Quote of the Day.

No, I’m not back. I am, as a matter of fact, still in a hotel room in Willcox, AZ. I am not without internet service. It is just agonizingly slow service. Consequently, web surfing is not the joyous thing it is at home with 3.0Mbps download speed. Plus I’ve been working 12 hour days since 7/5. I will get this Sunday off (at home) but I’ll be doing laundry and catching up on my sleep. Monday I’m back at it.

Anyway, all that is just a prelude to this. In the hotel room, scarfing down some KFC carryout, I moseyed (and I do mean moseyed) over to Tam’s to catch some of the latest snark, and found an out-of-the-park homerun: You say “selfish” like it’s a bad thing… Please read it before continuing. Unlike me, Tam is brief and to the point.

Done? Good.

She’s almost exactly right. Here’s my single exception to Tam’s righteous smack-down: she wrote;

I am not concerned one iota with your safety. After all, I don’t know you from Adam’s housecat, so how does your fate affect me?

Actually, I (me, personally) am concerned about other people’s safety. The difference is, (and Tam groks this, too – I’m positive) I understand what Kelli and those like her refuse to accept. They refuse to accept that they are responsible for their own safety. So I care about their safety. I care that they continue to have access to the tools that can help them protect themselves. I care that they understand that when someone is intent on harming them, the only one that can protect them at that moment is themselves. And right then it doesn’t matter if that attacker is armed with a firearm, an axe handle, a broken bottle, or a pair of fists – the best defense to have is a firearm. Not a cell phone, not a bright orange whistle, not a loud scream, not a good pair of running shoes. A firearm and the skill and willingness to use it.

I do care about Kelli and her ilk. I want them to understand who it is who bears primary responsibility for their own protection. Far too many people find out far too late. How does their fate affect me? If they are not able to defend themselves, the predator that preys on them remains safe and free to prey on others. Possibly me and mine. Why else do you think Kim du Toit reports on each new goblin he hears about that achieves room temperature? Somebody else who won’t be preying on good citizens.

Once again, I go back to my essay “Is the Government Responsible for Your Protection?” where I concluded:

(The) majority is largely unaware that they are the ones responsible for their own safety. They depend on the police almost exclusively for their safety and protection from crime. In their fear of violence, they fear the other “herbivores” with guns, too. They do so because some gun owners are idiots, but mostly because they’re told that guns are the cause of crime, and they don’t know any better. They don’t accept that general citizens who are willing to resist crime are an asset, not a liability to society.

So what am I advocating? I am advocating educating the citizens of our society as to their rights and attendant duties. That way they can make educated decisions as to their own protection, and that of their fellow citizens. Then if they decide that, for them, actively opposing crime is not an option, they won’t be so eager to deny the means to those who decide it’s the moral thing to do.

Anyway, hiatus continues. Thanks for checking in.

UPDATE: Via Irons in the Fire, a perfect example of what I’m talking about at Seraphic Secret: My Hollywood Gun, Part I, Part II, and Part III. He received his education before it was too late, but it was a close thing.

If the Los Angeles riots taught us anything it’s that you’re a fool if you count on the authorities to protect you in times of civil unrest — in fact, at any time. In the end, only I can protect me and my family.

I’m never, ever going to allow myself to be outgunned by the bad guys. All the gun laws that are on the books, and there are thousands of them, just make it that much easier for the barbarians to amass weapons, and for good and law-abiding people like you and me to be at their mercy.

If you outlaw weapons, as so many squishy liberals yearn to do, well then, only the outlaws will possess weapons.

Read ’em all. Pass ’em around.

Spread This Alert Far and Wide.

I’ll give our opposition this: they never cease trying to find new ways to accomplish their ends. Latest up, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (motto: “Protecting Stupid People from Themselves Since 1972”). According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation:

Proposed OSHA Regulation Threatens
Firearm and Ammunition Industry

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the government agency charged with assuring the safety and health of America’s workers, is proposing a regulatory rule affecting the manufacturing, transportation and storage of small arms ammunition, primers and smokeless propellants.

As written, the proposed rule would force the closure of nearly all ammunition manufacturers and force the cost of small arms ammunition to skyrocket beyond what the market could bear—essentially collapsing our industry. This is not an exaggeration. The cost to comply with the proposed rule for the ammunition industry, including manufacturer, wholesale distributors and retailers, will be massive and easily exceed $100 million. For example, ammunition and smokeless propellant manufacturers would have to shut down and evacuate a factory when a thunderstorm approached and customers would not be allowed within 50 feet of any ammunition (displayed or otherwise stored) without first being searched for matches or lighters.

NSSF and SAAMI have already had a preliminary meeting with OSHA officials to begin the process of explaining to them the major problems this proposed rule presents for all levels of the firearms and ammunition industry. Furthermore, NSSF and SAAMI are each seeking a 60 day extension of the public comment period (currently scheduled to expire July 12).

NSSF is urging all retailers to contact OSHA directly and request a 60-day extension of the public comment period. Retailers should inform OSHA that the proposed rule constitutes a “significant regulatory action” as defined in Executive Order 12866 (1993) Section 3(f)(1) in that it will clearly “adversely affect in a material way” the retail sector of the firearms and ammunition industry, productivity, competition and jobs and that the annual compliance cost for all retailers of ammunition will far exceed $100 million dollars.

Click here for a template letter. If you choose to draft your own letter, the reference line must read as follows:

RE: Docket No. OSHA–2007–0032
Request to Extend Public Comment Period and Request for Hearing on
“Significant Regulatory Action” as Defined in Executive Order 12866

Please fax the letter to: 202-693-1648 (include the docket number and Department of Labor/OSHA on the cover sheet and in the reference section of your letter).

Please e-mail the letter by visiting: http://www.regulations.gov and following the submission instructions.

(h/t Michael Bane Blog) I did a search for this Docket Number on the Regulations.gov website and found no reference to it, but I’m still going to cover my bases and send a damned letter.

Always Blaming the Wrong (but EASY) Target.

Via No Looking Backwards, Bruce reprinted this entire op-ed from the Boston Herald, published after the death of an eight year-old boy at the hands of his seven year-old cousin with a firearm. It’s that good, and (as Bruce points out) the piece will vanish into the Herald‘s archives soon, but it ought to be available to everyone – especially anti-gun advocates like Robyn Ringler – so I’m going to republish it, too. “Fair Use” I think applies here:

Mayor’s tirade again is way off-target
By Michael Graham
Thursday, June 28, 2007

It’s “hugs for thugs” from Menino and nasty notes to the NRA and Congress.

Two little boys, looking forward to starting second grade.

Two excellent readers, always ready to laugh, and with little sisters who sometimes annoy them.

Two little boys with relatives who own guns and know how to use them.

One of these boys I know only from media reports and his heartbreaking picture in the Boston Herald.

But the other boy I know very well. His name is Galen, and he’s my son.

As Galen’s dad, the scene that haunts me from the tragic life and criminal death of Liquarry Jefferson is this: It’s 11 o’clock on a Sunday night, and four children – ages 15, 8, 7 and 2 – gather around a loaded handgun without a parent in sight.

Forget the gun for a moment. What the heck is a 2-year-old doing up and about at 11 p.m.? My 7-year-old son wouldn’t be able to con himself into a round of Candyland at that hour, much less a game of “Give The Glock To The Unattended First Grader.”

Mayor Tom Menino’s reaction to Liquarry’s death has proven to every Boston parent that he just doesn’t get it. He comforted the so-called “family” and assaulted the National Rifle Association.

Blaming the NRA for the death of Liquarry Jefferson is like blaming the American Cutlery Institute for the O.J. Simpson murders. Even the most ardent gun control advocate must admit that, for most of little Liquarry’s life, the least of his worries was the state of America’s gun laws.

Liquarry’s world consisted of an unwed mother who is also a repeat, violent offender; a convicted killer for a father; a 15-year-old half-brother already busted for gun possession – the son of a convict who recently beat a murder rap; various siblings from sundry fathers; and a community that looked at this dysfunctional mess and thought nothing of it.

That’s the family Mayor Menino visited and offered comfort to. That’s the family that social worker Nia Sue Mitchum described as “beautiful – she’s a good mother.”

If that’s a good family, could someone in the mayor’s office please tell me what it takes to be a bad one?

The mayor doesn’t want to talk about the reckless, outrageous and (in my opinion) criminally negligent behavior of this shabby gang. Instead, it’s “hugs for thugs” from Menino and nasty notes to the NRA and Congress.

Like most responsible parents, I know that if I had allowed my son to get shot in my home this way, the public official most likely to show up would be a police officer. If I left Galen alone with a gun, my neighbors wouldn’t comfort me. They would condemn me.

Claiming, as the mayor does, that Liquarry was killed by lax gun laws is an insult to every parent in Massachusetts, regardless of whether he or she owns guns.

Every day, moms and dads from Dorchester to Duxbury make hard decisions and tough sacrifices for their children. Some work two jobs. Others do what my wife has done and set aside successful careers to raise their children.

You could fill these parents’ homes with enough guns to stock a tax evader compound in New Hampshire, and still those children would be safely in bed at 11 p.m. Sunday.

Yelling about a “war on guns” is easy. That’s why the mayor does it. Holding the citizens of Dorchester responsible for the community they’ve created is hard. But it’s got to be done.

Liquarry and other children like him deserve it.

Amen. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Thank you very much for saying it, Mr. Graham, and thanks to the Herald for publishing it.

Absolutely Correct.

James Rummel has an absolutely accurate post on the gun-nut subculture. Excerpt:

If you were born into a family that valued the shooting sports, then you always considered firearms to be cool precision instruments. Machines that challenge the individual to do their best while honing their own skills.

If you tried to pick up the hobby later in life, you were probably a bit daunted. The biggest problem, in my experience, was the nervousness that was brought on by decades of anti-gun spin in the media. (What if I do it wrong? I could shoot myself!) The second biggest problem is the enthusiasm and helpfulness that experienced shooters show towards those who are just beginning.

This probably seems odd. Helpful people are a problem? Isn’t that counter-intuitive?

Not exactly.

RTWT. He’s absolutely right, from beginning to end. See if you recognize yourself there.

HillaryCare.

Zendo Deb goes point-by-point down a curiously overlooked bit of news – Hillary Clinton’s “Plan for Reducing Health Care Costs” that was recently published in Medical News Today. First published on May 25, a quick Google News search shows the only really national coverage of her plan comes from a (pretty short) OpinionJournal piece. A quick check of Technorati shows that nobody paid much attention to that speece in the blogosphere, either. Pretty much everyone is talking about her “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” speech advocating socialism. (Well, that’s my interpretation. And the interpretation of about 90% of the commenters.)

Read Deb’s take on her health-care plan, though. Excerpt:

5. Improve the quality of care to help drive down costs:

This statement means nothing. It is like saying she is in favor of Apple Pie. Imagine a statement that is just the opposite. “Ruin the quality of care to help drive up costs.” I am all for driving bad doctors out of health care, but by and large I think she is saying “spend more government money” but not saying where – exactly – it will be spent or where – exactly – it will come from.

This is known as “speaking politically.”

Quote of the Day:.

Tam does it again:

Dear GOP,

Please do not nominate Mitt Romney.

The last two Massachusetts politicians who went to the Big Show got stomped by milquetoast opponents with the public speaking skills of a Thorazined Yogi Berra. America hasn’t wanted a Bay Stater in the Oval Office ever since JFK got whacked by Oliver Stone.

Nasty Factses. Ugly Factses. We HATES ‘Em!

The Anchoress authors a thoroughly link strewn post, Let’s do it; Let’s Impeach Bush, that I strongly recommend to everyone – especially those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. For one thing, I love watching people experience cognitive dissonance – they’re so cute when they deny reality – and for those who can’t quite manage it, watching blood leak from their eyes and ears as their systolic pressure spikes into the stratosphere is almost as rewarding.

Yes, by all means! Let’s have hearings!

UPDATE, 5/28: Roger puts it all together in a video:

http://RodgerS.smartvideochannel.com/media/flvplayer2.swf?autoStart=0&popup=1&video=http%3a%2f%2fRodgerS.smartvideochannel.com%2fmedia%2fgetflashvideo.ashx%3fcid%3d9775E8E2A6C748EA90B20D1595436AAC
Replay video | Share video | Watch more videos

First I’ve Heard of It.

Remember last year’s Rocky Balboa? A pretty good flick, really. Small, unpretentious, well acted, good story. Nothing surprising about it other than it was good. Well, through Ian Hamet comes a clip for Silvester Stallone’s latest explanation for his possession of Human Growth Hormone, and another character-titled film, John Rambo. It looks like a good old-fashioned Lone Wolf movie, an action-packed butt-kicker where John Rambo once again puts the hurt on an entire army single-handedly. Very, very un-PC.

And there is no squeamishness about the gore. (After “Saw,” and the other similar splatfests, I should hope not.)

Check out the trailer while it lasts.

Tagline: “When you’re pushed, killin’s as easy as breathin’.”

Dept. of Unfortunately Hilarious Headlines.

Royals To Get A Taste Of Angels’ Colon

(*sigh*) First Diana dies, then Fergie gets a divorce…

Oh, wait. Not those Royals. And not that kind of Colon.

Bartolo Colon attempts to win his third consecutive start off the disabled list tonight for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, who will be aiming to continue their recent dominance of the Kansas City Royals.

After missing nearly nine months to rehab a partially torn right rotator cuff, Colon returned to a major-league mound on April 21 and delivered an outstanding performance against the Seattle Mariners. The former American League Cy Young winner allowed just one run on seven hits to lead the Angels to a 7-6 victory.

Whew!

You have to wonder who approved that headline?

Via Icelandic blogger Arni of Meinhornið. (And no, I have no idea how to pronounce it or what it means.)