You're Stuck In This Country With Us

If you've ever watched the movie Watchmen - or better yet, read the comic - you probably remember the following scene. If you're squeamish, skip the video.

Rorschach, one of the heroes, gets locked up with many of the criminals he put in prison. After defeating an attacker in a fight, Rorschach yells at his fellow inmates, "I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with me!"

Prof. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit alluded to that scene when explaining one of the basic functions of government.

Police don’t actually protect law-abiding citizens from criminals so much as they protect criminals from the much-rougher justice they’d get in the absence of a legal system. Burglars would be hung from lampposts, and shoplifters would be beaten and tossed into the gutter if there were no police, as in fact happens in countries where there isn’t a reliable justice system and a civil-society culture that restrains vigilantism. Reminder to the criminal class: Ultimately, we’re not stuck in this country with you. You’re stuck in this country with us.

The following day (3 Sep 2015), Prof. Reynolds linked to a story about the rising trend of street "justice" in Venezuela.

When a man they believed to be a thief sneaked into their parking lot in the Venezuelan city of Valencia, angry residents caught him, stripped him and beat him with fists, sticks and stones. 

They tied him up and doused him in gasoline, according to witnesses, in one of what rights groups and media reports say are an increasing number of mob beatings and lynchings in a country ravaged by crime.

Almost a year later, the trend has not abated. In fact, as Venezuela continues its death spiral under the crushing weight of Socialism, it seems to be getting worse. Why? Caracas city councilman, Jesús Armas, explains...

This year will without a doubt be the most violent in the history of our city...  

The insecurity has three roots. The first is associated with levels of poverty and inequality that we see in the city. Today Venezuela is the country with the highest inflation in the world, with shortages that force people to line up for hours to buy food. For decades neighborhoods have sprung up outside the city, and now more than 50 percent of the city's population lives in places where houses are built with low-quality materials, and where they don't formally have access to basic public services and are without roads or consolidated public spaces. 

Poverty, inequality and no basic public services in the Chavista Socialist paradise? Unpossible!

The second element has to do with a culture of lawlessness. In the country, a habit of disrespect for most basic laws - those related to transit, shoplifting, even the ways the authorities and the rest of the population interact with these laws, has resulted in a collective indifference toward much larger crimes because the law is simply a dead letter. 

When the government officials who are supposed to enforce the law are the biggest thieves, how can anyone else be expected to respect the law? Chavez died a billionaire, and his daughter is the wealthiest person in Venezuela.

Finally, there is the reaction of the national and local government in terms of managing the violence. The truth is that we have a mayor who, through hate speech and a series of acts of violence promoted by groups related to his party and his administration, has over the years exhibited excessive permissiveness toward huge criminal groups that dominate vast and populous parts of the city, either because they handle drug trafficking or because they have a monopoly on violence and illegal activities that generate income. 

Likewise, the state has implemented a policy that has nothing to do with protecting life, liberty and property of citizens, but on the contrary, has driven a socialist model that seeks to limit those freedoms, using crime as a way to maintain power and control of the population. But the truth is that today things are out of control and we are left with a failed state in which the so-called peace zones are micro-states controlled by gangsters and not by constitutional institutions.

Life, liberty and property? Where have I read that before? Mr. Armas hit the nail on the head. A government's sole purpose is to secure the people's rights to life, liberty and property. As Thomas Jefferson stated in his first inaugural address:

... a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

Unfortunately, Venezuela's Socialist government - like all Socialist governments - busies itself primarily with "[taking] from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned", secondarily with buying votes with the bread it took from the mouth of labor, and not at all with its actual responsibility of "[restraining] men from injuring one another".

The result is what we now see in Venezuela. We may not see it for long, not because it'll stop any time soon, but because Venezuela's government - embarrassed by its own impotence and incompetence - banned media coverage of the lynchings. Venezuela's government won't crack down on crime, much less unshackle the people and economy from the disastrous Socialist policies that led to the disintegration of Venezuelan society. They'll just prevent news outlets from talking about it, thereby accomplishing nothing of value.

As European governments refuse to protect their citizens from Muslim migrant criminals and conspire to cover up their negligence, homicide rates in some American cities skyrocket due to the Ferguson Effect, and insurmountable federal debt leads us towards Venezuela-style hyperinflation, lessons abound. The decent among us need to learn those lessons quickly and prepare accordingly. Criminals won't. After all, criminals aren't known for prudence or self-control.

Source: Fox News Latino

Anti-Gun = Anti-Self-Defense

Observing the actions of 2nd Amendment opponents has convinced me that they fundamentally oppose the right to self defense... for us peasants, anyway. Supposedly anti-gun politicians and celebrities routinely surround themselves with well armed, professional security teams, and even avail themselves of concealed weapons permits. They deny the rest of us the right to own the most effective self defense tools (guns) because they deny our right to defend ourselves.

Most of the evidence for the above paragraph emanates from Europe, where, for example, a Danish girl was prosecuted for using pepper spray to defend herself from an attempted rapist. Every once in a while, however, "liberals" in the US provide us with obvious examples of their anti-self-defense stance.

Mr. Diallo in red shirt

Police initially charged Mamadou Diallo, 61 years old, with manslaughter after he repeatedly struck Earl Nash with a tire iron in the elevator bank of a Bronx apartment building Monday night...

... 

Mr. Nash, who has a long criminal history, has been in and out of state prison since 2006 and was most recently released in July 2015...

...

Nash

The wife told police that when she answered the door, Mr. Nash forced his way in, took off his pants, tried to tear off her clothes and attempted to rape her, the official said.

The [female] cousin heard the commotion and tried to fight off Mr. Nash, the official said.

While the cousin and Mr. Nash struggled, the wife used a cellphone to call her husband, who was outside, the official said.

As Mr. Diallo arrived in one elevator, Mr. Nash tried to flee in another, the official said. The wife pointed to Mr. Nash as her assailant and the men clashed in the elevator bank in a one- to two-minute fight that was caught on surveillance video, officials said.

This story reminded me of an earlier one from much more gun-friendly Texas, where a father beat to death a man who attempted to rape his 5-year-old daughter. The father wasn't even arrested, much less charged with a crime.

The father was never arrested, but the killing was investigated as a homicide. 

Philip Hilder, a Houston criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor, said he would have been surprised if the grand jury had decided to indict the father. Hilder said Texas law provides several justifications for the use of deadly force, including if someone commits a sexual assault. 

"The grand jury was not about to indict this father for protecting his daughter," he said.

The anti-2nd-Amendment Brady Campaign gave New York State an A- for its strict gun laws. Why only an A-? Presumably because 100% confiscation alone would satisfy the Brady Campaign.

By contrast, gun-crazy Texas received an F. Unfortunately, an F is the lowest grade the Brady Campaign awards, because Texas has since then legalized open carry, and freedom-minded folk take pride in low Brady scores. It's kind of like golf. Just ask the people of Wyoming. It won't take long. There aren't that many.

Here's the score that actually matters.

1. In anti-gun New York, a man will be prosecuted for beating to death his wife's attempted rapist.
2. In gun-friendly Texas, a man wasn't even arrested for beating to death his 5-year-old daughter's attempted rapist. 

Why? Because anti-gun actually means anti-self-defense. Hopefully, sanity will win the day, but it's Mr. Diallo's misfortune that he lives in an anti-gun, anti-self-defense, "liberal" state. 

Why do we conservatives support the 2nd Amendment? Because we believe humans have the right to live. In fact, the right to live is the foundation of all other rights, because one can only exercise ones other rights if one is alive. If a human has the right to live, then it stands to reason that he/she also has the right to defend his/her right to live. If a human has the right to defend his/her right to live, then it stands to reason that he/she also has the right to "keep and bear (carry)" the most effective tools with which to defend his/her right to live - guns.

One can't oppose a human's right to "keep and bear (carry)" the most effective self defense tools available and logically, simultaneously claim to support that human's right to defend his/her right to live.

Which is why "liberals" don't.  

Perpetuating Stereotypes (Feminist Edition)

Feminist Julie Bindel claims that "marriage can never be feminist". On that much we agree. You can watch and listen to her arguments below.

I get the feeling that Ms. Bindel's video will backfire more often than not. Why? Because Ms. Bindle perpetuates stereotypes about feminists. Compare Ms. Bindle to the women she mocks in her video.

Enlightened feminist Julie Bindel

Poor misguided sap #1

Poor misguided sap #2

Poor misguided sap #3

When selling something, the salesperson matters. That's especially true if you're selling something intangible, like an idea. A product can sell itself if it's good enough. An idea can't. The salesperson needs to embody that which he/she is selling. Ms. Bindel is selling feminism as a means to freedom, and ultimately happiness, yet she she comes off as dour, bitter and generally unpleasant. The impression one gets from the video is that of a woman whose choices have made her miserable, and would love some equally miserable company.

If I didn't know better I'd wonder if Ms. Bindel's video was a parody made by her ideological opponents. But I do know better, because I've been exposed to feminists. Stereotypes about feminists exist for a reason. Behold exhibit A (language warning).



Behold exhibit B.

When selling something, the salesperson matters. That's especially true if you're selling something intangible, like an idea.

I could do this all day, but there's only so much I can take. All these feminists are perfect examples of why "liberals" want conservatives to shut up, while conservatives want "liberals" to keep talking. In fact, when exhibit B went viral, a fellow feminist penned an angry (what else?) email that "provided a list of demands that included a request that [student journalist Kassy] Dillon be prohibited from writing or publishing for Campus Reform or any Mount Holyoke-affiliated student publication".

In other words, a student journalist provided a feminist with a soapbox from which to broadcast her message, and feminists are so embarrassed by their peer and her message that they want to punish the journalist. 

I can't say that I blame them. 

This brings us back to Ms. Bindel's video. She's a terrible salesperson for feminism, not because she gives a false impression of feminism and its adherents, but because she gives an accurate impression of them.  Feminism does, in fact, make women miserable, and miserable company. A 2009 paper published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (clearly a bastion of conservative thought) put it this way: 

By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women’s declining relative wellbeing is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries.

It's not a paradox. There is no paradox. There is an obvious correlation between increased acceptance of feminist though throughout industrialized countries and increased female misery. Looking at and listening to the women who've most wholeheartedly embraced feminism, no one should be surprised. This is why - like most conservatives - I want feminists to be seen and heard as much as possible. Because I suspect that when most young women are exposed to their misery and hysteria, their reactions will resemble that of this young woman. 




What about the substance of Ms. Bindel's arguments? I'll let Steven Crowder handle that. 




UPDATE (30 May 2016): The Guardian tackles the question of why women are more miserable than ever "despite" feminist "progress", comes tantalizingly close to the answer, and still misses the mark. 

The social history of Switzerland, where women weren’t allowed to vote until 1971, reveals the subtleties of employment expectations on happiness. A decade after Swiss women gained suffrage, the country’s citizens voted in a referendum on whether the constitution should be amended to state that women deserve equal pay for equal work. 

Different parts of Switzerland voted very differently. Unsurprisingly, cantons (Swiss states) with a high proportion of votes in favor of the amendment were recorded as having a small gender wage gap some years later. But strangely, working women in areas with strong traditional values – where most people had voted against equal pay – were happier than working women in liberal cantons. 

Right. "Strangely". No correlation to see here, folks. Move along.

Illinois Concealed Carry Fails to Reenact "Tombstone"

In January 2014, Illinois finally became the 50th state to issue concealed carry licenses to law abiding people living within its borders.  Predictably, hoplophobes predicted that Chicago's streets would run red with blood, as crazed concealed carry permit holders reenacted the shootout at the O.K. Corral. 

Source: IMDB

Sadly, for bloody-shirt-waving hoplophobes, but fortunately for everyone else, the hoplophobes' fantasies failed to materialize.  Again. 

Opponents of the concealed carry law in Illinois — which State Sen. Bill Cunningham (D-Chicago) said passed with "overwhelming support" — feared that it would increase rather than decrease crime, putting more guns into the streets that could fall into the wrong hands.

They always do.

In the year of concealed carry permits in Illinois, there have only been a couple incidents involving legal gun owners that have created headlines. In July, a concealed-carry permit holder in Crestwood tried shooting at a fleeing armed robber, hurting no one but forcing a police officer to duck for cover. In Chicago a member of the military who had a concealed carry permit shot and wounded an armed man who fired into a crowd on Chicago's Far South Side. 

Nevertheless, Hayes said he stopped opposing the concealed carry law when he realized that the past year has not resulted in the level of violence some anticipated. 

In fact, just the opposite happened.

Since Illinois started granting concealed carry permits this year, the number of robberies that have led to arrests in Chicago has declined 20 percent from last year, according to police department statistics. Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low.  

Those of us who've been paying attention are not the least bit surprised.  After all, we've seen the same trend throughout the United States since 1993.  But those facts don't matter to hoplophobes.

But Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart's office has not changed its overall stance against the concealed carry law and its implementation, which as the Chicago Tribune reported recently, requires applicants to be vetted by a controversial state licensing board. 

"Sheriff Dart has been very vocal about his opposition," said Ben Breit, Dart's spokesman, adding that "it's a tough spot," because "the courts have spoken" to legalize concealed carry. 

"Gun violence is gun violence, whether it's in the suburbs or the city of Chicago," said Cara Smith, a Dart spokeswoman, acknowledging that the Sheriff's officers help police many of the county's suburbs.

Sheriff Dart and his fellow hoplophobes opposed concealed carry - supposedly - because they believed it would result in more crime.  The facts demonstrate that the opposite happened.  Crime rates dropped with concealed carry, just as they did throughout the US, yet Sheriff Dart and his fellow hoplophobes obstinately continue to oppose concealed carry.  Why?  Because Sheriff Dart and his fellow hoplophobes fear law abiding armed citizens more than they fear criminals.  Thus the term hoplophobe.

The next time a city or state considers relaxing gun laws, hoplophobes will again predict blood in the streets, because no matter how many times their prediction fails, it's the only trick they have.  Don't fall for it.

By the way, Tombstone still rocks, especially Val Kilmer's portrayal of Doc Holliday.

The Best Defense Against Two Bad Guys With No Guns...

... is a good guy with a gun.  Even if that good "guy" is an 11-year-old girl. 

An 11-year-old girl used the shotgun she normally keeps to go hunting with her father to scare off a robber in her home, police said. 

The girl was alone at her North Branch Township home on Five Lakes Road about 3:45 p.m. on Jan. 30 when police said she surprised burglars who had broken into the house.
The girl hid in a bathroom closet, where she grabbed her shotgun that police said she stores in a gun safe. 

When one of the burglars opened the closet door, police said the girl -- whose parents were due home from work a short time later -- pointed the shotgun at him and he ran off. 

The accused

"The 12-gauge shotgun is her weapon," said Lapeer County Sheriff Detective Sgt. Jason Parks. "She and her father are into hunting and avid sportsmen. She was familiar with that weapon." 

Parks praised the girl's responsibility, poise and composure. 

"She is fully capable of staying there by herself as we can clearly see based on this situation," he said. "She was able to defend herself from an intruder and be able to resolve an event even most adults would be taken aback by." 

Added Parks, "She is fully capable of making sound, good decisions," he said. "And be a protector of her home."

First, I echo Detective Parks' praise of the young lady.  She behaved prudently and courageously in a possible life-or-death situation.  I'll also praise the girl's father for teaching his daughter to shoot safely.

It's also necessary to point out that the only reason an 11-year-old girl was able to defend herself from two criminals is that she was armed with a gun.  No other tool can give such a small person the power to defend him/herself from multiple assailants who are bigger, heavier and stronger than their intended victim.

Finally, please note that this is yet another scenario that hoplophobes claim doesn't happen.  The criminals ran as soon as they saw the shotgun barrel pointed at them, which is how most defensive gun uses go.   There was no bloodshed precisely because the girl was armed.  And although the girl is a hunter and familiar with her shotgun, there is no reason to believe that she had any tactical training, which disproves the hoplophobes' assertion that one requires Navy SEAL training to effectively use a gun in self defense.  Again.

What would've happened to this young lady if the hoplophobes would've succeeded in disarming her, and/or rendering her ignorant of guns, shooting and hunting?  Fortunately, we'll never need to find out.

A Tale of Three Restaurants (and Guns)

The Pit Authentic Barbecue restaurant in Durham, NC posted a sign that read...

no weapons, no concealed firearms 

Shockingly, three criminals paid the sign no heed.

Authorities said just before 9 p.m. Sunday, three men wearing hoodies entered the restaurant through the back doors with pistols, and forced several staff members on the floor. 

Maybe that was the problem.  The criminals must have missed the sign because it was posted at the front of the restaurant and they busted in through the back.

Officials said the suspects assaulted two employees during the crime, but they were not seriously injured. 

That's a relief, but that outcome depended 100% on the restraint the criminals exercised over themselves.  Does depending on a violent criminal's self-restraint seem wise to you?

Owner Greg Hatem also said there were a few patrons in the dining room while the robbery was happening in the kitchen area. Workers were able to ask them to leave, and got them out safely through the front door. 

“We’re offering $2,000 for the arrest and conviction of these guys,” Hatem said. “We take this very seriously. We want to make sure our guests and our staff are taken care of.” 

By rendering them defenseless against armed, violent criminals?

That event inspired another restaurant owner to do the opposite.

Gun control is a hot topic across the country, and one East Tennessee restaurant owner is making her opinion very clear by posting a 'Guns are Welcome' sign on the front door of her family-friendly establishment.

...

Floyd said she posted the signs about a month ago after reading a story out of North Carolina. 

"They had put up a sign that said 'No Weapons Allowed' and they were robbed at gunpoint two days later. The convenience store manager was shot," said Floyd. "And that got me thinking. I lost a whole group of motorcyclists because they thought I didn't allow weapons. But I believe it's ok to carry as long as you have a permit." 

The restaurant does not sell liquor, and Floyd said she asks anyone who orders a beer if they are carrying.

That story reminded me of a previous one from Spokane.

Employees at a coffee shop in Spokane, Wash., are taking matters into their own hands after their store was robbed three times in less than a month. 

Sara Chapel, who owns Jitterz Java, is encouraging her employees to start carrying guns while on the job in order to protect themselves... 

“A couple of them bring handguns every day, no matter what shift it is. There is always a gun here now,” she said. “I would rather have it and need it, than need it and not have it.”

It's encouraging that in both cases in which the restaurants that supported the human right to self defense received mostly positive feedback from customers.

The coffee shop has so far received a flood of support on social media. 

“As long as the employees are well-trained in the use of firearms, I agree. Potential robbers will think twice before approaching them again,” Facebook user Mary Ann Gillispie Rohner wrote. 

“Citizens are the first responders in situations. I’m proud these ladies are prepared to protect themselves, like me!!” wrote Kelly Walker-Wincentsen.

The ladies of Jitterz Java also helped prove that armed self defense works.

On Sunday, a man aggressively tried to open a window at Jitterz Java and appeared to have a gun. The barista kept the window locked, grabbed her gun and called police. The man took off before police arrived.

To be clear, the owners of these establishments have the right to decide whether or not to allow guns on their property.  And potential customers have the right to decide whether or not to spend their money at those businesses for that - or any other - reason.

Murder Rates Decrease as Concealed Carry Increases

As I pointed out before, violent crime in the US decreased from its peak in 1993...

Source: Pew Research

...even as gun ownership increased.

Click to enlarge.  Source: NSSF

That doesn't prove that more guns = less crime, but it does prove "Liberals'" assertion that more guns = more crime false.  Now, the Crime Prevention Center published a study that demonstrates that murder rates in the US decreased as the rate of Concealed Carry Permit holders increased.

The study also breaks down the rate of Concealed Carry Permit holders in each state.  The states with the highest rate of Concealed Carry Permit holders are...

South Dakota   12.03% 

Indiana            10.79% 

Alabama          10.21% 

Utah                9.75% 

Tennessee        9.35% 

Pennsylvania    8.67% 

Iowa                8.53% 

Washington      8.49% 

Florida             8.23%  

Georgia            8.00%

Alaska, Arizona, most of Montana, Vermont and Wyoming do not require permits for concealed carry within the state.  Residents of those states that obtain CCPs do so in order to carry their guns legally when they travel to other states.  This is called reciprocity.  I mention all that because, although none of the states that allow Concealed Carry without a permit (often referred to as Constitutional Carry) are in the top ten, the proportion of people that carry in those states could very well be higher than any of the top ten states.  We can't know the actual proportion in those states because their residents can carry concealed firearms legally without a permit.

Every time the issue of Concealed Carry comes up, "Liberals" claim that CC leads to more violent crime, more accidental shootings, etc.  The argument I keep hearing and reading is that Concealed Carry results in wild west shootouts and blood running in the streets.

Obviously, the data prove those fever dreams false.  

Source: WaPo

All 50 states now have some form of Concealed Carry - every single one.  And yet, not only have dystopian "Liberal" fantasies about wild west shootouts and blood in the streets failed to materialize, homicides committed with guns, non-fatal crimes committed with guns and unintentional firearm-related fatalities decreased.

In other words, this doesn't necessarily prove that Concealed Carry results in less crime and fewer firearm-related accidental deaths, but it definitely proves "Liberals" wrong when they claim that Concealed Carry results in more crime and more firearm-related accidental deaths.

So, if Concealed Carry does not result in more crime or more firearm-related accidental deaths, why do "Liberals" continue to oppose Concealed Carry?  Because "gun control" ins't about guns, or crime or safety.  It's a bout expanding government control over law-abiding individuals.

Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant Supports "Gun Control"

Totalitarian regimes of all stripes have many things in common.  The one feature they share most ardently is a pathological obsession with restricting their subjects' behavior.  In that spirit, the terrorist organization currently taking over Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, AKA the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham; ISIS), released a set of rules they imposed on the people of Mosul (Nineveh) in northern Iraq. 

Firstly it tells "anyone who is asking," who its members are and what it is about: "We are soldiers of Islam and we've taken on our responsibility to bring back glory of the Islamic Caliphate."

Obviously, they understand the utility of a mission statement.

It confirms that it seized up to half a billion dollars from the Mosul branch of the Bank of Iraq but states it can be trusted with the funds.

"Comrades, turn in your arms!"

Stealing coupled with assurances of moral purity - another common feature of totalitarian regimes.  Here's the best part.

No public gathering other than those organised by ISIS will be allowed at any stage. No guns will be allowed outside of its ranks. 

From Lenin, to Hitler, to Stalin, to Mao, to Castro - and now ISIL/ISIS - totalitarians agree.  Oppressing people is much easier after you've disarmed them.

Ironically, the Iraqi government, impotent against ISIL/ISIS' advance, asked Iraqi civilians to fight the terrorists in its stead.

Iraq’s embattled government urged the terrified residents of Mosul to set up armed vigilante groups and fight Islamic militants who have taken over  the city, the country’s second-largest and in Nineveh province. 

In a meeting in Baghdad presided by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, members of the Nineveh Crisis Team said the city vigilantes should help the Iraqi police and security forces in their fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which stormed into Mosul on Sunday, after about 24 hours of clashes with the police and army.

It's ironic because the Iraqi government already did a great deal of ISIL/ISIS' job for them.

Dhia al-Wakil, spokesman for the office of the armed forces commander-in-chief, suggested that the firearm registration scheme made sense for "organisational and statistical" reasons. 

“It is designed to limit the numbers of arms owned by civilians, and hence it’s in the interests of people's safety and security," Wakil said. 

Officials at the interior ministry, whose police will issue the gun licenses, said the process would be properly conducted. 

"The people who get gun licenses will undergo checks," deputy interior minister Ahmed al-Khafaji said. "The decision permits possession of a firearm inside houses, not outside them, and just one per home – no more.” 

By limiting gun ownership to one gun per household, the Iraqi government made it impossible for law abiding Iraqis to defend their communities against ISIL/ISIS.  And by forcing law-abiding Iraqis to register their guns, they made it easier for ISIL/ISIS to finish disarming decent Iraqis.  All the terrorists have to do is go to each local police station (most of which are abandoned anyway), take the list of registered weapons owners, then go house-to-house confiscating their guns.  With only one gun per house, there's no way a family could defend themselves against a group of armed, battle-hardened men.  An entire neighborhood, with only one gun per house, would be unlikely to defend themselves.

How do mostly-disarmed people defend themselves against this?

Buying a Car Like Buying a Gun

What if buying a car was like buying a gun?  The Truth About Guns answers the question, at least for Californians. 

With the national debate of gun control again rearing its head, let’s do a quick comparison. Since vehicles kill or injure roughly three times more people a year than guns, let’s suppose we applied the same standards to vehicle operation that we do to guns. We will use California for example. Let’s start with purchasing a vehicle. You need a full background check, must be a citizen or legal resident and have no prohibiting factors in your history. Now you’re going wait 10 days to pick up your vehicle. If you’re buying used, you and the individual selling the vehicle must both go to the dealer for the transfer. Don’t forget the dealer’s fees; after all he has to make money too . . .

This is easy so far, inconvenient but easy. Your 10 days is up, time to pick up your vehicle and drive off. WRONG! Now you must have your vehicle transported to your home in an enclosed and locked trailer and stored in a locked garage. Your 10 gallon fuel tank must be EMPTY during transport, and you better make sure all your garage entrances are childproofed. Keep in mind you have now legally purchased a vehicle and stored a vehicle, your rights are not infringed at all.

That's just the beginning.  There's more.  A lot more.  Read the whole thing.

No politician would ever dream of proposing such onerous regulations for car ownership, because their constituents would never let them get away with it.  Americans love their cars.

But here's the irony.  Driving on public roads is not a right.  It's a privilege.  It's certainly not explicitly protected by the Constitution.

Gun ownership, and the carrying of said guns, is a right explicitly codified in, and protected by, the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.

Amendment II
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 

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines "infringe" as follows:

in·fringe (verb) \in-ˈfrinj\
: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )
: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

California's gun laws clearly do not obey or follow the highest law in the land - the US Constitution - and they wrongly limit or restrict Californian's Second Amendment Rights.  California's gun laws, then, infringe the right of the people of California to keep and bear Arms.

California's politicians proposed and passed those laws with the support of the majority of Californians.  That means that a majority of Californians would fight tooth and nail to keep their non-Constitutional privilege to drive, but paid politicians handsomely (politicians like the gun-trafficking Leland Yee) to violate their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The same is true of voters from other states that similarly infringe on Second Amendment rights.

Crazy, isn't it?

Miss America Promotes Self Defense, "Feminists" Explode

Nia Sanchez (Nevada), the new Miss USA, just gave "Feminists" a whole new reason to hate pageants. 

Miss Nevada Nia Sanchez, a fourth-degree black belt in the Korean martial art of

Source: NYP

taekwondo, was crowned Miss USA 2014 on Sunday night.

...

Judge Rumer Willis, the 25-year-old daughter of Bruce Willis and Demi Moore, said 19 percent of U.S. undergraduate women are victims of sexual assault and asked Sanchez why she thinks this is being swept under the rug and what should be done about it.

Sanchez said bringing awareness to the issue was important, as well as women taking it upon themselves to learn how to defend themselves.

Naturally, "Feminists" - who claim that women are capable of doing everything men are capable of doing - took to Twitter to vent their rage at the idea that women are capable of learning to defend themselves.

Let's apply to other crimes - and to men - the "logic" that "Feminists'" applied to sexual assault and to women.

I'm sorry, but women shouldn't need to take self defense classes to protect themselves from rape #MissUSA—
Peter Simon (@PeterSimon12) June 09, 2014

I'm sorry, but men shouldn't need to take self defense classes to protect themselves from aggravated assault.

Miss Nevada was asked about rape at colleges and answered that women need to learn to defend themselves... OR MEN COULD JUST NOT RAPE.
Anna Garcia (@a_mariagaria) 8 Jun 2014

Miss Nevada was asked about murder in Chicago and answered that men need to learn to defend themselves... OR MURDERERS COULD JUST NOT MURDER.

Miss Nevada described how individuals need to protect themselves from rape, instead of teaching others not to rape. Stop the victim blaming.—
Haley Ploucha (@hallepalouka) June 09, 2014

Miss Nevada described how men need to protect themselves from armed robbery, instead of teaching others not to rob at gunpoint.  Stop the victim blaming.

Women shouldn't need to learn to protect themselves against rape #missnevada  educate and respect yourself as a woman #rapeculture
Anna Beth West (@annabethwest) 8 Jun 2014

Men shouldn't need to learn to protect themselves against home invasions educate and respect yourself as a man (home invasion culture).

Yes, I refuse to use hash tags in my writing.

Sexual assault is a crime.  All crimes are violations of an individual's rights to life, liberty and/or property.  Evil people who violate others' rights have always existed and always will.  Therefore, the need for individuals to defend themselves from evil people has always existed and always will.

It's why we lock our doors.  It's why we buy security systems for our houses and cars.  It's why we avoid high crime areas.  Advising people to take practical precautions to avoid being a victim is not victim-blaming.  That remains true even if the crime is sexual in nature.

It's also why our Bill of Rights includes the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment protects the individual's right to own the most effective self defense tools available - firearms - so that the individual may defend him/herself from those who would violate his/her rights - whether the violators are ordinary criminals or criminal governments.

In fact, the worst thing I can say about Nia Sanchez's response is that she failed to mention using a gun in self defense.  Nobody's perfect.

But the vast majority of "Feminists" abhor the Second Amendment.

I guess the idea of a woman having the power to effectively defend herself against her attacker(s) is just too empowering for the average "Feminist" to consider.

15-Year-Old Boy Shoots Attempted Abductor

From K2 Radio in Wyoming:

GILLETTE, Wyo. (AP) — Campbell County sheriff’s officials say a 15-year-old boy fatally shot a man who was trying to abduct a woman in Wright. 

The shooting happened Wednesday night. 

Sheriff’s officials said Friday they had responded to reports of an attempted abduction at a home in Wright. They arrived to find 48-year-old Sammy Michael Fears, of Casper, wounded in the driveway. Fears died on the way to the hospital. 

It’s not clear how the teen became involved. Sheriff’s Cpl. Gary Sams says the teenage shooter had no family relationship to either Fears or the woman.He says Fears and the woman had a history of domestic violence going back a few years. 

Gillette media is reporting that the teen has not been charged.

Wyoming probably has the least restrictive gun laws in the US.  Its laws - like the US constitution - restrict the state, not the citizens.  Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution states that...

The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

According to the NRA...

Any person 21 years of age or older, who is not prohibited possessor, may carry a weapon openly or concealed without the need for a license. All non-residents must possess a permit issued by the state of their residence. A Wyoming resident may also apply for a concealed carry permit issued by this state in order to be able to carry concealed in those states requiring a permit.  

It seems like that's working pretty well for them.

One final thought: If this young man had shot up a school his picture would be on every front page, but because he committed an act of heroism with a gun, you'll never hear about him in the national media.  Does that seem right to you?

FBI Reports: Crime Drops As Gun Sales Soar

The FBI recently published their annual crime report for 2013, and it shows a drop in violent crime.

Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the nation reported a decrease of 5.4 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for the first 6 months of 2013 when compared with figures reported for the same time in 2012. 

In January, the FBI reported record breaking gun sales for 2013.

The FBI has released new statistics on NICS background checks showing 2013 gun sales hit a new record. The total number of background checks conducted for gun sales last year add up to 21,093,273, beating the previous 2012 record of 19,592,303 by 1,500,970. 

"Liberals" claim that more guns = more crime, and therefore we need to ban guns.  If we do, their "thinking" goes, our country will become a gun-free, crime-free utopia.  You know.  Like Russia.  If "Liberal" "logic" was accurate, crime would have increased, in 2013.  Was that an aberration?  Not even close.

Gun ownership has increased steadily in the US for years.

Source: The Truth About Guns

Violent crime steadily decreased in the US since it's peak in the early '90s.  Homicides in which the killer used a gun dropped by 49%.

At the same time, concealed carry laws improved to the point that, today, all 50 states have some form of concealed carry on the books.

By 2014, the percentage of people living in the Red states, with no possibility of even applying for a permit, has declined to zero. Illinois’ 2013 reforms ended the problem of states not even having a process theoretically available. (The problem persists in DC, but this chart is only for states.) 

As of January 2014, about 2/3 of the population lived in a Green state, with a Shall Issue licensing statute. 

Purple states (concealed carry is allowed without need for a permit) have increased from Vermont only in 1986 to several states comprising about 4% of the population. Currently, the Purple states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont, and Wyoming (residents only). 

The Yellow states (arbitrary permitting) were the national norm in 1986, but they are now outliers. Unless the 9th Circuits’ decision in Peruta is overturned, California and Hawaii will have to become Shall Issue states. 

This will leave Yellow states at less than 1/7 of the U.S. population.

I do not claim that more guns = less crime.  "Liberals" do claim, however, that more guns = more crime.  To logically make that claim, "Liberals" need to explain why crime in the US continues to decrease as gun ownership continues to increase.

I've never met one that can.

Mom Defends Her Children With an "Assault Rifle"

Nobody needs an "assault rifle".  Until they do.

Recalling the panic she felt, the mom says "I let them know I had a gun once they were in the house. They said no you don't so I shot off the first round. I wasn't feeling anything at the moment, I got scared afterwards."

In a follow-up, WXYZ Detroit reports:

Her husband is thankful she and the kids are safe.He gave her the weapon just two weeks ago and showed her how to use it."If I hadn't prepared my wife for this kind of situation, I could have came home to a family that was gone," he says. 

Let that be a lesson to you, gentlemen.  Fortunately, the Detroit police chief says "she did the right thing".

German Union Boss Threatens VW's Chattanoooga Workers

Aren't unions supposed to represent the will of the ordinary worker?  If so, what to do when ordinary workers - of their own free will - vote against the UAW?  Apparently, they make threats.

this latest tidbit is sure to raise more than a few eyebrows, as it came straight from Bernd Osterloh, head of VW's works council in Germany.

I can imagine fairly well that another VW factory in the United States, provided that one more should still be set up there, does not necessarily have to be assigned to the south again. ... If co-determination isn't guaranteed in the first place, we as workers will hardly be able to vote in favor [of another VW plant in the southern US].

In other words, VW's works council, which has to approve any new plants before they can be built, may block further expansion in southern US states due to the area's apparent anti-union stance.

Source: NYT

Or, to put it another way, "unionize or we'll refuse to create any more jobs in your area."  Or, still another way, "VW's American employees are too stupid to know what's good for them, so from now on we'll decide for them if they'll join a union."

The anti-liberty sentiment among the UAW supporters is striking.  Look through the comments to the Autoblog article, and you'll see response after response stating that Southerners are too stupid and/or uneducated to know what's good for them.

I asked the following question in the comments:

Who is best qualified to decide what is in the Chattanooga plant workers' best interest?
1. The Chattanooga plant workers?
2. The UAW?
3. VW's works council in Germany?
4. Autoblog readers?
5. Someone else?

Here's one response from a UAW supporter.

VW Works Council...they have the decision-making power as to which of their plants get new products (work)...since the Works Council make up 50% of VW's board, they are the ones who call the shots...European/German labor unions are very different from American labor unions, they encourage a collaborative nature between management and workers...voting for the union at Tennessee would have brought that sort of enlightenment to the American shores...there is a reason why Mercedes-Benz, BMW and VW/Audi/Porsche/Bugatti/Lamborghini, etc. are some of the most respected brands on the globe...they treat and pay their workers well, management is held accountable and that results in superior products...it would be great for some of that to rub off on the American psyche...god knows we need it...

See?  VW's Works Council knows the Chattanooga workers' needs better than the Chattanooga workers do.

I also quoted a New York Times article on the vote and added some commentary.

"Mike Burton, a VW worker who led the anti-union drive, said many workers felt that they were paid well and treated well without having a union and thus saw no need to have one. He said many workers objected to the U.A.W. having initially sought unionization based on what it said was having a majority of cards signed favoring a union. 

'We don’t need the U.A.W. to give us rights we already have,' he said. 'We can already talk to the company if we have any problems'.” ~ NYT 

The workers voted and the UAW lost. The workers are best qualified to decide what is in their own best interest. They decided. Leave them alone. 

Here's a response to that comment.

The workers were indoctrinated with bullshit from the right they don't know whats best for them. Maybe the UAW isn't the best for them but they deserve some form of workers council.

Ah, yes.  The old "false consciousness" argument.  How Marxist.

Most Leftists on the national stage are smart enough to realize that telling the people you're trying to convince that they're too stupid to make their own decisions, so instead they're blaming Republicans, the eeeeeevil Right and even (gasp!) the Koch Brothers for the UAW's defeat.

I have one word for you.  Koch!

“I think it was unprecedented that outside forces, whether it was the Koch brothers and the money they spent here, whether it was [Republican Sen. Bob] Corker, whether it was Grover Norquist, all these people who were going to come in and threaten the company and threaten workers, to me was outrageous,” said UAW President Bob King, at a news conference after the tally was announced.

Seriously, if the Koch brothers were as powerful in real life as they are in Lefties' fever dreams of them, they'd be masters of the universe by now.

As the NYT article demonstrates, neither Republican politicians nor libertarian activists defeated the UAW.  The workers themselves did, with a lot of help from the UAW's reputation.

Standing outside the Volkswagen plant, Mike Jarvis, a three-year employee who works on the finishing line, said the majority had voted against U.A.W. because they were persuaded the union had hurt Detroit’s automakers. 

“Look at what happened to the auto manufacturers in Detroit and how they struggled. They all shared one huge factor: the U.A.W.,” said Mr. Jarvis, who added that he had had bad experiences with other labor unions. “If you look at how the U.A.W’s membership has plunged, that shows they’re doing a lot wrong.”

Mike Jarvis, by the way, wrote an opinion piece for the NYT explaining why he helped organize opposition to the UAW.

As George Will wrote in the Washington Post:

UAW officials blamed last week’s failure on “outside special-interest groups,” which describes the UAW in Chattanooga. In a characteristically shrill and clumsy intervention before the voting ended, Barack Obama accused Tennessee Republicans of being “more concerned about German shareholders than American workers.” He missed the detail that the shareholders’ company favored the UAW. The UAW, too, blamed Tennessee’s Republican politicians. 

Funny how everyone opposing the UAW is caricatured as an "outside special-interest group" exerting undue influence, but everyone supporting the UAW - including the president of the United States, with the biggest bully pulpit on Earth - is not.

None of that matters.  What matters is that the workers have the right to choose for themselves whether or not they want the UAW to represent them.  The workers declined UAW representation.  That's it.  Period.  End of discussion.

Unless, of course, you believe VW's Chattanooga workers are incapable of making their own decisions and should therefore have their right to choose for themselves violated.  If so, I wonder what other rights the UAW's supporters would like to steal from VW's Chattanooga workers.

It's for their own good, of course.  The UAW and their Democrat allies simply want to do for Chattanooga what they did for Detroit.

Armed Citizen Stops Mass Shooting In Gary, IN

We're in Indiana, they [are] from Illinois, they don't know people got permits to carry guns, so bang bang, that is what happened. ~ Jessie Sturgis

Gary, IN is one of the most crime-ridden cities in the US, and it's just down the road from the South Side of Chicago, where the crime rate is also famously high

Clearly, residents of both municipalities need to exercise their right to self defense.  It's also clear that the situation in the unfortunately named Safe and Sound Senior Citizens Club was exactly the kind of situation opponents of armed self defense claim make armed self defense impossible.  The assailants shot four club patrons, including 65-year-old Mr E. C. Robinson.

E.C. Robinson, 65, a Gary resident, was shot but managed to defend himself and others with his own gun.  "He shot him twice, that is when E.C. started shooting back," said one witness. 

Despite being shot twice, Mr Robinson returned fire and hit his attacker.

Police say the suspected gunman is a 23-year-old from Chicago. They believe his motive was to rob people at the senior citizens club....The suspect hid in the bathroom after he was shot until police came and took him into custody.

Opponents of armed self defense claim one has to be a Navy SEAL to effectively use a gun to defend oneself, but Criminologist Lawrence Southwick wrote in the St. Louis University Law Review that...

Somewhere around 0.8 to 2.0 million violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians. In addition, another 1.5 [million] to 2.5 million crimes are stopped by armed civilians.

More specifically, opponents of armed self defense claim it's impossible for an ordinary person to defend him/herself in mass shooting situations because they are inherently chaotic.  Mr Robinson, and many others, prove them wrong.

But we all know that "gun control" isn't about guns, it's a bout control.  It's about controlling people.  Facts are, therefore, mere inconveniences.

VW Workers Reject UAW in Chattanooga

If you've been paying attention to car manufacturing in the US, you know that Tennessee is the number one auto manufacturing state. 

This is the fourth consecutive year that Tennessee has held the top spot, thanks to the the long-term commitment of Nissan and General Motors manufacturing and assembly plants, and the more recent addition of Volkswagen in Chattanooga.

Michigan - the ancestral home of the US Auto industry - isn't even close.

You also likely know that, following several years of declining membership, the United Automobile Workers...

...is seeking to rebuild membership by trying to organize workers at the U.S. factories of Volkswagen AG (VOW) and Nissan Motor Co. (7201) The UAW previously failed to convince workers to join the union at Nissan as well as the U.S. factories of Toyota Motor Corp. (7203) and Honda Motor Co. (7267) 

They failed.

In what is being characterized as a major blow to the United Auto Workers, workers at Volkswagen's plant in Chattanooga, TN have voted to reject union representation. The voting results – 712 opposed and 626 in favor – were released late Friday evening after a three-day secret ballot voting drive captured 89 percent of eligible workers. The results now go to the National Labor Relations Board for certification.

The last time the UAW attempted to unionize a VW plant in the US, they succeeded.  For a time.

When Volkswagen decided to open its first U.S. assembly plant in the 1970s, it assumed it would have to deal with the UAW, then at the height of its power as an industrial union and a force in American politics. Dealing with the UAW was seen as the cost of doing business.
...
The VW plant in Pennsylvania was troubled from the start with wildcat strikes and costly production shutdowns.

The plant closed in 1987, shipping its equipment and 5,700 jobs to China.  Those "costly production shutdowns" alone didn't force the plant's closing, but they certainly contributed.

Because the UAW, like other unions, is a major political donor, this story has a political angle.

The rejection of a key Democratic Party ally occurred despite [because of? ~ OS] President Barack Obama’s personal support for the unionization drive. Tennessee Republicans “are more concerned about German shareholders than American workers,” Obama said shortly before American workers shot down the unionization bid, according to the Detroit Free Press.

Unfortunately for the UAW and their Democrat allies, it wasn't German shareholders or Tennessee Republicans - but ordinary American workers - who rejected UAW representation.  As Matt Patterson, executive director of the Center for Worker Freedom, stated...

“The workers at Volkswagen looked at the history of this union and made the best decision for themselves, their jobs and their community... In spite of the UAW’s multi-million dollar propaganda machine, and with company and government officials at Obama’s NLRB aiding the union in every possible way, workers learned the facts and were able to make an informed decision.”

In other words, a bunch of ordinary American workers looked at what they had to gain - and what they had to lose - by joining the UAW, and decided against it of their own free will.  This is why unions and their Democrat allies fight Right to Work laws tooth and nail.  They're afraid that people given the freedom to choose will decline the unions' services.

But, if one has to force ones services onto another, obviously those services aren't all that great to begin with.