Category Archives: 2nd Amendment

Chicago Police Chief: 2nd Amendment Supporters “Guilty Of Corruption”

I just spent two hours jumping through hoops to get our cars licensed in our adopted state down here in Dixie. Actually, it was a longer process than that. See, Angie and I first had to get new driver’s licenses; to do so, we had to present our Social Security Cards. Unfortunately, Angie had laminated hers years ago … a no-go in our new state. So, after that rigamarole, and the additional rigarmarole of transferring insurance, and getting certified copies of other documents, we made it to the courthouse where, in addition to filling out all sorts of paperwork, our cars were inspected by a Deputy.

The cost of the new plates was literally a fraction of what they would have been in our quondam home, the LOL. But – after showing the Deputy my retirement badge so I could speak frankly – I observed aloud, “Damn! You guys make it kinda hard to register a vehicle, eh?”

He laughed, and confided, “Well (he pronounced it ‘wail’), we make it kinda hard to discourage the riff-raff from moving here from Illinois.”

A prime example of Illinois riff-raff would be Chicago Police Chief Garry F. McCarthy. Over the weekend, this sad excuse for a cop opined that Second Amendment supporters are guilty of corruption and of endangering public safety:

The embattled police chief — who previously blamed “government-sponsored racism” and Sarah Palin for Chicago’s gun-related violence, and who once said the Second Amendment itself was a threat to the nation’s security, according to a report by Red State — also said judges and lawmakers should focus more on public opinion polls when considering constitutional matters, the ISRA reported.

On Sunday, Superintendent McCarthy also said the Second Amendment does, in fact, allow for governments and police agencies to impose mandatory liability insurance requirements on gun owners, and that GPS tracking devices can be lawfully affixed to firearms sold to civilians, according to the ISRA.

From my long experience in law enforcement, I have learned there are two kinds of police chiefs: those who reach the top through dedication and honorable conduct, and those who are placed there by the politicians they have ingratiated themselves to. My guess would be that Chief McCarthy represents the latter, the sort of fellow who has worn knee-pads his entire career.

Place GPS devices on individual firearms, so the police can track them? Either Chicago hires delusional schizophrenics as police chiefs, or McCarthy’s ravings are just another example of his sucking up to his political masters. No sane or reasonable person would suggest such a thing, let alone rant about it on a Chicagoland talk show.

Make no mistake, McCarthy’s bosses – including that illustrious ballerina and veteran of the Obama White House, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel – really do believe such things: that firearms are evil, that those who own them are worse than evil, and that it is the responsibility of Government to punish not just those who own guns, but those who would even consider owning a gun. Such irrational beliefs are prima facie evidence of a severe mental disorder … or should be, anywhere besides the LOL.

The press often refers to Chief McCarthy as “embattled”, probably because of his Tourette’s Syndrome-like propensity for blurting out inappropriate things at the worst possible moments. You get the feeling he’s too damn crazy even for the likes of Mayor Rahm Emanuel. If so, he may be retiring soon.

He should probably stay north of the Mason-Dixon line when he retires. I doubt they’d give him a set of license plates if he moved south.

Proposed Washington State Law: Sheriff Must Inspect Homes Of “Assault Weapon” Owners

This is a new low. In Washington State, leftist lawmakers are considering a law that would require periodic inspections of the homes of those owning so-called “assault weapons”.

So much for the Fourth Amendment, at least in the Evergreen State.

Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?

As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.

We’re seeing a subtle shift on the part of the anti-gun loons in these not-so-United States. In years past, the guns themselves – in a bizarre form of animism unique to those on the Left – were the agents of evil. Now, however, those owning guns are painted as extreme, crazy, wicked. As such, gun owners don’t deserve the same rights as other citizens. They must be punished and suppressed by any means necessary.

How many times in recent months have we heard some liberal media propagandist chanting things like, “Why would anyone need a thirty-round magazine?” To the forces of the Left, this is a rhetorical question, designed to imply that the only reason anyone would want a thirty-round magazine is to use it to massacre innocent schoolkids or moviegoers. Therefore, anyone with a thirty-round magazine is a maniac, a butcher, a mass-killer waiting their chance. And it should go without saying such people should be closely monitored, controlled and, ultimately, eliminated from polite society.

The fountainhead of this sort of in-group, out-group thinking is none other than Barack Hussein Obama. A major characteristic of Chicago Politics is to paint political or ideological opponents not just as wrong or mistaken, but as malevolent monsters worthy of confinement or destruction. Obama has raised the art of demonization of opponents to Hitlerian levels.

Danny Westneat, the liberal author of the above-linked article, is somewhat horrified at the idea of warrantless searches, as are other liberal Washingtonians he mentions. That the proposed law is so Draconian as to engender horror even in liberals does not bode well for passage. But the intent, the mindset of those who would introduce such a repressive, Orwellian law remains even if the bill is defeated.

The cult of liberalism has been around for a long time now, biding its time, waiting for the right opportunity. The reelection of Obama, coupled with a high-profile mass shooting by a madman who should have been in a padded cell (if not for liberal laws and policies) have emboldened the Left to go for broke. Either they’ll go down to electoral defeat eventually, or the social and political fractures we’ve seen developing in America will break wide open.

In any event, we’re going to be dealing with those who would dehumanize us gun owners, and strip us of our rights, for some years to come.


NRA Winning The “Influence Battle” Over Gun Control

Here’s a collection of facts that has to have ol’ Skeet-Shootin’ Barry apoplectic: According to an article in Forbes, surveys by Appinions shows the NRA is exerting much more influence over public attitude toward guns than liberal gun-grabbers, or even the White House:

Forbes Insights and Appinions looked at the data for the week prior to the Sandy Hook tragedy and trended the data over the subsequent 5 weeks to determine the ebb and flow over the gun control debate. We found that the NRA and the pro-gun rights voices are winning the influence battle and will continue to be strong and more influential if the pro gun control voice remains fragmented. On the flip side, the pro gun control voice could certainly gain influence if they establish a more united voice.

Whether the NRA’s greater power to sway public opinion will be enough to overcome diktats being contemplated by the Obama regime remains to be seen. Most Americans do not support the idea of socialized health care, yet the Democrats jammed it through anyway. The current regime has a penchant for pursuing its agenda, regardless of what the folks in flyover country think.

I was amused by the release earlier today of Obama firing a shotgun – allegedly, while “skeet shooting”. A couple of things struck me as odd: First, that the shotgun is being fired horizontally. I’ve shot skeet once or twice, and I recall the clay pigeon generally traveling upwards. To be fair, Obama might have been shooting at a clay pigeon as it came down. The other thing that strikes me as odd is the textbook-clear muzzle blast erupting from the business end … and also, seemingly, from the side of the shotgun. To capture such an image would require high-speed film (or chip, I suppose). Catching the muzzle blast with a camera is a daunting thing to do. Obviously, the propaganda team in the West Wing took great pains to get a perfect image.


I’m not sure what to think about the gas erupting from the starboard side of the upper barrel, just behind the front sight. Is there such a thing as a ported over-and-under shotgun? I’ve never heard of such a thing but, then again, skeet and fine shotguns aren’t really my bag.

Really, this is a comical image. Seeing Obama firing a shotgun – in a vain attempt to convince NRA types he doesn’t actually have a problem with firearms – is about like Hitler embracing a rabbi, or polishing a menorah, to show he doesn’t actually have a problem with Jews.

Pose with guns for all the carefully-composed photographs you want, Mister President. You’re not fooling and/or influencing anybody.

Mamet: Hands Off My Gun

Playwright, essayist, screenwriter and film director David Mamet seems the least likely person to take on the anti-gun establishment in America. Yet, not only does Mamet take on leftist gun-grabbers, he utterly kicks their asses – albeit, in a hoity-toity way.

In one of the best-written, best-reasoned pro-gun essays I’ve ever read, David Mamet describes why people with a leftist bent, particularly communists and other far-leftists, are obsessed with taking guns from ordinary, law-abiding citizens. A couple of quotes from the article:

Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death …

… The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.

Mamet brilliantly deconstructs the left’s mania to disarm the citizenry. Whether his analysis is applied to Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China or Obamunist America, it slices like a razor through all the “think of the children” crap we have been seeing all over the media. Give it a read.

Number Of Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce New Gun Laws “Snowballs”

Would-be gun grabbers such as Senator Dianne Feinstein, who plans to introduce legislation today to ban virtually all modern firearms, have run into a huge snag: Who, pray tell, will actually grab the guns once they are banned?

An increasing number of county Sheriffs in the U.S. will not.

From Florida to California, a growing number of the nation’s sheriffs are standing up to gun control measures proposed by both the administration and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

My own view is that Feinstein’s efforts are doomed, yet again, to failure. She introduces a renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban every year. So far, her efforts have failed every year. Currently a host of Democrats, their black little hearts gladdened by both Obama’s reelection and a few high-profile mass shootings by maniacs, feel they can really pull it off this time. But the irresistible force they believe they hold is about to meet the immovable object in the House, the GOP contingent.

Assuming the Obama regime actually passed a bill banning ownership of modern firearms, it would remain mere words-on-paper in many “red” states. If a law is passed, but nobody is willing to enforce it, is it even a law? County by county, state by state, nullification would render a renewed AWB meaningless across wide tracts of these not-so-United States.

Texas Sheriff Says He Will Not Enforce “Unconstitutional” Gun Laws

He may not be the lone voice in the law enforcement community, and he may not be the first, but Collin County, Texas Sheriff Terry Box speaks for many county and local agencies when he says his department will not enforce Draconian gun control laws that are unconstitutional on their face:

In light of recent events I feel I need to make a public statement of my views on this subject. As the Sheriff of Collin County, Texas, I have for the past 28 years served to protect and keep safe all citizens of our county, recognizing the trust placed in me with this profoundly important responsibility.

Unfortunately, the recent surge in the numbers of innocent victims who have died at the hands of unstable criminals has prompted politicians in Washington to seek to pass laws that would seriously erode the constitutional rights of innocent and law abiding citizens.

Neither I, nor any of my deputies, will participate in the enforcement of laws that violate our precious constitutional rights, including our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

As long as I remain Sheriff of Collin County, I will not participate in the actions of misguided politicians who seek to impede our citizen’s right to all of the privileges afforded by our Constitution.


Terry G. Box

Sheriff, Collin County Texas

Although I haven’t been posting in this last week due to my retirement and immediate relocation to a “red” state, I’ve been following the furor over gun control on radio, in print media and on television. I managed to see a replay of Obama’s anemic anti-gun spiel, in which he used children as propaganda tools in the same way that other totalitarian dictators throughout history have done. I also heard Rush Limbaugh’s program late last week, in which he opined that Obama’s proposals were “reasonable” – at which time, I immediate turned him off, vowing never to listen to him again.

The vibe I’m getting is that the big anti-gun push by government pretty much petered out. Maybe it was the realization, by our friends in government, that there are simply too many guns for them to ever hope to confiscate. Maybe it was their realization that making an attempt at this, except in liberal-infested states like New York and, yes, my former state of Illinois, the LOL, would produce (ahem) widespread noncompliance and probably (ahem, ahem) some level of civil disobedience as well. Maybe it was the massive surge in NRA memberships. Or maybe it is LEOs across the country telling inside-the-beltway hoplophobes to piss up a rope. Whatever the cause or causes, even the most rabid supporters of gun bans have admitted none of the laws they are proposing stand a ghost of a chance of actually passing. And Obama – contrary to my earlier prediction – has stood down on issuing executive orders banning or reclassifying semiautomatic firearms. So, the big push to ban guns has fizzled. For now.

This should not be interpreted as the bastards waving a white flag on the issue of gun control … or whatever sly, friendly-sounding term they’re using today. (Come to think of it, liberal swine from the top to the bottom of the food chain, from Obama to Chris Matthews, aren’t calling it “gun control” any more; all of a sudden, laws designed to disarm the American public are called “gun safety laws”.) No, subversives like U.S. Rep Charlie Rangel (D-NY) will continue to make snide remarks about how “… some of the southern areas have cultures that we have to overcome” when it comes to gun control. In other words, what Rangel really means, is that only ignorant white trash racists own guns. There will be more shootings that the media will exploit to push the government’s agenda to emasculate or eliminate the Second Amendment; and every time one of these events occurs, expect wall-to-wall anti-gun agitprop, and the attendant panic buying by those who either don’t have a firearm, or feel they don’t have enough yet.

If you’re reading this, want to own a gun, but don’t: Wait for the current wave of panic buying to subside, and prices to come back down. The same rule probably applies to those who have a weapon or two, but want more. The cardinal rule is to buy low, and sell (if you wish) high.

You can’t buy low during a panic.

“You Don’t Need An AR15, It’s Too Dangerous”

By Jorge Amselle

(Appearing in The Daily Caller)


Sadly, so called “assault rifles” are getting a lot of negative press lately and are being subjected to a great deal of misinformation. This is not just coming from the usual anti-gun crowd, whom one would expect to lack knowledge about firearms and how they function, but also from supposedly knowledgeable gun owners and hunters, some of whom favor “reasonable” controls on firearms freedoms. Here are a few of the fallacies.

Why do you need that? 

I need an AR primarily for self defense. Could I use another gun for self defense? Of course I could and the AR may not be the best firearm to use in all defensive situations. I could use a shotgun or a pistol, I could use a baseball bat or a knife, I could use a tennis racket, a golf club, my bare hands, or I could just try playing possum.

It is not a question of what I use to defend myself but my right and desire to have the best possible tool for the job at my disposal. I want a semi-automatic rifle with an adequate capacity magazine for the same reason the police want them; to be able to quickly and accurately engage multiple assailants should the need arise.

The caliber is too weak to use for hunting. 

The AR is traditionally chambered in the 5.56x45mm NATO (interchangeable with the .223 Remington caliber) cartridge. The U.S. Military has been using this round as their primary rifle caliber for 50 years, through many wars and other interventions. If it was not effective we would not still have it. As with any firearm, the weight and type of bullet can be easily changed to deliver better performance and while not all loadings may be ideal for hunting, many are used on deer, feral hogs, coyote, and other game animals.

That does not even include the fact that the AR is the single most versatile rifle available. It can be converted to a muzzle loader for black powder, a crossbow for archery hunting, an air rifle, and can be adapted to fire over a dozen different rifle and pistol calibers. The design makes it easy to install optics and scopes, the collapsible stock allows the length to be adjusted so different statured shooters can comfortably use the same rifle. All of these features are why it is so popular.

It is not suitable for home defense.

Some have argued that a 5.56mm AR is bad for home defense because the round will over penetrate and pass through walls, endangering other occupants or neighbors. Tell that to police SWAT team that are increasingly switching from 9mm (pistol caliber) sub-machineguns to 5.56mm ARs exactly because they over penetrate less than the 9mm especially with proper ammunition selection. If over penetration is a serious concern then use a shotgun with bird shot. At close ranges this can be extremely effective. Others argue that a long gun is too unwieldy for home defense and going around corners. Ironically a shotgun has long been considered an ideal home defense firearm, not to mention that “hunting down” home intruders is not really advisable anyways. Better to barricade yourself and call the police.

These guns are too dangerous for people to own.

Ignoring the fact that semi-automatic rifles are used to commit only a tiny fraction of all gun crimes and that gun crimes overall have been declining for the past 20 years, the AR and other similar rifles are no more dangerous than any other firearm. The AR is semi-automatic and fires once each time the trigger is depressed, like a double-action revolver, or any pistol, or many other rifles and shotguns.

If you believe that the AR is too dangerous to own then there is no rational limit to what firearms you will find too dangerous next. Politicians have attacked firearms as too dangerous because they are too small and easy to conceal, too cheap and easy for poor people to buy, too accurate and usable and sniper weapons, too powerful and usable against vehicles. The list of “too dangerous” can easily be expanded to cover most any firearm and making every firearm “too dangerous” is exactly the real agenda.


Jorge Amselle is a certified firearms instructor and writer covering all aspects of the industry from military and law enforcement firearms and training to the shooting sports. His youtube channel

PBJ: America’s Coming Gun War

For the past two days, the news has been filled with talk of gun bans and pending actions by the Obama regime – including the possibility, as signaled by VP Biden, that Obama may well issue executive orders to combat the wickedness of private gun ownership in America.

Rather than go through this litany item-by-item, I’ve instead chose to spotlight Patrick J. Buchanan’s recent piece on “America’s Coming Gun War”.

Buchanan isn’t speaking of a literal shooting war, as some are. The gist of Buchanan’s story is that, although liberal elitists want desperately to disarm the American public, the American public ain’t going for it:

Yet, from the record gun sales in December, and 2012 — there were 16.8 million calls to the FBI for background checks for gun purchases last year — the elites have lost the argument with the audience that counts. They have failed to convince those who buy guns.

My own take – as a gun owner, almost-former police officer, and military veteran – is that any “ban” concocted by the Obama regime will be about as effective as the prohibition against alcohol in the 1920s. Unless Washington has the means to physically remove all firearms from private hands, their laws or executive orders will have little real-world impact. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that the Obama regime imagines they can impose some sort of confiscation scheme. After all, this is the man who, at his first inauguration, boasted of healing the planet, lowering sea levels and other crackpot, grandiose miracles. It is here than an actual, by-gosh gun “war” may occur.

This may well be complicated by our wide-open southern border. Dewy-eyed liberals, dreaming of a Utopian planet without boundaries, have insisted on having no fences and as little enforcement of  our border with Mexico as possible. As a result, untold tens of thousands of tons of drugs flow from Mexico into the U.S. every year.

A fully-automatic AK-47 weighs a mere 10.5 lbs, fully loaded. 10,000 tons worth of such weapons equals 1.9 million fully-automatic AK-47s …

And let’s not even talk about heavy machineguns, RPG-7 rocket launchers, antitank/antiaircraft missiles, mines, military-grade explosives, grenades, etc.

A sweeping ban of firearms, as proposed by the Obama regime, will automatically set up a thriving black market in truly dangerous weaponry, the sorts of things our government really, really doesn’t want us to have. But my prediction is that a ban would generate at least as large a market for such things – and probably a bigger market – than exists now for drugs. I myself, inveterate gun lover that I am, have no use for a full-auto Kalashnikov, let alone a Russian-made antitank rocket. But I know the gun community well, and there would be many who would purchase such things. Some of this dreadful ordinance would fall into the hands of maniacs.

You think a psycho with a piddly-assed little semi-auto M4gery in a shopping mall or school is bad news? Imagine a loon like Adam Lanza, his already jacked-up mind ruined by SSRIs, equipped with an actual assault rifle that can fire full-auto and a bandolier of grenades, storming a kindergarten.

Go ahead, Mr. President. Sign your executive orders. Create a thriving black market in military-grade weapons along the border you’ve so compassionately left unsecured.

When the U.S. fails to become Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, and instead transforms into a dangerous, hyper-violent, dystopian hell-hole, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

PJB Warns Of “Revolution” If Government Attempts Ban

Archconservative Patrick J. Buchanan, a regular panelist on The McLaughlin Group, is never at a loss for words. However, his warnings about the potential implications of an attempted gun ban and/or confiscation law certainly left his fellow panelists – notably, Eleanor Clift of Newsweek – speechless Sunday:

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: With no Second Amendment, Congress could pass a law, as limited as this: banning assault rifles or as sweeping as prohibiting all private firearm ownership and requiring the surrender of all privately held firearms.

BUCHANAN: There would be a revolution in this country!

MCLAUGHLIN: Baloney! That doesn’t mean you can’t own one, but you have to put it in first and then go try —

BUCHANAN: There are 270 million guns in this country right now, John, and they’re adding to them at a rate of 16 million a year.

The Giant, Gaping Hole In Sandy Hook Reporting

David Kupelian, managing editor of WND, and author of the bestselling (except in liberal circles) book How Evil Works has written a groundbreaking article about how the media is ignoring a common thread in mass-shootings: in most of these incidents, the perpetrators were either taking, or just coming off of, some form of psychiatric medication.

Adam Lanza, who is vaguely reported to have had psychiatric issues, probably was on some sort of P-meds. However, the media shows little interest in getting to the bottom of this particular facet of the case. Historically, the media has shown similar disinterest, for example, in the fact that Eric Harris, of Columbine infamy, was taking prescription Luvox; or that Kip Kinkle was taking Prozax and Ritalin; or that Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui  was taking a witch’s brew of prescription P-meds.

The warning labels for these drugs all warn of possible side-effects and contraindications that are consistent with the behavior of rampage killers:

Paxil’s known “adverse drug reactions” – according to the drug’s FDA-approved label – include “mania,” “insomnia,” “anxiety,” “agitation,” “confusion,” “amnesia,” “depression,” “paranoid reaction,” “psychosis,” “hostility,” “delirium,” “hallucinations,” “abnormal thinking,” “depersonalization” and “lack of emotion,” among others.

The most popular class of P-meds are the Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitors, or SSRIs. In animations on the Internets and on television, and in ubiquitous magazine ads, depression is shown as the result of low-levels of seratonin or other neurotransmitters in the brain. These molecules are released in certain quantities, fitting like keys into tiny locks in the next neuron, causing it to fire. Not enough firing, and depression sets in. Blocking the reuptake of these chemicals by neurons allows them to stay in the synapses between neurons longer, causing the receiving neuron to keep right on firing, thus alleviating the depression. At least, according to the animations.

However, the action of SSRIs, and their supposed benefits for depressives, is largely theoretical. The biochemistry and pharmacology of the brain, and how this relates to things like mood or sanity, is not well understood. Nobody has ever peered into the synapses of living brains and observed this reuptake inhibition occurring, much less mapped out the exact mechanisms of depression. SSRIs are produced as a theoretical way to solve a poorly understood problem. Clinical trials are then conducted to see if consumption of this medicine actually helps. Pharmaceutical companies say they seem to help; so does the FDA, which approves them for use.

However, I deal with persons every day – sometimes several times a day – who are mentally ill and using these meds. The pattern seems to be that the patient reports depression, and is given a drug. If it doesn’t work, another drug is given … and so on, until something given by the doctor produces satisfactory results. In other words, it is all trial-and-error, a crap shoot from patient to patient. If this is science, it is voodoo science.

Obama, his pals in the media, and members of his regime in government may say they want a “comprehensive” approach to gun violence in America. But clearly, they are fixated on guns as the culprits, and want to remove them from our hands.

If they were honest, they would look at the correlations between mass shootings and psychiatric drugs, and seek to address why the real bad actors in these incidents – those pulling the triggers – decided it was OK to shoot up innocent people.