Vince Warde was kind enough to leave a comment with a link to his defense of Dick Metcalf. Please read and then come back for my response.

Now, my rebuttal:

Lets get something clear: The Second Amendment does give protection if all parties agree that the Constitution is the only set of rule which we all follow. But given that there are those who will rather ignore and/or change what it means, we are faced with the constant threat of having our rights curtailed. Basically the game is bowling and the other side is playing football.

There is a misguided concept that both Heller & McDonald are the last word on the Second Amendment: that is false. As the Opposition liked to say back in the 90s, it is just a good first step. May I remind you that SCOTUS basically had not addressed the Second Amendment since US v. Miller in 1939 and we are now still trying to recover from basically 60 years of encroachment. And it also makes sense that WE (the people who knows guns) and those who want to negotiate in truly good faith, dictate what are the restrictions and not an Opposition who wants to keep us pretty much unarmed. You do not agree or make commitments with a party that is negotiating in bad faith.
No, Dick Metcalf is not a traitor, but what he did made him stupid, specially being a famous and longtime writer. Again, we are not dealing with people who have the best interest of the Citizens in their hearts and they are playing with a different set of rules and they do not include a respect for the Constitution. This enemy has no qualms in lying, cheating, denigrating and putting people at risk as long as their political side wins. This enemy has very deep pockets and an almost unlimited access to the Media to propagate their views and I think it is stupid that somebody with a (formerly) high name in our side comes out to talk about restrictions.

It is a question of strategies (Did I mention we are in an intellectual and legal war?) Knowing how easily they can propagate and inundate the flow of information to the public, why in Sam Houston’s name should we give them any ammunition? Specially one that will hurt us deeply?

We are in a political, intellectual and legal trench warfare. The niceties of tea room dealings and aristocratic handshakes do not apply. Our weapons are the truth, a sound strategy and a common front from millions of gun owners interested in everybody enjoying a widely applied Second Amendment.

The fight has now commenced, go to fighting or get away!
Wyatt Earp.

We can discuss the pretty philosophical things after the fighting is done.

The photo is of a Moscow Subway ticket machines. It accepts money or 30 squats. My mind went immediately to:

‘Smith!’ screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. ‘6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You’re not trying. Lower, please! That’s better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.’
1984. Part 1, Chapter 3.

Weird….

So the Brady’s were today at Capitol Hill with another round of …whatever is that they do against guns.

And they had the obligatory pic of an innocent young girl with a poster….

Which, of course, I had to mess with to portray the bottom line of what Brady had achieved this year.

Feel free to share with your friends…. and anti gun acquaintances.

Feel free to share with friends and anti-gunners.

No. 1: You Must Be an Active Participant in Your Own Rescue

People who thinks the cavalry is going to come over the hill and save them at the last minute have spent too much time in front of the TV. Any street cop will tell you that the times when they have interrupted a crime in progress were memorable because that doesn’t happen often. Police response times are measured in minutes, while crimes in progress are measured in seconds. So unless the officer is on top of the event when it occurs, stopping a crime while it happens is highly unlikely.

via Spaulding’s Rules of Conflict – Training – LawOfficer.com.

Makes for VERY interesting reading. I will disagree with #6 though on Gun Nut value alone.

While it is true that most murders are classified as murders by acquaintances, most people, including apparently “Mr. Holmes,” don’t have a clue what the term means. For example, most “acquaintances” are members of rival gangs. Acquaintances also involve people who have perceived financial relations. If a cab driver picks up a fare and then the fare kills the cab driver, that is classified as an acquaintance murder. But if a person comes up to the side of the cab and murders the cab driver, that would be classified as a stranger murder. These are hardly the friends, spouses, and business associates that Holmes refers to.

via John Lott’s Website: Yet another error in CBS’s Elementary, a smart guy who keeps making inaccurate liberal claims about crime.

When you read the Antis bemoan how people are killed by “acquaintance” according to the FBI, you may want to know how the Feds actually qualify the word for their stats.

Sounds familiar?

I saw this posted on Facebook yesterday. I think it was Mike V’s feed

I remember reading that in a hostage situation, the Russians considers that hostages are pretty much dead so any action they take, if it results in hostages rescued, is a plus.

Remind me never to be a hostage over there.