A place where any item of interest to our readers can be linked and not be off topic.

There is much going on and news abounds, such as the Pope’s retirement and the manufactured “sequester” crisis.

I’ll start it off with a few things that didn’t fit on any other thread and didn’t really have the time to create separate posts that would do the topics justice.

First off, since the Vatican is in the news, yesterday (27 Feb) was St. Possenti Day:

The St. Gabriel Possenti Society promotes the public recognition of St. Gabriel Possenti, including his Vatican designation as Patron Saint of Handgunners.

St. Gabriel Possenti was a Catholic seminarian whose marksmanship and proficiency with handguns single-handedly saved the village of Isola, Italy from a band of 20 terrorists in 1860.

The Possenti Society offers a variety of materials related to St. Gabriel Possenti and a biblical understanding of self-defense.

Another topic I have been studying is whether a Constitutional Convention should be considered. I haven’t examined the issue to my satisfaction, but I have done some reading and found some with firm opinions. One of those is Glenn Reynolds and I read this interesting post the other day citing the good Professor at Bob Owens blog, “…if that’s what you believe, then all of this talk of revolution suddenly doesn’t seem so crazy, it seems almost mandatory.” A short yet informative post which includes a link to Prof. Reynolds view on a ConCon, but the link that really blew me away in this post was an excerpt from a book by Matt Bracken that foretells the terrifying prospects of a ConCon with so many lawless citizens in this country.
I highly recommend reading this excerpt from Foreign Enemies and traitors.

“Tell me something, Doug. You’re obviously a smart guy. I’ve been out of the country for seven years. What the hell happened to America? I always thought Americans would fight to keep their freedom. What happened? How could Americans just roll over and give up their rights?”

“Well, we didn’t just ‘give up’ our rights. It wasn’t like that. Not at all. It’s more like they were stolen in broad daylight, at the constitutional convention.”

There is much more out there that is interesting to me and I’m certain to our readers, as well.

Not only is Drunk Uncle Joe Biden’s advice on women and shotguns illegal, stupid, and dangerous…it also illustrates who little Joe actually knows about guns (or women).

Here’s what crazy Uncle Joe had to say:

If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun. Have the shells for a 12-gauge shotgun, and I promise you as I told my wife, we live in an area that’s wooded and somewhat secluded. I said, Jill if there’s ever problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. I promise you whoever’s coming in is not going. You don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim; it’s harder to use. And in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.

Why do I get the feeling that Jill Biden hasn’t fired a shotgun a single time in her life? Because here’s a little reality for you, Joey:

Also, at the beginning of the video, the dude asking the questions — is that a guy? Really? Rachel Maddcow sounds (and looks) more like a man than this…guy?

___________

Now, don’t get me wrong, I think a shotgun makes a damned fine home defense weapon. Though I would never recommend a double-barrel over/under shotgun for home defense (save it for skeet shooting or hunting). Personally, I’d rather have more than 2 shells available without having to reload — you never know how many bad guys you might be facing. I also weigh well north of 200 lbs and can handle the kick of a 12 gauge with little problem.

But a lot of women — mos women in fact — would be much better off with an AR-15 in their hands, with a 30-round magazine at their disposal.

Dan Bongino, a former US Secret Service Officer and former US Senate Candidate gave a short but very passionate speech at the Annapolis, MD during their Guns Across America Rally back on January 19th, 2013:

This cannot be beat home enough, and this is how I defend “why the second amendment” to anybody who wants to talk about gun-grabbing or “reasonable restrictions” on my right to defend my home, my family, and my community from evil and tyranny:

My God given right to protect myself and my family. That was my right not given to me by a piece of paper, only assured by that piece of paper.

That is not up for debate.

The right to petition, the right to assemble so beautifully on this day. The right to speech is not given to you by the governor or the President of the United States. That is not his to give. And if it is not his to give, it is not his or her or anyone elses to take away.

But perhaps the best line of his speech was simply this: “We live in a society of wolves. We do not fight back by creating more sheep.”

Amen brother.

LaRue Tactical to restrict law enforcement sales in response to gun control laws – tinyurl.com/b3wdaw6

— Guns.com (@Guns_com) February 9, 2013

Good for LaRue, for a number of reasons. First and foremost is that gun manufacturers, such as LaRue, probably have a higher profit margin selling to the general public than they to to government agencies. And second, the Chief of Police of many large Police Departments are openly advocating for gun control measures and outright bans on many of the guns sold by companies such as LaRue.

Why should a company sell it’s goods to a group that wants to outlaw your livelihood?

Via Guns.com, here’s the statement released by LaRue:

Due to the recent and numerous new Anti-gun/Anti-2nd Amendment laws passed and/or pending across our country, LaRue Tactical has been forced to reconsider how we provide products to state and local agencies.

Effective today, in an effort to see that no legal mistakes are made by LaRue Tactical and/or its employees, we will apply all current State and Local Laws (as applied to civilians) to state and local law enforcement / government agencies. In other words, LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess.

State and local laws have always been a serious focus of this firm, and we are now dovetailing that focus with the constitutional rights of the residents covered in their different areas by the old and new regulations.

We realize this effort will have an impact on this firm’s sales – and have decided the lost sales are less danger to this firm than potential lawsuits from erroneous shipments generated by something as simple as human error.

Thanks in advance for your understanding.

Mark LaRue

* * This policy does not apply to Military / Federal Agencies * *

Though, I’d feel much more comfortable with LaRue and other gun manufacturers restricting sales to federal agencies, such as Homeland Security, who now has a reported 1.6 billion rounds of of .40 S&W and .9mm ammunition on hand. Or enough ammo to supply a 24-year long war against Iraq.

This is perfect on so many levels:

First of all, you gotta love how it pokes fun at the MFM‘s insistence on referring to illegal aliens as “undocumented immigrants.” And how it gets to the very heart of what will happen if the nanny-stater gun-grabbers try to implement a national gun registry.

What part of “Shall not infringe” do you not understand?

I know we’ve beat this horse nearly to death, but these gun-grabbing pantie-wearing, bed-wetting Leftists still aren’t getting the message.

Which is why it’s important to give them in-your-face examples, rather than try to appeal to them using facts, logic, and history.

Why the second amendment?

The primary purpose of the second amendment is not dear deer hunting, shooting skeet, or even defending your home from burglars. It’s to fight tyranny. Those who claim that we’re just being paranoid — that our own government would never turn on their own citizens — are completely ignorant of history. And have not been paying attention to recent and current events, either.

Why the second amendment?

Because we have a President who believes that not only is it OK to use drones to target and assassinate US citizens, he believes he has the power to do so:

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” reads a confidential Justice Department memo defending the U.S. government’s ability to order the killing of American citizens if they believe them to be “senior operational leaders” or “an associated force,” even if they don’t have any evidence that the person targeted is actually engaged in or plotting an attack on the U.S.

[snip]

The memo states that “no clear evidence of a specific attack on persons and interests” is needed, nor does the “operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States” in order to be targeted for assassination by the Federal government.

Liberal outrage over Obama’s kill-Americans-with-drones policy? Anyone? When BHO starts waterboarding it’ll be ok w libs, too?

— Michael Q Sullivan (@MQSullivan) February 6, 2013

Indeed, Michael. Indeed.

UPDATE — Still trust your government? Media Confirms Barack Obama Called For Drone Bombing of 16 Year-Old Denver Boy

What about now? Homeland Security buying 7,000 ‘assault rifles’ that government doesn’t want citizens to own

Why the second amendment?

Because, while you’re waiting for the revolution to overthrow our increasingly-tyrannical government, you still have a home and family to protect against those who would do you harm. And, contrary to what cowardly Leftists want to believe, the police have no obligation (and even less ability) to protect you from evil. They’ll simply show up after the fact, put up some crime scene tape, take a few statements, and then maybe try to actually catch the bad guy.

And in some places, like Chicago, they won’t even respond to some crimes:

Starting this week, Chicago police are changing their responses to 911 calls. They’ll no longer come right away to reports of things like criminal damage to property, vehicle thefts, garage burglaries, or other crimes in which the suspect is no longer on the scene, and the victim isn’t in immediate danger.

So, what’s your plan to stop people from stealing or damaging your property? Just let them cart it off, and then hope the police catch them after giving them a several day’s head start?

Why the second amendment?

Because sometimes cops are some of the most dishonest, laziest, and corrupt of all public servants. Like these guys in Miami:

Miami-Dade Police Officers Caught on Camera Allegedly Ignoring Emergency Calls

Five police officers and one sergeant with the Kendall squad were allegedly caught on camera ignoring emergency dispatch calls. The video, obtained by NBC 6 South Florida, shows incidents like one on Oct. 5, 2010 where Officer Dario Socarras apparently ignored a residential burglary call and chose to meet a woman at the Dadeland Mall parking lot. The video shows the officer hugging and kissing the woman in what the police investigation calls a public display of affection.

A little later that day, Officer Socarras, Officer Jose Huerta and their Sergeant Jennifer Gonzalez were videotaped drinking coffee at a Casa Larios when an emergency call came in with an alert about an unconscious 5-month-old, police said in investigation records obtained by NBC 6.

Socarras was dispatched to the scene and despite being with his sergeant, he continued drinking his coffee. Nine minutes later he was cleared from the call, according to police.

Moments later the dispatcher asked Socarras to check out a signal 37, or a suspicious vehicle. He said in a radio transmission that he was en route, but investigators said it took him 25 minutes to respond.

Officer Socarras, who was also accused of doctoring reports to reflect that he had responded to the calls, wrote a memo to his lieutenant saying that at no time did he intentionally violate departmental rules or regulations.

Again — it is the not the job of police to protect you from evil. That responsibility lies entirely with you.

If these guns are weapons of war why do the police need them? Who are they at war with? The people?

When the citizens of New York State, the epicenter for Liberalism,? are this riled up, this furious, over gun control you know that the pot is getting ready to boil over all across this nation.

Watch this video, politicians and gun grabbers — you’ve awoken a very mean and angry bear. And it’s about to bite you on the ass. If you’re goal is take our guns, to restrict our God-given right to defend ourselves from evil and tyranny, then you should be very, very afraid:

A commenter from Albany writes, “This meeting was held at 1:00 in the afternoon on a Thursday and scheduled in like 24 hours. It could have gotten really ugly? with a little bit of advanced notification. They new it was going to get ugly. I knew nothing about it and Im only a few miles away. Erie County Sheriffs released a statement saying they believe the safe act is unconstitutional, and will refuse to enforce. The law abiding people around here are PISSED and refusing to comply.

You’ll notice in the video that citizen-after-citizen is asking the government officials the same thing, “What’s the penalty for non-compliance?” And notice that they are not getting any answers. The law’s website doesn’t list them, either. With this level of non-compliance, the state is going to have only one recourse to enforce their unconstitutional law: confiscation. And the moment that starts is when the revolution will truly start, and the first shots will be fired — at the government — in defense of our rights.

The final quote in this video: “And when angry people get together, they form militias, folks. This country, this western New York area, is primed for something like that.”