.

There are three girly districts of note, Patpong Road, Soi Cowboy, and Nana Plaza. Patpong is perhaps the best known and the nicest. (Actually there are Patpong I and Patpong II, streets right next to and parallel with each other.) The taxi drops you off. What do you see?

More @ Fred On Everything 



2nd Amendment and the Kool-Aid Drinkers

Via Don

I have quietly watched and evaluated the in pouring of e-mails reference the liberal’s intent to seize guns and crush the second amendment.  I want to add a few of my own thoughts on this issue as I have worked in and around all the people who could be tasked to seize your guns.


United Nations (UN)

We are the UN.  Other countries mostly join the U.N. to secure money, funding and training and few have any offensive combat capability. Most serve as guards at static locations and have no will to fight.  America is the enforcement arm of the U.N.  We have the money, equipment, personnel and lift platforms to get the job done.

If the president ever let the U.N. in this country, it would be a foreign invasion and armed Americans would stand up and crush them in a day. Our government would break down and the president would be ousted for letting foreign militaries invade our country.

Federal Government Military

Having served over 20 years in our military, I know that most soldiers would refuse the order to take part in the confiscation of weapons. First, the president would have to give the order, which is an “Illegal Order” in violation of the constitution.  I don’t believe that service members would go back into the communities that raised them and conduct raids on good Americans in violation of the constitution.

Remember, these forces would have to come from a military base that is surrounded and supported by American communities.  Civilians would simply cease to support the bases and they would fold in a short time.  Cut of the fuel, food, electricity on bases and this would stop the silliness.   Also, many, many service members live in the communities and they would have to travel from their houses to base unless they were locked down.  In that case, their families would still be in the community and people would not be too friendly to those supporting these actions.

Federal Government DHS or TSA

The Federal government is not large enough or talented enough to seize guns.  If they were to do 5-8 raids a day seizing guns, they would be physically and mentally exhausted and need a break.  Physically conducting raids is exhausting.  After the first few raids, the word would get out and Americans would start to fight back.  It would take one good ambush from a house or along a travel route to decimate a tactical force or make it combat ineffective.

Next, most Federal Agencies work out of a fixed location centrally located in a community.  Also, their personnel live in those communities along with their families.  Once the word got out that they were doing raids in violation to the constitution, they and their families would be at risk.  If they were to start raiding houses, kicking in doors and breaking in windows looking for legally owned guns, their homes would be subject to the same treatment by Americans rising up to defend themselves.  They would shortly find themselves without a place to live.

State Law Enforcement

Bicycle heater

Via dashing


Obama Administration Repositioning Homeland Security Ammunition Containers

Via Michael

 ammo box

The containers (like those pictured) are usually painted olive drab and are unmarked except for indistinguishable numbers/letters probably for inventory, routing, etc. Reader Don sent this in recently:
Jim – I passed a convoy of olive drab unmarked 40 foot tractor trailers each with four 10 yard ammo bunker boxes chained to them and unmarked armored Hum-Vee’s heading north on I-95 in Brevard County, Florida this past Thursday morning. The “govt” is positioning these ammo storage boxes, I have been told, in strategic places in population centers around the country. They are usually painted olive drab and are unmarked except for indistinguishable numbers/letters probably for inventory, routing, etc.
Obma’s Homeland Security Department has purchased 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition – that is not a typo — during the last six months.


Via midnightrider







We felt like this was the perfect time to share this IMPORTANT story with you. Recently, our good friend Michael (a local realtor) shared his experience with Leisa and I about an “Obama supporter” he encountered while showing homes to a low income, working family in Pontiac , MI . We asked him to please write it down so we could share it with you. YOU SHOULD BE SITTING DOWN WHILE READING THIS.

As a Realtor for the past 28 years I thought I’d seen or heard it all… Until now.

I was showing homes in Pontiac , MI. one afternoon recently and showed up at a home at the 4:00 pm time my appointment was scheduled for. After I woke up the homeowner, she let us in and then proceeded to tell my buyers and I that she has already entered into a contract to sell the home on a short-sale. (A short-sale is a sale where the bank accepts less money than is owed on the home). After some chit-chat, she proceeded to tell us that she and her sister (who also lived in the area) were buying each other’s homes via the short-sale process. I mentioned to her that I thought relatives could not be involved in those transactions. She smiled and said “We have two different last names so no one knows the difference.”

She went on to tell us that each of them owed over 100K on their homes and were in the process of buying each other’s homes for about 10-15K cash. To top it off, they were each receiving $3,000.00 in government provided relocation assistance at the closing.

My buyers and I were amazed that she was outright admitting to fraud and yet, she continued. She began to tell us that the best part of her scheme was that because they currently were not working that they (both) are now receiving Section 8 Vouchers. I said I thought those were for renters and she said “That’s the best part; me and my sister are going to be renting each other’s homes so we don’t even have to move, and Obama is going to give us each $800.00 a month to pay the rent!” She then picked up a picture she had framed of Obama and did a little happy dance around her living room and while she kissed the picture she was singing “Thank you Obama…. thank you Obama.”

So here is the bottom line… Both of these scammers got at least $80,000.00 in debt forgiven, $3,000.00 in cash for relocation (when in fact they did not relocate) and to boot, you and I will now be paying (through our taxes) $1,600.00 in rent for each them each and every month…. perhaps forever!

Is it any wonder why so many people have decided that all they have to do is VOTE for the Democrats and they will be taken care of for life at the expense of the taxpayers? I would not be at all surprised if they are receiving food stamps and whatever other programs are available for anyone who is willing to lie to get assistance.

These women went from working and paying about $900.00 each in mortgage payments to staying home and getting paid $800.00 each per month to live in the same home they had been living in and all they had to do was lie on a few papers. This craziness has to stop! I’m sure this kind of fraud is going on each and every day all across the country and no one wants to touch the subject of entitlements because they might OFFEND someone or lose a vote or two.

By the way… she had an almost new SUV in the driveway, three flat screen TV’s and a very nice computer set up in her living room which was furnished entirely with nice leather furniture.

For all of the “do-gooder’s” who voted for Obama to help the “less fortunate”….CHEERS…..

Green Berets Sign Letter Supporting 2nd Amendment

Via Peter


The following letter was disseminated and signed by over 1,000 current and former Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets) in support of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, specifically as a defensive measure against tyranny. The letter was compiled through the joint efforts of current and former Special Forces personnel over at www.ProfessionalSoldiers.com, and quietly disseminated for signatures among secure, vetted circles.

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!

The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?

What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world.

In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).

Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.

A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….” “The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”

So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind? The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family

had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.

So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:

1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.

3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.

4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.

7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.

8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.

What say you, SOFREP readers?

Author Of Book On 2012 Election: ‘Without Media Bias, America Would Vote Like Texas Or Kentucky’


On Tuesday, David Freddoso, author of Spin Masters, How the Media Ignored the Real News and Helped Reelect Barack Obama, joined the hosts of Fox & Friends to discuss pro-Democratic media bias in 2012 and beyond. The author detailed the case against the media in this interview and in a recent column for the New York Post in which he quotes a political scientist who attributes much of the nation’s support for Democratic politicians to the pro-Democratic coverage of politics in the mainstream media. Without that biased media, the author and the political scientist say, the nation’s voting patterns would more closely mirror any typical red state.

Freddoso opened by admonishing Steve Kroft and CBS after the reporter admitted that the president appeared on CBS because he knows they will not “play gotcha” with him. “It’s amazing,” Freddoso said.
“It just looks like CBS has a dog in that race,” Steve Doocy said.

“My old boss, Bob Novak, used to say, ‘a reporter is someone who would sell his soul for a story,’” Freddoso continued. “It’s just that when the story would make Barack Obama look bad or his presidency look like a failure, there is a sudden total lack of journalistic curiosity and unwillingness to sell one’s soul for a story.”

“Really big stories like Benghazi became non-stories,” he added. “Editorial judgments were made to play these things down.”
More @ Mediaite

Guns: the culture war liberals lost

 Guns: the culture war liberals lost

“There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself,” so said Pat Buchanan in his famous “culture war speech” at the 1992 Republican convention.

Buchanan revealed a decisive cultural and moral difference between the Left and the Right in this country. At stake were issues of life, sexuality, education, drugs, and the family.  Since Buchanan’s call to arms, conservatives have been losing almost all of those battles, with the exception of gun rights.

Gun ownership has remained stagnant for decades: between 40 percent and 50 percent of Americans since the early 90s claimed to own guns.

While this may be true laws relating to concealed carry and public perception of guns have become more liberal.

Dating back since the 1950’s banning handguns was a very popular position.  According to Gallup, 60 percent of the general public favored banning handguns in 1959 to 36 percent opposed.  Half a century later, the opinions have nearly completely flipped.

San Diego Police Chief: We Can Disarm Americans Within a Generation

Good luck, sonny. Another name to be added



San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne is fully supportive of the Obama/Feinstein gun grab, and says if lawmakers play it right Americans can be completely disarmed within "a generation."

Lansdowne has gone on record saying: "I could not be more supportive of the president for taking the position he has. I think it's courageous with the politics involved in this process. [And] I think it's going to eventually make the country safer."

He made it clear that it may take "a generation," but new laws could eventually take all guns off the streets.

This is quite a departure from other law enforcement personnel we've seen around the country--particularly Sheriffs--who've come out firmly against any infringement on the 2nd Amendment. We've cheered those officials for standing with the people, and now Lansdowne has taken a position completely opposite them.

Moreover, Lansdowne has also been slamming the NRA in interviews. And he seems overtly thrilled at the money the NRA is being forced to spend to get their message out in the wake of the crime at Sandy Hook Elementary. "We broke the NRA," says Lansdowne.

Breitbart News contacted Lansdowne's office about these statements but received no comment.

A Vatican spokesman's misguided statement on gun control

Via comment by Anonymous on Catholic and 46 other Churches back Obama’s Gun Grab


Let’s make something clear right away. Pope Benedict has not endorsed the Obama administration’s gun-control plans. The Pope has said nothing on the subject. But Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office—has released a statement on gun control, in his weekly editorial commentary for Vatican Radio. Inevitably his editorial will be portrayed by careless reporters as an official statement of the Vatican’s position. It is not; Father Lombardi does not set policy for the Vatican, or make authoritative statements for the Catholic Church.

Nor does the Catholic Church make authoritative statements about partisan political matters—especially partisan political matters in a country far from Rome, a country whose political affairs Vatican officials do not understand.
”The initiatives announced by the United States government in view of limiting and controlling the diffusion and use of arms are certainly a step in the right direction,” Father Lombardi pronounced as he began his commentary. Obviously he was referring to the executive orders issued by President Obama (who, by the way, is not “the United States government”) last week. The wording of the editorial is vague; we don’t know which initiatives in particular met with Father Lombardi’s approval. We don’t know, actually, whether the Vatican spokesman is actually acquainted with the specifics of the White House plans. In short—let’s not mince words—we don’t know whether Father Lombardi knows what he’s talking about.


Vatican Bank is the main shareholder in ‘Pietro Beretta’ arms

 Perhaps few people know that Pietro Beretta arms factory Ltd. (the largest arms industry in the world) and is controlled by the Holding SpA Beretta and the majority shareholder of the Beretta Holding SpA after Gussalli Ugo Beretta, is the IOR (Institute for Works of Religion [commonly known as the Vatican Bank]) private institution founded in 1942 by Pope Pius XII and headquartered in Vatican City.

More @ USA Hit Man

Buchanan: America’s role in a darkening age

Via Ryan

 Buchanan: America's role in a darkening age

When, in the 1950s, Nikita Khrushchev said, “We will bury you,” and, “Your children will live under communism,” Eisenhower’s America scoffed.

By 1980, however, the tide did indeed seem to be with the East.

America had suffered a decade of defeats. Southeast Asia had fallen. The ayatollah had seized power in Iran. Moscow had occupied Afghanistan. Cuban troops were in Ethiopia and Angola. Grenada and Nicaragua had fallen to the Soviet bloc. Eurocommunism was all the rage on the continent.

Just a decade later, the world turned upside-down.

The Berlin Wall fell. Eastern Europe was suddenly free. The Soviet Union disintegrated. China abandoned Maoism for state capitalism.

Now, 20 years on, the wheel has turned again — toward darkness.

220 Sheriffs Saying ‘NO’ to Obama Gun Control with list


Sheriffs have risen up all over our great nation to stand up against the unconstitutional gun control measures being taken.

The following is a list of sheriffs and state sheriff’s associations from who have vowed to uphold and defend the Constitution against Obama’s unlawful gun control measures.  I applaud these public servants for their courage and conviction. 

I call on sheriffs all over this nation to add their voices to the growing numbers of faithful protectors of our freedom.
-Richard Mack

List of State Sheriff’s Associations


1. Utah Sheriff’s Association

2. New Mexico Sheriff’s Association (30 out of 33 sheriffs)

124  Coy Reid Catawba North Carolina
125  Adell Dobey Edgefield North Carolina
126  Jerry Jones Franklin North Carolina
127  Charlie McDonald Henderson North Carolina
128   Castle Hayne New Hanover North Carolina
129  Jimmy Thornton Sampson North Carolina
130  Eddie Cathey Union North Carolina
131  Donnie Harrison Wake North Carolina
132  Carey Winders Wayne North Carolina


More County Sheriffs

NY: Army Vet Arrested on charges for 30 round mags

Via hefferman1

Here we go.



A town of LeRay man was accused Sunday of possessing high-capacity magazines for an assault rifle.

Jefferson County Sheriff's deputies say 32 year old Nathan Haddad allegedly had five 30-round magazines for an AR-15 rifle in his possession.

Police say the magazines were found during a vehicle check on Steinhilber Road in the town of LeRay.

Haddad was charged with five counts of third degree criminal possession of a weapon and arraigned in Watertown town court.

More @ AR15

What about me?

Via Michael

NC schools write off cursive instruction

Via NC Links

 School generic

Pretty soon as soon as you learn your ABCs and can count to 100 you'll be awarded a PhD.

Cursive handwriting, once a standard part of the three R's in elementary school, is no longer required to be taught in North Carolina.

The death of cursive instruction is linked to the national common core standards that North Carolina and 44 other states have adopted to standardize educational goals nationwide. The state leaves the decision on whether to teach cursive up to local school systems.

"We spend a lot more time in the computer lab, so they're learning (Microsoft) Word and word-processing as opposed to cursive handwriting," Lynn Dingwell, a third-grade teacher at Ed Baldwin Elementary School in Hope Mills, said Monday.

The only cursive to be found in Dingwell's classroom was on a how-to poster, with each stroke numbered as if teaching a dance.

"I think it's a lost art," she said, adding that most of her students can write their first and last names in cursive.

Student Xenia Glasco said her grandmother is teaching her cursive.

“The way my grandma does it, it’s kind of hard to write, but I like the way she writes it," Xenia said.

Michael Smith, a communications professor at Campbell University, said there's more to cursive than elegance, and he fears that students' cognitive skills will be less developed without it.

More @ WRAL