Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 776, June 22, 2014

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an
unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional,
and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly
or concealed, any weapon—rifle, shotgun,
handgun, machinegun, anything—any time,
any place, without asking anyone's permission.

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 6-22-2014
by Neale Osborn

Bookmark and Share

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Ya just don't mess with a successful format. And ya NEVER EVER piss off a pistol Packin' Mama Liberty. Okay, she's actually a very sweet woman, but that just doesn't have quite the ring. Here is the first of her two contributions to this missive, which is ALSO the 2nd in her series of articles on self defense training. [Link]

Next on the list of fundamentals is "breath control." There are several different methods used by most target and competition shooters, and any of them will help you obtain excellent scores if you practice them enough, but the same problem applies to breathing as to using the sights in an emergency. You are simply not apt to be able to control it very much, and one of the greatest dangers is forgetting to breath at all! A common response to shock, serious anger or fear is shallow breathing or hyperventilation. You don't generally get to choose which, or any alternatives.

After my "emergency," and after I got back into the house, I realized I was hyperventilating. If I had been forced to shoot again right then, holding my breath according to hoyle would not have been an option.

Just remember that you are not going to be worried about a "bulls eye," just a solid shot to the center of body mass if you really must shoot. You don't want to miss, of course, and a second or third shot is probably a good idea unless the attacker is down and no longer moving. Survival is the only "score" you care about in this instance.

Read on at the link—even those of you who call yourself well-trained can always learn something new.

I own a Taurus Model 605 polymer framed snub-nosed .357 mag, and it's one of my summer carry guns. Last week, on a trip to the range with my sons, I noticed the fluorescent insert in the front sight had fallen out. I called Taurus (who has a lifetime repair policy) and told them of my problem, They do not, under normal conditions, cover sights or grips after one year, and I've had the gun for 1 1/2 years. Buuut, they said this was not normal wear, but installation mishap. The new sight just showed up this afternoon. I REALLY like Taurus' customer service.

Anybody in or around Rutland County? This great employee might need one. [Link] He sounds quite the good employee to me.

As the store clerk was closing up for the night, a guy with a hoodie and a red bandana around his face came in with a knife and ordered the clerk to empty the cash register. That's when 58-year-old Vietnam vet and store clerk Don Pitaniello pulled his .380 out of his back pocket and told the guy that he'd "better get the **** [choose your favorite four-letter word] out of there." The would-be robber complied and got the you-know-what out of there. As the hoodied bandit ran off, Pitaniello followed him to see which direction he went so that he could tell the police.

Because of the store's no tolerance policy toward self-defense, Pitaniello might lose his job. He was suspended earlier this week. Apparently, he broke two of their rules. The first was bringing a gun inside the "gun-free" store; the other was following the robber.

Hire him. You KNOW he'll keep your property safer than a stupid gun free zone sign will.

Isn't it nice to hear Hillarious Rotten Clinton showing her true colors to the voters? [Link] This idiotic woman, whose sole qualifications forv president are being married to a president, and aiding him in destroying the reputations of women he molested, and serving as one of the worst Secretaries of State this country has ever seen ("What difference does it make?"), who presided over the rape/murder of a US Ambassador. And now, she feels that gun owners are terrorizing America. Never mind the fact that she is making it clear that she opposes the 1 Amendment, we can deal with that later.

After a school teacher in the audience asked Clinton about high capacity magazines and assault weapons, the presumptive 2016 presidential candidate took the opportunity to go on an extraordinary anti-gun rant.

"I'm well aware that this is a hot political subject. And again, I will speak out no matter what role I find myself in, but I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation. We cannot let a minority of people—and it's, that's what it is, it is a minority of people—hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people," said Clinton.

First, her claims that We, the People who support our Bill of Rights are a minority, are completely false.

Clinton's claim that only a "minority" of Americans oppose gun control is contradicted by a recent Rasmussen poll which found that 53% of Americans oppose stricter gun control laws and only 40% of likely voters back tighter firearms restrictions.

She ALSO states quite clearly that we cannot be allowed to hold an opinion that contradicts HER opinion. "We cannot let a minority of people—and it's, that's what it is, it is a minority of people— hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people" is pretty blunt. I can accept that she hates the 2nd Amendment and opposes those who support it. But telling the world that we have no right to opinions is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment protections of political free speech. Wasn't it Hillarious herself who once said "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration that somehow you're not patriotic. And we should stand up and say 'We are Americans and we have a right to disagree with any administration.'" ? Yup! [Link] I guess that pesky 1st Amendment only applies to Democrats opposing Bush, not anyone else opposing anything SHE likes.

Last week, I addressed the Liar-In-Chief's assertion that we need "Australian style confiscation of firearms" to battle crime. Here's an Australian's response to the LIC—[Link]

I am an Australian, and I must set the record straight.

The "success" of the 1996 Australian gun reform is a myth.

The only thing achieved was to take away the guns of the law-abiding citizenry, leaving only the criminals armed. Is this what you wish for America?

In Australia, if a citizen has firearms, the police have a right to search their property without a warrant at any time. Does that sound like America?

The laws you praise outlawed the Daisy Red Ryder BB Gun that my father played with as a child. Now you need a special permit, gun safe and serial number.

The letter has a LOT more worth reading. Do so.

The SCOTUS has, once again, refused to stand tall on the 2nd Amendment, this time in regards to so-called "strawman purchases". [Link] A "strawman purchase" is where a person who is legally permitted to buy a gun (first anti-Constitutional concept) purchases a gun for another person, who might or might not be permitted to "legally" purchase a gun. The SCOTUS has upheld federal bans on these purchases, which would even criminalize purchasing a gun for your wife or husband for Christmas, or for the kid as they turn 18, or any other purchase for another. Let me be crystal clear on this—people have a Constitutional, civil, and human right to own and carry, open or concealed, any weapon they so desire. Once a "criminal" has "paid his debt to society" (one of the biggest lies out there—the debt is NOT to society, it is to his victims, and he must make full restitution or be evicted from society), they are supposed to have their rights restored. So denying them the right to own and carry weapons is anti-Constitutional. Thus, this entire fiction of "legally permitted to own and carry arms" is exactly that—fiction. So Strawman purchases CANNOT be prohibited, Constitutionally speaking.

A federal district judge rejected Abramski's argument that he was not a straw purchaser because his uncle was eligible to buy firearms and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Obama administration had argued that accepting Abramski's defense would impair the ability of law enforcement officials to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them. The administration said that even if the purchase is made on behalf of someone eligible to buy a firearm, the purpose of the law is frustrated since Congress requires the gun dealers—not purchasers—to run federal background checks on people buying guns.

Abramski claimed Congress' goal was to prevent guns from falling into the hands of convicted felons and others barred from owning firearms. He said that goal is not furthered if the gun is transferred to someone legally allowed to own guns.

The National Rifle Association sided with Abramski, asserting that the government wrongly interpreted the law and improperly expanded the scope of gun regulations. Twenty-six states also submitted a brief supporting Abramski's view of the law, while nine states and Washington, D.C., filed papers bolstering the Obama administration

NO ONE bothered to attack the entire concept of denying people a Constitutional right for ANY reason.

England and it's gun bans means less violent crime than here in the US. And here's the proof. Link to UK's violent crime for 2012. 1.9 million violent and sexual crimes (UK's version of rape). Link to FBI stats for violent crime on the US for 2012. 1.2 million violent crimes. Oh, wait. maybe population is different. Let's go for per capita rates. So, the US had 312 million residents, for 1 violent crime per every 260 citizens. The UK and Wales had a population of 56.6 million people, (link) for a rate of 1 violent crime per every 29.8 subjects. That means, if we just ban guns, and get another 9 million violent crimes committed, we can finally be on par with the UK. OORAH!

Again, we see that Armed Decent People never use a firearm successfully for self defense. [Link] For the idiot children out there who want to ban ANY type of guns, this is sarcasm.

At about 2:30 a.m., an adult man, a juvenile boy and juvenile girl entered a home in the 4400 block of Grandview Drive, according to investigators.

Police say one of the homeowners shot a male intruder.

* * * * *

The two other suspects—a 16-year-old man and a 17-year-old female—were caught and arrested a short time later by Union Township police.

The male juvenile was charged with aggravated robbery, assault and aggravated burglary. The girl was charged with complicity to aggravated robbery and complicity to aggravated burglary.

A handgun police said was used by the intruders was found at the scene.

One occupant at the home suffered a minor injury but refused additional medical attention, according to police.

Investigators said their preliminary report indicates that the homeowner shot the attacker in self-defense.

Of course, these poor burglarizing businesspeople would NEVER have used their handgun to harm the homeowners.

Gibraltarego, a member of a group I own on NewsVine, posted this link. It is short (2minutes, 47 seconds). Watch it. Pay close attention to how the forensic psychologist tells CNN and the rest of the media how to handle these tragic events IF they actually want them to stop. He makes a lot of sense. It comes down to Paul Harvey's famous lines (I copy them fairly regularly): [in his iconic voice] "Today, a man entered a school and killed three students. He'd like me to mention his name......"

Somehow, I missed this in my e-mail que last week. I hope mama Liberty forgives me, but I'm just going to give her the opening shot AND the final shot this week and hope for the best! [Link]

Lots of speculation and argument around the 'net already about the election that won't happen until 2016, especially in regards to the "president," of course. With no eligible incumbent and a VP who is less qualified than a dish of scrambled eggs, the field is wide open. Plenty of discussion of Ms Clinton and her vast array of conflicting liabilities and supposed assets, with some national pundits even talking openly about her long history of lies and deception, yet she is considered by many as viable candidate. Ron Paul is "too radical" for a lot of folks, and most of the rest of the potential candidates are pretty scary to one faction or another. Mr. Cruz has no look in, since he's Canadian, but not black... and so it goes.

The one thing I'm not seeing much of is rational analysis of the actual job description in the Constitution, for whatever that's worth, and how the various candidates might carry out those required duties and no more. Just what do people truly think a president should be doing and why?

Read it and see where it ends up....

Firearms Quote of the Week—

"The only thing that can make a 110 pound woman the equal of a 220 pound thug bent on doing her harm is 2 pounds of Hartford Steel."
—Neale Osborn, paraphrasing Lucille Gallegos Kropotkin, a character in "The Probability Broach", by L. Neil Smith.

And that's a wrap for this week.

Was that worth reading?
Then the author asks you to

payment type

This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)

Big Head Press