I had to see this article in the Toronto Star a couple of times before its impact finally sunk in (and thanks to Kevin for putting the right emphasis in his post to get me to RTWT). Follow the link, and don't just read the top two or three or five or even seven paragraphs like I did at first. Read it all the way to the bottom.

The problem I've had with a lot of the gun control vs gun rights debates is that, all too often, the positions are, respectively, "ban all the guns" and "lock up all the criminals." Even if we all wanted to, we can't get rid of all the guns. Not only is it impossible, it's not even desirable. And not to be contentious, but if you think it is desirable, you're not thinking it through.

But then there are the guys on my side of the argument who say that we need to lock up the criminals instead of letting them stay free, or sending them to prison with short sentences. They need to be locked up long enough that they won't be able to cause problems with guns. This argument has always bothered me. While I agree with it in principle, we've got a lot of people in prison in this country. Sure, a significant part of that is because we lock up a lot of folks for a long time for relatively trivial offenses. It just seems to me that just segregating the evildoers after they've done their evil isn't the optimum approach. Yeah, we need to lock 'em up after they've committed their violent crimes, but...isn't there something more we could do?

And here I find it, in that Star article. It seems to me that limiting the number of people who commit violent crimes in the first place should also be one of our goals here. Y'know, so there aren't so many folks to charge, prosecute, convict and imprison to begin with. Yeah, throw the book at 'em after they commit violent crimes. Yeah, those of us who wish to defend ourselves and our loved ones (and even just nearby bystanders) should always and forever have the unimpeded right to do so as armed citizens. But maybe there's something else we can do to address the problem. It sounds like The Boston Gun Project, Cincinnati's Initiative to Reduce Violence and now Chicago's Project Safe Neighborhoods can be a part of the solution.

I used to buy all my practice ammo from Wal-Mart since they have very reliable Winchester White Box ammo for a very good price. That ends today.

Wal-Mart plans to film all gun purchases in their stores, succumbing to pressure from Bloomberg's evil cabal. They're free to choose to invade my privacy should I choose to patronize them. I'm free to not buy anything from them.

And that's what I choose to do.

Hat tip: Robb.

Update: Sebastian agrees.

'Nother update: Caleb McAhab agrees.

Inspired by this posting, I want to use this line the next time I'm carrying my pistol, openly on my hip:

"Are you a policeman?"

"No, I'm just taking my Second Amendment for a walk."

Classic.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Heller case tomorrow. (Permit me a minor digression here. The linked Kansas City Star article provides a pretty objective report on the case, outlining the various positions at stake here. The one exception to this that I noted is the following sentence: "Justices first must interpret the famously opaque Second Amendment." The only reason the Second Amendment could be considered opaque is because of the obfuscation thrown in front of it by the anti-civil rights crowd trying to disarm the public.) As a result, lots of folks are talking about gun rights and gun control right now, and I have a few thoughts of my own.

There are quite a few reasons why people want to interpret the Second Amendment in such a way as to make it meaningless. Many ordinary folks are just flat-out afraid of guns. They don't know anything about them, they've probably never seen one "in person," and many undoubtedly have never even touched one.

Others have some familiarity and even respect for guns, maybe even own a gun or two of their own (but only for hunting or some other sporting purpose), but they believe that some guns are just too dangerous to allow the common folk to own them, such as handguns and the mythical "assault weapon."

The most dangerous anti-gun rights people are the statists. These are the people who believe in the supremacy of government over the individual. They're afraid of the "unwashed masses" having guns, because that's the final backstop to preventing governmental tyranny. With nearly 300,000,000 privately owned guns in America, there's no way that these people can turn us into an oppressed society similar to those of recent memory: the Soviet Union, Nazy Germany and many, many other, smaller tinpot dictatorships that have plagued our world. To expand governmental control over the people beyond a certain point, they'll have to make sure we don't have access to our guns anymore.

I know, some folks regard the previous paragraph as paranoid and delusional, and I've now identified myself as a crackpot. I can't stop anyone from thinking so, but I can't ignore history. Those who believe "it can't happen here" are hiding their heads in the sand.

The only reason it can't happen here is because we won't let it. And keeping and bearing our guns are two of the primary factors in that effort.

David Codrea, proprietor of The War on Guns blog, reports that he's being threatened by a federal law enforcement officer with the intent to intimidate David into not posting about the shortcomings of BATFE and other law enforcement agencies. As protection against retaliation or other unwarranted action against him, David is trying to focus a very bright light on this issue, so as many folks as possible are aware of the situation, and will look skeptically on any evidence produced against him to ensure it's not fraudulent.

In whatever small amount I can support him in this effort (his readership being vastly larger than mine), I offer you this post. This situation bears monitoring by everyone who cares about our Civil Rights in general, and our rights protected by the First and Second Amendments more especially.

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in District of Columbia v. Heller, which basically revolves around the question of whether the Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees an individual right to bear arms.

There's a lot of concern on both sides of the issue about what the final outcome will be. While I'm a bit uneasy about it, I still feel, in the final analysis, that the Supremes will uphold the Circuit Court panel's holdings.

I have to point out that The Brady Campaign isn't very forthcoming in their press release:

The decision by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in the Parker case was an example of judicial activism at its worst. It ignored longstanding Supreme Court precedent, discounted the express language of the Second Amendment, and substituted its policy preferences for those of the District's elected representatives. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will reverse this flawed ruling

Paul Helmke, President of The Brady Center, was more straightforward in his quote in the Bloomberg article:

"We are nervous," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a Washington-based group that chose not to join the city in asking the court to hear the case.

I think Mr. Helmke's nervousness is quite justified.

Oh, and I should point out that the article makes the parallel point that the NRA also hasn't taken an official position on whether the Supreme Court should agree to hear the case. I've got the feeling I've read a statement somewhere by someone from the NRA, Chris Cox or Wayne LaPierre, about the case, but I can't find a citation right now.

Anyway, I'm glad they'll hear the case. Personally, I'm optimistic that their ultimate ruling will be a net positive, but they will undoubtedly trim its applicability to be as narrow as possible.

Update: I should have known to check SCOTUSBlog before I posted. Lyle Denniston reports that the Court took no action on the Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia cross-petition, wherein the original litigants ask to rejoin the case. There are several possible outcomes of this inaction which you can read about at the link.

I just wanted to clear up a point that the anti-civil rights crowd keeps bringing up.

I don't do the NRA's bidding. The NRA, to a greater or lesser extent, does the bidding of its membership. When they don't do what we (as individuals) want, we (as individuals) let them know that they're not acting in accordance with our wishes (if we choose to tell them). Sure, they try to keep us informed, all gun owners — both members and non-members — and they certainly try to influence us to act in certain ways (primarily through the NRA PVF and NRA ILA.

But there's something you anti-civil rights people don't understand: those of us who are activists to one extent or another are critical thinkers. We generally don't unhesitatingly follow whatever we're "told" to do by the NRA. Even that idea is laughable, because for most of us, if the NRA were to assume to dictate to us how to act or what to say, we'd turn right around and tell them where to stick it. Sheep we are not.

We're sheepdogs, in more ways than one. I support the NRA because they're the biggest, most active advocate for our right to have and use guns. But that support isn't blind, and I keep an eye on them as much as I do on those who would disarm me.

I ain't nobody's sheep.

While I'm far from the activist that Jeff is, or Uncle or many, many others, but may I be so presumptuous to claim membership in The People of the Gun?

Update: I see I need to get a picture of myself with one (or more) of my guns and send it to Jeff.

Okay, you gun control advocates, let's play like you get your way. In this fantasy, we've eliminated all guns from the United States. No handguns, no rifles, no shotguns, certainly no automatic firearms. And let's also assume, for the sake of argument, that we've figured out a way to keep guns from being smuggled into the country, and that we've also found a way to keep any ol' idiot with some fairly simple and straightforward equipment from making their own gun from scratch (I'm not just any ol' idiot, by the way — I wouldn't have a clue how to make my own gun, but there are plenty of folks who do. Oh, and that makes me a special idiot.).

So here we are in a country with no firearms, and no prospect for ever having firearms. The Brady Campaign's Utopia.

Does that mean we don't have any more murderers? Gangs? Rapists? Robbers? Muggers? Think about that for a minute — when we get rid of the guns, will we have gotten rid of the criminals, too?

Of course we'll still have the criminals. So we'll still need to figure out how to deal with them, but we'll have to do it without guns. No gun for the mugger's target to defend himself. No gun for the battered estranged wife to defend herself from her loco soon-to-be ex.

So, why don't we just skip the "let's get rid of guns" part, and just go straight to the "let's get rid of the criminals" part? Wouldn't that seem to make more sense?

I heard a blurb on the radio this morning about a promotion in DC to get more folks, primarily federal government employees, to do more telework by offering them free ice cream. All the employees have to do is show up at the Federal Triangle today between noon and 1 pm, and they'll get a complimentary ice cream bar.

So, let me get this straight: if you're not teleworking, you can get free ice cream, but if you're working from home, you're out of luck.

Makes sense to me. But I think I'd rather buy some ammo, anyway.

Seen at Cosmic's, I took the What Breed of Conservative Are You? quiz. It turns out that I'm a

My Conservative Identity:

You are an Anti-government Gunslinger, also known as a libertarian conservative. You believe in smaller government, states’ rights, gun rights, and that, as Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

Take the quiz at www.FightLiberals.com

Seems accurate to me.

I heard an ad on the radio today from the President of the American Hunters and Shooters Association, Ray Schoenke. The purpose of the ad was to get constituents of Representative Frank Wolf to call him and say we want him oppose the Tiahrt Amendment (actually, it's been changed in the Senate, where it might more properly be called the Shelby Amendment).

For anyone who may be unfamiliar with AHSA, they are, in my opinion, an organization founded to look like they're pro-gun, when in fact they're quite the opposite. If you look into it, you'll find that they're led by well-known and well-documented anti-gunners. And for some reason, anytime you see the words "common sense" associated with gun restrictions, it's a pretty good indicator that they're wanting to take away or otherwise interfere with gun owners' rights.

But that's not the main point here. AHSA shows their true colors in this ad, which repeats the lies the anti-gun folks repeatedly say about the Tiahrt amendment: that it "restricts the access of cities and law enforcement to gun trace data," "ties the hands of law enforcement," and "prevent(s) sharing of trace data with other cities." [Note: these are not quotes from the ad, since I don't have a "total recall" ear, and I can't find the text online, but these are quotes from other sources that AHSA supports in regards to the Tiahrt amendment. Interestingly, AHSA doesn't appear to say anything about Tiahrt on their own site, but provide extensive quotes in press releases and so forth.]

Here's the real skinny: if you look at the actual text* of the amendment, it prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from disclosing firearms trace data "to anyone other than a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in connection with...a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution" in their own jurisdiction. Wow, that's really tying the hands of law enforcement, eh?

The truth of the matter is the anti-Tiahrt folks are upset about the part of the amendment which provides that the trace data is "not for use in any civil action or proceeding." What the Mayors Against Illegal Guns (aka, Bloomberg's buddies) and other anti-Tiahrt organizations are upset about is that the amendment keeps them from suing gun manufacturers and dealers out of existence.

The Acting Director of the ATF, Michael Sullivan, has stated, "Once a requesting agency receives law-enforcement-sensitive trace data from ATF, it becomes the agency's data to disseminate and share with other law-enforcement entities as it deems appropriate."

Sullivan goes on to say, "Let me be clear: neither the congressional language nor ATF rules prohibit the sharing of trace data with law enforcement conducting criminal investigations, or place any restrictions on the sharing of trace data with other jurisdictions once it is in the hands of state or local law enforcement. In fact, multi-jurisdictional trace data is also utilized by ATF and shared with fellow law-enforcement agencies to identify firearm-trafficking trends and leads. Additionally, nothing prohibits ATF from releasing our own reports that analyze trace-data trends that could be used by law enforcement."

These folks aren't trying to give us the truth, nor do they want us to use our heads when considering gun issues such as the Tiahrt or Shelby Amendments. They want to feed us a bit of information, and then they use emotional rhetoric and a few lies misrepresentations to persuade us to support them. Don't fall prey to their manipulations. If they have to use these tactics to convince people to agree with them, doesn't that alone shed some light on the accuracy of their positions?

* N.B. This link goes to a copy of the language from a couple of years ago, but as I understand it, it's substantially unchanged from then. Besides, the link goes to the site of a group that wants to eliminate the Tiahrt Amendment, so if it's good enough for them to oppose it, it should be good enough for me to use it to support the amendment.

As I related Saturday, I posted some links from Front Sight in order to participate in a deal they were offering to bloggers for a free course. And as I mentioned later that same day, I received an email acknowledgment, along with the promise of a prompt mailing of my certificate for a free course.

Well, I got the package in the mail yesterday. In addition to the certificate for a free course came another offer for reduced-fee life membership, various collateral pieces and a Front Sight Story DVD. The cynical among us would say that this whole thing was a marketing ploy to sell Front Sight lifetime memberships. I say, so what? As I have mentioned before, if it ain't good for both of us, it ain't good for either of us.

I've only got a few days to decide if I want to spring for a lifetime membership, so I'll be mulling this one over.

Less than four hours after my post, Dr Piazza acknowledge my post via email. These folks are on top of things, I tell ya!

Yeah, I know I haven't been around in a long time, and yeah, it stinks that I'm only here to get something for myself, but hey, why should I pass up an opportunity?

Some day, I'd like to head out to Nevada and attend a Front Sight class. Why not get it for free? All I have to do is list the following:

• Front Sight Firearms Training
• Ignatius Piazza - founder of Front Sight
• Ignatius Piazza Blog
• Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Mercury
• Front Sight - in The Mail on Sunday Review
• Ignatius Piazza - in Times Democrat
• Front Sight - on CNN
• Ignatius Piazza - in National Enquirer
• Front Sight - in Icon Magazine
• Ignatius Piazza - in Chicago Tribune
• Ignatius Piazza - in Gun World
• Ignatius Piazza - in San Francisco Chronicle
• Ignatius Piazza - in Fort Worth Star Telegram
• Front Sight - in Financial Times
• Front Sight - on BBC News
• Front Sight - in Gun Web
• Front Sight - in New York Times
• Ignatius Piazza - in Small Arms Review
• Front Sight - in Sierra Times
• Ignatius Piazza - in Forbes Magazine
• Ignatius Piazza - on World Net Daily
• Front Sight - in Guns & Ammo
• Front Sight - on USA Today
• Front Sight - in Santa Cruz Sentinel
• Ignatius Piazza - in Handvapen Guiden
• Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Sun
• Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Life
• Front Sight - in US News & World Report
• Front Sight - in London Times
• Ignatius Piazza - in Washington Post
• Front Sight - in El Pais Seminal
• Front Sight - in Pajaronian Register
• Front Sight - in Black Belt Magazine
• Front Sight - in Cybercast News Service
• Ignatius Piazza - in El Mercurio
• Front Sight - in Los Angeles Times
• Ignatius Piazza - in Playboy
• My Experience at Front Sight
• Ignatius Piazza - on Reform America

Since I my posts never expire, this page will be here for well in excess of the three years required for this agreement. And once I eventually go, I'll definitely write about my experiences there. Who knows, maybe this will get me to start doing more of both blogging and shooting.