More on the murder of Hadiya Pendleton

NBC News continues to carry this story at the top of their home page. It actually has links to two separate articles about it. I don't have a problem with this, per se; it's an important and newsworthy story. I did notice a couple of things in the two articles.

First, in this article which goes into further detail about who Hadiya was and what happened, is this paragraph:

At that moment, Chicago police say, a gunman came running down an alley behind the park, opened fire and then darted into a waiting vehicle and took off. No arrests have been made.

Second, in this article that quotes a friend of Hadiya's recounting her last words, is this:

Police, who believe Pendleton may have been shot with a revolver, say no arrests have been made in the case.

I'm assuming they believe this from witness testimony, from analysis of the bullets that were fired and/or the absence of spent casings which would have been left behind if the shooter had used a semi-automatic pistol.

Here's why I find these paragraphs interesting. First, no suspect is in custody. Second, given that he "darted into a waiting vehicle" this was almost certainly a targeted hit. Although not proof that this was an orchestrated event, it is not inconsistent with that hypothesis.

Third, and potentially the most important, he apparently used a revolver. Currently, the debate is over "assault weapons" and magazines that hold more than ten rounds. The latter also affects semi-automatic pistols. Revolvers, so far, have been largely absent from the debate. Now comes a high-profile murder that was ostensibly committed with a revolver. I expect there to be calls for restricting access to revolvers, and pistols in general, before long.

Again, not proof of a targeted murder to further a political agenda. But also not inconsistent with it either. Even if, as is likely, this was just a tragic coincidence, it will be taken advantage of by those who want to disarm the American people. Keep your eyes and ears open and remain vigilant.

Timing is everything

Update: Just now, about 50 minutes after I submitted the original post below, I checked around some of the major news websites to see which, if any, were reporting this story prominently. Of the ones I checked, admittedly not an exhaustive list, two had elevated this headline to the top: NBC News (formerly MSNBC) and Huffington Post. Not surprising. Expect this to be milked for all it's worth. Original post follows.   

On the same day that former Representative Gabrielle Giffords made her opening statement before the Senate hearing on gun violence comes the news that Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old girl who performed at the presidential inauguration last week was shot and killed yesterday in Obama's home city of Chicago.

It's a heartbreaking story, and my sympathy goes out to this young girl's family and friends who are grieving over her untimely death. It's a tragedy, in every sense of the word.

It's also damned interesting that this happened when it did and to whom. I also find it interesting that, at least so far, I haven't heard of any suspect being identified, let alone in custody.

Now, I know what the response will be, that I'm a conspiracy nut and that I need to take off my tinfoil hat and return to the mothership. Yet you must admit the timing of this event, and especially the timing of the reporting of this event, to coincide with the start of the Senate hearing, is awfully convenient for those who want to restrict or eliminate our Second Amendment rights.

I wish things in this country were such that any thoughts along those lines would be ridiculous even to contemplate, but they aren't. When I first heard about Hadiya, it was the first thing that came into my mind. It was so sudden and so shocking I had to close my eyes and take a deep breath before I continued that train of thought. I felt a wave of despair as I reflected further and concluded that I wasn't crazy and this scenario, while unlikely, was not implausible.

Until and unless I am presented with evidence to the contrary, I must assume that this was another random, senseless act of violence and that the identity of the victim and the timing of the shooting are coincidence. But I know I'm not the only one considering the possibility that it isn't, and I sure as hell wouldn't put it past certain, shall we say, interests to have orchestrated this terrible deed. I'll be keeping an eye on this story and how it develops.

Waiting for government

You know, this sounds awfully familiar:

Three months after Sandy struck, thousands of storm victims in New York and New Jersey are stuck in limbo. Waiting for the heat to come on, for insurance money to come through, for loans to be approved. Waiting, in a broader sense, for their upended lives to get back to normal.

While Congress passed a $50.5 billion emergency aid package on Monday, many say the rebuilding has been complicated over the past several weeks by bureaucracy. Some people are still living in mold-infested homes, while others are desperately trying to persuade the city to tear theirs down. Illegal immigrants who don't qualify for federal aid are struggling to scrape by. Small businesses are shutting down in neighborhoods where nobody seems to shop anymore.

Funny thing, though, I distinctly remember the coverage in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina being distinctly different than that following Hurricane Sandy. I wonder what changed since then? Could it have something to do with who was in the.......

Nah, couldn't be.

Stark difference

Via Breitbart comes this news out of San Diego, CA:

San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne is fully supportive of the Obama/Feinstein gun grab, and says if lawmakers play it right Americans can be completely disarmed within "a generation."

Contrast this with the statements from various sheriffs around the country which I've posted about. And thus we see the difference between law enforcement officials who are elected, the sheriffs, and those that are politically appointed.

Although I don't have independent corroboration of it, I bet the following comment made to this post at Free Republic is accurate:

I just got off the phone w/a Sergeant at the San Diego Police Department. I will not disclose his name. However, he said that I was the 1025 caller and the officers in the police department DO NOT support this opinion. The Sergeant was very pleasant and emphasized several times that the cops on the front lines understand the importance of our Second Amendment Rights. If anyone wants to call the phone # is 619-531-2777. BTW, the chief of police job is an appointed position made by the major of San Diego.

I wonder what the opinion of San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore is. The only thing I've found so far is a link on Google to a page that is no longer available but which contains a quote saying he believes people should be able to own guns but supports universal background checks. I guess we'll see what happens if and when the SDPD starts confiscating people's property.

Compromising positions

Compromise. Liberals and progressives keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

President Obama is suggesting that House Republicans on the issue of gun control appear neither willing to work with him nor inclined to listen to the American public on the issue.

That's because they are unwilling to compromise their principles, not only theirs but the ones this country was founded on.

“The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,” the president said in an interview with The New Republic.

As if Democrat districts aren't fully as gerrymandered, and as if Democrats aren't really concerned about the opinions of their constituencies.

Obama also said he can get 50 percent of public support for many of his upcoming initiatives, but “I can't get enough votes out of the House of Representatives to actually get something passed. … I think there is still shock on the part of some in the party that I won re-election.”

I don't care if you have nearly 100 percent of the public's support, there are some things which are absolute. Our rights as enumerated in the Constitution are such things. As for shock, well yeah. By all rights it should be President Mitt Romney yet, somehow, Obama managed to pull it off. There are all sorts of reasons why this happened, but the real shocker is that the Republican candidate lost the race that it was literally his to lose.

The president said he has a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that date back for generations.

He said that moving forward on the topic means understanding that the realities of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas.

He said it's understandable that people are protective of their family traditions when it comes to hunting so “gun-control advocates also need to do “a little more listening than they do sometimes” in the debate.

As has been repeated over and over again, the Second Amendment is not about hunting. I believe that Mr. Obama knows this full well. This statement is a red herring. I believe he knows exactly the purpose of the Second Amendment and that's why he's pushing for more gun control. He knows that an armed populace is an obstacle to some of the things he'd really like to do if he could.

As for listening more, what he really means is "agree with me more."

Obama also said one of the biggest factors in the gun-control debate will be how it is shaped by the media.

“If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it,” he said. “I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.”

He's right about how big a factor the media will be in the debate. What he doesn't tell you is how biased a majority of that media  will be. Fox News and talk radio are the exceptions to the rule.

The president argued  that “the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word” and that party leaders, including Senate Majority Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, are “willing to buck the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done.”

And now we come to that word, compromise. Of course they don't recognize it as a dirty word. That's because they define it differently than how it's defined in the dictionary. As noted before, there are some things that are absolute, that you don't compromise on. You don't compromise on rights. Suppose that a Republican president were to advocate an official religion of the United States, not that I think this would ever happen. This would be a clear violation of the First Amendment, of course. Would Democrats be willing to compromise on this? How about we don't go so far as to make that religion the official religion of the country but we do limit any government aid to just that one. Would that be acceptable? Of course not. It's the same thing with Obama's desired gun control laws.

Has Obama himself ever fired a gun? Yes, he says, he and others shoot skeet frequently at the president's Maryland retreat, Camp David.

So what? The Second Amendment is not about sport. And I strongly suspect the interviewer knew in advance exactly what the answer to that question would be. He pitched that red herring slowly right down the middle.

The president also said much of the challenge in Washington is to make Americans feel that national politics is indeed connected to their day-to-day realities.

Oh we know this full well. The problem is, it's not supposed to be.

“And that’s not an unjustifiable view,” he said. So everything we do combines both a legislative strategy with a broad-based communications and outreach strategy to get people engaged and involved, so that it’s not Washington over here and the rest of America over there.”

It's a strategy alright. They've been working this strategy for decades, taking the long view, chipping away at our rights a little at a time, and hoping we won't notice the water coming to a boil. Well more and more of us each day are coming to the realization that this isn't a hot tub we're in and we're determined to turn off the heat. And to continue the metaphor, although we hope it doesn't come to that point, if it gets bad enough we'll do it the way Red Adair put out oil well fires.

Update: Sir M at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler provides his own take on (or should that be take-down of) Obama's comments from that article.

More men of the Law

Yet another addition to the growing list of Sheriffs who are letting the President and Congress know in no uncertain terms that they will uphold the Constitution is the Utah Sheriffs' Association. The final paragraph of their open letter to the President reads as follows:

We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular Amendment II — has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.

They "are prepared to trade [their] lives." Hat tip to Bob Owens who notes, "What they mean by that has been left deliberately ambiguous." I'm not sure sure, Bob. Had such a letter been written a couple centuries ago, they might have pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. They would have been in good company.

Common Sense

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya: Democrats and liberals keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what they think it means.

Bob Owens elaborates:

The simple fact of the matter is that Barack Obama is completely ignorant about firearms, and if you gave him one, he’ d hold it awkwardly, looking quite stupid, and probably point it at half the people in the room before it was snatched out his hands as a threat to public safety.

The same holds true for Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carolyn McCarthy, Dianne Feinstein, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and the vast majority of politicians attempting to destroy a part of the Constitution they fear in their ignorance.

As I gained an understanding of the Constitution and just where the rights enumerated in that document as amended truly come from, I decided it was time to exercise that right guaranteed in the Second Amendment. I took some training and then purchased a pistol. I researched different models, tried several out at the range, and made my decision. I know far more about guns, how they work, how various types differ, and what they're capable of than any of these ignoramuses. My opinion on the subject ought by right carry near infinitely more weight than theirs.

So where does "common sense" come into it?

Barack Obama and his allies want “common sense” to rule on guns. I completely agree.

It is “common sense” to ignore the recommendations of people who are superstitious, factually ignorant, politically-motivated, and poorly educated.

It is “common sense” to engage with real experts, credentialed in their area of expertise, when important matters are before the nation.

It is “common sense” that politicians be held accountable for their assaults on the Constitution.

By all means, lets introduce “common sense” to the debate over firearms. It’s the last thing that anti-gun politicians, media figures, and activists really want.

Ray Nagin, Democrat

So, it turns out that Ray Nagin, whose lasting legacy includes this famous photo, is in a bit of hot water over certain things he is alleged to have done in the aftermath of the hurricane.

Federal prosecutors today announced a 21-count indictment against former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, accused of enriching himself as the city struggled to rebuild in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Nagin is accused of using the office of mayor to steer city projects to business associates who, in turn, allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes and flew him on lavish free trips to Hawaii, Jamaica, and Las Vegas.

Nagin was charged with bribery, honest service wire fraud, money laundering, conspiracy and filing false tax returns.

This does not surprise me in the least, except possible for the fact it took so long for charges to be brought.

Now I know that he's innocent until proven guilty. I accept the possibility that he actually is innocent of these charges. I would say there is a small but non-zero probability that he didn't do any of it. But I don't think federal charges would have been brought against him, especially given his party affiliation, unless the case was pretty airtight.

And in case you're wondering why I included said party affiliation in the subject, as Michelle notes:

If you don’t know what political party Nagin belongs to, read the entire ABC News story and by the time you’re finished you… still won’t know. Ditto for USA Today, CNN, WaPo and the LA Times. The AP and NOLA are two places where you can get that hard to find piece of information.

Democrats by no means have a monopoly on corruption. Republicans do it, too; it's just that, when they do, the fact they are Republicans is noted much more readily for some reason.

Remember S&W

So the word is that Democratic mayors will be "grading" gun manufacturers on how well they comply with "gun safety goals" with consequences for those that don't measure up:

Apparently the word has come down from the White House to Democrats across the nation, get in line behind the Obama Administration on gun control. The National Conference of Democratic Mayors are now threatening to have their police departments boycott the purchase of guns from manufacturers who won’t adhere to the Obama Administration’s strictures.

The various firearms manufacturers would do well to remember what happened the last time one of them cut a deal with the government:

Gun clubs and gun rights groups responded to this agreement by initiating large-scale boycotts of Smith & Wesson by refusing to buy their new products and flooding the firearms market with used S&W guns. After a 40% sales slide, the sales impact from the boycotts led Smith & Wesson to suspend manufacturing at two plants.

Eventually, S&W was purchased by Saf-T-Hammer Corporation who publicly renounced the agreement. They even introduces the Model 500 Revolver, chambered for the new .500 S&W Magnum round, which took the title as the world's most powerful handgun. It was designed as a hunting weapon, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit of a middle finger to the government and a message to members of the gun culture that the old S&W was back.

What I'd like to see is the gun manufacturers uniting in solidarity so that, should a city boycott one of them because it didn't toe the line, the rest will refuse to do business with that city. There is precedent. When the State of California banned private ownership of .50 caliber rifles, Ronnie Barrett, founder and CEO of Barrett Firearms responded by refusing to do business of any kind with any government agency in California. This includes servicing rifles that these agencies already own. I would not be surprised if, once he hears about this plan by Democrat mayors, his response will be similar to what I've proposed.

Who'da thunk?

During the campaign and runup to the 2012 presidential election, the website PolitiFact gained some prominence, especially to those on the left, for its "fact checking." This is not to say that they were entirely inaccurate, but they do have a record that arguably supports partisan bias.

Given that, it's not too surprising to learn that their "Lie of the Year," which was awarded to an ad by the Romney campaign, is in fact true. Not only that, but their analysis of the ad was incorrect to begin with. They said the ad claimed that Jeep would be "moving its US production to China." The ad said no such thing, merely that Jeeps would be made in China.

And now, as it turns out, even the "lie" the ad did not not actually contain turns out be not entirely false.

Marchionne said he will keep "the pillar cars of the Jeep (brand) in the United States. Wrangler is one. The Grand Cherokee is another. These are things that need to be protected because they represent the best and the essence of Jeep. If you tell me I cannot make a Patriot somewhere else, I might as well go out of the market."

So, if a model currently manufactured in the United States is to be manufactured in China instead, would that not qualify as moving production overseas? As noted by the Weekly Standard, making Jeep Patriots in China is deliciously ironic.

Of course, the writers and editors at PolitiFact could not have known about this latest development. But the fact remains that their "fact check" was wrong. Anyone who uses them as support for their argument better be damn sure to provide additional corroborating evidence, otherwise they risk exposing themselves as fools.

The resistance is growing

Earlier I mentioned legislation that has been proposed in Wyoming that would nullify any ban on any semi-automatic firearm or any magazine regardless of how many rounds it can hold. Anyone trying to enforce such a ban, including any Federal agent or officer, would face arrest.

Unsurprisingly, similar legislation has been proposed in Texas.

And in related news, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky, and Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon, have stated that they will not enforce, nor allow to be enforced in their counties, any legislation or executive order that violates the Constitution and requires confiscation of weapons.

The latter is interesting because Oregon, as a whole, isn't a terribly conservative state. However, as with its neighbor to the north, I expect that different regions have different political compositions. In any case, hats off to both of these fine gentlemen and patriots. May more and more sheriffs and other law enforcement officials across the nation follow their lead.

The road to servitude

Runs through New York.

So the New York State Legislature, in its far less than infinite wisdom, has passed a gun control bill that is far more restrictive than the original Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was passed in 1994 and allowed to expire ten years later because it did jack all to reduce crime. The New York law includes the following list of items; it's not exhaustive but it covers the most important ones.

• Flat out prohibits any magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds. The Federal AWB allowed such standard capacity magazines provided they had been manufactured prior to it going into effect. The New York law requires that any such magazines be sold to someone outside the state or otherwise disposed of within a year. After a year, possession of any such magazine is prohibited.
• Sets the limit on new magazines at seven rounds. As I understand it, no new magazines may be purchased that can hold more than seven rounds. Magazines holding more than seven rounds but no more than ten are grandfathered in but they can only be loaded with up to seven rounds.
• Broadens the current state ban on "assault weapons" to those with only one of the features on a list of those "commonly associated with military weapons," instead of those with at least two. It also adds to that list of features.
• Requires that any "assault weapon" with two of the features that was grandfathered in under the existing "two feature" ban, and any with one of the features that will be grandfathered in under the expanded "one feature" ban be registered. Note that in the summary of the law it says, "All registered owners will be subject to a review of disqualifiers by the State Police."
• Prohibits the sale of any "assault weapon" to anyone else in the state unless it's a licensed firearm dealer. In other words, it stays in the state only as long as you own it.
• Requires a background check for all gun sales, except to immediate family. Previously background checks were required for purchases from dealers and at gun shows.
• Additional requirements regarding safe storage of firearms and new measures to keep guns away from mentally disturbed people.

 From the article at Fox News:

"It is well-balanced, it protects the Second Amendment," said Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Long Island. "And there is no confiscation of weapons, which was at one time being considered.

This, coming from a so-called Republican. There will be no confiscation now. But unless this law is struck down or repealed, you can bet the topic of confiscation will come up again, probably the next time someone uses such a gun in any way unlawfully anywhere in the country. Maybe even sooner. Registration historically has tended, very strongly, to lead to confiscation. Don't think it won't happen in the United States, and especially in New York.

There is one upside, however. the law does prohibit making public the names of registered gun owners as was done by the Journal News recently. I'm not sure how that one slipped in there. Maybe someone realized that a list of gun owners is, by logical extension, a list of people who don't own guns.

Taken as a whole, this law is a naked attempt at rendering the Second Amendment meaningless. I expect considerable lack of compliance. Ultimately, there will be people arrested, tried, and sentenced under this law. I hope when that happens there will be enough support to appeal it as high as possible, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Of course, by then, Obama may have managed to appoint one or more justices so the point may become moot.

Will you stand?

A brave man, a soldier, writes words that may prove to be very dangerous in the not-too-distant future.

I am a soldier.  I know what war looks like, what it sounds like, smells like, what it feels like in my soul.

I stand today in the twilight of my nation’s grace, looking into the darkness of impending war.

My sleep is troubled, knowing what awaits, yet the ignorant and the ‘true believers’ sleep easily in their delusions, and I am saddened by it.

 The future he sees is possible. I pray it does not come to pass, but I fear that it will. In that event, if it comes to the gravest extreme, I only hope that many others in our military and in law enforcement will realize what their oath to support and defend the Constitution, from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, really means.

Without going into detail I will say that, even though I do not claim to have served my country in the military, I did at one time take that oath. I consider myself still bound by it. I have not seen war in person, nor do I ever wish to. But if it comes to me, in whatever form it may take, I hope that I will comport myself accordingly.

One possible way to resist

From a report at the Huffington Post, just so nobody can accuse me of using only sources that agree with me:

State Rep. Kendell Kroeker (R-Evansville) has put forward a bill making it a felony to enforce in Wyoming any federal ban on assault weapons or high-capacity gun magazines, two proposals that Biden's gun control task force is likely to present to President Barack Obama on Tuesday.

 As noted, this approach is controversial. Nevertheless, I hope it passes. It will be an interesting test if an arrest is ever made under that law. There's no way in hell such a law would ever be considered in my home state so I have to live vicariously through others.

Required reading

Although by no means an exhaustive list, the following two essays are among the most powerful and eloquent regarding the right to keep and bear arms. I can't recommend either of them enough. Read them and pass the links around to your friends, especially those who wonder just why the Second Amendment exists.

First up is the seminal piece by Jeffrey R. Snyder, A Nation of Cowards. An excerpt:

One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence.

Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone -- the handgun. Small and light enough to be carried habitually, lethal, but unlike the knife or sword, not demanding great skill or strength, it truly is the "great equalizer." Requiring only hand-eye coordination and a modicum of ability to remain cool under pressure, it can be used effectively by the old and the weak against the young and the strong, by the one against the many.

The handgun is the only weapon that would give a lone female jogger a chance of prevailing against a gang of thugs intent on rape, a teacher a chance of protecting children at recess from a madman intent on massacring them, a family of tourists waiting at a mid-town subway station the means to protect themselves from a gang of teens armed with razors and knives.

But since we live in a society that by and large outlaws the carrying of arms, we are brought into the fray of the Great American Gun War. Gun control is one of the most prominent battlegrounds in our current culture wars. Yet it is unique in the half-heartedness with which our conservative leaders and pundits -- our "conservative elite" -- do battle, and have conceded the moral high ground to liberal gun control proponents. It is not a topic often written about, or written about with any great fervor, by William F. Buckley or Patrick Buchanan. As drug czar, William Bennett advised President Bush to ban "assault weapons." George Will is on record as recommending the repeal of the Second Amendment, and Jack Kemp is on record as favoring a ban on the possession of semiautomatic "assault weapons." The battle for gun rights is one fought predominantly by the common man. The beliefs of both our liberal and conservative elites are in fact abetting the criminal rampage through our society.

And second is an essay by Eric S. Raymond, one of the most influential people in the Open Source Software community, titled Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun: What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life. An excerpt:

The Founding Fathers of the United States believed, and wrote, that the bearing of arms was essential to the character and dignity of a free people. For this reason, they wrote a Second Amendment in the Bill Of Rights which reads the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with it, the Second Amendment is usually interpreted in these latter days as an axiom of and about political character — an expression of republican political thought, a prescription for a equilibrium of power in which the armed people are at least equal in might to the organized forces of government.

It is all these things. But it is something more, because the Founders regarded political character and individual ethical character as inseparable. They had a clear notion of the individual virtues necessary collectively to a free people. They did not merely regard the habit of bearing arms as a political virtue, but as a direct promoter of personal virtue.

So here we are again.

With all that has been happening, namely the "re-election" of Barack Obama to the Presidency, the so called "fiscal cliff" deal that raised nearly everyone's taxes, and the renewed calls for disarming law-abiding citizens, it's probably time to dust off this blog. Not that I think it will make much difference but at least it will provide an outlet for what I believe needs to be said.

For some time I've had an online presence on a certain major social media system under my real name, as required by the Terms of Use for that service. It's true that a lot of people using that service do so under pseudonyms but I've been using it to correspond with friends so having it under my real name was beneficial. In recent years I've allowed myself to post more often about political matters in attempts to support my friends who I agree with, and try to convince those with which I don't that they may be in error.

Given what is currently going in, however, I think it's time for me to tone that back. Although I hope I'm wrong, I foresee the official climate becoming increasingly hostile toward me and those who think as I do about politics, and especially about the right enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Thus I return here. Though I have no illusions that a concerted effort, especially on the part of law enforcement or other government agency, would not be able to ferret out my identity, at least it will be a bit more difficult and hopefully they won't wast their time on someone with what I'm sure will be a relative insignificance.

I hope this move will prove to be unnecessary, but I believe that I must act as if it is. The ballot box has failed. That leaves us with the soap box and, in the gravest extreme, the cartridge box. Some include the jury box but I don't think it applies because it's not something the average person has access to at will.

So to anyone who happens to stumble across this little corner of the resistance, for that it surely is, welcome. May fortune favor us and may our resolve never falter.