Two Sides to Every Story

Last month, Mack Worley posted a video he had taken of an incident involving the police in his hometown of Vancouver, WA. The video begins with Vancouver police officers asking him – with weapons drawn – to put his rifle on the ground. Worley first refuses, saying he doesn’t want to touch the rifle for fear he’ll be shot (indicating that the rifle is slung over his shoulder), then after a second command to put it down he does so.

Throughout the video he maintains he has committed no crime. He refuses to identify himself or give his ID to officers, and does so rather rudely – right before demanding the name and badge number of every officer on scene. In news footage, Worley claims he was merely on a public sidewalk. It sounds like a raw deal, right?

Well, as always, there’s two sides to the story, and Worley doesn’t tell you what led up to the video he posted. This is why I always tell people to give the police the benefit of the doubt when a supposed brutality video is released – there’s almost always more to the story.

According to police dispatch and witness reports, a Burgerville security guard asked Worley to leave because other patrons of the restaurant were afraid of his weapon. Worley refused to leave, causing an employee to call 911. At some point he did leave and went to a fireworks stand next door; the fireworks stand actually closed suddenly because they had a policy about only allowing concealed weapons inside and they didn’t want him coming in. Next, he went to the Big Al’s bowling alley that took up a majority of the property. They also asked him to leave, and he (again) refused. At least three 911 calls were placed before he decided to go on his merry way, and police found him as he was making his way down the sidewalk.

Worley’s claims that he committed no crime are false. He may not have realized it, but he did commit a crime. In Washington state, you are allowed to carry a rifle over your shoulder or a pistol in a holster in the open as long as you’re on public property. However, as soon as you enter private property – whether it’s a residence or a business – the owner or occupier of that property has the right to ask you to either leave your weapon in your car or leave. They set the rules in that situation. In all 50 states, if the owner or legal resident of any private property asks you to leave and you refuse, you are trespassing. In most, if you trespass with a weapon, it’s a more serious offense.

Before I go any further, I should probably voice my opinion that carrying an AR15 to dinner may not be the brightest idea. I am an ardent proponent of Second Amendment rights, however I also believe in tact. We are no longer living in the 1700′s. We now have the technology to carry very small, very powerful firearms concealed so that the sheep in our society don’t lose their minds when we walk through the door. I love AR15′s and plan to buy one as soon as I can afford it (thanks to the popularity and fears over bans, the price has skyrocketed and I’m not made of money). It is my considered opinion, however, that the AR should stay at home when you go out for some casual grub. Call me crazy. Much like your First Amendment right gives you the right to be a jackass and you should probably be wise with your words, you should definitely be wise with what you carry.

That said…Worley started this with his ignorance. It’s unfortunate, but it often takes an arrest to teach someone like him what the rules really are about carrying. If he’d done some research he wouldn’t be facing this now.

To make things even more complicated, Worley’s behavior after being contacted by officers was incredibly rude. Where I come from, if someone asks your name, you give it just to be polite. When you don’t it’s seen as confrontational. Worley, like many other in his brand of this movement, believes he is not required to give his name or his ID because of his Fourth Amendment rights. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada that neither the Fourth or Fifth Amendment are violated by a police officer who requires ID – or by a police officer who arrests you for refusing. It’s not an unlawful search or seizure of personal effects to know who you are and where you live.

There’s no reason to refuse to give officers your ID or even just your name.

What’s more is that he immediately insists that officers give their names and badge numbers. When they all point to their name tapes and give him guff, he has the nerve to complain that they’re being rude. He suffers from the mentality that he can be as rude and childish as he wants and officers still have to give him a smile. Sorry…it doesn’t work that way. If you’re going to be rude to others, those people will be rude in return, and you deserve it.

Worley doesn’t have much of an argument here. He claims that he’s on a “mission” to educate people about the Second Amendment. He says, “I want people to know that it’s not illegal to carry.” He says it’s not his fault that people are afraid. He is right about that last part. It isn’t his fault that people are afraid. It is his fault, though, that he trespassed on private property more than once.

To be fair, the police weren’t exactly being helpful when he was trying to get to his vehicle to leave. Rather than yelling at him on a loudspeaker to walk the other way they should have found out where his vehicle was and allowed him to get to it. That is on them, but the rest of this incident is largely on him.

I, and many others, would appreciate it if you would do two things, Mr. Worley. First, make sure you know what the law says before you decide that it’s your job to teach other people anything. Second, learn to be nice.

If this were a genuine case of police violating your rights, I’d be all over it. You did yourself in, though. Time to man up and accept responsibility for your ignorant actions.

Article Of Faith

Hillary Clinton is either a moron or a liar.

While delivering a speech before the National Council for Behavioral Health Conference in Oxon Hill, MD yesterday, Miss “What Difference Does It Make” said the following:

“I think again we’re way out of balance. I think that we’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime. And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people. And I think you can say that and still support the right of people to own guns.”

Anybody? Anywhere? Anytime? Oh, dear. Let’s have a talk.

Nobody is suggesting that just anyone should be allowed to have a gun. It is currently illegal for a convicted felon (or someone convicted of a misdemeanor involving violence) to purchase or possess a firearm. I have never disputed the fact that they should not be allowed to have guns, nor has the NRA. Second Amendment supporters believe that law is perfectly sound.

Anywhere? Well, we believe we should be allowed to carry our lawfully-owned guns to a lot of places that we’re not allowed to, but we still obey the law. We have always believed that gun-free zones are little more than massive targets for bad guys. Exactly one shooting that has taken place in the past two decades took place in an area that was NOT a gun-free zone, and the shooter was stopped by the very item that liberals like Clinton say should be banned: a high-capacity magazine (it jammed, something that well-trained gun owners know is always a problem). Yes, we should be allowed to carry our guns when we take our kids to school. Yes, we should be allowed to carry our guns to church. However, the law also says that if any establishment does not want its patrons bringing their steel, they can put up a sign and we have to leave them in the car.

Anytime? I think that was answered by my response to the “anywhere” remark.

Nobody is suggesting that guns be that easy to obtain. None of us ever have. What we’re saying is that you’re proposing too many rules, too many laws, and too many limits on our very clear freedoms. Most of the rules you’re trying to write into law are already in the law. You just don’t feel right unless you get a law passed after a tragedy.

My faith is that you actually, deep down, want what’s best for this country – even though you have a piss-poor way of showing it, Mrs. Clinton.

(Side note: can anyone tell me why Clinton was the one speaking at a conference on mental health? As I recall, her education is in legal matters. Unless they decided that her eight years in the White House dealing with Bill’s crap made her fully qualified, I really don’t understand why someone thought Hillary was the best choice for this summit.)

If You Train Them…Trust Them

I’ll never forget my tactical training – particularly my live-fire course. For five minutes, I had to wend my way through a mockup of a detention facility, making split-second decisions on which pop-up targets to shoot (and firing with high accuracy). Is it an armed suspect? A civilian? An officer? That five minutes felt like an eternity. It was for a worst-case scenario that was extremely unlikely, but the training was important.

I had a rifle and a pistol and I was sweating bullets the whole time. That five minutes felt like it would never end. I cannot imagine being unarmed and trapped by a maniac with guns who is shooting at everything that moves. That must be a hellish experience, one I pray no other human being ever has to face. After the Ft. Hood shooting, a friend who was much younger than I asked how a psychologist could attack a room full of soldiers and be the only one holding a gun.

My response confused the hell out of her at first:

Bill Clinton.

One of the very first acts that Bill Clinton made after being elected to the Presidency was to declare military installations “gun-free zones”. He immediately issued an order making it illegal for soldiers to carry personal firearms on base. More than that, though, he also made it close to impossible for XO’s (executive officers) to issue firearms to their troops to carry on base for protection. Since March of 1993, our troops – highly trained individuals who spend weeks learning everything about their rifles and pistols – have been disarmed on their own bases. It is because of President Clinton, an outrageously liberal and breathtakingly arrogant man, that our troops were disarmed and vulnerable at Ft. Hood and, tragically, yesterday at NAVSEA.

I can certainly appreciate the desire to make people safer. For many who have never been victims and have never had anything resembling law enforcement or tactical training, it seems to be logical to want to make all guns illegal. The problem comes in when they refuse to let go of that belief even in the face of overwhelming evidence that proves banning guns only makes things worse.

One of the biggest factors that determines how many deaths there are during a mass shooting is the amount of time it takes for an armed good guy to show up. In almost all of the recent mass shootings, the longer it took for police to arrive and return fire, the more deaths and injuries resulted. The only exception is the Tucson shooting – Loughner’s extended clip (as many of them are wont to do) failed to load a round properly, causing a jam that he hadn’t trained to clear quickly. Folks who want to ban extended clips ignore this fact; the springs in those clips have to do more work and they’re no more sturdy than the springs in standard clips, causing loading issues after the first few rounds.

That’s beside the point, though. All anyone who wants to ban certain cosmetic features can see is that it “looks more dangerous”. Never mind the fact that the term “assault weapon” is nauseatingly redundant.

At NAVSEA yesterday, it took seven minutes for the first armed police officers to arrive and begin an actual response. Seven minutes of terror for those innocent people. Seven minutes where any of the military members in the building could have pulled a weapon and taken Alexis out before he could kill twelve people. For those that were hiding, it was actually closer to an hour or two before police were able to locate them and lead them out of the building. In all of that time, not one of the highly-trained sailors or Marines in that facility was able to do what they were trained to do: take the fight to the bad guy.

It is a sin and a shame that we train these men and women and then tell them we don’t trust them with the very tools we trained them on. It is unforgivable that they are almost safer in a war zone than they are on their own soil. The history of mass shootings the statistics that come out of them tell us that they always target gun-free zones and they are deadlier with every second that ticks by without a good guy with a gun responding.

Aaron Alexis should have been prosecuted on felony charges in 2004, when he first walked out of his grandmother’s home and deliberately fired several rounds at a car. We don’t even need to have a discussion about his obvious mental illness – his actions nine years ago should have been enough to make him a prohibited person. The whole point of current gun laws is to identify those who will be dangerous with guns, prosecute them, and shut down their ability to legally purchase a gun. The system failed twice. He was able to carry out this shooting for two reasons: because police and prosecutors failed to do their jobs and because innocent people were disarmed and unable to defend themselves.

Side note: it’s hilarious to me that with all of the problems going on in The District, lawmakers there are focusing on the evils of body art. They’re trying to pass a law requiring a 24-hour waiting period for getting tattoos or piercings.

Liar, Liar

Jim Carrey released a video on Funny or Die in which he made his political views known, at least as far as guns go. He lampooned Charlton Heston’s “Cold Dead Hands” speech in a crass, sophomoric manner that is well-known to his fans. He now joins the ranks of George Clooney in being remarkably disrespectful to a man who was a Hollywood hero long before the role existed.

I’m not going to link the video here because I’m not interested in directing traffic to it. I have seen it, and it’s incredibly infantile. His roles in movies like Me, Myself and Irene were worth more than this garbage. His entire excuse for his boorish behavior? He’s against “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines”, of course.

Naturally, that makes it perfectly okay to make fun of a man who far out-classes you, Mr. Carrey.

Charlton Heston was marching for civil rights long before anyone else in Hollywood took it up as a cause. He took a hell of a lot of flak for it, too. Later, after he became one of the biggest box office draws, Heston helped push the Gun Control Act of 1968. Among the provisions of that bill were bans on felons and illegal aliens possessing or purchasing guns and the establishment of Federal Firearms Licensing, requiring all gun dealers to be licensed.

Even Heston, however, knew there had to be limits to progressivism. Sometime in the 1980’s he left the progressive bandwagon. He believed there were enough restrictions on owning guns. Civil rights had already been secured. He saw progressives making targets out of conservative white citizens who believed in their First and Second Amendment rights and he believed that the pendulum was about to swing too far. He became the president of the NRA after seeing the seemingly never-ending assault on Second Amendment rights in America.

That, however, is the only thing today’s Hollywood remembers of him. They have developed selective amnesia and forgotten that he picketed against a theater that was playing the movie El Cid – one of his best – because the theater was segregated. Allied Artists, the film company that made the movie, was mad at him for the move but he refused to back down. He marched with Dr. King and Sydney Poitier. Yet all they want to recall is that he held a rifle aloft and told the world that the government of his country would have to pry his guns from his cold, dead hands.

Some of my friends have reminded me to “consider the source” before getting angry with Jim Carrey. Unfortunately, he’s not the only source, and he’s only serving to further popularize a ridiculous notion that certain weapons with purely cosmetic features and large-capacity clips are the real cause of gun violence. That he chose to attack Mr. Heston long after his passing may show how tasteless he is but it makes him no less dangerous to our freedom to defend ourselves.

What’s more, when the outrage against his immature little snit was reported widely on Fox News, Carrey took it a step further and released an equally ludicrous “press release” attacking “Fux News” and claiming that he’d sue if he felt they were worth his time. Sorry, kiddo – you’re not suing because you know full well that you’d lose and everyone knows it. Liar, liar, pants on fire.

It’s not Fox that’s attacking you, it is us – the Americans who have watched your movies and put millions of dollars in your pockets because we thought you were a talented comedian. You have insulted us by acting as though you know better than we do. You’ve never served your country (hell, you’ve never served your community) and you have no idea what kind of evil lurks in the world. You have no clue what it takes to defend the people you love because you have never had to do it the way we have. Why would you? You have enough money to hire armed bodyguards. I wonder, Jim, do you count the number of rounds in their weapons before they’re allowed to work for you? Or do you want them to have more rounds in the event some nutjob attacks you?

At the end of the day, we all realize one simple truth: Charlton Heston had more class in his little finger than you will realize in your entire life. You are the court jester, and we do not like the entertainment preaching to us about how we should believe. This is not an attack orchestrated by Fox, it is a backlash from us being reported by Fox. That you fail to understand that only proves how childish you really are.

It Just Can’t Happen Again

Somewhere between 400,000 and 600,000 marched for life in Washington, DC on Friday, January 25. There wasn’t much said in the media – in fact, the last time one of the MSM shills interviewed someone about the abortion problem in America, Andrea Mitchell slapped down Juleanna Glover – after Glover had called herself “deeply pro-life” Mitchell insisted that she call herself “anti-abortion” in order to “use the term that I think is more value-neutral.”

Half a million people marched. That’s pretty impressive. Guess how many marched in support of gun control in Washington, DC the next day?

The best guess anyone is willing to offer is “thousands.” That’s it. Nobody is willing to say for sure because the left-wing media knows full well that it won’t come close to the volume of people that showed up for the March for Life.

I, personally, am thoroughly disgusted by how biased the media is being right now.

They have made clear that they don’t give a damn about the facts. They aren’t interested in actually protecting children; they see Sandy Hook and other mass shootings as a stepping stool to complete gun control, eventually even an outright UK-style ban. They have always wanted guns to be banned. Guns are only used for killing, you see. For that reason we have no right to own them. If you ask Sylvester Stallone, he’ll tell you that “it’s not 200 years ago, we don’t need this [the Second Amendment] anymore!” Yes, he actually said that. In fact, he said it in 2008 when he endorsed John McCain for president.

I hate to tell you this, Sly, but we do need it now. We need it more than ever.

The most disgusting thing about the march for gun control yesterday were the signs that said, “We Are Sandy Hook, We Choose Love.” Really? You think that because you are against guns, you are somehow more loving than I am? Let me explain something…I love every child in my family. Every single one of my nieces and nephews is a gift from God. I love them so much that if anyone ever tried to harm them, I would kill that person with my bare hands. I would rather they see me kill a person who is trying to be violent than have to bury them. What would I say to them in the aftermath? That there are bad people in the world, and you should never choose violence, but you should always be ready to defend yourself if the need arises. Yes, I believe those children are worth far more than the animals trying to murder them. Yes, I would be willing to kill to protect them. Yes, it is because I love them. The fact that anyone would accuse me of not loving those kids is an insult that I refuse to abide.

March organizer Molly Smith said she was “horrified by it [Sandy Hook].” Do you think we weren’t? Does anyone really believe that those of us who believe in and actively exercise our Second Amendment rights weren’t absolutely tortured at the thought of what those families were going through, what those children experienced in their last moments of life? There is a word for those who do believe such nonsense: narcissists.

My little brother has picked up a gun and gone to war twice because he loved his country and his family. He didn’t want us to have to survive another 9/11. He didn’t want his wife and children to live in fear. A good friend of mine died in that war because he believed in freedom and taking the fight to the bad guy rather than cowering and begging for mercy. Other friends came home in pieces because they believed in the cause of freedom. Now you want to tell them that they can’t defend their families on their own soil, in their own homes? You want to tell them – tell ME – that we cannot be trusted with the same tool that won our freedom in the first place and has won peace many times since?

Perhaps the absolute silliest parallel drawn during the gun control march came from 78-year-old James Agenbroad. He carried a sign that read, “Repeal the 2nd Amendment.” He said, “you can repeal it. We repealed prohibition.”

I don’t think Mr. Agenbroad really understands what he’s saying here. Prohibition was an outright ban on the manufacturing, sale and transportation of alcoholic beverages. It lasted from 1920-1933. You could drink, you just couldn’t brew or distill or transport the stuff (making it a little hard to drink). Prohibition was a spectacular failure. It did absolutely nothing to stop alcohol from being produced, sold and transported – in fact, it made the trade a more lucrative business. It was Al Capone’s business.

You cannot make a point about gun control – repealing the Second Amendment and banning and confiscating all civilian-owned firearms – by invoking the repeal of a law that banned alcohol. If you don’t understand the ludicrosity of his statement, you are beyond my help.

What do you do when someone like Adam Lanza shows up with guns that the law prevented him from buying to shoot innocent people? Well, first you hide. Then you call 911 to beg for rough men and women to bring their guns to shoot him and stop his killing spree. There is nothing wrong with being afraid and wanting to hide. The problems come when you expect me to do what you’re doing. It will never happen. The fact that I see how evil people can be and am willing to stand up to them does not make me dangerous, nor does it make me different.

I’m not sure how much more I can take of these blithering nitwits declaring that “it just can’t happen again.” You keep saying that, and yet you’re setting us all up to be walking targets.