Pages

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 Fed.gov 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