“This is their corridor, where they move everything. Drugs, money, wetbacks. They’ll shoot at anybody. Like I said, if you look like you’re hunting around, looking to interfere with their business, steal their stuff, nab wetbacks, whatever, they’ll shoot you.”
As he clarified later, he was describing the corridor between Sasabe and Nogales.
“Nobody can go out and do any work on this ranch alone. You always have to go out in pairs. And no one drives down the road you just did, it’s too dangerous.”
I began surveying the land around us, myself.
“There’s a dead body that’s been laying out over past that hill, too, for awhile now.”
Grizz and I looked at each other, and then he spoke up again, this time asking a key question: “How do you see all this ending, X?”
“There’s a bloodbath coming, and everybody knows it.”
Sunday, September 26, 2010
I would immediately volunteer for active work fighting the insurgency/invasion of our southern border. Who knows, I may end up fighting it anyway. Via Alvie comes this two part story. Check out his take on it as well.
Language Warning! (not my site, in the links)
Look, folks, we have terrorists operating on OUR SIDE of the border with Mexico. If you don't believe me, look up the definition of terrorist and compare that with what is described in this story. Not only terrorists, but invaders. They are an armed foreign force, dwelling within our borders and conducting their "business". And you know what our federal government is doing about it? Well, I'll put my thoughts this way - if they pulled the border patrol out of there and let the local militias take care of the problem, we'd be a lot better off, and so would the ranchers down there.
We have a federal government which is doing everything outside of its Constitutionally restricted power (mandated health insurance, restrictions on civil liberties, etc.) while they are not doing the jobs it is DELEGATED BY THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE, in this case, "provide for the common defense" (Article 1, Section 8), "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and REPEL INVASIONS" (also Article 1, Section 8).
So, to perhaps strike some thought cords, what are your plans when the house of cards falls, Mexican terrorists occupy several states, Muslim terrorists likewise, and our nation is only a shell of what used to be a powerful nemesis for any who dared attack? Mind you that the Mexicans in question do what they do for money, so how possible (probable) is it that they are accepting payments from Muslim terrorists to smuggle both the terrorists AND some nasty weaponry across the border, just to wait for the right time to press the red button?
If you think what I am saying is fear-mongering, then you have no critical thinking skills. If you thing this is a rational set of questions to ask and points to make, especially given the comments in the story, then what are you doing to prepare for the possibility?
Saturday, September 25, 2010
LawDog put up some answers to questions someone had posted about gun issues. He turned it to 2A rights and the un-Constitutional infringements we are dealing with. At the end, he compares the anti-gun lobby's "compromise" with guns, to cake. Read it all. It's good thinking material, and possibly a good analogy you may want to swipe.
The LawDog Files: Ok, I'll play
Friday, September 17, 2010
This nails it. It's short. Read it. Live it.
Western Rifle Shooters Association: I Am An Individual
. . . this wonderful land we are living in became what is now known as the United States of America. Foundations were set in place for a federal government and its relationship to the states, and also our God-given rights were recognized and codified in a document that continues to be the line in the sand for many Americans, though many seem to have forgotten it.
Here are two sites worth a visit. The first is full of writings on the topic, and perhaps even will help you really introduce the Constitution to your children and broaden their, or even your, understanding of it. It has the full text in several "versions" as well. You can even save it as a PDF. The second is a place that will send you a free pocket copy of the Constitution and Declaration. I strongly encourage everyone to, at the very least, re-familiarize yourself with the content of these two documents.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The Brady Campaign utters its hysterics at the proof they are liars.
Ah, yes, what a wonderful story to start the day with. The FBI reports that violent and other crimes are down for the third straight year.
But how can this be? After all, during 2008 and 2009 there was a tremendous increase in firearms and ammunition sales. Besides that, we had two rulings by the Supreme Court that struck down firearms/handgun bans in DC and Chicago, the latter ruling that the Second Amendment is to be incorporated in the states. That but a big damper on several cities' gun control measures. I mean, really, don't more guns equal more crime? Shouldn't there be blood running in the streets. Crime actually dropped? INCONCEIVABLE!
Now I must interject, as would Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Ah, yes, the "experts" are amazed at this phenomenon, but it makes sense to me. You see, the very reasons listed about that the Brady Campaign and other gun-grabbers would like to use to scare people into thinking crime should be going up, are the reasons, IMHO, crime is going down.
You see, put yourself into the place of a criminal for a minute, hypothetically. Let's place it at three years ago. Would you rather try to rob someone or break into a house in Chicago, IL, or Jackson, TN? Washington, DC or about anywhere in Texas?
Now, if you were a smart criminal, you would have chosen Chicago or DC. Why? Because private ownership and usage, much less carry, were explicitly banned (as I understand their laws were written). So, you would have taken your gun (remember, you're pretending to be a criminal for this scenario, so you don't care that the law says no guns, cause it also says no robbery or breaking and entering, and you are getting ready to do that anyway) and you would hold someone up out of sight of police, broken into a house at night, maybe tried to rape someone. Odds are, you would be successful.
Why wouldn't you have chosen Tennessee or Texas? You have no legal guarantee that your victim can't fight back. You don't know if your intended victim is capable and willing to cure your lead deficiency. Fact is, you don't want to get shot!
Now move that time period forward to today. It has been ruled unconstitutional to ban handguns (and other common firearms, eg. shotguns, etc.) and the use thereof for defense of oneself/family within the home. Now you don't know which house to break into anywhere. Now, potentially everyone is able to "cure" you. Again, you don't want to get shot! Think that would deter you from becoming a criminal if you hadn't been previously? Plus, take into account, with a citizen's right to self-defense being recognized, that results in a lot of dead criminals, further reducing the pool of pond scum capable of committing crime. You think that if your buddy got shot trying to rob someone that it might discourage you a little bit? If you want to continue unfettered oxygen consumption, it better!
Factor in all of that with two other statements in the article:
This is what really stuns the "experts". The government, in this case via police, can't control/fix everything! Good, upstanding citizens are armed, and that discourages crime. And in that case, it won't matter if less is spent on (public) crime prevention and crime control, because citizens are stepping into their proper role of taking responsibility for it themselves!
Now, yes, I know some people are going to take this as me arguing that correlation = causation. I do not believe that. At some point though, we need to recognize and take a look at the root causes of things that are going against the grain of what "conventional" (read "often false") wisdom tells us. Why are the experts baffled? What scenarios have they seriously contemplated? I offer one scenario here which I believe they have not seriously considered. Take it for what you will, form your own conclusions, but look at the logic behind it before you dismiss it. More guns = less crime.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
September 11, 2001. Two planes fly into the WTC towers. Another one later hits the Pentagon. A fourth crashes in a field in Pennsylvania. Over 3000 Americans lost their lives in an attack by a group of radical Muslims. The Muslim world danced in the streets and celebrated at our loss.
I was 14. 9th grade. Working during study hall as a teacher's aid when we found out the news after the first plane hit. I remember not knowing what to think, at that time wondering about the significance of the World Trade Center. I didn't really understand what was happening. Why would anyone do that? That question has been answered in the years since then.
When I got home from school, pictures and video flooded the television. Those images burned into my mind. I'm glad now that they did, as "the experts" said the footage shouldn't be shown anymore because it was too "disturbing". That was a tremendous dis-service to those who lost their lives. America needed to be disturbed. America NEEDS to be disturbed again. No, I do not wish for another attack. What I want is for that footage to be shown again to remind everyone about the scourge that is Islam. Remind them that there are people in this world who would love nothing more than the destruction of America, and the death of Americans. A group of people which dances in the streets at the death of thousands has no right to any respect - only scorn and scrutiny of every action and word.
I do not encourage hate. I encourage rationality. I encourage critical thinking. I encourage remembrance.
I HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN.
Choose to remember.
via Mike V., file this away as another reason my NRA membership has PERMANENTLY expired.
Seriously, donating almost $5000 dollars to Harry Reid's campaign? Let your NRA membership expire (or don't get one in the first place) and go with GOA instead.
NRA Nevada endorsements betray Angle and gun owners - National gun rights | Examiner.com