Wednesday, August 26, 2015

"When You Chum For Monsters," You Get Monsters

Two weeks ago, Louis Farrakhan called for black men to rise up and murder whites.

Today, a black man answered the call, and he was 100% motivated by racial hatred:
A former TV news reporter fatally shot two ex-colleagues this morning during a live broadcast in Roanoke Virginia.  Then he posted his own recorded videos of the killings on social media.  It is reported he faxed a 23 page manifesto to ABC News, claiming his intent was racially motivated – inspired by Black Lives Matter propaganda.
This is a monster.  Only monsters murder innocent people in cold blood.   But as Michael Bane said today, "When we chum for monsters, why are we surprised when they rise to the bait?"  This monster-- I will not quote his name-- is exactly the kind of person who rises to the bait of the [Only] "Black Lives Matter" propaganda, to the bait of Barack Hussein Obama and Eric Holder and their open hatred of white people and white culture, to the bait of Louis Farrakhan and his previously-mentioned trolling for murderers.  These "Progressives", the Prozis as David Codrea calls them, have reaped exactly what they have sown: murder.

And of course, the media is cranking on this 24/7, which only encourages the monsters' desire for fame.  This particular monster compared himself to Klebold and Chu, two previous monsters, in his 23-page screed.   

Oh, and y'all better believe there's gonna be a big, Sandy-Hook level blood dance to gin up political support to take our guns away over this.  It's already starting-- straight outta the White House.    Note that they are not concerned in the least with the facts:  violent crime has been spiraling down for 40 years, even as the nation has armed itself, with millions of Americans getting their concealed carry licenses or voting for state legislatures that pass Constitutional carry laws.  More guns, less crime, indeed, John Lott.

But, they're cranking up the gun control already.  From the noble successor watchmen to the JPFO, the Zelman Partisans:
 Before the bodies of 24-year-old reporter Alison Parker and 27-year-old cameraman Adam Ward were even cold, Virginia’s opportunistic swine of a governor Fast Terry McAuliffe started immediately calling for more gun control. 
“There are too many guns in the hands of people that shouldn’t have guns,” McAuliffe said during an interview with WTOP. “There is too much gun violence in America,” he said, adding that he has long advocated for strengthening gun background checks and that it should be made a priority.
Come and try to take mine, Punk McAuliffe.  You want a war?  Try to take arms from decent people.  Instead, why don't you Prozis try prosecuting people like Farrakhan, who are inciting riots, theft, and murder?

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

And How Did that "Weapon-Free Zone" Work For Ya?

Another day, another attack in a "gun-free zone":
h/t: Breitbart News
Breitbart News previously reported the August 5 hatchet and firearm attack inside a movie theater in the Nashville [TN] suburb of Antioch
The Tennessean reports that the precise theater was Carmike Hickory 8 Cinema. 
We can now report that Carmike Cinemas has been boycotted over their gun free policies in the past. Moreover, those same policies were praised by Newtown Action Alliance; a gun control group which formed a week after the heinous December 2012 attack on Sandy Hook Elementary. 
According to Second Amendment Check, a Carmike representative responded to an email about the cinema chain’s gun policies by writing:
Thank you for your inquiry concerning Carmike’s policy on the possession of firearms within our theatres. The events in Aurora, Colorado have placed a renewed emphasis on safety and emergency protocols at all of our theatre locations. Like many movie exhibitors and other retail businesses, Carmike does not allow weapons of any kind, including firearms, into our theatres, except for weapons carried by law enforcement and other security personnel. This policy was in effect prior the recent events in Colorado and remains our policy going forward.
Note the prohibition against “firearms” and “weapons of any kind.” Yet according to The Tennessean, the Carmike Hickory 8 attacker had pepper spray, a hatchet, and a gun. On the other hand, law-abiding citizens who adhered to the corporate ban on guns were defenseless.
As we saw at the Grand Theatre in Lafayette, Louisiana, persons with ill intent are not hindered by gun and weapon-free zones. Instead, such zones make their attacks easier.

The last 9 mass shootings have been ALL ''GUN-FREE ZONES!''  At least 159 people killed and over 150 people injured.  And for what?  So the God-hating Progs can feel good about themselves, while they die waiting for the police?

Not me.  I either won't go, or I will ignore the sign.

This is stupid.

Friday, July 31, 2015

The Answer Is: "NO!" A Thousand Times: "NO!"

It's building.  Mike Vanderboegh, David Codrea, Kit Lange, and a lot of other people in the gun-rights movement have voiced the
"We Will Not Comply!" view lately.    This week, this piece came out and it resonated with me so much.  Lately, I've been in a different mindset, too, as regards morons like these who are still looking to take our property and freedom, as regards firearms.

I have an answer for the author and those who want more gun laws enacted to restrict, register, and eventually confiscate firearms in this country: NO.

NO, we will not comply.    Just like the good people of New York, Connecticut, California, Colorado, Washington, and now Oregon and even Alabama told their respective state governments to stuff it, so will we say to the Federal government: NO.

You Progs and your enablers cannot pass a "gun control" law than can't be nullified by our disobedience.    And guess what: the criminals won't obey them, either.

But unlike the criminal scum, we are peaceable, and harm none unless deadly force is used on us or our own.  At which point, we will fight back with deadly force, as is our right.

These "gun control" laws-- every single one!-- are unconstitutional, and further, infringe the natural right of all humans to defend themselves. Even if you Progs manage to remove the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution, all you've done is fool yourselves and the Feds into thinking y'all can infringe a right that pre-existed the Constitution, and will exist after the Constitution is a distant memory.

We vote NO!  We vote NO with every Glock, AR-15, Smith & Wesson, H&K, Springfield, Mossberg, milsurp and every other servicable firearm that "We the People" own.   And we've been buying a LOT since your perfumed prince was elected.  We vote NO with every box, case, and truckload of ammunition we are buying and cranking out of our home reloading equipment.  We vote NO with every hour we spend on the range or in training, honing our shooting and tactical skills, or learning how to deal with laws, police and courts if we should have to use our skills in defense of our lives.

We vote NO.

We don't need government agents to protect us; we will take care of our own.  Leave us alone, stop trying to take our property and freedom away, or you will suffer the consequences.

UPDATE:  They're still trying to take our property and freedom by government force.
As David Codrea said to this simpering collectivist tool, NO.    What will you do now, you collectivist tool?  Go full stompy-feet?

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Aaron Zelman, "Gran'pa Jack", Comic-Book Freedom Fighter

Ol' Backwoods has been a member of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership for years, even though I'm a Gentile.  I had great respect for the late Aaron Zelman, founder of that noble and uncompromising organization.  (JPFO is gone now, swallowed by the squishy Mr. Gottlieb's 2nd Amendment Foundation.  But The Zelman Partisans carry on Zelman's legacy of uncompromising defense of freedom in fine fashion.  Rock on, TZP.)

Mr. Zelman did something back in the 1990's that might have been ill-advised, had he been the kind of man to ask a "media consultant".  But, he wasn't.  Mr. Zelman, along with Richard Stevens, wrote a series of comic books, with a thinly-disguised Zelman as "Gran'pa Jack", the stalwart WWII veteran who sets 'em all straight when they start blabbing about gun control.  "Gran'pa Jack" is joined by a buddy from back in the war, "Leon... the old war-horse," who is black.  Yep, black.  And let me tell you: Leon lets 'em have it, too.

Far from being bubblegum-stickied kids' stuff, this is a serious defense of the right to keep and bear arms, and indeed, all human rights, against overweening, busybody governments everywhere, from the UN, to the US of A federal government, to the uppity, anti-gun city council.  Zelman takes on all comers with a footnoted, well-illustrated, strong defense that keeps it fun (well, for our side), and is packed with zingers.

Digging through some old stuff from our last move, my wife found my copies of 4 classic Zelman comic books: No.1 - "Gun Control Kills Kids", No.4 - "Gun Control is Racist!",  No.5 - "Gran'pa Jack Exposes How the United Nations is Killing Your Freedoms!", and No. 6 -"Will 'Gun Control' Make You Safe?".  I thanked her for saving them, and not throwing them away.  (My dear wife is a strong defender of our rights herself, and a pistol-packin' mama.)

Below are some scans from No.1 and No.5.  In this day and age, these are some serious samizdat, and I think I will save them, in the hopes I have grandchildren.  I'm sure gun control will come back to haunt us again, even if we'll have to fight a civil war over it in the intervening years.

As you look at the images below, think about how fresh, how "up to now" these sound, and they are between 16 and 19 years old.  The Progs' plans never change.

Click any of the images to see a high-resolution version.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Atheist: Religious Beliefs "Not Sound Basis for Law"

From my "Why God destroyed America" files, comes the following letter to the editor of the Montgomery (AL) Advertiser, this month:

Therefore, I conclude Sheldon E. Jeames must want prohibitions of the  following removed from our laws:
  • Murder .  I mean, hey, the Bible was written by humans, right?  So, what's wrong with a little murder?  Why, one man's murder is another man's playtime, eh, Sheldon?  Murder.  It's such a strong word.  Killing plants and puppies is murder.  Human beings?  Planned Parenthood kills thousands a year, so what's the big deal about killing someone?  Especially if they got something the Gibsmedats want.  And speaking of that...
  • Rape.  What's rape anyway?  It's just a little sex play, right, Sheldon?   And what's wrong with sex?  I mean, nobody but those stupid Christians and Jews think it's wrong to take someone else's wife or daughter, whenever you're feeling in the mood, and perform a little biological function in their junction.  It's just the dance of the chromosomes, right, Sheldon?  Just a chemical reaction.
  • Theft.  That pesky little 8th Commandment!  Why, it comes from the Jews' Sky God or their Flying Spaghetti Monster or something.  What would be wrong with me going over to Sheldon's and picking up that brand new car?  Why, I'm a minority, and I deserve it more than he does.  White privilege, right, Sheldor?  As Van Jones said, "Give them the wealth!  Give them the dignity!"  I need the bling!  Just hand over the keys.  No?  Well, we're going to have a little 6th Commandment violation on the side, OK?
Once people like this deny the most obvious laws of nature and of Nature's God, they ANYTHING GOES.  And America will DESERVE every last thing that happens to her.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Scenario: The Fill-'er-up Attack

View of the IDPA stage discussed.
Have you ever been gassing up your car in a not-so-nice part of town, and wondered: what if a bunch of thugs came up behind and attacked me?

Could I defend myself and my spouse, or myself and my kids?

Saturday, at the Ol' Backwoods Gun Club's monthly IDPA match, we simulated this very situation.

I had to stand on the driver's side next to the gas cap, and pretend I was putting gas in.

At the beep, I drew my pistol, shot two (simulated) bad guys (right rear) while backing up toward the driver's side door. Then, I rotated left, took a knee on the driver's seat, shot 2 bad guys on the left side through the side door (while missing the no-shoot).  Next, I shot through the rear window (glass had been removed for safety), between the front seats, at two bad guys, while being aware of the (simulated) child in the back seat.

I did not hit the child.

I got all the bad guys except one, and I think if it had been a real situation, I think I would have got him.

It was a real heart-pounding stage, especially with the van in the scenario, which made it feel almost real.

It's been giving me a lot of pause since to think about how I carry concealed, why I carry, and what I would do in certain situations.  I've filled up my vehicle 3 times since shooting the scenario, and each time, I've imagined the scenario played out at the particular gas station where I happened to be.

Perhaps that's part of what precipitated the post earlier today.

Whither Self-Defense?

WeaponsMan asks what went wrong with a particular defensive gun use (DGU).  (Hat tip: WRSA)  He summarizes, "In our opinion, it’s often a mistake to display a firearm in hopes of de-escalating a situation."  Yeah.

So, would you pull your pistol in warning, like that guy Pannaman did?  I sure wouldn't.  In fact, I would seriously consider whether to use lethal force in self-defense at all.

This doesn't mean Ol' Backwoods don't carry a piece or two; let me explain.

In post-Trayvon America, self-defense is the only real crime (besides disrespecting the tyrants). The Powers That Be will make sure you that YOU AND I who defend ourselves with deadly force will pay for it, in money, possible jail time, and ruination of our lives and good name, and probably our families’.  The God-hating, lawless thugs that attacked us will not pay for it; they will go free, and be coddled, fed, and taken care of by for the rest of their lives.

Drawing a gun in self-defense? Most of the time, the answer is “it is not worth it”.

I definitely would not defend someone not in my family or immediate circle of friends.  (And I SURE wouldn't defend sea turtles with a gun like Pannaman did!) Sorry, I know that doesn't sound too Christian, but I have to think of my family first.    Are the third-party individuals going to come up with the $100,000 – $1,000,000 to defend me in court? Are they going to replace my weapon that the police most assuredly will take, and allow to rust and ruin in a musty evidence room, or will be “lost” (pocketed by a cop), never to be seen again? Are they going to protect me when the media makes me into the latest George Zimmerman, to be stalked, shot at, and attacked at every turn, while the media gleefully reports each attack, as if I deserved it? When every cop that pulls me over and realizes who I am wants to just shoot me in the face and get it over with?

The answer is no.

Trainers like Massad Ayoob and Andrew Branca make every effort to convince their readers and students that YOU WILL LOSE should you defend your life with deadly force. Even if you are released by the police without charge, even if you are no-billed by the grand jury, even if you are declared innocent of any charge, YOU WILL STILL LOSE, because the civil suits will come from the defenders of the lawless thugs who attacked you. And even if your state precludes civil suits in cases of self-defense (like mine does), it doesn’t matter– the thug defenders, Progressives, and their media allies will mark you down in their little black book, and they will get you, sooner or later, one way or another. If they have to send a chick to accuse you of rape, if they have to off you in a dark alley, if they have to use the media to ruin your good name; they WILL get to you.

Here's the underlying reason for all this: the Powers That Be need to stop self-defense, because self-defense (per Heller and McDonald) is the raison d’etre for "allowing" (the tyrants' view of rights) the proletariat to carry a gun, and even gun ownership itself, and they cannot allow the subject populations to be armed.

Yes, Ol' Backwoods still carries.  I guess I just never learn.  I carry because there might be a direct threat to my or my family’s life that I have no way out of except to kill the attacker.

But I will seek every way out before I even draw my weapon.  I will run away if I can, like the coward my noble ancestors would consider me to be.  I will even allow myself to be shot or wounded before drawing and returning fire. I might be killed by the attacking thug, but if I am, at least my family will have my life insurance. If I live, the media and the powers that be will destroy not only me, but my family as well.

And I haven't even gotten into the psychological impact of killing another human being.

Thursday, July 2, 2015

When The Law is Criminal

Just read this post from the brilliant Francis Porretto.

Awesome quotable quote from the article:
 I asked one of the members of Parliament whether a majority of the House could legitimize murder. He said no. I asked him whether it could sanctify robbery. He thought not. But I could not make him see that if murder and robbery are intrinsically wrong, and not to be made right by the decisions of statesmen, then similarly all actions must be either right or wrong, apart from the authority of the law; and that if the right and wrong the law are not in harmony with this intrinsic right and wrong, the law itself is criminal. – Herbert Spencer

Friday, June 26, 2015

"Marriage" is a Word I No Longer Use or Recognize

As of this date, I will never again use the term “marriage”. I will not refer to joining of homosexuals in a legal contract as “marriage”.  I will only use the term, "homosexual legal partnership" to describe such a sinful union.

My wife and I are in a state of holy matrimony, blessed by God. I refuse to recognize homosexual legal union contracts as “holy matrimony”, because there is nothing holy about sodomy. It is condemned in Scripture, which is the guide for my life.

I have no ill will of any kind toward homosexuals. I simply want to be left alone to live my life.

But the homosexual political power mongers and their enablers in the Federal government will not allow me to be left alone.  For decades, they have been browbeating American society to have their sin normalized.  By this accursed ruling today, homosexuals believe that their sodomy has now been deemed equivalent to what God ordained.
It is not. It never will be.
Soon, homosexuals will figure out that millions of us refuse to use the term "marriage".  They will raise the bar, with another Supreme Court ruling in the future to force Americans to confess their sinful state as "holy matrimony".  Those who refuse will be shunned, and I believe, jailed.    It's all up for grabs now.
Millions of us will STILL not comply.
This ruling is not the end.  It is only the beginning of the violent schism coming to America.  Trying to force us will only lead to more backlash.  The forced acceptance of sin, the forced registration and confiscation of guns, and the incarceration and eventual extermination of those who refuse, have all been in the plans of the Left for decades, and will only lead to more and more and more division, discord, and soon, violence.    
They won today.

But in eternity is the Supreme Judge of all the world.  And He will have the final ruling of all.
UPDATE 6/27: Ol' Backwoods ain't as smart as Justice Alito, but it is comforting to find him saying very similar things in his dissent to yesterday's anti-God decision:
...I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools. 
The system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. 
The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.
Bitter and lasting wounds.

UPDATE 6/27 II:  Chris Wysocki of Wyblog is, I assume, a Catholic.   I am not, but I wholeheartedly agree with what he says at Wyblog.  Readers will recognize that Ol' Backwoods was hitting some of the same themes in my article above as Chris does:
You ain't seen nothin' yet. 
Because the rainbow-shirts are coming. And they're coming for us. 
I figure the first church burning is only hours away. 
Within days it'll be impossible to say the words "homosexual" and "sin" in the same sentence anywhere in America. 
So let me say it here: 
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
— Catechism of the Catholic Church 
I guarantee that within the remainder of my lifetime making the above statement in public will be grounds for arrest. Because the homofascists will not stop until every last Christian is beaten into compliance. 
The State of New York recently ordered a Christian couple to undergo re-education for the crime of opposing same-sex "marriage." Do you really think the Obama Administration will do anythlng less vile nationwide? 
Lest you think me an alarmist, I give you an excerpt from the dissent:
"The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to 'advocate' and 'teach' their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to 'exercise' religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses." 
The free exercise of religion is dead. One can no longer engage in commerce and uphold Christian morality. We must choose — penury, or sin. 
Our forefathers came to these shores to escape religious persecution. 
Today religious persecution has been enshrined as an official policy of the United States government. 
May God have mercy on their souls.
Emphasis mine.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Millions of us will not comply. What will you do then, over?

Alternate title: Starting a Civil War Does Not Reduce "Gun Violence".

The HuffPo totalitarians are all up in arms (heh, heh) about "nullification".  What particularly chaps them is that we gun owners are getting away with it.

It seems the Left is doing plenty of "nullification" of their own, and of course, it's all right when they do it. State marijuana legalization, "sanctuary cities", and the state-level infringements of the 2nd Amendment are all dinkum "nullification", because the Left approves of them.

Ol' Backwoods can see what this article is really about: to lay the groundwork to destroy the right to keep and bear arms in America, by repeal, de facto or de jure, of the 2nd Amendment.

However, millions of us WILL NOT COMPLY with the Left's federal gun registration and confiscation schemes, just as freedom-loving citizens in New York and Connecticut have nullified state-level laws with their armed disobedience. They will have to force us, and in doing so, they will start a civil war that will cost hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives.  And if they do, they haven't seen "gun violence" yet.

A Cornell university harpy replied to my position, which I stated somewhat differently at the site.   The harpy snarked,
That's really patriotic of you, to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you want to follow and to threaten federal employees who seek to enforce it with deadly violence. Seems like terrorism to me.
See, that was bait.  I was supposed to be offended at being called a terrorist, and feel bad that she attacked my patriotism.  But I did not take the bait.   Ol' Backwoods replied to the crone with a very effective out-grouping, which tears like claws into the minds of those who are weak in the amygdala, as almost all Progressives are:
I am not the only one who will not comply, sweetie. We are millions. You are few. I thought y'all liked democracy?
Another Proggie tried to scare me and other pro-self-defense commenters.  Again, no sale.
This question was settled by violence in the civil War.    It looks as though violence is once again needed , those that do not wish to live under the laws and government of the United States should live elsewhere. Those that violate those laws are traitors and criminals and should be imprisoned or executed.  END OF STORY!
Woo!  The Empire Strikes Back, eh?  Well, "the laws and government of the United States" are defined by the Constitution, of which the 2nd Amendment is part.  But this is not really what this chump wants to talk about.  He is simply trying to scare me, by threatening force from the government of which he presumes himself a part (elitist attitude), and he's feeling his power over me.

I parried, and went straight for the amygdala, touching his "powerlessness" nerve:
The $64,000 question is, who will imprison or execute millions of us? At that scale, it ceases to become a police action, and will become a bloody civil war. You want that?
If NY and CT are any indication, the powers-that-be have no stomach to enforce gun registration and confiscation. 
We will not comply. What will you do about it? Over.
Some Massachusetts latte-drinker just had to weigh in with the tired old saw about repealing the 2nd:

The Second Amendment is obsolete and subject to gross misinterpretation. Therefore, it must be repealed. Then we wouldn't have any more of these "2nd Amendment Protection Acts." 
Treat guns like cars. Require license and registration and the passing of both a "know how to use" test and a written test for the license (as well as a background check). Also require insurance. And since states obviously can't be counted on to do this right, make it a Federal law and set of regulations....
Ol' Backwoods replied:
If the 2nd is so obsolete, why doesn't the Left just issue a diktat to "turn them all in now", and send forth the enforcers? I'll tell you why: they know that will cause blood to flow in the streets. 
If NY and CT are any indication, legislators love to pass laws, but governors and police are afraid to enforce them They are AFRAID of gun owners, for good reason. I am told there is a >90% noncompliance rate to the NY "SAFE" gun registration/confiscation act, and about the same in CT. 
With such successes, I guess you are ready to try it at the federal level. 
Millions of us will not comply. What will you do about it? Over.
I believe the answer is, they will do nothing.  They will wait for their enforcers, who need a lot more "juice" (Karl Rove's words when proposing the repeal of the 2nd) than they have now to do anything.

And even if they do repeal the 2nd Amendment and pass laws requiring the registration and confiscation of every gun, WE STILL GET TO VOTE.  We are armed.  We are staying armed.

What will you do about it? Over.