Friday, February 22, 2008

The Shreveport Reaction

In reference to the recent Angela Garbarino "unpleasantness":

Joyce Bowman, who represents District G, said the incident gives the city a "black eye."
I don't think it's the city that got the black eye, there, Joyce. Two of them, along with split lips, knocked out teeth, that Frankenstein stitch on the forehead, bruises all over her body...

...She said she would like to say more, but "it is a legal matter now and I serve on the Risk Management Committee — I do not think that it would be wise to speak on the matter at this time."
Circle the wagons and bring in the mouthpieces and bean counters. God forbid a representative of the people should take a moral stand based on what's right.

District B Councilman Monty Walford said he wants to learn more before saying much on the subject. "I'm not ready to pass judgment one way or the other. I've been told I need to see the whole video."
I've heard of "The Full Monty" but until now, not "The Full-of-it Monty. I'm sure there's gotta be some scenario to explain how she worked herself over like a professional from a fall on the floor. While you're at it, Councilman Python, why not share the whole video with the rest of us, too? Why wasn't it all released? And I'm sure you'd be this reasonable had the brutality been inflicted on your mother, wife or daughter.

Councilman Joe Shyne, who represents District F..."One thing you can say about it, at least it wasn't racial."
Dang if it isn't Optimist Prime! That's some silver lining you found there, Joey. Who says the glass is half empty?

...Shyne said he was upset by the risky position the incident places the city in, since it is self-insured..."That's money that could go to police salaries or equipment and benefits," he said.
Or truncheons or...hey, has anybody besides me noticed a complete absence of concern for the only legitmate purpose of government,the protection of people, their rights and property, and a complete focus on CYA and stuffing pockets with as many wads as possible while the building burns...?

...Other council members did not return e-mails or messages left on their work or cell phones.
They're no doubt too busy getting guns "off the street".

And Chief Whitehorn agrees:

Thank all of you and I have passed that information along Mr. Mayor to all of our fine men and women of the police department. We have received about 50 calls on the gun program, the gun initiative that we’re following up on. We’ve made some arrest and hope to make many, many more.
No doubt. Because when people see how they're treated when Shreveport's finest takes them into custody, and how deeply their elected representatives care about making sure their rights are upheld by city employees, they might not be inclined to go peacefully.

If you thought there was a good chance you'd get a beating like that--excuse me, I meant "you'd slip and fall"--would you?

Why anyone would reelect any of these bloated ticks after this sorry performance is beyond me, but they probably will.

UPDATE: I note Chief Whitehorn makes a special point in his press release to say "Before being transported from the scene, she was treated by Shreveport Fire Department paramedics for facial injuries resulting from the vehicle crashes."

Just compare the "after" pictures to the "before" provided in the video.

Nice try, chief.

"Not Overreacting"

A long University of Nebraska-Lincoln tradition came to an abrupt end this week after a student brought a Nerf gun into a classroom..."All of a sudden, I saw five or six officers rush into the room," said student Arthur Scott...Vice Chancellor Juan Franco said they're not overreacting.
No, no of course not.

You can't be too careful, these days.

Ai-yi-yi...

[Via Joe's Crabby Shack]

We're the Only Ones Fighting Ugly Plaque Enough

They were real looking enough. Three wooden plaques each embossed with a gold police shield, a small gun piece and each engraved with an officer's name.

But these "plaques" sent to the police department Sunday were no awards. They came from a bogus address in Puerto Rico, supposedly sent from a former assistant district attorney and were in recognition for the officers being "corrupt." They were dated "9-11-2007."

As first reported on The Eagle-Tribune's Web site eagletribune.com yesterday, police Chief John Romero has launched an investigation into who sent the packages. He said police are contemplating criminal charges, possibly at the federal level. Police yesterday dusted the plaques for fingerprints. Romero was one of the recipients of the so-called award.
Oh, good grief--make a federal case out of it. Sounds like anyone who would sic the feds on someone for exercising their "supreme law of the land"-guaranteed First Amendment right to criticize government is corrupt. Dusting for prints--like I said, good grief.

And newsflash: It doesn't matter if you find it "disturbing," employee.

Think about it--if Romero has his way and identifies the sender, armed "Only Ones" will go out to bring him in by force--lethal force if he defies them, or maybe doing a flash-bang dynamic entry regardless--just to be safe from the Plaque Terrorist--and assuming he survives, they'll take him hostage, and assuming he survives that process, they'll try to get a magistrate to throw him in a dungeon.

Here, John, on behalf of The War on Guns, I'm pleased to present you with an award you've more than earned:


Now investigate me. I'll even save you the trouble of dusting for fingerprints. Or at least for one of them.

Guest Editorial: Citizens

by Mike Vanderboegh
20 February 2008

"You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" -- Robert Heinlein
The "Fatigues" of Supporting Freedom

Rasczak: "You." (Pointing the stump of his arm at Johnny Rico.) "Tell me the moral difference, if any, between the citizen and the civilian."

Johnny: "The difference lies in the field of civic virtue. A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic, of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not."

Rasczak: "The exact words of the text. But do you understand it? Do you believe it?"

Johnny: "Uh, I don't know."

Rasczak: "Of course you don't. I doubt if any of you here would recognize 'civic virtue' if it bit you in the a--." - Starship Troopers, the movie, 1998.

"One can lead a child to knowledge, but one CANNOT make him think." So says Robert Heinlein's History and Moral Philosophy teacher, Mr. Dubois, in his 1959 classic Starship Troopers. Almost 40 years later, the movie adaptation of Heinlein's book changed Dubois' name, but not his lessons. In the fictional future, citizens must be soldiers first to earn their franchise. This is because civilians, especially the liberal social engineers, mucked up civilization so badly that the veterans of the war that the civilians' ineptitude started had to step in and take back the system. On the other hand, the Founders of our very real Republic did not insist that all citizens perform military service as a prerequisite of citizenship. However, they did expect, as Tom Paine said: "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it."

How else shall we interpret the Second Amendment? The people were guaranteed the means of resistance -- that "keep and bear arms" thing which today's "liberals" have such trouble understanding - precisely so that they would be able to "undergo the fatigues of supporting" their own liberties in the face of would-be tyrants. The Founders, being historians and students of human nature, trusted no one with governmental power, even that of their own carefully crafted, exquisitely balanced and inefficient-by-design system. They trusted no one, that is, but the armed citizenry. They understood, as Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson once observed: "It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."

I thought about citizens -- the kind of citizens envisioned by Paine, Jackson and Heinlein -- when I attended the national meeting of the Patriots' Border Alliance in St. Louis this past weekend. The room was packed with just such men and women as the Founders counted upon to maintain their Republic.

The Minutemen
"History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. Never was that truer than among that small band of New Mexico Minutemen. They were dirty, unshaven and exhausted on their best day. They didn't look like much more than a small convention of the homeless. But by their presence and their gritty determination they were calling the shots on the border. They were pitiful, they were magnificent. I am proud to have known them and to have served with them. And if we can find more of their kind, we just might be able to save the country." -- Mike Vanderboegh, "The Magnificent Minutemen," October, 2005.
First, I owe the reader some background. Everybody remembers the Minuteman Project, which staged the first border vigil in Arizona in April 2005. Founded by Chris Simcox and Jim Gilchrist, this organization no sooner took to the field than its originators split up over conflicts of ego and substance. Gilchrist's people retained the Minuteman Project name, Simcox founded Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (hereinafter, MCDC). Like several of my friends, I joined MCDC in mid-2005.

There is no doubt that these two men and the organizations they founded changed the entire dynamic of the argument over illegal immigration. The public was tickled pink that someone was embarrassing the Bush Administration into doing something, no matter how small and insincere, about the flood of illegal aliens. Armed men and women - the armed citizenry envisioned by the Founders -- were going to the border to help our vastly outnumbered and hamstrung Border Patrol in defiance of the contrabandistas, the coyotes, the cheap labor exploiters and the upper echelons of their own national government. The President called us "vigilantes." The professional liars-for-money of the Southern Poverty Law Center and the brown racists of the La Raza and Reconquista crowd called us worse. The Border Patrol loved us. The American people loved us. Our positive poll numbers rose to two or three times those of Bush and the Congress. As a result, MCDC grew by leaps and bounds.

But with the rush of volunteers and donations came real questions of how those volunteers were being used and where those donations were going. My old friend Bob Wright of New Mexico, who served as National Training Director for MCDC, was one of those who, while focused on the mission, began having doubts. Ultimately a sizable number of the top and midlevel leadership MCDC volunteers (some 13 of them) were purged by Simcox and his "cult of personality" for having the temerity to insist upon an accounting of MCDC money. Hundreds (perhaps thousands) of others quit in disgust after the purge, some retreating into smaller groups around proven local or state leaders. Others, including Bob Wright, sought a third way: the Patriots' Border Alliance. (See their website: http://patriotsborderalliance.com/)

This "Gang of Thirteen" (as the Simcoxian Koolaid drinkers characterized these incorruptibles) fought to maintain effective border vigil efforts while simultaneously building another national organization that would have what MCDC lacked: open books, accountability of leadership and democratic organization from the bottom up, not the top down. The meeting in St. Louis last weekend achieved those goals, and the Patriot's Border Alliance now has open (albeit slender) finances, a newly elected, fully accountable Board of Directors (including the indomitable Bob Wright as President) and a plan to take the fight over illegal immigration to higher levels of struggle on both old and new battlefields with an eye to forcing the problem back to center stage in this election year.

At the PBA meeting I renewed friendships I had first made in my trip to the border. (See my essay from 2005, "The Magnificent Minutemen.") I also made new friends from among a wide variety of border activists hailing from a rainbow of states: Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Washington State and, of course, Alabama. (I missed seeing Gary Cole of "The Great Northwest", whose physician forbade him to fly. My Alabama scouts reported to Gary out in New Mexico in 2005 where he had served as operations officer. He is a smart, tough, competent patriot -- and very funny. I'd trust my back and my people to his calm, quiet determination any day.)

The Oath and the Flag

So the national meeting of PBA (and all those important little side meetings that always take place at such gatherings of like-minded souls) was in itself well worth the trip from Alabama. But what came after the meeting was an experience out of the "mystic chords of memory." It was billed as a reception, a party. It would be at 7PM sharp they said, don't be late. The whispering beforehand was that no matter how tired you were -- after an all day meeting and the traveling you had done to get there and the traveling you would do the next day to get home -- you needed to be at this party. You would regret it if you missed it, they said. They were right.

The reception was held at the substantial home of Joe Adams, about fifteen minutes from the Staybridge hotel where most of us were lodged (I highly recommend it, by the way, if you're ever in St. Louis). There was food, there was music, there was a substantial bar. And there was more.

There had been an honor guard at the opening of the meeting that morning consisting of Revolutionary War Minutemen reenactors from Living History Reenactors, Inc. (See http://www.livhis.org/ ) The same group, dressed in rifleman's shirts and militia garb of the Founders' day, presented arms as we entered the Adams' manse. After all were within, they did a first-person impression of drill and military usage from 1775. Other female reenactors depicted Betsy Ross and friends sewing the first national colors. Then the room grew absolutely quiet as one militia rifleman stepped forward to swear the original Minute Man's oath:

"We trust in God, that should the state of our affairs require it, we shall be ready to sacrifice our estates and everything dear in life, yea, and life itself, in support of the common cause."
At the end of the ceremony, reenactors advanced to present Joe with the Revolutionary Stars and Stripes: "From the original generation of Minute Men to the Minutemen of today, we present this flag. Bear it with honor."

Goosebumps. I wasn't the only one with wet eyes, nor the only one with a lump in my throat.

You know, I have spent long hours over the past fifteen years trying to make the point with my writing that the Americans of this generation need only look to our ancestors - the Founders - to know how to comport themselves as free men. Yet this simple ceremony, taking but a few minutes, was more eloquent and more powerful than all the gallons of ink I have spilled to bring the Founders' principles back to life with mere, and wholly inadequate, words.

The Immortal Citizen

I looked around the room through misty tears realizing that we were citizens all: citizens who the Founders would have recognized; citizens freely accepting the responsibilities that come with their rights; citizens who stand ready to bear the "fatigues" of supporting their freedom; citizens who froze and baked and suffered and spent themselves broke on the border vigils because they understand that it is their function to keep the government from "falling into error."

We were, in that moment, citizens immortal -- from that time to this to the unseen future -- from hand to hand and soul to soul, eternal. Free Americans. Minutemen. Citizens. We can be killed. We cannot be conquered.

Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com

We're the Only Ones Who Really Know How to Treat a Gal Enough

The Shreveport Police Department has received at least two other excessive force complaints against an officer who recently was fired amid allegations that he beat a Mooringsport woman during a DWI arrest.
Boy, those are some "allegations" on her face and body. But hey, she just wouldn't listen.

Watch the sickening slide show here.

Then see the movie. Ain't it something how the camera gets blocked out right before we see her lying in a pool of her own blood? She must have fallen, right, or hit herself on the door?

But hey--the union says the chief didn't follow "protocol" in firing their member in good standing, that they don't think he hit her, that his "Officers' Bill of Rights" were violated. Yeah, "her face hit the floor." That explains all the other body bruises, too. And Willis had nothing to do with it, even though she was unmarked before he got his hooves on her. Take a good look at these union goons--if you don't believe they place their self-interest above all else and that they have chosen to become mercenary domestic enemies, you're on the wrong website.

Please moderate your comments to not include anything specific I'll have to remove for legal reasons. Just understand I'm right there with you.

I'll go this far: any citizen has a right to defend him or herself against this kind of savage animal attack with lethal force, regardless of the tormenter's employment status. This is an atrocity--if our troops had done this to anyone at Gitmo it would be front page news with demands for impeachment. And if any "Only One" ever did this to someone I loved, we would end up speaking privately on the matter--especially since it appears the same old special treatment has been applied so far: Really--you don't think one of us would not have been immediately incarcerated and facing assault, battery, torture and attempted murder charges?

It would appear some are bound and determined to hasten the day when people have finally had enough.

UPDATE: City "leaders" add insult to injury.

We're the Only Ones Who Like Our Beef Well Done Enough

Because everyone knows the best way to calm a grazing animal down is to attack it and cause it searing agony. Besides, they didn't want to shoot it, y'see, and being near a farm they couldn't, like, borrow a rope, or slow and direct traffic for 20 minutes while they got somebody out there who knows what the hell he's doing to help round it up...

No, instead it's we're The Only Ones "Git Along Little Dogie" Enough...

What They're "Smoking" at Colleges in South Dakota

We spoke on Wednesday about the South Dakota campus carry bill (HB 1261) that was stopped in the Senate by a procedural maneuver called a "smoke-out," that not only killed it for this year, but also managed to stifle any debate on the floor.

Nice, the way these slimy creatures play games with your rights, isn't it? Not only will we deny them, we won't even talk about them. I guess that's what happens when the role of servant and master are reversed.

I've been in correspondence with someone who has inside information on this from a faculty perspective. Due to the outright hostility of the preponderance of academics--and all of their leadership--I need to make sure his identity is protected, as well as remove all clues from his correspondences that I will share. And doesn't that speak to the sorry state of our "tolerant and diverse" institutions of higher learning, that the solons still administer consequences for the heresy of speaking the truth?

Before I get started, a couple of observations and caveats: I'm an outsider looking in. I hadn't even heard of this bill until a few days ago, so I don't want anything I write here to second-guess or complicate the foundation work already done by South Dakota RKBA activists. That said, I do find it odd that some guy in Ohio who's not even directly affected (that would be me) is the place where you'll find much original information on this.

Since I never intended for WarOnGuns to become a clearinghouse for local grassroots action alerts, gun owners in South Dakota who wish to pursue this should not rely on this site for anything more than a passing mention when something of note is brought to my attention.

There are a couple places to start with this for those interested in learning more:

Here's the NRA Alert that went out, As you see, the date has passed, so continue to monitor them for updates. Thing is, looking around their site, I don't see this getting any attention, so my uninformed guess is that they probably don't see much more they want to put energy into at this time.

A resource I would look to for marching orders is South Dakota Gun Owners. They have details you need to be aware of here, including background. They're "working right now to collect the last two votes necessary for final passage and we will need your help," and advise all to "stay tuned."

Their first action that the need support on is to email an important swing vote. Do it.

What follows are the correspondences I've received from our anonymous ally, presented in the order I received them. It's long, it's raw, and I did do some edits where I felt it appropriate, indicated by ellipses (...) There is some good stuff here, particularly from the academic mucky-mucks.

This will be a long post, but it contains good information. You'll notice I have not concentrated over-much on formatting.

-----------------------------------

Tue 2/19/08 10:04 PM
Hi David, I am reading about your Idaho bill, and we have a similar bill here in South Dakota having similar problems. I am trying to lobby for this, but am somewhat constrained by being a faculty member at one of the campuses. The upper level management has been very threatening and I would rather my name not be associated with the efforts in a public forum. But there is grassroots support on campus. There is a range on campus used by the college rifle team and the 4H youth shooting program that will be closed down if the college administration has their way and bans guns on campus, and those people are also fighting for the bill.


That said, a bunch of grass roots emails from pro gunners would be a good thing right about now. I have a list of which senators would be the most likely to flip our way and a plea that the rifle team sentout to the 4H parents. If I send you that stuff, maybe you could cut-n-paste or write your own blog article about it. Our bill officially looks to be dead but the senators have promised me it will come back to the floor this session,so a lot of emails (and/or phone calls) would help. I'll attach the blurb the rifle team sent me. It has the basic plan (although it's geared towards the 4H parents). They are trying to play up the fact that failing to pass this bill will make outlaws out of students who hunt or go to the range and downplay the fact that it will also allow CCW on campus . It will not change the law on campus, only those with goverment approval and the correct permit will be allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. Any mention you could give this issue would be great. The web page for contacting the SD Legislature is such that you can type (or paste in -- keep columns below 80characters and don't use attachments) a message and then use the pulldown menu to send it to each senator in turn w/out re-typing it.


From talking to a couple of Senators here's a list of the players:

Senate sponsors on the PRO RKBA side want to pass HB 1261 so BOR can't close the range:

These are the really good guys take time to thank them. They are marked with an asterisk
below:

Schmidt (Dennis), Apa, Greenfield, Kloucek, Maher, McNenny, Napoli

Voted to Pass Bill (good guy)

Abdallah
Albers
Apa *
Bartling
Gant
Garnos
Greenfield *
Hunhoff voted against smoke-out but eventually for the bill, wavering
Lintz
Maher *
McNenny *
Napoli *
Peterson (Jim)
Schmidt (Dennis) *

voted to Kill the bill and allow BOR to close the range. These guy (and gals) all need to hear from you:

Dempster very vocal leader AGAINST the bill
Gray very vocal leader AGAINST the bill but claimed to be wavering
Hansen (Tom) against us, but is in a tight race w/ Hargens (Rep who voted for us)
Hanson (Gary) seemed to switch back and forth, but finally voted against us
Hauge for smokeout but against bill??? Indicates he may be wavering
Heidepriem very vocal leader AGAINST the bill
Hoerth wants to do the right thing, but afraid of NSU/BOR (he's in Aberdeen
Hundstad Very firmly against us, but he should hear from pro freedom folks
Jerstad Firmly against us, but fearful of NRA endorsing opponent???
Katus Probably firmly agasinst us
Knudson very vocal leader AGAINST the bill
Koetzle Generally a pro gun rights Senator, but seems very against this bill
McCracken Seems firmly against us
Nesselhuf Firmly against us, but should be kept busy w/ pro-freedom calls/mails
Smidt (Orville) seems to want to do the right thing, but being pressured by SDSU/BOR
Sutton Was in favor of the bill, but now saying wants same rules for capitol?
Turbak Berry Against, but claiming it needs amended (trying to play it both ways)

Not there:

Duenwald (on our side)
Kloucek * (indicates sponsor, on our side)
Olson (Ed) Against us
Two Bulls Not sure

So, we should concentrate on those we can win over more easily? Probably:

Orv Smidt, Gray, Hoerth, Sutton, Hanson, Hansen, Koetzle, and Jerstad Turbak Berry is a possibility.

Wed 2/20/08 6:10 PM
I've been in contact with the sponsors, and they (as of Sunday night, I have not heard back from them since then) are hoping to drag it out to the floor again. Either the same bill, or the same wording jammed into something else. At least two of the senators on the "call list"(Jerstad and Orv Smidt) are backpedaling and wavering. I think that if the sponsors feel that they can switch a couple of votes (of the 4 who were excused, one was a sponsor, another is on our side, and one was dead set against us) they will bring that wording back up. The guys who were on the fence are now changing their story. According to them, students are allowed to have guns in their car and dorm rooms already, and HB 1261 is not needed. As late as Saturday they were saying that HB1261 would allow students to have guns and lead to gunfights in the classrooms. It looks like the article you linked is referring to Friday's vote, and we're not giving up yet. If we can bring pressure on those fence-sitters it will be back...The governor has said he will sign it, and is actually publicly in favor of HB 1261.

Wed 2/20/08 6:39 PM
...It seems that the StateAssociation is in disarray (I think somebody moved away and nobody picked up the ball)...I've been tracking down the remnants of the state association group, and we're trying to rally but the web isn't in their comfort zone(email yes, but phone is better and web is not gonna happen). There is a student rifle and pistol club, they have a facebook presence but no web page... I also dug up a "SDSU Rifle Association" which seems to be a political RKBA group on campus...They had not been coordinating w/ theSenate on this as of 2/18, but maybe they have done something since then... I find that students can be very enthused at one moment, but not quite get around to finishing something, ,and I'm not sure what they have actually done already. There is also a college paper with some online comments
http://media.www.sdsucollegian.com/media/storage/paper484/news/2008/02/13/News/Students.Association.Reacts.To.Gun.Bill-3207304.shtml

The story is old, but the comments are still being accessed and updated...

Wed 2/20/08 7:09 PM [In reference to the link to SD Gun Owners, above--DC]
Great. Their list of swing votes is slightly different....

Thu 2/21/08 6:45 AM
There's a couple of suspicious things going on. The biggest of these is that several liberal campus groups supposedly are trying to kill HB 1261. No real surprise, but the SDSU Academic Senate passed a measure to send an anti HB 1261 statement tothe legislature the day before the committee was initially to vote. The chairwoman of the Academic senate took it upon herself to draft the following:


Faculty in higher education at South Dakota State University stand united with The Board of Regents in opposing HB 1261. We note that all permission to carry guns is commonly subject to regulation (even in the state of South Dakota) dependent upon location and potential danger to public safety. Our universities are not the singular purview of students, but are common areas for many members of the public. We are proud host community members in sporting events, meetings, conferences, performances, and speaking engagements. In addition, we offer child care and educational opportunities to children in the area and the region. The inability to control and/or charge violators in case of devastating attacks is not subsumed by crisis management, but rather is prevented most effectively by day-to-day safety precautions and regulations for students, staff, faculty and state citizens who enjoy the many benefits of our university communities.

SDSU Council of Higher Education
SDSU American Association of University Professors
SDSU Academic Senate

She sent that statement w/ this email:


Greetings Senators: I hope you all are having a good semester so far. Although we have a meeting coming up on Tuesday but we have a piece of business that can not wait. I have been approached as to whether the Senate is taking a stand against HB 1261 allowing weapons and concealed weapons on campus. This bill has passed through the House and is going next to the Senate. But Monday morning it will be discussed by the State Senate Committee. We would be opposing it for safety reasons. Attached, please find a draft of a common statement that will be submitted on behalf of the Academic Senate, COHE and the AAUP if they all sign off on it. So please let me know immediately how you would vote and I will be passing it if I receive a majority YES vote by 3PM tomorrow.

Madeleine Andrawis
Very few faculty members even found out about this statement, which was supposedly approved by email vote w/ no chance to debate. This has not shown up on their published agenda or in their minutes, but has been passed off as an official statement. Normally the State Senate wouldn't pay any attention to such, but it probably didn't help us. Thanks for sending the link to the SDGO site. I suspect that the bill just flew through the house so easily and seemed like such a common sense solution that nobody thought there'd be any heavy lifting in the Senate either.

Thu 2/21/08 7:35 AM
There have been several rent-a-cops and university police testifying against these bills. The house testimony was contradicted by a real cop. The rent-a-cop testified that if they showed up and there wereboth good and bad guys w/ guns then the police might shoot a good guy. The house committee called the real cop back up, who testified that "No, actually we're trained to think before we shoot". I heard that from a person who was at the hearing, and had read it online since then, but can't find it now. During the Senate hearing a Vermillion (town of another University, USD) cop (police chief?) testified against it. It looks like that'd be mentioned here:
http://media.www.volanteonline.com/media/storage/paper468/news/2008/02/13/News/Senate.Could.Revive.Gun.Bill-3206370.shtml

but it may have gotten cut (I can't see it in the article, but the subtitle indicates that they did testify...It's actually quoted here:

http://www.m-14forum.com/upload/showthread.php?p=325375

but not a "main stream" source.

-------------------------------------

[DC back again]

That's what I've got. I can think of several actions I would do were I directly involved in this fight, but this needs to be something South Dakotans take on themselves--including disseminating future information. I'll keep an eye on things from afar, but unless something newsworthy breaks, don't expect to see too much more here--besides, if you need to rely on some guy in Ohio for this, the battle's already lost.

I would be interested in at least asking this Andrawis "Archon" exactly what her qualifications are for prescribing appropriate personal defense strategies for gun owners in a campus environment--stuff like what training she's had in that field, expertise, certifications, experience--the same kind of stuff she'd be expected to produce were her other professional opinions to be taken seriously. I note she proudly lists herself as a member of a group of "collaborators," and I suspect that's all the credentials we need understand.

What's in a Name?

Sen. Barack Obama's name brand recognition has much currency these days as Americans mull over the appeal of the Illinois Democrat's name for their own precious offspring.

What, we can now expect a glut of "Thulsa's"?

The Cult of Set--coming soon to a nursery near you.

This Day in History: February 22

George Washington, the first president of the United States, was born on February 22, 1732...When his father died in 1743, young George was sent to live with relatives first at Ferry Farm and later at Mt. Vernon, the estate of his elder half-brother Lawrence. The first president of the United States was self-educated, privately tutored, and homeschooled by his father and his brother Lawrence for eight years. This constituted his "formal" schooling.