Subscribe in a reader and get notified every time I update the blog.

Help keep Tammy Blog prosperous and strong by donating a little something to The Kitty. Your support is greatly appreciated!

Available Now at a bookstore near you!

Order it online at Amazon!

Second Amendment Archives

Time: Don't Get Too Excited About that Gun Ruling

You bitter, clingy types. Yeah, and don't think you can go walking around with the thing.

I think the libs are getting a little cranky...

The Future of Gun Control

Proponents of gun rights may rejoice at winning this heavyweight tussle, but their victory comes by way of a nuanced decision. The ruling, which affirms a federal appeals court decree, makes clear that individual ownership rights are limited. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Scalia wrote... [Yeah, so there!]

In one of two dissenting opinions, Justice John Paul Stevens called Scalia's argument "strained and unpersuasive." He also blistered the majority for its expansive reading of the Amendment's "ambiguous" text. "Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia," Stevens wrote. "The Court's announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding."

Welcome to the Land of the Upset Justice Stevens, Time, and everyone else who is crying into their soup today because we got a 5-4 decision to not, as Scalia put it, declare the 2nd Amendment "extinct."

Posted by Tammy · June 27, 2008 03:05 PM · Permalink  · Comments (14)
Liberal Idiocy | Mainstream Media | Second Amendment

SCOTUS Barely Supports 2nd Amendment

Defend your right to bear arms (and bare thighs)

**UPDATE: Please see my additional commentary on this event at the Fox Forum. In "Supreme Court Rules for Gun Owners: A Victory and a Warning" I expand on the warning this decision gives us about the justices themselves.**

In another 5-4 decision, this time with the Conservative 4 joined by Kennedy, SCOTUS today struck down Washington, DC's draconian handgun ban. This is good news to say the least, but a vote which is far too close for anyone's comfort. The fact that Kennedy the Internationalist, of all people, is the "swing vote" on this court is unacceptable and places the future of this country and all of our individual rights at risk.

High court strikes down gun ban

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a sweeping ban on handguns in the nation's capital violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether Washington's ban violated the right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes. "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem," Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who are all considered conservative voices on the court. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a swing vote, also joined the majority.

Here's the SCOTUS blog link and...

McCain responds lauding the decision:

Read More »

Posted by Tammy · June 26, 2008 08:36 AM · Permalink  · Comments (5)
Good News | Justice/Judiciary | Second Amendment

Great News for Mass Murderers

My commentary at the Fox Forum on Seattle deciding to ban guns from all government owned property, "Great News for Mass Murderers," has just gone live. Please do take a look and comment liberally! :)

Posted by Tammy · June 10, 2008 08:31 AM · Permalink  · Comments (4)
Just Plain Stupid | Liberal Idiocy | Second Amendment

But I Thought DC and Chicago Were Gun Free Zones

So why do the police need assault rifles? Weird.

D.C. to arm police with assault rifles

The Metropolitan Police Department has joined other major U.S. cities in arming patrol officers with assault rifles to protect them against criminals with high-powered weapons, weeks after being released from a federal program that monitors the use of excessive force.

"We want to be as accurate as possible and have more stopping power," Assistant Chief Patrick Burke said yesterday...The Chicago Police Department is making similar plans and the City of Miami Police Department is already using such weapons.

"We need to be equally equipped with the firearms that are being used against the police," said Monique Bond, a Chicago police spokeswoman. "If officers cannot protect themselves, they cannot protect residents." [Wait, wait, you mean guns in the hands of the right people is a good thing and protects people!?!?!? Is it possible?!?!]

Last month, Chicago had one of the most violent crime waves in recent history — 36 shootings in which nine people were killed and an AK-47 assault rifle was used to shoot up a plumbing-supply store...

Now just wait one second. We're talking about "gun violence" and guns are illegal so what are the police talking about!? Uh, and what is this about police not being able to protect the citizens? I mean, is it possible that "gun violence" is out of control because law-abiding citizens aren't allowed to protect themselves?

I can already feel a headache coming on I'm so confused.

Posted by Tammy · May 8, 2008 11:59 AM · Permalink  · Comments (2)
Crime | Incompetence | Politics | Second Amendment

John Adams

A post by Maynard

Has anybody been watching the current HBO mini-series about John Adams? It's based on the biography by David McCullough. This series is an agreeable way to be reminded of our fundamental history. The environment conveys a compelling aura of authenticity.

A couple of quick comments... The first engagements of the Revolutionary War were the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Tensions in the American colonies had been rising, and the British decided to disarm the local militias. Troops marched from Boston to seize weapons, but the colonists were warned (by Paul Revere and others). Rather than turn over their arms, they shot back, and the British retreated.

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.

Do you suppose the Founding Fathers were thinking of this incident when they penned the Second Amendment? These people had firsthand experience with a despot's need to disarm the people.

Also, in the context of our founding, it must be understood that Virginia was the powerhouse of the era. The American economy of the day was agricultural rather than industrial, and the balance of power was strongly tilted towards the plantation states. New England was cold and rocky, and it was not anticipated that the North would ever be in a position to challenge the dominance of the South. So the Southern interests in general and the Virginians in particular were destined to be in the forefront of this part of our history.

Some people express anger because the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution did not abolish slavery. In fact, although many of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists or regarded slavery as a sinful institution, the political reality was that the colonies could not come together if abolition were part of the equation. So the struggle over slavery was postponed.

Posted by Maynard · April 8, 2008 04:36 PM · Permalink  · Comments (11)
History | Hollywood/Films | Maynard Post | Second Amendment

Purim

A post by Maynard; bumped from 2007

This has been the week of the annual commemoration of Purim (pronounced POOR-im), which is a Jewish celebration of the events in the Bible's Book of Esther.

A short description of the background of Purim is here. I recently noted the 2006 movie, One Night with the King, which dramatized the tale.

The story is set in Persia (Iran!), and the villain is Haman, an evil advisor to the King who contrives to have all the Jews of the kingdom killed. Ultimately the plot is thwarted, and Haman is hanged. "Haman" is a name that lives on in infamy, much like "Hitler".

I'll mention a couple interesting of specific details. One is that the Book of Esther is unusual in that it doesn't specifically mention God, nor are there any instances of overt divine intervention. Rather, the story plays out in a logical way. We may read into this that the will of God may come about through subtle means. Not everything He does is as dramatic as the parting of the Red Sea.

In Esther 8, the King issues an edict to save the Jews from Haman's plan. But there was a problem to be overcome:

5 "If it pleases the king," [Esther] said, "and if he regards me with favor and thinks it the right thing to do, and if he is pleased with me, let an order be written overruling the dispatches that Haman son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, devised and wrote to destroy the Jews in all the king's provinces.

6 For how can I bear to see disaster fall on my people? How can I bear to see the destruction of my family?"

7 King Xerxes replied to Queen Esther and to Mordecai the Jew, "Because Haman attacked the Jews, I have given his estate to Esther, and they have hanged him on the gallows.

8 Now write another decree in the king's name in behalf of the Jews as seems best to you, and seal it with the king's signet ring — for no document written in the king's name and sealed with his ring can be revoked."

In other words, for technical and legalistic reasons, the King's earlier order authorizing the murder of the Jews could not be revoked. So the King cleverly issued a proclamation which would effectively block the implementation of the earlier orders without actually revoking them. The King issued this special authorization to the Jews:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Of course I'm kidding on that point. Sort of. But the reality is quite similar. The King authorized the Jews to defend themselves with deadly force against anyone who came against them. The actual Bible quote is this:

11 The king's edict granted the Jews in every city the right to assemble and protect themselves; to destroy, kill and annihilate any armed force of any nationality or province that might attack them and their women and children; and to plunder the property of their enemies.

And you know what happened? The people who were going to kill the Jews decided to let them live. In fact:

17 In every province and in every city, wherever the edict of the king went, there was joy and gladness among the Jews, with feasting and celebrating. And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.

So aside from everything else, you now have the Biblical derivation of the Second Amendment.

Posted by Maynard · March 20, 2008 04:06 PM · Permalink  · Comments (11)
Jew-Hatred | Maynard Post | Religion | Second Amendment

My Heart A Flutter: The New SIS Pistol

The SIS Ultra. Want.

Pistol for police marketed to the public

To the dismay of some city leaders, a gun company is marketing a line of high-end pistols named for the LAPD's Special Investigation Section, an elite group of plainclothes detectives with a history of fatally shooting suspects.

The guns for the undercover unit were created at the request of the Los Angeles Police Department. Kimber, a Yonkers, N.Y.-based gun maker, is marketing a slightly modified version to the public, touting the weapons as the "hot new SIS pistols" on the company's website.

For each of the more than $1,000 guns sold, Kimber says it will donate $15 to the nonprofit Los Angeles Police Memorial Foundation, which provides financial support to officers and their families in times of death, injury or illness...

The LAPD began using four models of the single-action, semiautomatic .45-caliber handguns late last year. LAPD officials said it took 18 months to develop the weapons, which they said are designed to be lighter and more easily concealed than the guns regularly used by the department.

Kimber's SIS models for the LAPD and the public can be cocked and fired with one hand, in case the other is injured or otherwise unavailable. The company designed various models of the weapon for different police uses: two 5-inch versions for officers' belts and vests, and the smaller 4- and 3-inch versions for the stakeout vehicle and off-duty protection, respectively.

She's beautiful. I'm getting one. But what should I name her??

And ooh, here's another lovely Kimber firearm, the Ultra Carry. Wow.

What's a girl to do?

Posted by Tammy · January 12, 2008 03:54 PM · Permalink  · Comments (20)
Second Amendment

Armed Customer Stops Robbery

This, folks, is what happens when the law-abiding have guns.

Customer pulls gun, stops robbery

It was a busy night Monday at Buck's IGA on the 3000 block of South Meridian Street. "Charlie," who didn't want his image or name used with this story, was in line to check out.

A man police later identified as Dwain Smith reportedly ran into the store wearing a ski mask and yelling. Cashier Dianna Brooks repeated what she says she heard. "I heard the guy say 'give me all your money' [...] Charlie says he responded immediately. "When I heard it I automatically took mine (gun) out." And Charlie says he was ready to act. "If he had raised it (gun) up yes I would have shot him."

"He was turning against the other woman. He didn't actually see me coming up at first and then when he did, he turned around and I yelled at him to put down his weapon," Charile explained...

Charlie says was face to face with the suspect. "He just stare and looked at me for a minute. I cocked it back and then, all of a sudden, he laid it down on the counter and put all the money down." [...]

When police arrived, Charlie had the suspect on the floor. "(I) just held him until the police got there. (I) put my foot in his back and the gun to his head."

Bravo.

Posted by Tammy · January 2, 2008 11:18 AM · Permalink  · Comments (4)
Hero | Second Amendment

The Most Important 2nd Amendment Decision in 70 Years

Is what the NRA is calling the decision to be made the US Supreme Court about the DC gun ban. This decision will affect everyone's right to keep a handgun in their own home. After the Kelo decision which ended private property in this nation, I don't know what to expect from this particular set of 9 "elites." The good news is, if the court does correctly recognize the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, this decision would lead the way to reversing other gun bans, making the people in those cities infinitely safer,

Supreme Court to rule on right to keep handguns at home

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court set the stage Tuesday for a historic ruling on whether the fiercely debated 2nd Amendment protects the rights of Americans to keep handguns at home.

The justices said they would review an appeals court decision that struck down a 31-year-old ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. The case will be heard early next year and decided by next summer...agreeing to hear the case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, the justices issued an order saying they would rule on whether the city's handgun ban "violates the 2nd Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."

Personally, I will never hand Snuffy, my .38 Special, over to the Feds or any other law enforcement agency, and I will gladly face the repercussions of that refusal.

A note by Maynard: See these earlier posts, "How the Left Plans to Take Your Guns" (which explains the legal uncertainties surrounding the 2nd Amendment, which may get resolved by this case) and "The Second Amendment: Saved?" (about the favorable lower court ruling which will now go to the Supreme Court). Note that this is a high-stakes ruling, which may either roll back various unconstitutional impositions on our fundamental firearms rights, or further shred the Constitution. Be thankful that George Bush, for all his faults, has given us better judges than any Democrat would have.

And one more footnote: In the recent Democrat debate, the candidates stumbled over each other to assure us that any judges they appoint will support the constitutional right to privacy, which is the legal foundation upon which Roe vs. Wade is based. I don't want to open up the abortion argument here, but it should be understood that the "right to privacy" is not explicitly declared in the Constitution, and it takes some creative legal spinning to derive it (based largely upon the right to protection against unreasonable searches), and even more acrobatics to get from privacy to an unfettered right to terminate pregnancy. An honest lawyer (forgive the oxymoron!) will acknowledge as much, regardless of his or her feelings about abortion. I wish these politicians were as enthusiastic about protecting the rights that the Constitution actually enumerates (like bearing arms) as they are about the stuff they conjure out of the Constitution's "penumbra" (that's the word they use).

Posted by Tammy · November 20, 2007 11:39 PM · Permalink  · Comments (14)
Second Amendment

Tammy Peep Needs Gun Suggestion for Daughter

We got this Comment from a new Commenter named "nacilkdr" in the Warner Bros. post. I thought the question was a worthy one, so have posted it here. Everyone, please make your suggestions for what sort of firearm nacilkdr should get his 20-year old daughter. I would recommend a snubnose .38 special, but that's what Snuffy is so I don't think I'm objective. And I'm stubborn and a creature of habit. I expect to learn something new, too :)

My shooting buddy and I took our daughters, his 15, mine 20 to see Jodie Foster give a riveting performance in the "Brave one".

It was my daughter that called me because she wanted to see the film with her dad, she knew that I would understand the context and underlying premises. We live in a red county,San Luis Obispo, in the blue state of CA. We clapped, whistled and shouted yeah! I am sure some in the theater cringed at our sympathies, but hey, someone takes your dog and beats your man to death, well...... I have been a fan of Jodie's for decades, and even though I read an interview she gave regarding this movie wherein she disparaged the idea of citizens defending themselves with firearms, she still brings our my inner lesbian.

To celebrate the movie, the following day the four of us went to a friends ranch and went through hundreds of rounds of .22, .223, .22-250, 25-06, 38sp, .357, 44mag, and .45acp.

Now my daughter, five foot nothing, maybe 105, spitting image of Alicia Silverstone wants her own pistol. Any suggestions?

Posted by Tammy · October 9, 2007 12:30 PM · Permalink  · Comments (30)
Second Amendment

The New Chick with a Gun Pic

...And on Sunday, I visited a friend, we dressed up like chicks and played with our guns.

Posted by Tammy · June 24, 2007 10:53 AM · Permalink  · Comments (7)
Second Amendment | Tammy Notes

The NRA Should Pick Better Battles

Like making sure law-abiding citizens and those who are not suspected of being terrorists are able to purchase and own firearms. While the citizens of New Orleans who were illegally and unconstitutionally disarmed still have yet to get their guns back, the NRA wants to make sure those who are suspected of being terrorists can still purchase guns. This sort of absurd stand is the equivalent of the ACLU fighting to make sure the Nazis could march in Skokie. There are better battles to fight to support our principles.

And don't give me that argument that "we have to stand up for the principle for everyone otherwise the whole principle is damaged." Oh, no it's not. This is about knowing right from wrong, and realizing that a right, like gun ownership, can be lost if you're deemed to be a potential danger to society. That's fine with me, and there is no 'slippery slope' if we don't allow one. It's called being disciplined, involved, and vigilant.

Sheesh.

NRA: Don't ban gun sales to suspects

WASHINGTON - The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (news, bio, voting record), D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

"As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties," Cox wrote.

Current law requires gun dealers to conduct a criminal background check and deny sales if a gun purchaser falls under a specified prohibition, including a felony conviction, domestic abuse conviction or illegal immigration. There is no legal basis to deny a sale if a purchaser is on a terror watch list.

Oh, brother. Yeah, so we trust the Terror Watch list enough to not allow those people to get on airplanes, but we're supposed to be just fine with letting them buy guns. Yeah. Snuffy and I want the law-abiding to be armed. We are just fine with criminals, wife-beaters, and those on the Terror Watch list not being allowed to have them. Supporting the Second Amendment (as I passionately do) does not have to devolve into a suicide pact. Ridiculous.

Posted by Tammy · May 5, 2007 04:47 PM · Permalink  · Comments (10)
Second Amendment

VA. Gov Kaine Gets Loopy About Gun Laws

I can understand how well meaning people will flail about in the immediate aftermath of an atrocity, saying stupid things about banning guns. After all, all of us would like very much to stop this sort of thing from ever happening again. And since you can't control people (no matter how much the left wants to) the next 'controllable' thing is an inanimate object, via which you can then, supposedly, control people. Not.

Once normal people sit down and have time to think about the issue, the argument that more gun control is the answer becomes absurd on its face. After all, Virginia Tech is a gun-free zone. Except, of course, the insane criminal who murdered 32 people didn't care about that, anymore than he cared about the fact that it's also illegal to murder people. Cho was also forbidden from owning a gun because of the court declaration that he was an 'imminent threat to others' and mentally unstable. But Kaine's state doesn't yet make that information available to gun shop owners.

Va. Gov. Ponders Tightening Gun Laws

The Virginia Tech massacre might boost efforts to require stringent background checks of buyers at gun shows, but state lawmakers probably do not have an appetite for any broad bans, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said Thursday.

At gun shows, collectors and other firearms aficionados can sell and trade weapons without checking the seller's history. Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 students and faculty members before committing suicide, bought his guns legally [that's not true. Cho's adjudicated mental state made that purchase illegal--ed.] through gun shops.

Efforts to tighten the gun-show law die perennially in Virginia's Republican-run, pro-gun General Assembly.

"I've always supported closing the gun-show loophole. It's just the enforcement of existing law: Felons shouldn't have a gun," the Democrat told The Associated Press.

Newsflash for Governor Kaine: Cho was not a felon nor did he get his gun at a gun show. If guns are going to be the thing we respond to because of this (as opposed to allowing the mentally deranged to wander around our campuses), the real issue, the real lesson, is the fact that wherever guns are banned (like Washington, DC, London, and Virginia Tech), murder becomes an epidemic and violent crime in general rises exponentially. Only the armed law-abiding can stop felons determined to do harm (again) or the never-arrested strangely quiet men who stalk women, and finally act on their murder fantasies.

The state of Tennessee, as an example, understands this and took action.

Ann Coulter also has a column out today about the ongoing debate about the cause of the VTech massacre, and takes issue with the 'mental health' exception for buying a gun. I like that rule. If you're certifiably nuts, then you shouldn't have a gun.

Posted by Tammy · April 26, 2007 05:00 PM · Permalink  · Comments (4)
Leftists | Politics | Second Amendment | Tragedy

Gun Rights Strengthened After VTech Tragedy?

Only if the point is made well and regularly. This is an argument that will be won or lost not on the truth of the matter (the efforts to ban guns still inexplicably continues), but on a persistent and persuasive public discussion. And you know the Establishment Media will resist that with all their might. As an example, note the nature of the headline of the following story out of France. Instead of couching the core of the article in the truth such as the importance of the individual right to defend oneself, it offers a non-human monolith 'gun lobby' as being strengthened by the tragedy. Sheesh.

Pro-gun lobby strengthened following US campus shooting

The powerful US gun lobby, far from being weakened by last week's tragic college campus shooting, actually has emerged stronger, gun advocates said, stepping up calls Sunday for a better-armed US citizenry to prevent future attacks.

Gun rights advocates said that following last week's massacre, in which 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui fatally shot 32 victims at Virginia Tech University, gun control forces will be hard pressed to make the case for tighter restrictions...

"They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves," he told AFP. "You want people to be able to defend themselves -- always," he said. an Cleave said the tragedy could give a boost to a years-long effort in Virginia to pass legislation allowing students to carry weapons on campus -- especially since existing laws failed to prevent Cho's murderous rampage.

Posted by Tammy · April 22, 2007 11:08 PM · Permalink  · Comments (0)
Second Amendment | Tragedy

Gun Registration: An Inconvenient Detail

A Query by Maynard

Maynard is not a lawyer, and frankly often finds legal arguments beyond his meager ability to comprehend. So I make no claim that I'm correctly representing the situation here. I phrase this as a question, perhaps to be resolved by one of our more worldly associates.

Does anyone know of this 1968 Supreme Court case, "Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85"? Here's the legal opinion, which will probably make your eyes glaze over. Somewhat more readably, here's one man's analysis, and he's not the only one explaining it in these terms.

This is the story: Miles Haynes, a previously-convicted criminal, was prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. So when they found him with a short-barreled shotgun, he was charged with failure to register the weapon. He defended himself by noting the requirement that he register meant he was expected to incriminate himself, and thus his Fifth Amendment rights had been violated ("No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"). The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that:

We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec. 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec. 5851

Taking this at face value, it would seem that gun registration laws only apply to law-abiding citizens, but not to criminals.

The Internal Revenue Service faces a similar dilemma. My understanding is their solution is to protect the taxpayer from having his tax forms used to convict him of criminal activity. For example, if you make money selling illicit drugs, you can declare this as taxable income, and you'll face no criminal consequences. This satisfies the IRS, because they get their money, and that's all they wanted from you. But there's no analogous solution with respect to gun registration, where the fundamental justification is to keep guns out of the hands of people who aren't allowed to have them.

Posted by Maynard · April 17, 2007 04:30 PM · Permalink  · Comments (7)
Maynard Post | Second Amendment

Ban Guns? How About Banning Foreign Men on Student Visas

There's a lot of talk about how banning guns would have prevented the VTech tragedy. When you think about it the truth of the matter is the two largest massacres on American soil in the last 80 years were not committed by Americans, but by foreign men here on student visas.

The weapons of choice were different: airplanes versus firearms. Interesting, after September 11th, even as airplanes and box cutters were used to murder 3,000 people, no one called for the banning of those items, both of which had now been proven to be weapons of mass destruction.

Yet, when it comes to the VTech massacre, the rhetoric revolves not around the common factor of these events of mass murder--foreign men on student visas--but how 'lax gun laws' allowed this to happen.

One Roanoke editorialist has actually called for the repeal of the Second Amendment as a response to the tragedy. Of course, if we are to react to the facts of these mass murders, we would be repealing student visas. But we certainly can't let facts get in the way here. Nope. For the left, the only thing that matters is finding a way to manipulate this horrible event to further their own agenda.

Read More »

Posted by Tammy · April 17, 2007 02:17 PM · Permalink  · Comments (4)
Leftists | Mainstream Media | Malignant Narcissism | Second Amendment | Tragedy

D.C.: Voting Rights, Gun Rights, Politics

A post by Maynard

Most people probably don't realize that the residents of the District of Columbia (that is, Washington, D.C.) don't have a voting representative in Congress. It wasn't until 1961, with the passage of the Twenty-third Amendment, that D.C. participated in electing the president.

The Constitution established D.C. to be the government district. Since the Founding Fathers wanted the government to represent the people rather than itself, D.C. was not represented in the Federal government.

With modern D.C. having an African-American supermajority, and fueled by the usual racial and partisan politics, the issue of D.C. voting periodically comes up for debate.

The Democrats, strengthened by the recent election, have again moved to give D.C. a voting representative in the House. But those wily Republicans may have derailed the latest effort by expanding the voting rights bill to also assure D.C. residents of their right to keep and bear arms. This puts Democrats in an awkward position, since their opposition to the expansion illuminates the partisan and self-serving nature of their effort. The Democrats aren't doing this to give the people their rights; they're doing it to help themselves.

Meanwhile, the strict D.C. gun ban, although recently overturned, remains in effect pending appeal. Considering the crime-ridden nature of the city, I think I'd rather have a gun than a vote.

Posted by Maynard · March 25, 2007 05:37 PM · Permalink  · Comments (4)
Maynard Post | Politics | Second Amendment

Lock and Load in NOLA

Forget Knut (nevermind, that's just humanly impossible.). Our friend Ed Driscoll has a story that brings to light the cuteness factor of a .38 Smith & Wesson.

Posted by Tammy · March 24, 2007 11:50 AM · Permalink  · Comments (2)
Second Amendment

The Second Amendment: Saved?

A post by Maynard

In a recent post, I discussed in detail the debate over what the Second Amendment means to individual citizens. The summary, from a lawyer's point of view, is that we don't know for sure, because an absolute legal ruling has never been issued. Much of the Left claims that the Second Amendment means nothing. A single bad ruling from the Supreme Court could effectively codify their despotic vision into law, setting the stage for seizing private weapons.

This report in today's news could be an important milestone. In a 2-1 decision, a U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia has overturned the DC gun ban. The court ruled that the right to bear arms is "not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

In other words, in the opinion of this Court, the Second Amendment acknowledges YOUR right to be armed. You may think this is obvious and that any other opinion would have been a gross offence against common sense and decency. But, legally speaking, the question had been undecided.

This ruling does NOT end the issue. This is a regional court ruling. Only a Supreme Court ruling would settle the legal argument for the nation.

(If the Supreme Court were to favor the Leftist despots, we would probably immediately go to work on a new Amendment to set things right. The wording I would suggest would be: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed....AND THIS TIME WE MEAN IT!" But let's hope we never have to face that contingency.)

So the next question is, will this ruling be appealed to the Supreme Court? If so, it will be a very important case to watch. If not, it will remain a positive precedent, but not necessarily a definitive one.

Posted by Maynard · March 9, 2007 12:59 PM · Permalink  · Comments (8)
Good News | Maynard Post | Second Amendment

London Facing Inexplicable Gun Crime Wave

**Welcome StumbleUpon Readers. Once done here, please feel free to check out the rest of my blog. Thanks!**

This is especially bizarre considering guns were banned in London in 1997. I mean, it's been 10 years. Guns are banned. Unless, of course, since guns are now illegal, only the law-abiding follow the law, making "gun violence" enacted by criminals who do not follow the law (hence "criminals") even more of a problem. Doesn't it always seem to work out when you pass a law that makes the law-abiding citizen a sitting duck for criminals, more violence ensues? Just ask the people of Washington, DC for their assessment of how "gun control" works. In fact, it doesn't. It's made them a regular contender for murder capitol of our nation. Oh wait, London seems to be on its merry way to gaining that title now.

London, btw, now has a higher violent crime rate then New York City. Gee, I wonder why.

Gun crime summit plan announced

Police chiefs, community representatives and politicians will discuss the wave of gun crime sweeping across the UK. The Downing Street meeting called by Tony Blair comes just days after the latest in a series of gun fatalities in London.

Mr Blair said that the roots of the problem go "very deep" within some families and communities. But areas of otherwise peaceful, law-abiding citizens whose lives are blighted by the "guns and gangs" culture need "help and relief", he said.

Wow, you mean gang members own guns even though they're banned? And law-abiding citizens are being victimized? Who could have anticipated that?

Oh, I have a "help and relief" suggestion: encourage the law-abiding to arm themselves. You'll be surprised just how quickly "gun violence" stops and crime plummets. Floridians found that out after Castro's famous Mariel Boat Lift. As crime soared, law-abiding Floridians were encouraged to arm themselves, and to the dismay of guncontrol advocates everywhere, crime plummeted. I know, amazing, isn't it?

Related Link:

Mark Steyn: "This is what happens when governments try to ban guns"

Posted by Tammy · February 22, 2007 10:42 PM · Permalink  · Comments (11)
Crime | Second Amendment

How the Left Plans to Take Your Guns

Kate Winslet exercises her right to bare arms

A post by Maynard

The other day I was innocently sitting in my local eatery, when a nearby Leftist with a foghorn voice explained to her hapless companion how the next administration would confiscate private firearms. I've heard the argument before, and it's worth going over. There's enough logic to the plan that we can't just dismiss it on the assumption that "it can't happen here".

First, let's review the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Does this protect you? Not necessarily.

Consider the myriad of rules regulating your acquisition and possession of arms. There are background checks, waiting periods, access restrictions, size limits, etc. So it's obvious that your right to "keep and bear arms" is already "infringed". (And by the way, most of us agree with at least some of these infringements as being necessary to keep deadly force out of the hands of maniacs.) Anyway, it's clear that the Second Amendment is not as strongly protected as the First Amendment. Can you imagine if you had to register your mimeograph machine the way you register your guns? The courts would never allow it.

So right out of the gate, you know the Second Amendment isn't as secure as we might hope. That's the raw fact, like it or not.

So the question is, what does the Second Amendment do? In particular, what does it do for you?

Read More »

Posted by Maynard · January 22, 2007 01:24 PM · Permalink  · Comments (2)
Leftists | Maynard Post | Second Amendment

Snuffy Bruce and Smith and Wesson

Maynard muses briefly about small defensive revolvers

You may have noticed that Tammy has posted a rare picture of her reclusive bodyguard Snuffy. You'll find it somewhere in the right column.

Snuffy looks to be a Smith and Wesson Model 642 revolver. This model has an unusual enclosed hammer. The advantage is that the hammer can't catch on anything (for example, if the gun is pulled quickly from a pocket or purse). The disadvantage is this model cannot be cocked, and thus can be fired only in double-action mode.

Read More »

Posted by Maynard · January 8, 2007 12:59 AM · Permalink  · Comments (6)
Maynard Post | Second Amendment

Marine Corp Rules for Gun Fighting

There are many, and they are all good. Here is a sampling of the tips: (HT Fark)

Marine Corps Rules for Gun Fighting

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

12. Have a plan.

18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.

And watch out for those Navy Rules at the bottom of the linked page.

Posted by Tammy · November 13, 2006 07:30 PM · Permalink  · Comments (9)
Second Amendment

Guest Babe for the Weekend

I'm declaring her a Guest Babe because she's being feted at another site, and it will also not preclude me from crowning our own Tammy Blog Babe for the Weekend.

So go to The Other Side of Kim for your treat. At that blog you will find not only the lovely Barbara Stanwyck, but scroll down a little and you'll find another special sort of babe, the Winchester Mod 1892. I bet you didn't know some babes could be cold and hard, did you? ;)

I love us.

Posted by Tammy · October 22, 2006 11:21 AM · Permalink  · Comments (7)
Babes | Second Amendment

Crime Emergency in "Gun Free" Washington, DC