Colorado Citizen Ron Wedow killed a large dog that was attacking a doe, after the dog had killed her fawn.  As Meyers points out in the article, Wedow was justified in the shooting by Colorado State Statute 33-3-106.  Quoting from the statute: “Nothing in this section shall make it unlawful to… kill, or otherwise dispose of…dogs without a permit in situations when it is necessary… to prevent them from inflicting death or injury to big game…”  (Here.)  Click on Colorado Revised Statutes and look up the number.  (Not legal advice-just reading the law.)

The plot thickened when a Douglas County Animal Control Officer later cited Wedow for cruelty to animals.  When advised by the State Department of Wildlife that it was legal for Wedow to shoot the offending canine, Douglas County Officials stood what seems to be their shaky ground.

Research on the Douglas County Website indicates that animal control in the county is done through a contract between the Sheriff’s Office and the Pikes Peak Humane Society.  Please call Douglas County Offices at 303-660-7400 and Animal Control at  303-660-7529 and ask them to abide by state law.

The county website is here.  Apparently you have to log in to comment.  They may only accept on-line comments from county residents. 

As far as I can tell, we are still living under the rule of law. Bureaucrats, no matter how tender hearted and well meaning, can not legally trump state statutes with local regulations.

Lest you think this issue is not significant, Wedow estimates his legal bills to be in the ballpark of $15,000 and it ain’t over yet.  Eternal vigilance!

Def Mech

Our opponents, those that believe that “common citizens” should be herded like cattle at the whim of rich and powerful philosopher king “intellectuals,” believe that they can divide us.  They believe that the “one slice at a time” Fabian Socialist ploy will cause us to falter.  They believe that coming in “under the radar” with incremental attacks on handgun and semi-autos will lull other gun owners into complacency and submission.

They believe that talking about support of the Second Amendment is enough to lull us to sleep, while they push for gun bans, registration schemes, and plots to keep young people from entering the shooting sports.  They believe that “Smart Guns,” and “Ammunition Accountability” can drive up the price and limit the availability of firearms and bullets to the point that the American Gun Culture will dry up and blow away.

Make no mistake about it.  There is a threat.  As Walt Whitman wrote, “There is no week nor day nor hour, when tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their roughness and spirit of defiance-Tyranny may always enter-there is no charm, no bar against it-the only bar against it is a large resolute breed of men.”  (I might add here, and, a large resolute group of women.)  (Bartlett, John, Familiar Quotations, Fourteenth Edition, Little, Brown, and Company, Boston-Toronto, 1968, page 703 b.)

But, what exactly are we fighting for?  Certainly we want to stop the possible rise of tyranny, the killing fields, the boxcars rolling to Dachau, or the casual lawlessness and murder of the Mafia, or Mexican and Columbian drug gangs.  I believe we are also fighting politically to preserve the miracle of American Republican Democracy and to keep this country from descending into the nightmare of a civil war or a protracted insurgency like the one that has rent Northern Ireland for generations.  (See my post, “Non-violence a non-starter as counter to established modern tyranny,” 09-08-08, Category: “Official Misconduct.”)

We want to prevent lawlessness, gang violence, and widespread public disregard for law and order such as that brought about by Prohibition, America’s greatest flirtation with heavy-handed government control.  We want to save America from the spectre of the Terror of the French Revolution, or the slaughter of brother by brother of our own Civil War.

We seek to preserve by any available political means those freedoms, which would at the last ditch, have to be preserved by force, in the event of the failure of all other remedies.  We seek to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States, as all our political leaders and military personnel are sworn to do.  (May they always be mindful of their duty!)

Jeff Knox has written two thoughtful posts regarding some of the issues involved in our quest to maintain the liberties recognized by the founders of this nation.  “Mutual Assured Destruction, The power is in the threat, not the execution” and “Where’s Your Line?  It’s hard to draw in shifting sand,” should serve as cautionary  essays for everyone involved in the debate about the rights of Americans to armed self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide.

Is there a risk in standing up for freedom?  You know there is.  Will you be held up to ridicule as a “desperate, clingy” gun owner with one tooth, a dirty flannel shirt, an “assault weapon,” an alcohol problem, and a psychotic drive to slaughter Bambi?  They have already stereotyped you.  Is there a risk that political speech that should be protected by the First Amendment will result in discrimination, persecution, and possible unfair prosecution?  You never know.  Is it safer now to pretend that “they” don’t know who you are?  I don’t think so. (See my post, “Believe me!  They know who you are,” 11-18-08, under the Category: ” benefits of guns.”

Winston Churchill wrote, “If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

We owe it to ourselves, our families, our ancestors, and hopefully, our descendants, to do everything we can within the political framework created by the Founders to preserve that framework, which is the Constitution of the United States, especially the Second Amendment.  Let it never be said that we failed as citizens, patriots, and lovers of freedom to do everything possible to prevent tragedy for our country.  We never want to reach another sunrise, such as the one thrust upon another great American, Chief Crazy Horse, when he was forced by broken treaties and the murder of his friend, Conquering Bear, to say, “It is a good day to fight.  It is a good day to die.”

Let us rather emulate Churchill and the Greek, Thucydides, who said, “The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom is courage.”  Let us now demonstrate political courage and resolve in the face of challenges to our liberty.

Def Mech

It is not that Mexico’s draconian gun control laws are the main cause of their deplorable internal security problems.  Drug-financed gangs and widespread governmental corruption have been strangling that nation for years.  The salient point for me as I look at Mexico, is that their strict gun control regulations have done little or nothing to ameliorate their desperate situation.  (See my previous posts under the Category: “Foreign Gun Laws.”)

You could argue that their condition would be worse without gun control, but it is hard to imagine a more serious situation.  Honest, police, military, and public officials are murdered with apparent impunity.  Civilians are killed wholesale by gangs.  Serial killers seem to operate without hindrance, given the number of women who end up dead along the border.

If gun control worked, the gangs would stage demonstrations and sit-ins to settle their rivalries and protest government interference in their illegal activities through attorneys.  Before the new American administration embarks on a policy of strict gun control, they would do well to look again at pobre Mexico.

Def Mech 

P.S. The main Blogivist Server is being worked on this weekend.  See you on the other side, when I will address comments on my post on H.R. 45.

Much is often made by Left-wing “pacifists” about the fact that Gandhi was successful in ending British rule in India through the use of non-violent protest. If the game is Gandhi versus Great Britain with the world press looking on and sympathizing with the anti-colonials, Gandhi wins. But what would have happened, if Gandhi had been dealing with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam, Castro or their successors? I believe that non-violence would have miserably failed and any one of the dictators would simply have murdered Gandhi, Nehru, and anyone else associated with the anti-colonial movement in India. Why have I reached this conclusion?

First, modern dictators have largely succeeded in destroying, buying, bribing, expelling, seducing, or otherwise controlling both the indigenous and foreign press in their countries. The Communist dictators were able to take advantage of dupes, fellow travelers, and paid agents.

Stalin and Company had Lincoln Steffens to trumpet after visiting the USSR, “I have been over into the future and it works.” Steffens later reportedly lost his zeal for Communism.  I.F. Stone was apparently a paid agent of Moscow.  He also became disillusioned with Stalinism, much too late for many of the dictator’s victims. 

In spite of the howls of Hollywood and movies to the contrary, e.g., The way we were, and Good Night and Good Luck, there were Communists in the American Entertainment Industry at a time when the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was advancing its goal of world domination. Lillian Hellman didn’t repudiate Stalin until 1956.  Pete Seeger didn’t come down on “Uncle Joe” in song until well into the 21^st Century, although according to a New York Times article, Seeger first denounced Stalin in 1993, just a few years too late.  Seeger, interestingly enough, mentioned non-violence in his interview for the article.

The North Vietnamese Dich Van propaganda program paralyzed the U.S. Government’s ability to defend South Vietnam by cleverly using the Mainstream American Media, university professors and students. They managed to change American Public Opinion against the conflict, even though the UN mandated the original partition of Vietnam and the U.S. won every major battle in the military arena.

Pictures of Castro’s Cuban Revolution and the Vietnamese Conflict were extremely telling of the Left-wing orientation of most American TV, newspapers and magazines. Look at the pictures of the insurgents. Virtually all photos and film show resolute, handsome and beautiful young men and women with their shining faces directed toward the hated enemy as they advance resolutely to victory. Compare that coverage to pictures of exhausted, wounded, or dead American military personnel or allies and civilian casualties attributed to friendly action. There is virtually no difference between enemy propaganda and American media coverage in many cases. You didn’t have to guess which side the U.S. Media was on.

(By the way, check out the coverage of the war against Islamofascist Terror. Any doubts?)

Saddam Hussein solved the press problem by making deals with TV networks. They either self-censored their reports to minimize criticism of his regime, or he denied them access to Iraq.  Read the story here on how CNN “modified” its reporting to stay in the country.  “…simple and beautiful as all truly great swindles are.” O’Henry was “right on,” to quote a popular 1960’s expression.

Saddam also corrupted the UN with his oil for food kickback scheme, but that is another story.  No wonder France and Russia opposed the 2003 invasion.

Second, remember what Mao said about political power and gun barrels? The above mentioned dictators disarmed “ordinary” citizens and vested recourse to force exclusively with their henchmen. You want to stage a peaceful demonstration? Ask the few survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto and the Czechs who survived the Russian invasion following the Prague Spring, how large groups of political opponents were dealt with by the dictators. (Hint: resolution of the situations usually involved tanks and heavy machine guns.) 

Adolph Hitler and his associated developed a handy technique for dealing with dissidents called “Nacht und Nebel,” night and fog. The Gestapo came at night in the Nazi version of no-knock raids and arrested/abducted political opponents, who were never seen again. This proved to be quite an effective deterrent to non-violent protest.

Finally, the Indian version of Hitler’s death camps, Castro’s Isle of Pines, and Stalin’s gulags would have been the final destinations of hundreds of thousands or millions of persistent pacifist protesters not senior enough to be given the individual attention of Nacht und Nebel. Ghettos would have been created and “cleansed.” India would have been scientifically subjugated according to the tried and true formulas of media control and disarmament employed by modern statist dictators of whatever stripe. QED.

How does this little historical expose relate to us sophisticated, post-political, post-modern Americans? Protect the First and Second Amendments and the rest of the Bill of Rights as though your life depended on it, because it does. Stop the “Fairness Doctrine” and other attempts to muzzle free speech.  Stop gun control, before an increasing socialist state mentality assumes a monopoly on armed force and destroys our legal right to self-defense against crime and tyranny.

Vote Republican, because they are the only ones with a chance to win with whom we have any influence.  Sarah Palin, the Governor of an unrestricted concealed carry state could be the future of the GOP, or she could be an also-ran defeated by third-party, stay-at-home, or write-in voters.

“Ask not for whom the Bell Tolls…”

Def Mech

Fortunately, since those disgraceful episodes of civilian harassment, laws have been passed at the federal and state levels to increase protection for  the fundamental right of Americans to self-defense, even in the face of natural and man-made disasters.  (See first comment and response by Dave Kopel.)

When you think about it, when do citizens most need the ability to defend themselves?  When the police aren’t available to protect them!  Even under normal circumstances, the best possible police response times are unlikely to interrupt a crime in progress, especially an assault.  As someone once truly said, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”  Following Katrina, in some areas, there was no police response, at all.  It’s not rocket science, is it?

As a general rule, Democrats still want to ban handguns, at least in the inner city crime centers that they perpetuate with their dependence-building social programs and draconian gun laws.  (Talk about disaster areas!)  Why?  Because gun crime continues in those inner cities, despite bans and restrictions.  Dem Presidential Candidate Barack H. Obama has stated that local authorities, like the oh-so-liberal D. C. City Council, should dictate gun ownership or lack thereof in their jurisdictions.

Logic would seem to dictate that disaster zones and inner cities would both be places where honest citizens would benefit from a high level of individual protection.  Logic, however, is apparently not a big issue in the Left-wing mindset.

If protection of law-abiding citizens is not the reason for the Democrat emphasis on gun control, you have to ask yourself about the real reason behind their “concern.”  What social “changes” are they planning that are so terrible that they fear armed resistance from honest citizens?  Then again, I could just be paranoid.  What do you think?

Def Mech 

This public dispair again underscores the failure of gun control laws in Mexico.  The corrupt police are armed by the state.  Criminals have no qualms about violating weak laws against murder and kidnapping, and apparently no problems obtaining guns.  Even if the domestic supply of firearms were magically eliminated and cross-border smuggling stopped, the gangs could still get guns from the corrupt police!

Is that the direction that we want this country to go?  Do we want the American Democrat Party to eliminate the death penalty, as the Mexican Government has done?  Do we want the Democrat Party to appoint “soft” judges who impose relatively short sentences, as the Mexican Judiciary does?  Do we want the Democrat Party to impose draconian restrictions on the possession and defensive use of firearms?  Do we want our police forces corrupted by black markets in drugs and guns the way that American law enforcement was corrupted by Prohibition?  Do we want to be forced to publicly demonstrate to protest the fact that we are helpless in the face of gang violence and police corruption?

How we vote, or don’t vote, will have a major impact on the future safety of the citizens of this country, aside from the Democrats’ apparent desire to surrender to radical Islamic jihadists.  I am afraid that if we don’t vote or waste our votes on candidates who can’t possibly win, we will find ourselves in the position of the non-rich in Mexico.

Vote for the most pro-individual rights, electable candidates.  Party trumps person. 

Def Mech

The mayor, Cheye Calvo, triggered the police attack when he picked up the package addressed to his wife and took it inside.  Mayor Calvo claimed one of his dogs was shot while running from the invading officers.  AP, “FBI looks into raid on home of mayor,” The Denver Post, Denver Newspaper Agency, Denver, CO, 08-08-08, page 5A.

According to the initial report, the Mayor and his mother-in-law were in the house during the ordeal.  The mayor’s wife came home during the raid to find her dogs dead and her husband and mother in handcuffs.  No one in the house has been charged according to the article.  The county police chief offered no apology for shooting the dogs, saying the officers felt “threatened.”

I don’t know about you, but if police officers mistakenly invaded my home and shot my pets, I would be angry.  If I were the mayor of a town and had a certain amount of political clout, I think I would spend a considerable amount of time to ensure, to the best of my ability, that the police chief and the officers involved in such an erroneous, violent invasion never worked again in law enforcement.

Cowboy police raids drive a terrible wedge between the people of a community and the public agencies hired to protect them.  If it turns out that this raid was a mistake, badges should be forfeit.  We don’t need more Wacos or Ruby Ridges.  Thank God no human beings were killed this time.  Where is the Liberal outrage about the dogs?

Def Mech