Black Shards Press – Electronic Gumbo is Our Specialty

Mormons Murdered in Mexico Were Real Men

11.07.2009 (1:30 pm) – Filed under: Crime,Drugs,Gun Control,Mexico ::

image Two leaders of Colonia LeBaron, a Mormon community with roots in the United State, were murdered because they dared to defy the drug/kidnapping gangs that have killed more than 3000 people in Chihuahua, Mexico in the last 18 months.

Benjamin LeBaron, 31 and Luis Widmar were forced out of their homes earlier this week and shot multiple times by gangsters who want to ensure that people in Chihuahua stay afraid of them. Both men died.

The tactic may well work. It’s been said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Sadly, doing nothing is the easiest thing to do in a conflict, a fact that goes a long way toward explaining the state of Mexico and the world at large.

more »

Pic: Why Gun Control is a Bad Idea

10.07.2009 (10:17 pm) – Filed under: Gun Control ::


Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

Enough said.

Obama Takes Guns Out of Pilots’ Hands, Risks Public Safety

18.03.2009 (11:17 am) – Filed under: Gun Control,National Security ::

Despite the obvious benefits of having weapons in the right hands during airline flights, the Obama administration is reportedly ending that policy.  There is no justifiable reason for this reduction in public safety.  In fact, the Washington Times reports that there are exactly zero cases of on-board officers improperly using their weapons.

I’ve been willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt on some of his ill-advised policies thus far.  Call it a honeymoon gift if you like.  But the insipid stupidity behind this move, stealthily carried out while the public eye is turned away, is too much to bear, even for a person who rarely flies. 

Think we’ll be hearing more about this issue from the men and women who are most directly affected, the flight deck officers themselves? 

Think again.

Pilots cannot openly speak about the changing policies for fear of retaliation from the Transportation Security Administration. Pilots who act in any way that causes a “loss of confidence” in the armed pilot program risk criminal prosecution as well as their removal from the program. Despite these threats, pilots in the Federal Flight Deck Officers program have raised real concerns in multiple interviews.

For those who would put their faith in the Sky Marshall program, be aware that they secure less than 3% of domestic flights, a far cry from universal coverage.

It has been said many times already that the Obama administration must act, must do something now, in regard to various issues.  Perhaps this urgency is advisable in some cases.  However, the first principle of responsibility is to first do no harm.  That principle has been violated in regard to air safety.

This is, perhaps, a minor issue at this point in history.  It is also revealing of a lack of common sense on the part of an allegedly cerebral administration and one that truly deserves to be met with an expression of public outrage that is out of proportion with the importance of the issue itself.

Guns and Grief

28.06.2008 (12:45 am) – Filed under: Abortion,Death Penalty,Gun Control,Liberalism ::

The thick, bittersweet irony of the Supreme Court’s ruling that struck down Washington D.C.’s ban on "live" guns is that is has the left-wing, anti-gun gang completely up in arms.  Robert Stein calls the mind set behind the decision "our national schizophrenia", then proceeds to demonstrate how utterly clueless an obviously intelligent man can be once liberal dogma seizes the reigns of his mind.

What’s got Mr. Stein so confused is that he can’t reconcile polls that reveal that a majority of Americans support the right to own guns with statistics indicating that only 1/3 of Americans actually own a gun. 

There’s no inherent contradiction in these data points.  On the contrary, this result is exactly what I would expect – a majority of people who acknowledge the fundamental right of self-defense and a fair number of those who choose not to avail themselves of that right based on their individual situations.

The "disconnection" Stein sees is a figment of his imagination, a product, perhaps, of looking for a problem where none exists in response to a personal distaste for weapons and their use, even in the cause of good.

Stein’s ideological position bleeds through quite clearly in this statement:

How do we reconcile the apparent contradiction that many of those who believe in preserving the life of fetuses are just as passionate about the right to own weapons that kill human beings after birth?

Once again there is no contradiction in these positions.  What Mr. Stein fails to recognize is that the right to own a gun is not the right to kill one’s fellow man outright.  Instead it simply provides a means to do so as a last resort when confronted with the necessity of defending one’s life and property against a criminal attack. 

By contrast, a baby killed in an abortion is terminated by the parents’ disregard for the value of his or her life.  The baby has no voice, no choice, and no ability whatever to act in self-preservation.  Abortion is the direct, brute-force ending of a human life in its most vulnerable, most innocent state.  Viler acts can be committed; however, none are more absolute in terms of the disparity of power between killer and victim.

In fact, the real disconnect here is that leftist thinkers like Mr. Stein espouse abortion as a method of birth control while refusing to accept the fact that a criminal killed during the commission of a felony – say invading a family’s home under cover of darkness – quite literally chooses his fate by disregarding both the law and others’ rights to life and property. 

Similarly, liberals who oppose the death penalty refuse to accept the logical conclusion that murderers and child rapists choose and accept their ultimate punishment by committing their heinous crimes with full knowledge of the consequences.

If there is a national schizophrenia it is this:  the fundamental self-deception that lies at the core of liberalism’s measure of life and its value.


(NOTE:  Although I’ve directing some of my remarks at Robert in response to his article, his beliefs are in many ways representative of the anti-gun, anti-death penalty, pro-abortion American left.  This not a personal attack on Mr. Stein; rather, it is directed at all who espouse these values, ones that I consider highly illogical, misguided, and unworthy.)

Another, Better SCOTUS Decision

27.06.2008 (6:54 am) – Filed under: Gun Control,Law ::

The Supreme Court, by a narrow 5-4 margin, has decided that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution means what it says.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, held for the first time that the Constitution provides an individual right to bear arms, such as for self-defense, rather than a right that applies only to a state militia.

Seems blindingly obvious, yet to liberals the sentence "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." has a different meaning, one that would, as is to be expected from them, bring gun ownership even more under the regulatory authority of the government.

Even when the left gets something right they get it wrong, as Colbert King does in the WaPo.  King admits the truth by saying that it’s criminals who use guns the wrong way and they don’t give a damn about the law – shocker!  Even so he tries to worm around to an anti-gun stance:

There’s one group of District residents absolutely unfazed by today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling shooting down the District’s strict handgun ban: the dudes who have been blowing away their fellow citizens with abandon since the law was put on the books 32 years ago.

Operating under the notion that it’s better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission, our shooters long ago decided not to wait for the high court’s thoughts on the matter. They simply arrogated to themselves the right to keep and bear arms and, with that right, license to shoot and kill, with impunity, whatever and whenever the evil spirits moved them.

So now it has come to pass that D.C. residents can keep handguns, as well as rifles and shotguns, in their homes. A well armed, informal militia we shall be — ready to fire back in self-defense at the shooters who believed they had the right to their guns all along.

Flush with victory, a giddy National Rifle Association has announced its intention to file lawsuits in other jurisdictions with tough handgun laws. For starters, the NRA has taken aim at San Francisco and Chicago. See what we have unleashed, D.C.?

America, more body bags, please.

It’s undeniable that guns cause far too many accidental shootings in this country.  Most of these are, of course, preventable, although doing so would place a burden of expense and management on gun owners that these individuals haven’t been willing to accept.  A trigger-lock rule ought to be in place in every home, certainly, though at citizens’ own discretion.

The NY Times editors disagrees, naturally:

Thirty-thousand Americans are killed by guns every year — on the job, walking to school, at the shopping mall. The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling striking down key parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law.

This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country. It will also diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values gun rights over human life.

Unfortunately for their argument, the Times’ statistics don’t separate victims of crime from accidental shootings.  The Times goes on to list incidents of gun violence to support its maniacal hatred of guns and the people who own them, blithely ignoring the fact that it’s criminals who commit these acts, the same ones the King acknowledges have no respect for gun-control laws.

But Scalia and the majority are in the right by saying that Americans’ right to choose to own a weapon or not, at their individual discretion, trumps the desire of government to mandate the disarming of the civilian population.

What Megan McCardle has to say about women and guns transcends the woman’s issue she portrays it as and defines the true nature of our right to bear arms against enemies, foreign and domestic:

…guns are the only weapon that equalizes strength between attacker and attacked.  It’s the only time when men’s greater speed, strength, and longer reach make no difference; if you pull the trigger first, you win.

I am all for strengthening the social contract (and law enforcement) so that fewer men commit rape, assault, or robbery. But until human nature has improved so radically that grievous bodily harm has passed from living memory, I don’t understand why more feminists don’t push for widespread gun ownership.

That applies to the rest of us as well, obviously.