Gee, Ya THINK?.
Or: “I Can’t Complain, but Sometimes I Still Do”

Blogsnot’s been down since about 4:00 this afternoon. I’m amazed I can post this.
Assuming I can.
The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. – Ayn Rand
Gee, Ya THINK?.
Or: “I Can’t Complain, but Sometimes I Still Do”

Blogsnot’s been down since about 4:00 this afternoon. I’m amazed I can post this.
Assuming I can.
Countertop Chronicles has Opened Round Two of the Gunnies
While I neither expect nor desire to be elected “Best Master Gunnie,” he is also looking for nominations for “Best Post of 2005.”
Ahem.
Not to toot my own horn (while I toot my own horn…) but last January I did a post I’m pretty proud of that is all about gunnie stuff: Why Ballistic Fingerprinting Doesn’t (and Won’t) Work.
Yes, it’s incredibly long, but it’s packed fully of crunchy goodness. Can I self-nominate? (I’m normally not an attention-whore. Really. I swear.)
Quick Quote:.
Many people don’t realize that for every 100 vehicles GM sells in the U.S., we support 23 American jobs – twice as many as our foreign competitors. – Gary Cowger, GM Group VP, Global Manufacturing and Labor
Which would help explain why GM is hemorrhaging money. Sheesh.
Quote of the Day:.
From today’s Bleat:
First of all, I’d like to note that I am standing up while I write this. It’s peculiar, but I’ve gotten into the habit of writing standing up when I’m at the kitchen table. (In case you have visions of me with Reed Richards arms, the table is actually an island, set up rather high.) I mention this for no reason, except that I know people speak differently when they stand up, and perhaps standing while writing makes a difference as well. Adds a Prussian tone, perhaps. I don’t think Prussians even sat down to move their bowels. They just walked into the bathroom, closed the door, gripped the hilt of their sword and shouting SCHNELL! Or not.
Who thinks stuff like this?
Yes, That’s it Exactly!.
Kim du Toit explains why he (and I do it too) “Brit-bashes.” Excerpt:
I could fill these pages with news of similar atrocities happening anywhere in the world—the British Disease is by no means confined to Britain, as witnessed by car-burning being the recreational favorite of French teenagers—but, if I may be frank, I don’t give a rat’s ass what happens to France, to the French, or to any other country in the world for that matter.
But I care, deeply, about what’s happening in Britain nowadays, and if it seems any other way to my Brit Friends and Readers, then I humbly beg your forgiveness.
RTWT
…everyone who voted for me in the Best Commentary poll at Countertop Chronicles. I won! I’ll be damned!
Other winners were:
Best Gun Pr0n – Oleg Volk
Most Educational – Mr. Completely
Best Rants – Kim du Toit
Best Legal Analysis – John Lott (OK, but check his data!)
Best Aggregator – Alphecca
Best Range Reports – Mr. Completely (Again!)
Congratulations to everybody nominated. I’m proud to be among such company. (*choke*, *sob*)
First, the story, as reported in the L.A. Times (so take it with the appropriately-sized grain of salt):
Pistol-Packing Granny Kills Granddaughter’s Ex-Husband
By Mai Tran and Christopher Goffard, Times Staff WritersThe 81-year-old woman accused of fatally shooting her granddaughter’s ex-husband admitted to the killing in an interview today.
In comments to the Los Angeles Times at the county jail, Jeane E. Allen confessed to gunning down 26-year-old Alex L. Reyes outside her Lake Forest home.
She said that after he showed up at the family’s home over the weekend, she walked inside, grabbed a handgun she had recently cleaned and fired at him.
Allen said she then called 911 and told the dispatcher: “I just shot a pedophile.”
No child abuse charges have ever been filed against Reyes and he denied similar accusations during his divorce from Leslie Bieg, 24, his former wife who is Allen’s granddaughter.
Reyes, who lived in Brea, came to Allen’s home Saturday morning to pick up his 18-month-old child for a supervised visitation. The court-appointed monitor had not yet arrived, authorities said, and it was not known why supervision was required.
Reyes was speaking to his former wife when, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department said, Allen shot him in the head and thigh. He died at the hospital the next day.
Reyes’ family defended him today. “He was a good father. He was a good brother. He was a good son,” said Reyes’ father, Gilbert.
He said his son had just graduated from the Fullerton College police academy and that he wanted to be a police officer.
Allen, now the jail’s oldest inmate, is 5 feet tall with dyed-blond hair, thick glasses and long, carefully maintained blue acrylic nails. Her hands shook as she recounted her acrimonious history with Reyes. She said she doesn’t regret shooting him. She said it was the only way to protect her great-grandson.
During the interview today, Allen said she never shared with police her accusations of abuse, which are alleged in a thick court file stemming from custody proceedings over the boy.
Larry Fancher, the La Habra attorney who represented Reyes during the custody dispute, said that as part of a court stipulation, Reyes allowed himself to be examined by mental health experts, including a doctor who specialized in sex crimes.
He said experts gave Reyes a series of tests, including a polygraph, to determine his fitness as a parent. Fancher said the results of the first series were inconclusive, but a second series was favorable to him.
“The findings did not support the allegations made by the grandmother and the mother,” said Fancher, who had planned to call the experts on Reyes’ behalf when the custody case went to trial in March. Reyes hoped to win unsupervised visits with his son.
Allen told The Times she shot Reyes after he asked her for a letter of apology.
The grandmother is being held on $1 million bail and is scheduled to be arraigned on murder charges Tuesday.
Some neighbors described Allen as a pleasant woman, while others said she could be cranky and cursed. One neighbor, a former Marine, said that last week Allen brought him her .38-caliber Smith & Wesson and asked him to make sure it was in working order.
So, from appearances Ms. Allen was convinced that her grand-daughter’s ex-husband was abusing her great-grandson, that the authorities would do nothing about it, and she therefore planned and carried out the deliberate premeditated murder of said ex.
This is the definition of vigilante justice – “taking the law into your own hands.”
And here is why I’m ambivalent about it: “She said it was the only way to protect her great-grandson.” I have little doubt, given the minimal information in this story, that she believed that. I think she looked at her great-grandson, and decided that spending her few remaining years in prison was a better option than having her great-grandson suffer more years of abuse until – just maybe – the findings did support the allegations. But by then, how much damage would have been done?
Perhaps Alex L. Reyes wasn’t a pedophile, and wasn’t abusing his own son. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. But Ms. Allen and her grand-daughter were much closer to the situation than either I or the State, and Ms. Allen apparently believed to the point where she was willing to commit murder, and then accept the consequences for it. She had given up on the State as a solution to her family’s problem. Perhaps she’d heard of the recent Vermont case where Judge Edward Cashman sentenced pedophile Mark Hulett to sixty days in jail for repeatedly molesting a neighbor’s daughter over the course of four years. The judge recently changed the sentence – under pressure – to 3-10 years, but I can’t imagine something like that would be comforting to Ms. Allen.
So she decided to be judge, jury, and executioner – and then accept whatever punishment society decided she deserved.
This killing is one of the consequences of retaining one’s sovereignty while belonging to a polity. YOU accept responsibility for your own protection, and the protection of your family. YOU decide when the rules of the State should no longer be abided by because the State has failed to protect your rights. YOU retain the ability to make decisions like Ms. Allen made – and then, instead of making like an outlaw and running for the hills, you stand and take your punishment – under the laws of that same State. Individual sovereignty can be a difficult thing. It’s much easier to give up your power and submit to the chains of the State. Usually those chains are light enough that you don’t notice them, but when confronted with a situation like this one, they carry the weight of the world.
When you are sovereign, those chains don’t exist – but your decisions can carry that same weight.
This is a perfect example of what jury trials are for, and why jury nullification exists. I wasn’t there. I don’t know the facts. Perhaps he was a loving father, her grand-daughter is a bitch and a chip off the old bag, and great-gramma just hated his guts. I hope a grand-jury hearing will ask these questions, and if it comes to trial the facts will come out.
But if there’s sufficient reason to believe Reyes was a pedophile, and the State failed to protect her great-grandson, I’d vote to acquit.
I’ve got to get in on this. There’s a hilarious thread running at AR15.com, mostly insider jokes, but not all of them. Anyway, someone discovered the “Motivational Poster Generator” and since then board posters and bloggers have been having a field day. I decided I’d generate a few of my own:
That’s Marine Gunnery Sgt. Michael Burghardt, if you didn’t know.

I do a lot of “KABOOM!” pics here. That one I know was an overcharge.
And last, (and most tasteless):
On the way in to work this morning, the 7:30 NPR news played this quote from John “I Served in Vietnam” Kerry:
Confirming Judge Alito to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court would have irreversible consequences that are already defined if Senators will take the time to measure them.
In my judgment, it will take the country backwards on critical issues.
Really? Irreversible consequences?
But isn’t what Kerry (and the Left in general) is afraid of is the reversal of eighty years of leftward movement by the Court?
Hugh Hewitt interviews “The Smart Guys” – USC professor Erwin Chemerinsky from the Left, and Chapman University law professor John Eastman from the Right, weekly. On Wednesday, June 8, 2005 the topic was Janice Rogers Brown’s appointment to the DC Circuit, and this exchange was transcribed over at Radioblogger:
John Eastman: You know, I mean, it’s just so preposterous, I don’t even know where to begin. The reason Chuck Schumer is so upset about this, is Justice Brown is the kind of judge who will, you know, adhere to the Constitution. And when the members of the legislature, even the exalted Chuck Schumer hismelf, want to take actions that is not authorized by the Constitution, she’ll be willing to stand up and do her duty, and strike it down. That’s not an arrogance, that’s what the judges are there for, to adhere to the Constitution, and not to let the legislature roll over them and do whatever they want. You know, it really is preposterous. We’ve turned this upside down. The judges that do exactly what they’re supposed to do are demonized, and those that take a powder and let the legislature get away with every abuse, every extension of power imaginable, are touted at the cocktail circuit.
Erwin Chemerinsky: I think what Senator Schumer is saying, and is absolutely right, is that Janice Rogers Brown’s repeated statements that she believes that the New Deal programs like social security are unconstitutional, is truly a radical view. That’s not a judge who wants to uphold the Constitution. That’s a judge who wants to shred the last eighty years of American Constitutional law. Janice Rogers Brown saying she believes that the Bill of Rights should not apply to the states, would undo the last seventy years of Constitutional law. That’s not a judge who wants to follow the law. That’s a judge who wants to make the law in her own radical, conservative views.
John Eastman: Hang on, here, because Erwin…there’s a wonderfully subtle change in your phraseology that demonstrates what’s going on here. You said she won’t follow the Constitution, and then you said it’s because she won’t follow the last seventy or eighty years of Constitutional law. What happened seventy or eighty years ago that changed the Constitution? There was not a single amendment at issue in the 1930’s that changed the Constitution. Some radical, federal programs were pushed through. Some radical judges, under pressure, finally signed on them, and the notion that we can’t question that unconstitutional action that occurred in the 1930’s, and somehow that defending that unconstitutionality is adherent to the rule of law, is rather extraordinary. There are scholars on left and right that have understood that what went on in the 1930’s was…had no basis in Constitutional law, or in the letter of the Constitution itself.
They’re not afraid of “irreversible change.” They’re afraid of reversal of their changes. And, typically, they won’t come out and say that.
Two recent pieces I cannot recommend strongly enough:
Gerard Van Der Leun’s The Voice of the Neuter is Heard Throughout the Land, and Robert Godwin’s The Pathetic Last Children of Nietzsche’s Pitiable Last Men. Read them in order. Read them carefully. And be prepared to think about them pretty hard.