Thursday, May 28, 2015

Hey, It's Not a "Gun Ban"....

Inspired by these two posts, I decided to make a little map of my town: Salem, Oregon.

The first post, by Sebastian over at Shall Not Be Questioned, goes over a petition at Change.Org to prevent a strip mall property owner from leasing a space for a gun store, on account of the space being "too close" (two city blocks) to a school. Part of the description mentions that four other schools are within five miles.

The second link looks at how a "five-mile rule" (wherein guns cannot be bought or sold within five miles of a school, even from/to retail FFL dealers) would affect Houston, Texas. There's no legal space left to buy/sell/trade guns, anywhere in town!

So today we're going to examine what even a paltry "one-mile rule" would do to the gun business in sleepy little Salem, Oregon*.

Here's a map of Salem with a bunch of schools — "certified" pre-K, K-12, and higher; public and private — marked out by red dots (and graduation caps; Google fills those in for some schools for some reason):

Click to embiggenate

Note: The initial Google search was "public schools", but I added several more dots by hand to cover private, post-K-12, and pre-K campus locations. I won't claim to have gotten them all, but as you'll see next, it really doesn't make much difference.

Here's the same map, with a 60-pixel-radius (which represents one mile, judging by the scale in the lower right; I counted) red circle superimposed over each dot:

Again, click to embiggen

Remember that this map, unlike the map of Houston, is filled with one-mile circles, not five-mile circles. But do you see many places where gun shops could legally be located? Envisioning a two- or five-mile ban is an exercise I'll leave to the reader.

The anti-rights crowd claims they don't want to ban guns; they just want to enact "common-sense, reasonable" restrictions on where and when guns can be bought, sold, traded, stored, transported, carried, and used. Including within X distance from schools, churches, public buildings, parks, playgrounds, shopping malls, movie theaters, homes, offices, and parking lots. For the children, don't you know.

But we're supposed to believe it's not a gun ban.

Don't ever let anyone tell you they're not trying to take your guns.

Stay safe.
* - Salem, despite being the capital of Oregon, is not a big city. It's about 12.5 miles north-south and maybe 8 miles east-west, at the longest/widest points (and that's if you include West Salem, which is in another county and is therefore technically a different city. A "five-mile rule" on just the six public high schools in the district would effectively cover the whole town.

Friday, May 22, 2015

Quote of the Day — Capt. David B. Wilsey (WWII-era, exact date unknown)

We're coming up on Memorial Day weekend, so in addition to the sales and barbeques (which have become almost grotesquely ubiquitous, given the day's significance), it's fitting to quote an American hero, Capt. David B. Wilsey, who among other accomplishments and distinguished acts, assisted in the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp (freed 70 years ago last month) and the post-liberation medical care of its internees.

Capt. Wilsey's back-story has recently come to light, by way of his children, who discovered a box of letters to his wife, written during his service in the European theater of World War II (warning: graphic images). The detailed recollections illustrate the startling devolution of a man forced to witness first-hand the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi regime on the helpless Jewish population. He came back a changed man; the trauma and memories haunted him until the day he died in 1996.

Only someone who has personally witnessed such depravity can pen this stark a statement:
Truth and totalitarianism just cannot coexist. One of the two has to die. For several hundred millions, totalitarianism did not die — so truth had to.
Such profound clarity of thought is rare, indeed. I'll repeat the warning about graphic images, but encourage you all to read the full account.

May God grant you the peace and rest you deserve, Capt. Wilsey.

The rest of you, stay safe.

(Hat tip: Claire Wolfe, writing at The Zelman Partisans)

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Thoughts on Hate and "Hate Speech" — Conclusion & Afterthoughts

[NOTE: This concludes the series on hate and "hate speech". We might re-touch on it in the future; given how much hate is being spewed by race-mongers and talking heads, I'm sure there will be more to discuss, and probably sooner rather than later. As always, comments and tips are welcome.]

Wow. What a ride, huh?

Let's do a quick recap, and then sum up.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Be Sure to Check Your Facts...

Alternate title: Why Good Research is a Requirement When Advocating an Issue.

Read this.

Once you've stopped laughing (I had tears coming down my face!), realize that this is why anti-gun writers and bloggers are so consistently unbelievable. They repeat pre-written and pre-approved talking points — which are often based on false assumptions and/or poor logic — carry no credibility or accountability of their own, and when caught in a mistake lie they (sometimes) issue a minor correction and double down their original argument.

This is why we can, and do, do better.

Stay safe.

(Hat tip: Borepatch)

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Thoughts on Hate and "Hate Speech" — Part 3

[NOTE: At this point in the series, I've said most of what I needed to say and what I felt needed to be said. I will likely wrap it up next week [UPDATE: Conclusion is up.]. Part 1 here, Part 2 here. This installment will focus on the "speech" aspect of "hate speech".]

Much ado has been made the past couple weeks, over whether "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment. This, to my mind, clouds the issue. It's not relevant to the discussion about the failed "jihadi" attack in Garland, Texas.

I will repeat that, because it bears repeating. A discussion on First Amendment protections — or the lack thereof — for "hate speech" is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the failed "jihadist" attack in Garland, Texas.

Offensive? Possibly, but still not a call to murder.
Translated: "100 lashes, if you're not dying of laughter!"
(source: Huffington Post)
It's irrelevant because a cartoon contest, even if it features satire, ridicule, or other material which sheds a less-than-favorable light on Islam and their "prophet" Mohammed, is still just a cartoon contest. It is not, and should never be taken as, a call to murder someone for holding a point of view opposite the subject of the satire or ridicule. Put simply, being the butt of someone's joke, while sometimes upsetting, doesn't ever rise to the level of an acceptable reason for killing him or her.

To be honest, it's hard to believe that simple truth can be called into question so easily. But it has, and now we have to deal with the fallout.

Click through to continue reading.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Thoughts on Hate and "Hate Speech" — Part 2

[NOTE: This is a continuation of the series of thoughts and reflections on hate and "hate speech". This part was loosely inspired by this article by David French at the National Review. Part 1 of my series can be found here.]

In the last installment, I talked about the failed jihadi attack on a free speech event in Garland, Texas, on May 4, and the American media's meltdown and cognitive dissonance in using their First Amendment free speech rights to attack event organizer Pamela Geller's First Amendment free speech, free association, and free assembly rights.

This time, I'm going to talk about hate itself. It won't be politically-correct, but as I put it last time, I think some things just need to be said.

So if you get nothing else out of this, take this one concept: Some things in this world are worthy of hate. Some things in this world deserve to be hated. Some things in this world are so vile, so evil, and so despicable, that hating them is not a bad thing; it's a virtue.

Like I said, it's not politically-correct, but it's true.

More below the break…

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Thoughts on Hate and "Hate Speech" — Part 1

[NOTE: This began as a single post of tangentially-related thoughts on "hate speech" stemming from the incident in Garland, Texas, but grew and evolved until even the term "uber-post" couldn't quite describe it. I've decided to make it into a series of as-yet-unknown length. Bear with me a bit.]

So as everyone who doesn't live under a rock (and probably some who do) has heard, on Sunday, May 4, there was a kerfuffle in Garland, Texas, wherein a couple of self-styled Islamic jihadis from Arizona (of all places) attempted to arm themselves and storm a Free Speech event featuring a "Draw Mohammed" contest, in order to kill all the "offensive" cartoonists for the "crime" of daring to … well … draw Mohammed.

Charlie Foxtrot wrote on it here.

Thanks to the quick actions of a Garland PD officer already on-site, the idiot "jihadis" didn't even make it in the door before being put down by well-placed .45 ACP hollow points. They only managed to shoot an unarmed security officer. In the ankle. And he was released from the hospital the same night.

Pamela Geller (source: NBC News)
Cue the mainstream media, which not only tried its level best to remove the "Islamic jihadi" angle from the story, but then proceeded to attack event organizer Pamela Geller for daring to host such a "provocative"* and "offensive" event, and claimed that she brought the consequences on herself.

Yep. The media, which makes its living on the First Amendment and free speech, blamed the victim for her own attempted murder for — get this — exercising her First Amendment right to free speech and encouraging others to do the same. They're calling it "hate speech" and some (Chris Cuomo in particular) claim "hate speech" is not protected under the First Amendment. Unlike, you know, jihad and Sharia law.

The Irony Fairy was unavailable for comment.

That's the slightly-cynical re-hashing of the events. What follows below the break (because it's fairly lengthy to have it all on the front page) are some thoughts I've had on the topic since. Some of them are not politically-correct, but they need to be said anyway (and that's the beauty of the First Amendment, is it not?).

Monday, May 11, 2015

Terror Comes Again to America
         Last week terror came again to American soil. Two ISIS affiliated terrorists sought to kill hundreds of people expressing their free speech rights by drawing the Prophet Mohammad.  The attack was stopped cold, ended by a policeman possessing a tremendous amount of bravery and skill -- and a commonly available pistol.

          A sixty-year-old Garland, Texas traffic cop responded to the gunfire that wounded his partner. From the available reports, he advanced into their rifle fire, wounding one terrorist, killing the second, then shot the first one again as he reached for a backpack possibly containing explosives. Details are very sketchy at this time, but in overhead pictures it’s possible to see the trail of shell casings left as the policeman took the fight to the terrorists.
        There are lessons aplenty in this incident. It appears now that the dead jihadis were not directly sponsored by any foreign terror organization. That is not the good news it may seem. The two were radicalized through social media, choosing to achieve ISIS’ ends on their own. ISIS infected malcontents could appear anywhere across the US in large individual numbers. With ISIS training camps a few miles from the deliberately opened southern border, better arms and training could easily be provided to enhance the skills of those sorry individuals.  

          ISIS boasts that they have 71 soldiers in 15 different states, with
targets in 5. By chance or design, those five states are amongst the most gun restrictive. Concealed carry would be limited there, along with other defensive advantages of the gun culture. Several commentators have noted how much the Garland situation looked like an IPSC stage. Could Texas’ vibrant gun culture have contributed to the success of the gentleman? Would an anti-gun environment have hurt?  We know which way we would bet.

         Garland is very much an everyman’s triumph. An aging traffic cop armed with the ubiquitous Glock pistol defeated two armed and armored terrorists. The skills and equipment to make a difference are well within the grasp of the common man and woman. All of us will need to take them in hand. We need to get armed, frequently train, practice, carry everywhere, and stay alert. 

         There is no telling where we will be when the balloon goes up the next time.   

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Bad News on S.B. 941

It passed.

As in, passed the Senate (which I talked about here), and last night passed the House, too.

It's now going to Gov. Kate Brown's desk, where all the local news channels are reporting she's expected to sign it.

I know it's a long shot — she's a Portland-area Democrat, after all, and those types generally just love them some "gun control" — but until she puts pen to paper, there's still a chance.

So here's my proposal:

She's openly bi-sexual, and made her political bread standing up for "gay rights" and "women's rights". Hit up her Contact box with pro-gun messages, and emphasize the pro-woman and pro-gay aspects. Hit her in the heartstrings.

Talk about the hypothetical battered woman whose friend offers to loan her a firearm to protect herself from her abusive spouse; both would be instant felons if S.B. 941 is signed into law.

Talk about the hypothetical gay couple who endure hateful slurs day in and day out, who start receiving credible threats against their lives and safety. One may own firearms, but cannot legally transfer a gun to the other — because they're a same-sex couple, they cannot be legally married in Oregon*, and so the spousal exemption in S.B. 941 doesn't apply; they'd both be felons if it becomes law.

[Added:] It's come to my attention that recent court challenges may nullify (or may have already nullified) the "one man, one woman" language in the Oregon Constitution, so this second hypothetical may be a non-starter. Regardless, spam the contact form with the first hypothetical and the notion that criminals don't run background checks or register their guns. Mention Haynes v. U.S. for extra credit on that one. [/Added]

Also, make sure to point out that no criminal transfers will be prevented by this law. None. Zero.

I know it's a long shot, but we've got to take it. Hail Mary's work occasionally.

Light her up.

Stay safe.
* - Oregon State Constitution, Article XV, Section 5a. "Policy regarding marriage. It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage." Hey, I didn't make the rules, but we can use them.

Michael Moore Relies on the 2nd Amendment

         Big screen fabulist, noted hypocrite, virulent anti-gunner and left-wing barking moonbat Michael Moore may be supporting Michelle Obama’s claim that chronic obesity can lead to early-onset senility.

The Big Wheezel
Very early Thursday morning, the big chunk took to Twitter to demand the immediate release of every African-American in prison for drug or nonviolent offenses. For his next belly-flop into insanity, Moore imperiously demanded the police be disarmed. 

Oddly enough, he justified that stupidity by noting; “We have a 1/4 billion 2nd amendment guns in our homes 4 protection.” Although somewhat true (Moore may have underestimated), that's very odd reasoning from someone who wants the public’s firearms seized at gunpoint by the police. You wonder if there is any cognitive dissidence echoing around behind his overused pie hole. 

However, it does seem that even that blind pig can find an acorn of 2nd Amendment truth once in a while.  

Go to bed Mikey, you’re drunk on yourself.
Twitter images courtesy of