Category: Commentary

This is a very interesting short video on the media.

We are all well aware of how much the cartel media is in the tank for the extreme left. They have, for all intents and purposes, dropped any pretense.

So how much damage can they still do?  Well as this video points out, they may not be able to tell us what to think, but they have a profound effect on telling us what to think about.

The controlled media can gin up any amount of hatred and hysteria they want. Is the fear of covid dying down? Let’s fill the pages and airwaves with an endless barrage of fear porn on the latest “variant.”

Was the US disgraced by its Keystone Cops exit from Afghanistan? Let’s shift the news cycle to the twisted tales of white supremacists threatening the very existence of our “democracy”

Is the president an obvious tool of the communist Chinese? Time to change the subject.

The damaging consequences of a controlled media are nothing new. Mark Twain commented on that fact. But the emergence of  electronic means of propaganda have accelerated the pace of lies and manipulation.  Add to that, the internet.

The internet has vastly expanded our sources of news. No longer does a tiny cartel control virtually 100% of the information we receive.  Granted, they still control most of it, but now there are options available to anyone with an internet connection.

But how much has changed? The vast majority of people are completely enthralled with a few social media platforms that are totally controlled by big tech and big government.

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and a few other strongly controlled outlets are still the main source of info for countless millions.  And even the most conservative people continue to use them in spite of the fact that the are unquestionably tools of psychopathic oligarchs.

Not only are they spying on us and making us all commodities for billionaires, they are crushing dissent and destroying free speech. But weirdly, the first thing may “conservatives” do when starting an organization or campaign is create profiles on the platforms that want them silenced.

When Oregon Firearms closed its Facebook page we received countless comments telling us how stupid we were, even though we moved over to another platform that did everything Facebook did without (so far) the crap that Facebook feeds us.

Take a few minutes to watch the video next time you’re on the exercise bike or cleaning your guns.  We may not have gotten that far after all.

It never ceases to amaze me how an act as simple as answering the phone can act as the catalyst for a chain of events that would change someone’s life forever. We wander through life believing that we are immune to the effects of fate, not realizing that we are indeed part of a grand scheme, that everything we do has a cause and an effect. We are lulled into a false sense of security. Occasionally, we do something that blasts through the mundane security of our lives and thrusts us into the center of a maelstrom, changing us forever.

Something like answering the phone.

It was 1984. I was 22 years old. I had just been discharged from the Army ten months before and was working as a delivery driver for a local pizzeria.

Like the majority of people who serve in the military, I had never heard a shot fired in anger, or served in a combat zone. Being filled with the zeal that most young men possess, combined with three years spent as a US Army Paratrooper, I was frustrated. I knew that I didn’t want to re-enlist in the military, but I had no clear-cut plan for the future. In fact, I had no clear-cut plan for the next day.

I suppose that if I had to define the philosophy that I subscribed to at the time, I would have to classify it as a combination of chivalry and the code of the old west. I would not tolerate the abuse of women and I would remain loyal to the end to anyone who called me friend. Not only was I ready to go to the limit for my friends, I was eager for the chance to do so.

Unfortunately, sometimes you get exactly what you wish for.

I received a phone call from a friend who stated that she had been babysitting when her ex-boyfriend showed up and, in front of the children, had roughed her up. Though he had left, she didn’t want to be alone and asked if I could stay with her. She assured me that the police were aware of the situation and that she didn’t expect me to confront the individual; she just wanted the comfort of another person around. I had no romantic interest; indeed, I was seeing someone else. She had no desire to see anyone at all after breaking off with this man.

I told her that I would be there within the hour.

I had delivered pizza in some of the less savory neighborhoods in the city of Detroit. Even though we were instructed to carry no more than $20 on our person, delivery drivers from our store and others were robbed with frightening regularity. It was for this reason that I kept a pistol in my car. Ever mindful of the law, I kept it unloaded and in the trunk. I only carried it when a customer required change for an unusually large denomination or requested that I go to the back door. At that time, it never occurred to me to refuse a to go to a delivery that was considered “dangerous.”

I had acquired the pistol in one of the numerous sporting goods stores adjacent to my Army base in Georgia. I bought it because it was a commercial version of the M1911A1 pistol that was standard military issue at the time.

Because my friend said that this individual was violent, I decided to load the pistol and take it with me to the house. I certainly was not going to ‘hunt him down’ but as I had no idea as to just how violent he might become, I considered the gun to be prudent.

When I arrived at the house, I didn’t mention that I was armed. A quick survey of her injuries, while not as bad as I had envisioned, was still quite shocking. The man had apparently grabbed her by the hair and smacked her, then grabbed her by the arm and shook her, all the while shouting obscenities at her.

I explained that while I was not going to confront this person, I would not allow her to be further injured by him either. She thanked me for showing up and informed me that the children had been taken to a hockey game by their grandparents and would probably return in a couple of hours. Since their parents wouldn’t be home until late, she insisted that she had to be there when the children returned. I saw nothing wrong with this and agreed to stay until I was sure she was safe. I asked for a pop and she went to get it.

It was while she was in the kitchen that I heard someone out on the front porch. I didn’t have to look to know who it was. She made a quick call to 911, and we waited while he stomped around on the porch, yelling threats and obscenities. She told him that the police were on the way. He beat a hasty retreat. The police arrived after he left. A quick search of the area revealed nothing and they, in turn, left.

The phone rang.

He informed her that he was now at her house and was talking on her phone. She lived with an elderly grandfather whom the ex-boyfriend had threatened to hurt. She agreed to talk with him if he left the house immediately.

The grandfather got on the line to ask her what was going on. During their conversation, the ex-boyfriend appeared on the porch and demanded that she come out. She told her grandfather goodnight and made another call to the police. She refused to go on the porch. He was long gone by the time the police arrived.

By this time I was in conflict. I certainly didn’t want to get in the middle of their problems, but I also wasn’t going to abandon her to this person’s rage.

I decided that as long as he remained outside, and she remained inside, I would do nothing. If she stepped out the door to talk to him, thus placing herself in harm’s way, she was on her own. If he broke into the house, I would deal with that. Otherwise, this would be nothing more than a visit between friends.

We worked out a plan where, if he returned or called that she would agree to meet him the following day, to talk out this situation. She felt that this would be a good compromise. As if on cue, the phone rang again. He stated that he had no intention of harming her; he just wanted to talk. She asked him to meet her at a local restaurant the next morning.

Sitting several feet away, I could hear him shouting obscenities as if he were in the room with us. He stated that he knew that she had someone with her and that she was a whore. I took the phone from her and I told him that I was only there visiting and that this was unnecessary. He began verbally abusing me and I gave the phone back to her, not trusting myself to reply in a civilized manner.

She talked with him for a few minutes, crying all the while, and told him that she wanted nothing further to do with him. She hung up. Almost immediately the phone rang again. This time when she picked it up, she didn’t even get it to her ear, I heard him yelling,” That’s it you $%#@! I’ve got a gun, and me and my friends are coming over there to kill you and that *&%$#* you’re with!”

I would like to say that the idea leaving never entered my head, but I would be lying. While I knew that I could no more leave her there than I could fly, I suddenly began to doubt the wisdom of having answered the phone at all. My internal conflict was cut short by the sound of breaking glass.

What happened in the following seconds has done more to change me than anything that has happened before or since. I turned around to see the ex-boyfriend coming through the now broken front window. His progress was impeded since it was leaded glass and he had to bend the lead trim back to enter. I grabbed the woman and shoved her towards the bedroom, tossing the phone after her and yelling for her to call 911. The pistol seemed to leap into my hand as I ducked behind a wall, ever aware that he had a gun.

Whatever lessons I had absorbed in the Army now came to the fore. Realizing that if he got all the way into the house, it could get messy, I assumed the “ready position” both arms extended, muzzle pointed down and in front, finger off the trigger, and went forward towards him. I yelled for him to get back as I pointed the pistol at the center of his mass.

Upon seeing me, he reached under his jacket. Not wanting to give him the chance to use his gun, I fired twice, hitting him in the chest. He folded up and fell out the window. By this time, I was going on pure adrenaline. He had stated that he had friends coming with him and I went out the front door to meet them before they could get inside.

I ran down the steps, checking every direction for his friends. Probably only seconds passed, but it seemed much longer as the realization hit me that there was no one there. I went back up on the porch and looked at him lying inert. It was hard to see him as a person. To me he had only been a threat that needed to be eliminated. I went to him and, while holding the pistol , I searched him to relieve him of his weapons. Various instructors had told me that dead enemies often come back to life while you’re not looking and kill you.

I searched and searched and searched, becoming more and more frantic with each passing second because I COULDN”T FIND HIS WEAPON. It had to be there. He had reached for it. That was why I shot him. When I realized that he had been unarmed, I remember being filled with anger at him.

I walked back into the house, suddenly exhausted. I had killed a man.

The hours afterwards are a blur. I was taken downtown; allowed to make a phone call and put in a six by eight-foot cell that reeked of urine. During the course of the next several hours, I talked to my lawyer twice, the police once, and myself all night long.

At one point I attempted to pray to God, but I stopped mid sentence. I hadn’t prayed for years. I certainly hadn’t led a virtuous life plus I had just killed a man. How could I ask God to help me now? I had never felt so alone and lost in my entire life. All I can say is that God must have been listening anyway. Sixteen hours later, I was free as far as the court was concerned. Justifiable Homicide it was labeled. How could they know that I couldn’t justify it to myself?

My friends and family were all very supportive in the following days. Still, I felt that I was unclean. I felt that wherever I went, people would know that I was a murderer. To make matters worse, I later found out that, on the night of the shooting, my friend was already pregnant with his child.

For years I fought an internal battle. I waged a chemical war upon myself with drugs and alcohol to anesthetize the pain of guilt.

I withdrew, never allowing myself to become involved in a relationship that I couldn’t abandon without looking back. I wouldn’t allow even my family to get too close.

It is almost eleven years after the fact. I don’t think a single day has passed that I have not thought about that man or the child that I robbed of a father.

But recently, something has changed; I became acquainted with a man named Jesus Christ.

Through Him I have learned that I can go to school, I can love and be loved, and I can even be forgiven. I also keep an answering machine on my phone.

Postscript.
If life were like the movies, I suppose that I would have walked away from this incident feeling good about myself, and the woman I defended would be forever grateful to me. But, life isn’t a movie.

Two and a half years after the shooting, I was served with papers on behalf of the family of the deceased. I was being sued for negligent homicide.

As a result of the suit, I had to track down the woman again and ask her to testify on my behalf. When I finally found her, I learned a few things that had transpired since that night; first, she had gone on to have the baby. With no job, no money, and no family to support her, she decided that she would sue me for killing the father of her child. She consulted a lawyer, a friend of hers who, according to her said, “You called this guy to help you and now you want to sue him? There are some cases even lawyers won’t touch.” I guess that there are some honorable people left in the world, after all.

Later, the parents of the man I killed had approached her because they were trying to get the criminal case against me re-opened, and needed her to testify. She made them agree to sign an affidavit affirming their son’s paternity, which would enable her to collect Social Security for the child, in exchange for her testimony

. When she testified, the DA told the parents that there was no criminal case, and the matter was dropped. That left the civil courts.

To say that I was unprepared for the financial challenge of being sued is an understatement. I was working for $5.15 an hour at a factory, making engine manifolds,

I was living in Detroit’s inner city in a rented house, and I was driving a ten-year-old car. Coming up with $5000 for a lawyer wiped me out financially. When the case was settled, I was found liable for $3000.

My warning to all those that carry a firearm is this;
1. Make damned sure that you absolutely fear for your life or the life of your loved ones before you ever clear leather. The clearer it is that you were the victim, the faster that the criminal case will conclude in your favor.

2. Have a lawyer’s number handy. The time that you are involved in a shooting is not the time to find a lawyer. Look for someone that believes in the Second Amendment, or at least is not against citizens defending themselves.

3. Have someone who can be your advocate on the outside while you’re in jail waiting for the wheels of justice to grind. Everyone involved in the incident is going to be questioned by police. You will need someone that you can call who will contact your lawyer and your family to let them know what happened, and your job to let them know you won’t be in that day and probably the next.

4. Join an organization like OFF that will fight for your rights, and advise you on the latest developments regarding Concealed Carry. Your best weapon in defending yourself is your brain. Make sure that it is amply filled with reliable information.

The author of this article has chosen to remain anonymous.He is employed in a firearms related business and lives happily with his wife and children in the midwest.

Here are some links that will give you a bit of insight into CeasefireOregon’s “Baldr Odinson” who is actually Jason Kilgore and a frequent commenter on websites
Click here.
Or here.
Or here.

The smoke had not yet cleared at the theater in Aurora, Colo., when the first new demands to restrict Americans’ rights made their way through the media.

It was predictable as October rain in Oregon.

The Brady Campaign demanded sweeping new restrictions on millions of Americans who had committed no crime. One local anti-gun group fired off an email calling for a ban on “assault weapon ammunition,” whatever that is.

Editorial after editorial decried Americans’ “love affair with guns” and the obscene power of the mighty gun lobby, whose actions, they said, were ultimately responsible for the mayhem.

An emotional response to this kind of carnage is understandable. Innocent men, women and children should not be risking their lives when at a movie theater. But as has been the case for all too many years, the gun-ban lobby ignores the facts in their tireless quest to punish the law abiding for the actions of the insane.

For more than 50 years, the gun banners have demanded more and more restrictions on individual rights. In many cases, they have succeeded. From the National Firearms Act in 1934 to the 1968 Gun Control Act to the Brady Bill to the NRA/Brady Campaign “NICS Improvement Act” passed in 2007, each new erosion of liberty was supposed to keep us safer by denying guns to criminals and the mentally ill.

But all ignored the simple reality that a determined, if deranged, person, can bypass any law created while they plan and execute their murderous rampages.

Clearly the Colorado shooter would have been unaffected by background checks, waiting periods and mental health records. His rampage was not a spur-of-the-moment response to some slight or insult.

Remember Julio Gonzales?

In countries that have far more restrictive gun laws than we do, mass killings take place in spite of every law and restriction created. More than 100 murdered in Norway by one man, almost 400 murdered in Beslan, Russia. Untold thousands murdered in Mexico with some of the strictest gun control in the world.

Prior to Oklahoma City, Sept. 11 and the killing of the Branch Davidians, the biggest mass murder in American history was committed by Julio Gonzales in New York in 1990. But you probably don’t remember his name because he does not fit into the scripted anti-gun narrative. Why? Because he didn’t use a gun. Gonzalez used one dollar’s worth of gasoline and a match. Where was the outrage that he had such easy access to such a dangerous substance?

Just as the assassinations of the ‘60s became the excuse for the 1968 Gun Control Act, the Oklahoma City bombing became the justification for the ban on modern rifles and the Trade Center attacks spawned the “Patriot Act,” poorly thought out (and often as not, never read) legislation becomes the knee-jerk reaction to every tragedy with immediate demands that we “DO SOMETHING” even if what we do does nothing to address the problem but simply sweeps more of our liberties into the trash bin of time.
Law-abiding people

The hand wringers will get more taxpayer dollars to have more “gun buybacks,” the politicians will create new and unenforceable regulations, and the talking heads will bemoan how violent we are. The thousands of incidents a year where brave Americans defend themselves and others will go virtually unreported by the media. The number of mass murders stopped by civilians with guns will continue to be ignored. The millions of firearms in the hands of law-abiding people, which have never been, and will never be, used in any crime, will continue to be demonized by people who simply refuse to accept the reality that bad things are done by bad people, and those of us who choose to keep defensive tools are no more evil or dangerous than those who fill their cars with fuel each day.

Those who are outraged at the power of the “gun lobby” continue to miss a fundamental point. The “gun lobby” is not powerful because of the political genius of the people who run the NRA. It is not powerful because of the great wealth of the gun makers whose financial resources are dwarfed by most other industries. The power comes from the vast number of Americans who have come to recognize that they are not the problem and should not be denied their rights as a result of the acts of a madman.
Those who seek to take the right and the means of self-defense away from Americans need only look to our southern neighbor to see how hideously failed, deadly and misguided their plans and polices could be.

Kevin Starrett of Canby is executive director of the Oregon Firearms Federation.

A Response to John Nichols of Oregon Gun Owners
by Kevin Starrett, Executive Director.If you followed the Oregon legislature in the 1999 session, you know that gun owners in Oregon narrowly defeated a bill (HB 2535) which was the first step towards universal gun registration.

Among its many bad provisions were requirements that guns transferred privately at gun shows be the subject of police record keeping. It also called for background checks of people receiving the guns.

These provisions would apply even for transferring between two collectors who already had a table full of firearms. If that wasn’t bad enough, the bill would have made the same demands on totally private transfers that happened at your home if, in the course of a year, you transferred more than 25 guns.

Transferred didn’t mean “sold”. It meant anytime a gun changed hands whether it was “sold” or not. This meant that under some circumstances you would be required to run a background check on a family member before giving them an heirloom hunting rifle!

Furthermore, it was clear to us that the “25 gun a year rule” was totally unenforceable and in fact was a built in “loophole” which would certainly be closed next session when the same police who supported this law came back and said they couldn’t enforce it. Then we’d be down to the “one gun a year” rule.

Obviously, we opposed this anti-gun attack on privacy and liberty, but “Oregon Gun Owners” lobbied for it and encouraged their members to support it!

As a result, we found ourselves battling not only the usual cabal of anti-gun legislators, but also an organization that raises money claiming to work for gun owners.

(The National Rifle Association was officially “neutral” on the bill, a fact we found only slightly less noxious.)

Through the hard work and dedication of our supporters, we were able to defeat this bill in spite of the conventional wisdom that it was unbeatable.

Throughout the fight, “Oregon Gun Owners” insisted that “something was going pass” and we’d better just accept it. You see, they had “counted the votes.”

Of course, they were wrong. But because we had exposed them for the compromising sell-outs that they are, they felt the need to attack us, a need they have never felt towards anti-gun politicians, many of whom have served on their board of “advisers”

In a lengthy piece that they hand delivered to even the most anti-gun legislators, they accused us and Gun Owners of America of lying about them, their motives and the contents of the bill. Using quotes that were taken out of context or only partially presented, they attempted to create political cover for the anti-gun zealots who were supporting this terrible bill.

It’s interesting to note that such anti-freedom extremists as Floyd Prozanski read from OGO’s hit piece on the House Floor. If you are known by the company you keep, “Oregon Gun Owners” have allied themselves with the most vicious opponents of gun rights in the state.

OGO’s policy of preemptive capitulation almost worked. Their willingness to roll over for the enemies of gun rights nearly gave enough anti-gun legislators the cover to pass the bill, while Oregon Firearms Federation and Gun Owners of America fought it to the very last minute, and won.

Even now, with their methods discredited and their true nature exposed, “Oregon Gun Owners” continues to chant the mantra of compromise and collaboration.

As far back as April of 1996, OGO’s John Nichols was writing in “Insight”, an OGO publication, “In other words, anyone interested in affecting the political process must be willing to put pure ideology aside and adopt a pragmatic approach to an issue based upon the possibilities that exist within the framework of long established legislative policy and judicial precedent.”

Further on in the same article, Nichols states “additionally, we have adopted a non-traditional approach when dealing with those who for one reason or another have introduced bills we cannot live with(or amend). Rather than being confrontational in our opposition, we attempt to remain on friendly terms with them…”

Now, after the motives of the anti-gunners are clear and their goals (complete elimination of civilian gun ownership) are well known, you would think that the powers that be at “Oregon Gun Owners” would recognize that “getting along” with your avowed enemies is a policy doomed to fail. But you’d be disappointed.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at the 1999 July/August issue of “Insight”.

In his column, Executive Director John Nichols continues his policy of advocating surrender prior to fighting the battle. After complaining that his tactics of collaboration resulted in “…the most vicious and sustained political attack that I h
ave ever seen-from any source- in a quarter of a century of lobbying for gun rights” Nichols claims that his organization has been painted as an anti-gun organization “in drag.”

We think it’s safe to say that the “sustained political attack” was from us but we have never accused OGO of being “in drag.” In fact at this point it’s safe to say they are not even trying to disguise their intentions.

Those intentions can be seen in subsequent paragraphs of Nichol’s article.

In spite of the attacks by anti-gun zealots like Senator Ginny Burdick who bragged about “rolling the gun lobby” (meaning “Oregon Gun Owners”) Nichols actually continues to promote the politics of capitulation. He writes “Winston Churchill wrote, “politics is the art of the possible’ In order to advance a point of view the advocate must be a better ‘salesman’ than his opponent.”

It would probably be more appropriate for Nichols to be quoting Neville Chamberlain, but can you imagine George Washington attempting to be a better “salesman” to the King of England or Douglas MacArthur being a “salesman” to the Japanese?

Nichols exhibits a misunderstanding of the reality of politics so fundamental that it is no surprise that anti-gun politicians embrace him. They know from the outset that Nichols will never challenge them. He’ll remain polite and obsequious, all the while trading away your rights.

You see, politics is not “the art of the possible.” Politics is war and the aggressor usually wins. Witness the behavior of Charlie Schumer and Diane Feinstein.They relentlessly attack. They brand gun owners as everything from drunken rednecks to crazed killers. They are vicious and extreme and consistent.

Here in Oregon their counterparts, like Representatives Joanne Bowman and Randy Leonard and Senator Ginny Burdick utilize the same techniques, never giving an inch while attacking, maligning and, of course, advancing their agenda year after year.

But instead of recognizing the plan of his opponents, Nichols is committed to remaining “non-confrontational.” The problem is, of course, the gun grabbers have no such commitment.

Every time there is an opportunity to vote on a bill which would be, by anyone’s measure, “reasonable”, they will (if they perceive there to be the slightest benefit to gun owners) vote no.

In spite of this, Nichols goes on: “Arguments need to be presented in a reasoned and dispassionate manner and above all, the lobbyist must never lie about the content of a bill or impugn the motives or character of an opponent.”

The facts are (as anyone who’s read the bill can tell you) that we didn’t lie about the content of the bill. We told the truth. Nichols, on the other hand, regularly mislead people about the contents of the bill in order to excuse his support for the very kind of bill his organization pretends to oppose.

As for “impugning the motives or character of an opponent” let’s, just for a moment, entertain a brief flirtation with reality.

Our opponents in this battle are committed to destroying our privacy and liberty. As I said earlier, this is war. While Nichols is convincing himself that he is playing a friendly game of checkers with his opponents, they are beating him deaf, dumb and blind with bar stools and he is saying “thank you sir, may I please have another?”

Unfortunately, it’s not only his own rights he’s trading away.

Nichols is committed to never offending a politician, irrespective of what that politician does to you and your rights.

When told “NO” Nichols slinks away and assumes defeat instead of considering the possibility that the offending politician can be “persuaded” not by superior “salesmanship” (forget that, this is NOT a matter of education) but by the ability of grassroots activists to cause pain for an elected official who is attempting to steal their rights.

After “a quarter century” of fighting anti-gun extremists, Nichols is still blissfully ignorant of their intent. He still believes he can “show them the light” if he is just “reasonable” enough. The simple truth is these people know exactly what they are doing and that is attempting to disarm every civilian in America. You know how we know? They told us. Over and over again. Still, Nichols cannot resist the siren song of surrender. He continues “Lobbyists who engage in ‘attack politics’, which are based on instilling fear through hysterical misrepresentation of the facts have an extremely limited effective political life.”

If Nichols was referring to the anti-gun crazies who will tell any lie and distort every fact to further erode your rights that might be an interesting statement, but of course he is not. He’s referring to the only people with the principle to fight against those erosions, us.

Amazingly Nichols further revels his true agenda a few sentences later:

“The net result is that they soon find themselves on the ‘outside looking in’ as opposed to being an effective ‘player.”

Yes, what an effective player Nichols was in the ’99 legislative session. An anti-gun bill he promoted was voted against by the vast majority of Republican House and Senate members and supported by all the most extreme anti-gunners. That would be effective if he was working for Handgun Control.

But think of how revealing that statement actually is. Nichols makes no attempt to defend your rights. He simply extols the beauty of being an insider, a “player.”

That’s his problem. Winning is of no consequence to him. Being “One of the club” is all that matters. And to remain in good standing in the “club” you play by their rules and do things their way.

Obviously, we play by different rules. Our own.

We certainly hope that if Nichols is any indication of being an “effective player” we remain forever on the “outside looking in.”

In an interesting side bar, we did notice the following:

On the inside cover of previous issues, OGO listed their “Board of Advisers”. Among other anti-gun leaders, the board included Senator Gordon Smith, who led the call for more gun control in the US Senate. In this issue the space usually reserved
for the listing of these luminaries is the following:

“Advisory Board Update.

OGO is in the process of reevaluating the need for and function of the OGO Advisory Board. The defection of three of our board members has caused us to question our relationship with key political figures who have wavered (sic) from strong and consistent support of the 2nd amendment.

In the meantime, the Board of Directors has removed Senators Brady Adams and Neil Bryant as well as Representative Lynn Lundquist for their support in favor of SB 700.(sic) We will let you know the results of our evaluation in a future issue of the Insight.”

(Emphasis added)

On a special added back cover received by only some OGO members is a quote from “Advisory Board” member Senator Veral Tarno. It reads as follows;

“Not only do I consider it a privilege to own a firearm under our second amendment rights, I consider it mandatory that I do in order to insure that our future generations have the same privilege.”

Maybe with advisers that think gun ownership is a “privilege” instead of a right, they’re finally making the right decision by dumping the “advisers,” but don’t hold your breath.

(Emphasis added)

Another Reason The Republicans Will Be Crushed In November

By Russ Howard. OFF Member and California Freedom Activist.

July 2008

Subject: How about wearing a stun bracelet on your next flight?
Washington Times

Want some torture with your peanuts?

Bush pokes the Islamic hornet nest overseas while subverting our own borders and immigration laws, ensuring Jihadis and Jihadi sympathizers can come here in unlimited numbers, both illegally and legally, stay here, have millions of anchor baby Jihadis, scheme to kill us, and gradually take us down the Euro-French path.

By ensuring that the enemy is among us, Bush’s own gross dereliction of his oath to uphold our borders and immigration laws creates his excuse for police state measures that treat all AMERICANS as potential terrorists.

But maybe I’m too critical of the no-border police state approach to “defending” us from terrorism. I mean, just because we had borders and immigration laws during World War II doesn’t mean we need them now. Maybe it’s working out. After all, what about Bush’s “perfect record” since 9/11?

Nonsense. There have been Jihadi terror attacks since 9/11. Just not yet on the scale of 9/11, luckily. We don’t know how many because the authorities and the media hide Jihadi connections and deny they were terrorist attacks. What were the plots on JFK and the Army base? The attack on El Al in L.A., on the Jewish Day Care center in Seattle, on the Michigan deer hunters, on the Utah Mall? The snipers with names like John Mohammed? The San Francisco car bowler? These are a few of the attacks where a Jihadi connection couldn’t be totally hidden.

It’s less than 7 years since 9/11. Jihadis bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 and waited nearly 9 years to finish it off in 2001. So does Clinton deserve credit for a “perfect domestic terror record” for the last 7 years of his administration? Yes, under the imbecile double standard reasoning Republican meat puppets use to protect the Bush adman from accountability for anything.

While Republican radio hosts talk about how we’re in a war with fundamentalist Islam, millions of Muslims are here, more moving in and being born here daily. Jorge Bush and Juan McCain invited them in, and the rest of the Republicans go along with it. In recent polling 27% of “American” Muslims openly admitted to sympathizing with terrorists. Not only do we have extensive infiltration from the Islamic world during a war on terror, our “commander in chief” is not even making sure the Muslims that come and colonize us are truly pro-American, moderate, tolerant, and compatible with western civilization, freedom and liberty.

It’s pure culturally suicidal insanity, it guarantees that we will be murdered and balkanized, but hey, the all important consideration is “cheap” labor for the traitors at the “U.S.” Chamber of Commerce. No cost is too high for YOU to pay so they can pay $1 an hour less than they would have to pay the 60 million unemployed, underemployed, and welfared Americans to do “those jobs”. You know, the jobs our parents and grandparents proudly did when they were building this country. The jobs I did to get through college.

In 1980, the “U.S.” Chamber of Commerce was whining that they needed “cheap” labor, so Reagan gave amnesty to a few million illegals. Now we have about 100 million illegals, former illegals, their extended families, anchor baby “citizens”, and the babies of anchor babies, yet somehow the “shortage” of “cheap” labor is worse than ever. What will it take to fill it? 200 million more illiterates? A billion? It’s like a cross between a pyramid scheme and a heroin addiction. The more “cheap” labor we import, the more “cheap” labor we need.

“Liberalism” and “compassionate conservatism” are merging the maternal vs paternal totalitarian visions of Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty Four. Bush claims credit for thwarting attacks while simultaneously warning that another attack is inevitable, terrorizing Americans into letting him trample the Constitution, dignity, honor, privacy, and liberty.

Americans were asked to suspend disbelief that a perpetual underwhelming-force pre-surge occupation of Iraq would protect us from attacks on our soil despite gross dereliction of immigration laws and borders, provided we let the “Department of Homeland Security” chip, track, monitor and surveil ALL Americans and let the “Transportation Security Administration” strip search 85-year-old native-born grandmothers and WWII Congressional Medal of Honor recipients.

Now they scheme to put stuncuffs on all air passengers. Of course, this may not actually happen, but you know the bastards dream about programs like it and do the ones they think they can get away with. Orwellian laws like the “Patriot” Act and “Real ID”, airport groping of people who are clearly not reasonable suspects, random baggage searches on trains. All justified by letting the terrorists come here and breed in the first place. Idiot Republicans go along with all of it.
And corrupt pork-barrel phony Republicans went along with Bush’s unprecedented increases in corporate and personal welfare spending and the money printed to pay for it. All of the above combined is bankrupting the USA – a clear reflection of that bankruptcy is the collapse of the once proud dollar.

Of course, the Democrats will be even worse. But ignorant voters will now naturally want to change horses, even though the new horse is lamer than the old one. So all the Republican voters and talking heads out there agonizing about whether or not to vote for McCain, as if the Presidency is the only election, better start focusing on congress and senate. If we lose any more real Republicans there, we’re going to be hugely screwed no matter whether the race-fluffing eco-communist or the “compassionate conservative” becomes President. If we lose many more in congress, you can forget about ever getting another conservative justice on the court because they will not be confirmed even if you could trust McQuisling to nominate a real Republican to the court, which you can’t.

And how about prioritizing saving the USA over saving Iraq for a while? Bush’s underwhelming force occupation strategy wasted ~4,500 dead, ~10 times that many wounded, maimed etc, plus ~ a trillion dollars, delaying the surge until Republicans lost congress (convenient since his top goal was trying to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” which Republicans were barely blocking). Thanks in large part to that, we’re about to lose the USA. Who’s going to save Iraq then?

Any real war – especially a war on terror – starts with borders and immigration laws. Otherwise, it’s a fraud. Keep some permanent bases, keep enough of the oil revenue to pay the USA back what Iraq owes us for getting Saddam off them, and otherwise get the hell out of Iraq and let Iraqis save themselves. It’s not our job to give them a better form of government. It’s their job.
And where are the trillion dollar checks from the Saudis and Kuwaitis for saving their corrupt, despotic regimes in the Gulf War?

What a pathetic disgrace, Bush over there begging instead of telling. Telling them how much to increase production. Telling them how big of a check to write for saving them in the Gulf War, for 9/11 (done by Saudis), and for the War on Terror (Saudi sponsorship of terror and anti-western Medrassa indoctrination).

All we need to do is contain Islam and deny rule to any Islamic ruling class that truly threatens us. Occasional actions that exploit our overwhelming advantage of power to deny rule at relatively low cost to us give Islamic despots a compelling incentive to fight the war on terror for us, killing and suppressing extremists within their own borders, unconstrained the niceties of western conventions. See Libya.

On the other hand, mission creep from denial of rule to endless underwhelming-force occupations that bankrupt the USA and exhaust public support sends the opposite message to Islamic despots: Wait it out…Soon the American public won’t even tolerate denial of rule actions.
We don’t need to occupy and fix every problem country. Containment worked on communism and it can work on fundamentalist Islam. Conversely, if do not contain Islam, we will lose the west. Containment also starts with borders and immigration laws. See France.

Russ Howard

DOJ Brief in DC Gun Case Distorts the Truth About Machine Guns

In 1939, the Federal government perpetrated a fraud upon the Supreme
Court, and it led to bad law that undermined the Second Amendment. Last
week, they did it again.

In 1939 in US v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that because there was
no evidence that a short-barreled shotgun had any relation to militia
use, it was not protected under the Second Amendment. A Department of
Justice brief claimed that short-barreled shotguns weren’t used by the
military, when in fact they were. But because defendant Miller had
disappeared and was unrepresented by counsel, this fraud went
unchallenged, and became the foundation for the Miller decision

Now, the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a brief with the
Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, which
overturned the DC handgun ban. The DOJ brief perpetrates another
critical misconception in an apparent attempt to protect a questionable
federal machine gun ban from Constitutional challenge.

Since 1934, machine guns have been heavily restricted, requiring
purchasers to submit to a rigorous background check including
fingerprints and a $200 tax. Since 1934, about 100,000 machine guns
have passed lawfully into civilian hands by this strict procedure, which
no one is proposing to repeal, even though it was upheld only by the
Constitutionally shaky Miller decision.

In 1986, a new federal law banned any more machine guns from ever
reaching the hands of ordinary, law-abiding citizens. That meant that
the existing collection of about 100,000 privately-owned machine guns
would be the only ones ever to be lawfully possessed. That’s well less
than one machine gun for every thousand American gun owners.

Under the 1986 federal machine gun ban, ordinary people will never again
own modern rifles of the type normally carried by troops in the
“standing army.” Over the generations, this collection of 100,000
legally “grandfathered” machine guns is becoming worn from use, and
functionally obsolete as firearms technology advances. Because of their
scarcity, these arms find their way into the hands of wealthy collectors
and museums, escalating their market price to extraordinary levels at
least ten times what they would be without the ban, compared to modern
semi-auto equivalents.

The recent DOJ brief in Heller seeks to preserve this 1986 federal
machine gun ban through the back door, even though the issue has not
been litigated, and is irrelevant to the question before the court.

In the Heller opinion, the Court of Appeals ruled that banning one whole
category of arms (pistols) was as impermissible as banning all firearms.
The opinion pointed out that a government could ban all guns, and argue
that one still had the right to keep and bear some “arms” if one could
still lawfully own a saber. The DOJ brief worries that this prohibition
on banning whole categories of arms would be extended to overturn the
1986 machine gun ban.

The DOJ’s brief justifies its fears of machine guns in the hands of
law-abiding citizens only by unsupported references to “particularly
dangerous types of firearms,” and “types of firearms that are
particularly susceptible to misuse.” It raises the issue of whether a
type of firearm “poses specific dangers.” The brief states that the
federal machine gun ban is “carefully targeted to firearms that have
little or no legitimate private purpose,” and that “the government’s
interest in regulating firearms like the machine gun to protect the
public safety is paramount.

The apparent fear of the Bush DOJ is that we return to the 52-year era
from 1934-1986 when any law-abiding citizen that passed a rigorous
background check could purchase a new machine gun from any manufacturer
willing to sell to him.

So, just how dangerous was that era? The DOJ brief doesn’t offer a
shred of evidence that any lawfully-owned machine guns were misused, or
ever endangered public safety. The reality is that during the 52-year
period before the 1986 machine gun ban (when hundreds of thousands of
conventional firearms homicides occurred) there were exactly zero
homicides committed using these registered machine guns. Zero.

The DOJ brief perpetrates the misconception that lawfully-owned machine
guns are a danger, when in fact they represent by far the safest
category of firearms and owners. It would be a grave error if the
Justices were to be misled by the false fears raised by the DOJ brief,
and extended their ruling on the DC handgun ban to prop up the
Constitutionally questionable 1986 federal machine gun ban

The Constitutionality of the federal machine gun ban is in serious doubt
because it bans from private hands the arms most relevant to militia
service, and it undermines the benefit of an armed citizenry as a
bulwark against a standing army. But the Court should limit its ruling
to the case before it, and not be goaded by the DOJ to inject improper
dicta about a Constitutional question that deserves to be addressed only
after a proper hearing of the evidence.

In Miller, the Court ruled in the absence of proper evidence and
generated questionable law. That mistake must not be repeated .

Bennet Langlotz

The author is gun enthusiast and a patent and trademark attorney that
exclusively serves the firearms industry, and owns no machine guns,
because they are prohibitively expensive.

Respect Right To Protect Life. September 2007
By Kevin Schmadeka

The people who say that Jane Doe has no right to carry a weapon for protection at school insist that she stick to other measures, like working with school security, etc.

In my state of Washington, UW staffer Rebecca Griego took this and every other conceivable measure to protect herself from a violent stalker, with the singular exception of carrying a weapon, which was prohibited. She’s dead.

Students at Virginia Tech attempted to regain their right to protect their own lives, but were told they must rely on men in uniforms to do it for them. Thirty-two of them are dead.

Where were the armed officers when these people and many, many others were gunned down at schools and campuses? Not there.

Still, people who hate guns insist that Jane Doe must rely on men in uniforms, who have a nearly perfect record of being not there. The reason is that if Jane were to successfully save herself or her students with a weapon, it would sink their whole case that guns can never save people, they can only be bad. Then more people will want them, and to keep that from happening, they will happily keep Jane living under the same threat as Rebecca Griego. The fact is, these people don’t care if she dies.

And what is it these men in uniform have that gives them the power to save Jane Doe? Well by golly it’s guns!

Where are the howls about the crossfire the children will be caught in? They’re lost amid the belief that government has a right to be armed, the citizen in danger does not.

Human beings have a fundamental, God-given right to protect their own life, and to protect those close to them. There is frankly nothing more offensive than for one person to tell another that they don’t merit that right. The UW doesn’t respect that right, nor does Virginia Tech, and ditto the Medford School District.

On the subject of crossfire, take heart, there won’t be any. In every case of an armed civilian confronting a school shooter, the shooter has given up or killed himself without one shot fired at him. Mass shooters are cowards, they only want unarmed victims, such as what the Medford School District wishes to provide. Even if there were crossfire, how is it preferable to have unopposed fire going from the shooter into victims? Virginia Tech only ended when the guns arrived. When they were finally, at long last, there.

This issue isn’t just about Jane Doe, the people in authority don’t respect your right to protect your own life or family either. The presence of children is the excuse they use to prohibit guns at schools, but children are everywhere, and there is no shortage of excuses to cover you too.

Many of these people say they believe in gun rights, just not at schools, but they can’t have it both ways. People are either safer when armed or they’re not, and the track record of gun-free schools speaks for itself.
And as for Jane’s students? Should they ever come under fire, Jane will be there.

Kevin Schmadeka is director of the Freedom Restoration Project, an all-volunteer Washington State second amendment lobbying group. In 2002 it wrote and promoted the School Protection Act, which would have created an exemption in Washington’s gun free school zone law for school staff. Currently the group is partnering with a WSU second amendment group to address the issue of the right to carry on campuses. The group can be reached at frp-wa@mindspring.com or 360 757-7122.