One school shooting you WON’T see on the national stage or in the media.

The best way to deal with a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.


So why won’t the media give praise to this officer, when they are more than willing to condemn gun owners for one persons actions when it isn’t stopped quickly?

Why must someone be prosecuted?

We see too much gun violence thanks to the media’s drive for these stories…

They make good ratings, what will they do when people stop getting shot? Oh wait, people will always be shot or killed in some fashion since people are unable to respect the rights of others.

Before I start, I am sorry that a young woman lost her life, and the hell her family and friends are suffering…

We have another case where the community wants the white guy prosecuted for the death of a non-white.


  • Why was the 19 year old out and about at 3:40am?
  • Was this girl one of the only teens without a cell phone?
  • can a citizen racially profile, or is that just a legal term that deals with law enforcement/security/TSA?
  • Common sense tells us that we do not approach houses in the middle of the night (especially in rougher areas).
  • What was her blood alcohol content?

The shooter says that he did not see her face and if that is true… then it is hard for it to be racially motivated.

There were claims that she was shot while leaving the porch, which is false per the police statement.


So where does that leave us, other than having a dead woman?

Was the homeowner within his rights? We don’t know, as it is too soon to tell.

Was she pounding on his door, giving him the belief that she was trying to break the door down? At that time of the night, a sleeping person could think so. Since he lived alone, he wasn’t expecting anyone.

Should he be charged? Again, it is too soon to tell. With what little I have in front of me, I am inclined to say no.

I do not see anything compelling me to believe that a crime has been committed. I also do not know if this is a rough area or not as I have not been there. Perhaps one of our readers can shed some light on this for us.


States and Nullification of Enforcement of Federal Laws

Does anyone else see this trend of states getting fed up with the federal government and enacting legislation (or coming close to anyway) that nullifies federal laws?

I find it interesting but a little unnerving.

Does this bring us closer to my concerns of civil unrest or rebellion?

  • More than a dozen state may be nullifying Obama Care
  • Missouri – The governor has a bill to consider nullification of federal gun laws
  • Kansas (and others)- passed a law that guns made and owned in Kansas were exempt from federal firearms laws
  • Washington and Colorado legalized recreational marijuana possession and use.
  • Washington legalizes gay marriage
  • Pennsylvania –  may be nullifying federal bans on some weapons and ammunition
  • or even the opposite, states try to help the feds by trying to enforce voting or immigration law and the feds can’t permit THAT.

I am sure that there are other examples.

So if states won’t enforce the federal laws, then I guess the feds will have to ramp up their staffing to be able to enforce their own laws.. What a concept.

At some point, the federal government went feral and now the states have decided that they need to take back some of their domain.

Do we see an end to this? What other areas will states start to take back?

How will the feds compensate for their losses in power?
The federal government need to constrict its size and power.

Will they have a flippin’ temper tantrum and over-react?


Ultra-Violet emailed me…

Okay, due to my broad political spectrum I am on lists from the uber-liberal to the soulless (and by soulless, I am referring to those FAR more to the right than anyone here) right.

Today I received one from Ultra-Violet that made me laugh and wish that I had more disposable income. I would rather buy one of these targets than sign their whiny-assed petition.

Their text is as follows:

A shooting target mannequin named the “The Ex,” a large-breasted woman who bleeds when shot, is being sold on It’s manufactured by Zombie Industries, a company that was featured at the NRA convention last weekend.

Let’s review the facts: 57% of mass shootings involve incidents of domestic violence.1 The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the chance that a woman will be murdered by 500%.2 54% of women killed with guns are killed by intimate partners or family members.3 Gun violence against women is a serious problem.

But “The Ex” shooting target turns violence against women into a joke and promotes the idea that men should want to kill their ex-wives or ex-girlfriends. The sole review says, “This was a very original, cool way to kick off a bachelor party for a firearm enthusiast, such as myself.”4 recently came under fire for selling t-shirts that advocated for rape and domestic violence.5 After all that bad publicity, they won’t want to look like they’s promoting violence against women again. Zombie Industries has already had to pull a mannequin target that resembled President Obama,6 so they are definitely attracting media attention right now–and it’s just the kind of bad press Amazon doesn’t want. If we all speak up about this horrible “Ex” target we can get Amazon to do the right thing and stop carrying this dangerous product.

Add your name to the petition.

Violence against women may be a joke to the guys at Zombie Industries, but it’s life and death for thousands of women every day. Women in the U.S. are 11 times more likely to be killed with a gun than their counterparts in other high-income countries.7

Guns also quickly escalate domestic violence situations. As Kelly Starr of the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence told NBC’s Brian Williams, “When there is a gun around is when we see domestic violence turn to murder.”8

And it’s not just in domestic violence situations where women are threatened with guns. 1 in 5 stalkers will threaten their victims with a weapon, and 78% of stalking victims are women.9

Zombie Industries crossed a line when they started making “The Ex” shooting target. Making light of violence against women is unacceptable, and shouldn’t be selling products that promote violence against women. If Amazon pulls “The Ex” shooting target, it will send a clear message that this won’t be tolerated in the mainstream.

Sign the petition. [I will certainly not stop their rights to petition whomever they want]

Thanks for speaking out,

Yes, I am speaking out… against Ultra-Violet. Get a grip, there is humor in life and sometimes in death.

If I were to choose to call my target, “The Ex”, it is well within my fucking rights to free speech! If I wanted to call it “Speaker of the House” or “Mr. President” it would STILL be within my rights.

I am still friends with my ex, so I would not use it in THAT context.

As to the claim of mass shootings, how do they define mass shootings? I did not see that cited in the article that they referenced from  I have a problem with illegals guns as well, but I also have a problem with illegals with guns…  I have plenty of problems many of them revolve around stupid laws, or the failure to enforce the laws that aren’t stupid.

I was behind Ultra-Violet on the Stubinville case, but with this one, I am on the opposite side.

Armed Survivors

I’m adding this little areas to the deck for stories of cases where firearms saved lives, or ended an otherwise bad situation. The general media has little time to report on such incidents, because they don’t bring in the ratings or aren’t within the political beliefs of the editor/owners of the network, so I thought we could post the stories we find in small town papers for balance.

By Eyes_Open

Wal-mart; Knuckling under to political pressure, or a convenient excuse for desired policy changes?

By Eyes_Open

I have confirmed with other sources, Wal-mart is suspending ALL orders of ammo and firearms to their stores that carry these items, pending the final wording of the “Federal Gun Control Act” which is now in the hands of President Obama. Is this the beginning of, or escalation of, governmental control of the market? Or the next step in controlling arms to the public? Or both? Or is it just an excuse for Wal-mart to do what it may have wanted to do all along, but couldn’t because of customer pressure?

Back to the gun issue again

The gun issue is hitting the surface again…

Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., offered an agreement to set up consideration of a set of amendments, including a Coburn proposal to make it more difficult to keep veterans from owning guns. Schumer objected when he learned the amendment was in the queue.


Really?  We are going to mess with vets and their ability to have firearms? Over my dead body…

I will find another topic for tomorrow.

Why the hype about guns?

Ever since Obama was first elected there has been a ton of hype about how he would take away our guns.

We saw runs on ammo as well as an increase in arms sales.

Why the hype?

Is there any foundation to the hysteria?

I cannot tell you how many times I got an email about how he was banning this or that.

Have you seen any changes in the firearms that have been available? How about accessories?

Didn’t some of the Brady Bill expire under his watch allowing larger magazines to be purchased again?

“Citizen’s Petition to Secede from th United States”

I try to level my “conspiracy theorist” mentality with a good dose of rational thinking, so understand that I write this out of true concern.

There is a lot going around about the “citizen’s petitions for secession from the United States”, two dozen states have citizens doing this right now. First, citizens can’t do this, it requires a proclamation from the State, so sending this to the federal government does no good, petition you state representatives. Second, I believe this is a bigger risk than most of you realize, that is what I’m here to explain.

I looked into the site last night, it is completely legit as far as to what it claims to be, but that is the problem. It is a site set up by the Obama administration to field “complaints” about his administration. A petition isn’t even viewable by the public until it has 1000 signatures, after that you have the remainder of 30 days from the original creation to get 25,000 signatures or it is scrubbed from the system automatically. At 25,000 signatures, it red flags a government worker to look into it. So far it sounds innocent enough. Now for the bad part. In a case like this, signing would make you, in the eyes of the administration, and enemy of the state. In order to “sign” the petition you must register with the (government) site, required information being your name, e-mail, and address. Now you have just posted, on a federal website, your complete identity and location and that you are an enemy to the state. You have just but yourself on the federal watch list!

When the “fit hits the shan” who’s houses do you think will be the first hit, and who’s guns do you think will be the first seized? If you have signed this petition for you state already, I would suggest you keep one good rifle close and hide the rest somewhere safe and away from your property. If you haven’t signed one, PLEASE, PLEASE DON’T!

The proper course is to write or petition your state representatives, the Governor and Lieutenant Governor.

One last thought, WHERE IS UNCLE TED?!

If firearms were to be banned…

So there are people who feel that we the people should not have firearms.

It seems that they have far more trust in our government than the average sheeple. We know that the government is not to be fully trusted. If they could be, why even have the media?

Have you decided that you just enjoy giving up your rights so much that you want to take other people’s rights away too? Are you such a big pussy that the cosmetic surgeons drool at the opportunities for vaginal rejuvenation procedures?

so which firearms should be banned and why?