boycott new york

On 01JAN05, the ".50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004" took effect in the state of California – more commonly known as "Kalifornistan" on this site. This law required existing .50 BMG rifles in the state to be registered with the state government within a year or be labeled "illegal firearms", and furthermore prohibited any sale of any rifle so chambered; unsurprisingly, law enforcement officers and agencies were exempted from this law.

Sometime in April of 2005 (I have been unable to dig up the exact date), Ronnie Barrett, the owner and CEO of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc. – possibly one of the largest .50 BMG rifle manufacturers in the world – informed that state’s government that "we will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency of the State of California".

Since then, Mr. Barrett’s example has been held up as something of a gold standard for what pro-rights activists expect out of companies when state and federal governments overstep their Constitutionally-prescribed boundaries. Unfortunately, not many other companies have stepped up and met that standard… until recently.

As most of my readers are already aware, New York state recently passed an amazingly draconian "gun control" law functionally prohibiting the overwhelming majority of semi-automatic firearms, banning all magazines over 10 rounds in capacity, and limiting remaining magazines to a mere seven rounds. I have little to no doubt this law will eventually be ruled unconstitutional, for obvious reasons, but for the time being, New York residents are basically prohibited from purchasing one of the most common and most popular rifle platforms in America these days.

Well, some companies, including LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, Templar Custom, Extreme Firepower Incorporated, LLC, and others, have informed the state of New York that if they cannot sell products to private citizens, they will not sell products to any governmental entity in that state either.

Sounds good to me.

Sean has been doing the yeoman’s work of maintaining a list of corporations currently boycotting the government of New York state, and I echo his exhortation to contact SIG, Smith and Wesson, and Glock and encourage them to get onboard with the boycott as well.

Likewise, I have sent the following email to Barrett:

Mr. Barrett,

As a pro-rights activist, former California resident, and fellow Tennessee resident, I would like to take a moment and thank you for taking a stand against that state’s government and deciding that if the state will not allow you to sell your products to its residents, neither will you sell those products to the state. It took some serious nerve to do that, especially considering the number of large police departments in that state, and I appreciate your willingness to stand by your fellow Americans.

However, the assaults on our freedoms and liberties never stop, and now it is the state of New York which has decided to unjustly relegate average Americans to "second-class citizen" status. You may have heard that the NY Legislature recently passed a law enforcing a "one-feature" "assault weapon" test on its residents’ rifles, and prohibiting the purchase of new magazines that can hold more than 7 rounds. So far as I can tell, that would functionally ban your entire product line, excluding the bolt action rifles.

I know this is asking a lot, as I imagine the NYPD is quite the customer of yours, but I would like to ask you to extend your boycott of California’s governments to include New York’s governments as well. Companies like LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, Extreme Firepower Incorporated, Templar Custom, and others have already taken this step; can we add your name to that list as well? Thank you for your time.

Very Respectfully,
[Linoge]

Unfortunately, I can neither afford nor rationalize a single thing Barrett makes, but, given the increase in ammunition prices, I have been meaning to expand my .22 firearm collection, and the Whitney Wolverine, resurrected by Olympic Arms (if they still make it – reports vary), looks like way too much fun. Likewise, my next/first quick-detach optic mount will come from LaRue, and while I do not need any custom firearm work done and cannot afford / wait for a new AR platform, I will do what i can to support the other companies who are also participating in the NY boycott.

you should read this guy

After almost two years of absence, Reputo is back, and is hard at work making up for my laziness regarding statistics and hard numbers. First off, he looks at the actual monetary costs of the various school-safety solutions floated thus far, then the costs in terms of crime, and finally the specious notion that saving one life is worth any cost, closing with a positively epic quote:

Some like to point to England with their 50 gun murders a year as an example for the US to follow. Really, so you would be satisfied if the US only had 300 gun murders (adjusted up for population)? Say that to yourself, "I would be satisfied with 300 gun murders a year." I wouldn’t be, I want 0 murders. Would you be willing to trade more violence (but less death) in the US for a lower number of gun murders? Kids being maimed by a psycho with a molotov cocktail is preferable? Even if it is 10 times as many kids? Sorry, that logic defies my understanding. It is a comparison that a rational person cannot make. Trading one for the other is not fair, regardless of the multiplier you apply. I want less crime (I care not whether it is committed with a gun or with bare hands). So I continue to research ways that we have reduced crime and advocate those (surprisingly, probably the largest decrease in crime has nothing to do with our control, but involves the relative population size of 15-29 year old males to the rest of the country).

Likewise, I cannot understand the mentality that would be willing to trade X murders for Y rapes/assaults/batteries/etc., and have said as much in the past, but the average anti-rights cultists out there seem to believe this would be a perfectly reasonable, rational exchange to make… as if the decision was theirs to make at all. I am not in the habit of putting value on human lives, and those who do so are only trying to figure out how best to balance out yours.

Coincidentally, my father was just speaking a few nights ago about a 100% guaranteed-to-work solution to stopping almost all school shootings, mass shootings, and probably mass murders in general – ban all males under the age of 30 (given the premise that 99% of the perpetrators of those crimes fall in that demographic). Hey, if it saves one life, it must be worth it, right? He is at least willing to hold off on the ban until my birthday later this year…

Not content to leave it there, however, Reputo goes on to look at NY’s new laws, old laws, and the ineffectiveness of both, complete with a challenge to the "gun control" extremists out there:

But don’t we need to do something? Why? If whatever we are proposing to do has already been shown to be ineffective, why burden the government with more laws to enforce or burden the people with more laws to break. But, what if one life were saved? One life hasn’t been saved. There is no evidence that gun control has helped the crime situation. If you think that one life will be saved, show me the evidence.

I echo his sentiments – if there is actual, concrete, verifiable data indicating that "gun control" has a salutary impact on crime rates, then present it, and let us have a look at it*. Otherwise, kindly sit down and shut up; the adults are talking.

(* – Note: given the increasing dataset of crime rates, population trends, and countless other variables, the distinct and marked lack of any causal evidence of the efficacy of "gun control" in reducing crime is starting to look like evidence of absence.)

the slippery slope of gun control

I would like to take a moment today to extend my sincere thanks to the legislatures of both New York State and Connecticut for proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that "gun control" is, in truth and fact, a slippery slope.

Anti-rights cultists come absolutely unhinged every time you mention the possibility of "gun control" itself being a slippery slope, and tend to immediately decry such mutterings as prima facie logical fallacies; it is true that the slippery slope can be a logical fallacy, but when you are seeing those trees whipping by your head, reality has to step in. Unfortunately, that reality is the slippery slope has been greased since at least 1934 and we pro-rights activists have been steadily losing ground in the name of "compromise" since at least then, if not beforehand.

The "gun control" extremists have always wanted more, more, more… First it was the National Firearms Act, then it was the Gun Control Act of 1968, then it was the Lautenberg Amendment, then the Brady Law, then the Assault Weapon Ban, then… then… then… Oh, we pro-rights activists have certainly made headway in the past few years, but even with all of the thousands of firearm-related laws on the books, there are still useful idiots clamoring for more! More! More!

Slippery slopes stop being fallacies when you can point to the obvious pattern.

Which brings us up to the modern examples. The state of New York already had an assault weapon ban – any rifle that could accept removable magazines and had two "military" features was prohibited. New York already had a "high-capacity" magazine ban, where "high-capacity" was arbitrarily and capriciously defined as "more than 10 rounds". New York already required all firearm dealers and gun shows to perform background checks on all firearm transactions. New York already had licensing requirements to own firearms.

In other words, New York already had a large number of the "common sense", "reasonable" "gun control" measures most anti-rights cultists out there want. They should be happy with that, right?

Wrong. Consider S2230-2013: Licensure, suspension and revocation of firearm licenses, which just passed the New York Senate [update] and was just signed by Governor Cuomo into law [/update]. It is a long read, but the low points are:

  • The two-feature aspect of the NY assault weapon ban is tossed and replaced with a one-feature test.
  • A ban on all new semi-automatic rifles that can accept a removable magazine and have at least one of: a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, a second handgrip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor / muzzle brake (they spelled it "break" in the legislation, amusingly enough) / muzzle compensator / threaded barrel, grenade launcher.
  • A ban on all new semi-automatic shotguns that has at least one of: a folding or telescoping stock, a thumbhole stock, a second hand grip, a fixed magazine in excess of seven rounds, an ability to accept detachable magazines.
  • All such existing "assault weapons" must be registered with the state within one year of the effective date, and registration is subject to "a review of disqualifiers by the State Police."
  • If they are not registered, possession of such "assault weapons" is a crime.
  • All such existing "assault weapons" may only be sold to dealers or out-of-state.
  • All magazines that can hold more than 7 rounds are banned.
  • This ban includes previously-"grandfathered" magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.
  • Magazines that can hold more than 7 but not more than 10 rounds are "grandfathered", but may only hold 7 rounds.
  • All ammunition sales must be processed through firearm dealers.
  • All ammunition sales must include an NCIS check on the purchaser.
  • All ammunition sales must be recorded and logged.
  • All firearm ownership permits must be renewed every five years (some counties had permits that never expired).
  • All private sales of firearms must be executed through a firearm dealer.

And, like I said, those are just the low points.

So, let us see here… it is still possible to own an AR-15 in the Empire State, but it would have to have an unthreaded bull barrel, some kind of non-pistol-grip grip, and a fixed stock, and you can only feed it 7 rounds or less. Amusingly, though, an M1A without any kind of muzzle attachment would be 100% legal, despite throwing a larger bullet farther and with more energy; but that is about the only funny thing to be found.

At least 75% of modern semi-automatic handguns are functionally banned. What is that? They only banned handguns with certain features? Well, that is great… except they also banned all new magazines over 7 rounds of capacity, which means your Glock or XD or S&W is only useful for as long as its magazines last – the only <10 round magazines I am aware of are for single-stack firearms that already do not have capacities in excess of 10 rounds. Oh, I am (fairly) sure that enterprising companies will step in and start producing 7-round double-stack magazines for common firearm platforms, but let us consider something for a moment.

At some point in the past (hell if I know when), New York had no limitation on the size of a firearm’s magazine. Then, on 13SEP94, New York banned the sale of any new magazines that could hold in excess of ten rounds; however, old ones were grandfathered in.

Now New York is arbitrarily banning all of those pre-’94 magazines, even the ones previously grandfathered, but graciously telling you those greater-than-seven-but-less-than-11 round magazines of yours are grandfathered under the new law? Yeah, and how long will that "grandfathering" last until it, too, is arbitrarily legislated out of existence?

And this is all without even touching on the fact that registration has invariably preceded confiscation, even here in the United States.

Oh, you think I am sliding back into the realm of a logical fallacy again? I guess two data points are insufficient for you to be happy, huh? Well, recall that I mentioned Connecticut in the opening line of this post. The ironically-named Constitution State has an assault weapon ban (No, really. I have to wonder how the mother of the Sandy Hook murderer owned hers.), but does not have a "high capacity" magazine ban; they attempted to pass one in 2011, but it got nowhere.

Apparently State Senator Edward Meyer is unhappy with this situation, given 2013 SB 00122 he proposed:

That the general statutes be amended to establish a class C felony offense, except for certain military and law enforcement personnel and certain gun clubs, for (1) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate, transport, possess or use any gun except one made to fire a single round, (2) any person to fire a gun containing more than a single round, (3) any person or organization to receive from another state, territory or country a gun made to fire multiple rounds, or (4) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate or possess a magazine or clip capable of holding more than one round.

Read through that again. It makes it a crime for you, as an average citizen, to own a firearm, of any type, if it can fire more than one round or a magazine if it can hold more than one round. Every semi-automatic firearm of any type, every revolver, and almost every rifle, pistol, and shotgun would be banned by this legislation; no grandfathering, no registration, just outright banned. Granted, this is just a bill at the moment and has a long way to go before becoming a law, but still.

Hell. With. That.

Hell with State Senator Meyer, hell with New York, and hell with any other politician who would propose any other similar legislation.

That little pleasantry dispensed with, however, this is why the "slippery slope" has been, and continues to be, a valid concern when applied to "gun control"; those who would unjustly deprive us of our rights and property are never happy until they are entirely successful, and they will keep chipping away, using different tactics – all in the name of "compromise", mind you – until we are left with nothing at all. First it is 10-round magazines… then seven… then five… then why do you need magazines at all? Then one shot rifles. Then why do you need guns at all?

"Gun control" is and always has been a slippery slope, precisely because those who advocate it want control… not over guns, mind you, but over you.

it was going to happen eventually

Well, would you look at that – it would appear as though some enterprising young entrepreneurs scumbag burglars with an internet connection went and used The Journal News’ map of firearm owners to pick out their next target:

A White Plains residence pinpointed on a controversial handgun permit database was burglarized Saturday, and the burglars’ target was the homeowner’s gun safe.

At least two burglars broke into a home on Davis Avenue at 9:30 p.m. Saturday but were unsuccessful in an attempt to open the safe, which contained legally owned weapons, according to a law enforcement source. One suspect was taken into custody, the source said.

Why, no one could have predicted this could happen… absolutely no one.

*sigh* Assuming it does turn out that the criminals targeted that house specifically because they knew firearms would be present (and given the fact that they only attacked the gun safe, it would seem likely), and if we lived in a just world – and we do not – every single member of the editorial staff of The Journal News, along with its owners and publishers, should be up on charges for being accessories before the fact. But I am not going to hold my breath on that one.

There is precisely no good that has come or will come out of publishing the names of law-abiding firearm owners in any geographical area, but we now have a prime example of harm that can and has come from the same. Of course, that harm was always the point – in the past, bigots did not "out" Jews, homosexuals, Mormons, Catholics, Irish, gypsies, or any other persecuted, marginalized group in order to help their communities better understand and appreciate those groups. No, "outing" was always a tool of oppression, fear, and abuse, and this instance is no different than any of its historical analogues.

To anyone whose house was identified and conveniently mapped out by The Journal News, I would strongly recommend procuring a reliable, functional, monitored alarm system (we use Simplisafe; use "SAFENOW" as a checkout code for 5% off) and revisiting your home insurance to ensure everything is appropriately covered for its replacement value. I would likewise suggest banding together for the mother of all class-action lawsuits against The Journal News, but not being a lawyer I have no idea if your money would be well-spent in that pursuit.

I would ask when "gun control" extremists will stop using such underhanded, despicable tactics as outing firearm owners, but we both know the answer, and I guess it just goes to show how desperate they are getting.

the journal news and gawker media pull a commercial appeal

Not having a dog in this particular fight, I can only sit back and laugh at how quickly The Journal News and now Gawker Media are realizing that private American citizens enjoy their… well, privacy. Extra bonus points got to Gawker for labeling all firearm-owning New Yorkers as "Assholes" – way to make friends and influence people, especially in New York.

On the one hand, a fair argument could be made that these lists endanger firearm owners – after all, firearms are high-value items that are typically useful to criminals for a variety of reasons, and The Journal News and Gawker just provided those criminals with a shopping list of locations where firearms are stored.

On the other hand, a fair argument could be made that these lists endanger folks who do not own firearms – after all, criminals generally like breathing (shocking, I know), and may avoid homes where they are likely to be shot, instead hitting up homes they know are disarmed and defenseless.

On the gripping hand, absolutely no argument could be made that publishing these lists was necessary or good, or that any good could come of doing so. Just replace "firearm owner" with "blacks" or "gays" or "Jews" and tell me all the good that can come of those lists.

What is that you are saying? Neither Gawker nor The Journal News published addresses? So? Using nothing more than their first and last names, I was able to dig up home addresses, phone numbers, and home property tax information on the entire staff of the Commercial Appeal, a newspaper here in Tennessee that oh-so-very-kindly published a searchable database of handgun carry permit holders. Put I had to pay money to pull up all that information, right? Wrong. All of that information is publicly available on the internet, through free sources, and required nothing more than first and last names to begin searching.

So to John Cook, the editor of Gawker, who is whining about people posting his address, I can only say, "Suck it up, you privacy-invading wanker."

Speaking of the Commercial Appeal, though, I guess I should look into updating its database, since the information there is nearly four years out of date.

In the intervening years, of course, they have had a little turnover in their staff. Most notably, Joseph Pepe and Karl Wurzbach appear to have been fired (could not happen to nicer people), but, since the original handgun carry permit database was posted and maintained during their watch, their names will remain in this counter-database, as will all of the names of folks employed at CA during that period. In fact, Stephen Tomb is about the only "Vice President" to survive whatever culling the Commercial Appeal went through recently, and no one has stepped up (or been allowed to step up) to fill Joseph’s and Karl’s now-empty positions. One can only hope the bird cage liner newspaper is slowly augering its way into oblivion.

Likewise, people, like Otis Sanford, have moved; their addresses and information have been appropriately updated.

Joseph Pepe, Former President and Publisher
3195 Wetherby Cv S
Germantown, TN 38139

901-737-8784
Home Property Tax Information

Stephen M. Tomb, VP of Operations
1846 Wildcreek Cv
Collierville, TN 38017

Phone Unpublished
Home Property Tax Information

Chris C. Peck, Editor
21 Belleair Dr
Memphis, TN 38104

901-276-8314
Home Property Tax Information

Otis Sanford, Former Editor/Opinion & Editorials, Current "Free-Lance Columnist"
3094 Flint Drive
Memphis, TN 38115

901-368-5599
Home Property Tax Information

Eric Janssen, Former VP of Digital Media
8996 Stratfield Cv
Germantown, TN 38139

901-358-7007, Home
901-212-3597, Cell
Home Property Tax Information

Michael B. Erskine, Director of Digital Media
1898 Parkview Cv
Memphis, TN 38104-7634

901-274-2571, Home
Home Property Tax Information

Scott Sines, Former Managing Editor
2136 Wentworth Ln
Germantown, TN 38139

Phone Unpublished
Home Property Tax Information

Louis E. Graham, Managing Editor
228 Rhonda Cir E
Cordova, TN 38018-4326

Phone Unpublished
Home Property Tax Information

Gary L. Robinson, Managing Editor, Digital
Current information unknown.

Daniel R. Moehle, Former VP/Chief Financial Officer
3172 Devonshire Way
Germantown, TN 38139

901-757-5911
Home Property Tax Information

Karl D. Wurzbach, Former VP of Sales and Marketing
3098 Bentwood Run Dr
Collierville, TN 38017

901-853-4892
Home Property Tax Information

Robert Jiranek, Former VP of New Business Development
400 Forest Ridge Road
Earlysville, VA 22936-9218

434-202-1724

Robert L. Pinarski, Former Advertising Director
3961 Herons Landing Ln
Arlington, TN 38002

901-867-5294
Home Property Tax Information

Denise Holman, Former Manager of Classified Advertising
Current address/information unknown.

Paul A. Jewell, Marketing Director
1439 Vance Ave
Memphis, TN 38104

901-272-1458
Home Property Tax Information

(NOTE: Gary L. Robinson seems like the only one who keeps all his information private.)

Again, I stress that all of this information was put together from free, public sources using nothing but the above persons’ first and last names (and a healthy bit of guesswork) as a starting point. If I can assemble that much data on these folks in just a few minutes, how much do you think a dedicated stalker or identity thief can put together?

And as a final point regarding these various and sundry assholes publishing the information of who owns or carries firearms in their respective states, I give you this quote from Gawker commenter "K-leigh" (link intentionally omitted):

The journal posted my address and name for my gun ownership. My past stalker saw this. I haven’t heard from him in two years, because I disappeared. Now he is back and calling me……thanks to people like you bunch of assholes, looks like I will have to protect myself from becoming a murder victim. Gracias.

Whether or not her story is true is somewhat immaterial; the point stands. Numerous people own firearms precisely because of past negative experiences, and lists like these only serve to facilitate those who inflicted negative experiences on others – stalkers, abusers, etc. Once again, the list works both ways – it can help stalkers find old prey, but it can also help stalkers learn their current or past prey is unarmed.

And lest you think I am exaggerating:

Law enforcement officials from a New York region where a local paper published a map identifying gun owners say prisoners are using the information to intimidate guards.

Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco, who spoke at a news conference flanked by other county officials, said the Journal News’ decision to post an online map of names and addresses of handgun owners Dec. 23 has put law enforcement officers in danger.

"They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That’s not acceptable to me," Falco said, according to Newsday.

When even the Only Ones, and New York’s Only Ones at that, think you did something stupid… well…

Flagrantly violating hundreds of thousands (millions?) of law-abiding citizens’ privacy and security serves no rational purpose to anyone this side of the law, and I cannot say as though I am terribly fond of those who aid and abet criminals. It could be argued, I suppose, that I am doing exactly the same thing right now, but if those folks listed above believe one’s personal information should be made public on account of lawfully exercising one’s Constitutionally-protected rights… well, I am merely assisting them in fulfilling their desires, am I not? If it is good for one right protected by one Amendment, it is good for another right protected by another Amendment.

Don’t start nothin’; won’t be nothin’.

guns are bad news for women, the entrepreneur

Guns are “bad news” for women… except, y’know, when that woman’s love of firearms and hunting takes an enterprising and creative sixteen-year-old girl and propels her to being the owner of a multi-million-dollar corporation:

I knew that anything that would clean out an obstructed bore had to be carried into the field. Therefore it must be light and portable. It might as well be a cleaning and clearing kit combined. It would be nice to be able to clean your gun in the field at the end of the day.

Thomas Edison had an easy time inventing the light bulb compared to what I went through finding suitable materials engineered for strength and safe for field use. After much testing, failures and working with many people I finally had a product I was satisfied with. In my excitement one day I said to my friend that this kit had everything – it’s The Whole Kit and Caboodle. The name stuck and eventually became the registered trademark.

If Dirtcrashr had not mentioned it, I never would have known that Otis Technologies was founded by Doreen Garrett when she was a teenage girl, frustrated by being unable to remove the fouling in her grandfather’s rifle while chasing a deer. Today, the company pulls in somewhere north of $50,000,000 in revenue and has experienced an explosive 234% growth over the past three years.

All because of a little mud. Kind of impressive, that.

And with those steadily-increasing revenues, Otis is actively involved with the Women’s Outdoor Media Association, Relay for Life, Making Strides Against Breast Cancer, Big Brothers Big Sisters, USA Olympics, and countless other organizations that strive to improve the quality of life for women and men around the country and world…. in addition to keeping police officers’ and military members’ equipment clean and operational, day in and day out. Hell, the company even has an open-to-the-staff-and-public daycare for children between 6 weeks and 12 years of age, with 50% of the costs being covered by the company for employees.

So, yeah, guns are “bad news” for women… so long as you ignore all of the ripples of good that have resulted from one otherwise-disastrous hunting trip a young woman took with her grandfather’s rifle.

a funny thing happened yesterday

Dennis from Dragon Leatherworks gave me all his guns.

Okay, not all of them, and I am more “holding on to them for the time being”, but he did hand me a case loaded up with all sorts of pistols.

So why is this peculiar? Well, I had never actually met Dennis before yesterday when he handed me the case. Oh, sure, we have exchanged no shortage of emails, and we have talked extensively over the phone, and he did craft a holster for me, but he was, for all intents and purposes, handing a box of firearms to pretty much a complete stranger.

A stranger who could turn around, commit all sorts of crimes, and leave those firearms at the scenes of the crime just to throw the police off the trail.

Except I will not do that. Contrary to the pants-wetting hysteria being peddled by the “gun control” extremists of America, I am a law-abiding, responsible, mature, adult human being who fully comprehends that actions have consequences. More to the point, I fully appreciate and recognize the value of the trust Dennis is placing in me, and I know how heinous violating that trust would be.

Obviously, anti-rights cultists do not own firearms (except when they do), but I have to wonder if they would be willing to freely give an equivalently potentially-damning possession to a person they only know through the internet and phone lines? Would they be willing to trust a person to that point?

My inclinations are “no”. The entire basis of the “gun control” movement is distrust – no person (except the military, and the police, and bodyguards, and…) can be trusted with firearms, no person can be trusted to obey the current laws, no person can be trusted to behave responsibly, no person can be trusted, period. With a core mentality like that, how could one "gun control" extremist ever make the leap to putting faith in another?

By way of examples, I will use a number-laden anti-rights weblog that we all know and pity.  Its primary author lives in Italy, but he frequently flies back to the Jersey Shore to vacation.  Likewise, its second author lives in the D.C. region of Maryland.  Have these two individuals ever met in person?  Nope.  To make matters worse, this site’s fourth author used to (and may still) live in southern Pennsylvania.  Has he ever met either of the other two authors in his geographical area?  Nope. 

Hell, when I lived in southern Maryland myself, I used to date a girl who lived up around Gettysburg, PA, and I managed – without a car or job of my own – to see her at least every month or so.  Why can these grown adults with transportation and money to spare not take a few hours out of their weekends to meet up? 

Do “gun control” extremists ever meet up outside of the sanctioned and specifically organized Brady Campaign shindigs that infrequently occur?  Do they ever just get together and shoot the breeze? 

On the other hand, take a look at the blogroll to the right – every single one of those names with an asterisk next to it indicates a blogger I have met.  Just a few days ago, on a drive back from Dahlgren, VA, Jake from Curses! Foiled Again! met us up for dinner and to just chat for a time, even though we had never even met in person before.  The Gun Blogger Rendezvous just wrapped up today.  A few months back, my anti-social arse organized a Knoxville gun blogger get-together that was surprisingly well-attended.  And in most of these cases, I did not actually “know” any of the people I was meeting up with, and they did not actually “know” me, at least not outside of this text on this webpage. 

But if there is one thing to be said for the pro-rights community, it is that we trust people – we cannot not, given that we stand up, on a daily basis, and are proudly counted as working for the protection and preservation of individual liberties.  Those freedoms require trust… the trust that the people exercising their freedoms will not do so in a way that detrimentally harms another human being.  The trust that they will not randomly attack another person.  The trust that they will not steal another person’s property. 

The trust that I will not make ill use of Dennis’ firearms. 

So, really, what community do you want?  Do you want a community that trusts you to be a responsible, mature, adult human being, free to do as he or she likes so long as you do not harm another person… or do you want a community that does not let you out of your front door without a government minder watching and dictating your every action? 

The choice is fairly simple for me. 

(Oh, and why I have Dennis’ firearms?  Now that he proudly has a Tennessee driver’s license, his New York Firearm Owner’s Identification card has expired, but he is headed back up to the Empire State this week to finish up the movie.  As such, if he has firearms in his possession and steps inside of his house, his (and my) understanding is that he will automatically become a felon under NY law.  He owns the same firearms he did last week.  His house is the same it was last week.  The only thing that has changed is his move, and due to that, he could unintentionally become a felon.  This is what anti-rights cultists talk about when they say “common sense gun laws”.  Remember that.)