Out of deference to Aaron Zelman and JPFO, some of my commentary was toned down a tad so they can use it to promote their new video.
Here's something that didn't make it into my review:
I have taken to referring to the gungrabbing federal goons as "BATFU." I'd like to see this usage spread--if for no other reason than to promulgate disrespect for these wretched thugs. (If anyone claims prior usage of this term, let me know-- I thunk it up all by my own self, and couldn't find any prior references on Google.)
Because of their sheer incompetence, I was also gonna say something about "jackboobs," but thought better of it...
Monday, February 28, 2005
BATFE Fails the Constitution
“JPFO'S NEW DVD, ‘BATFE FAILS THE TEST’ has apparently got the gun goons shaking in their boots. Unable to counter the blatant evidence that their ‘experts’ are unscientific bumblers who don't even understand firearms, ATF agents are now spreading the rumor that the footage is fake.
“HA! When you see it you know that the only thing "fake" about it is the BATFE's ‘expertise.’ I'm in awe of Len Savage (the real firearms expert you'll see in the film) having the guts to take these goons on.”—Claire Wolfe
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has once again proven it deserves the reputation for producing the most innovative educational materials for educating Americans about our right to keep and bear arms. They have followed up the gut-wrenching historical documentary "Innocents Betrayed" with another outstanding and infuriating video, "BATFE Fails the Test."
Competition shooter John Glover is an ordinary American who is fascinated by firearms--to the point where he learned gunsmithing and began assembling and selling guns from kits.
Enter the federal gun grabbers. Seven of his rifles are seized and Glover is charged with manufacturing and selling a machine gun. In other words, the federal government has decided Mr. Glover is a criminal, and it sets out to steal his property and destroy his life.
"BATFE Fails the Test" is raw video footage of BATFE Agent Michael Cooney, the supposed expert who wrote the report declaring one of the weapons a machinegun, saying that it fired “automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger.” We see Agent Cooney at a police firing range in North Carolina, demonstrating the weapon's operation. There's just one problem--he can't get it to fire full auto.
Twelve attempts produce just two incidents of string fire, which Glover's defense team firearms expert, Len Savage, declares a "malfunction." Cooney doesn't want to hear it, and becomes increasingly irritated and defensive as Savage challenges his "expertise." Savage then analyzes the disassembled weapon parts on camera, and sure enough, just as he predicted on the range, firing pin components are worn, causing the occasional string fire malfunction.
The thing could have blown up in the "competent" government "expert's" face, but he was too oblivious to realize it.
The upside for Mr. Glover is all charges against him were dismissed. The downside, in addition to having his life turned inside out and having the fear of government put into him, is that he is left in debt from fighting a legal battle that should never have taken place--plus, the BATFE has refused to return his rightful property.
Gun owners need to see this to believe it, so that we understand this could happen to any of us--own a semiauto rifle that needs some gunsmith work and we could be declared felons and pursued with vengeance. And if we're not fortunate enough to be able to afford mounting a competent defense against the unlimited resources of the federal government, our lives will be destroyed.
You owe it to yourself to get this outrageous and infuriating video, and to understand what power the Michael Cooneys of the world have assumed over us.
Read the Shotgun News article: VITAL WARNING TO ALL OWNERS OF SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS
Order your own copy of "BATFE Fails the Test" on VHS or DVD:
http://jpfo.org/batfevideo.htm
“HA! When you see it you know that the only thing "fake" about it is the BATFE's ‘expertise.’ I'm in awe of Len Savage (the real firearms expert you'll see in the film) having the guts to take these goons on.”—Claire Wolfe
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has once again proven it deserves the reputation for producing the most innovative educational materials for educating Americans about our right to keep and bear arms. They have followed up the gut-wrenching historical documentary "Innocents Betrayed" with another outstanding and infuriating video, "BATFE Fails the Test."
Competition shooter John Glover is an ordinary American who is fascinated by firearms--to the point where he learned gunsmithing and began assembling and selling guns from kits.
Enter the federal gun grabbers. Seven of his rifles are seized and Glover is charged with manufacturing and selling a machine gun. In other words, the federal government has decided Mr. Glover is a criminal, and it sets out to steal his property and destroy his life.
"BATFE Fails the Test" is raw video footage of BATFE Agent Michael Cooney, the supposed expert who wrote the report declaring one of the weapons a machinegun, saying that it fired “automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger.” We see Agent Cooney at a police firing range in North Carolina, demonstrating the weapon's operation. There's just one problem--he can't get it to fire full auto.
Twelve attempts produce just two incidents of string fire, which Glover's defense team firearms expert, Len Savage, declares a "malfunction." Cooney doesn't want to hear it, and becomes increasingly irritated and defensive as Savage challenges his "expertise." Savage then analyzes the disassembled weapon parts on camera, and sure enough, just as he predicted on the range, firing pin components are worn, causing the occasional string fire malfunction.
The thing could have blown up in the "competent" government "expert's" face, but he was too oblivious to realize it.
The upside for Mr. Glover is all charges against him were dismissed. The downside, in addition to having his life turned inside out and having the fear of government put into him, is that he is left in debt from fighting a legal battle that should never have taken place--plus, the BATFE has refused to return his rightful property.
Gun owners need to see this to believe it, so that we understand this could happen to any of us--own a semiauto rifle that needs some gunsmith work and we could be declared felons and pursued with vengeance. And if we're not fortunate enough to be able to afford mounting a competent defense against the unlimited resources of the federal government, our lives will be destroyed.
You owe it to yourself to get this outrageous and infuriating video, and to understand what power the Michael Cooneys of the world have assumed over us.
Read the Shotgun News article: VITAL WARNING TO ALL OWNERS OF SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS
Order your own copy of "BATFE Fails the Test" on VHS or DVD:
http://jpfo.org/batfevideo.htm
Sunday, February 27, 2005
REMINDER: Carner on "Standing Up for America" Tonight
Charles Robert Carner will be the featured guest on 'Standing Up For America' with Rick Stanley, tonight at 7:00 PM MST, to discuss his remake of the cult classic 'Vanishing Point'.
To listen, go to http://www.stanley2002.org and click on the link at the top of the main page for the Radio Network.
To listen, go to http://www.stanley2002.org and click on the link at the top of the main page for the Radio Network.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Why I Love Guns
By Charles Robert Carner
Guns. I love guns. Guns in the hands of private citizens are the best means for defense of home and family against criminals, and for restraining the tyrannical tendencies of government.
Guns save lives. All across the United States, from cities to suburbs to towns and rural hamlets, guns are used every day to prevent crime, protect property and deter predators. Guns allow women to walk alone without fear of assault. Guns protect policemen, and help them protect the citizens they watch over. Guns protect political leaders, prominent businessmen, celebrities, cabbies, bank guards and jewelry merchants. Every day, all day and all night, guns make it possible for people to perform risky but necessary work, and to remain alive and safe while so doing.
Guns ensure freedom. From Bunker Hill to the Battle of the Bulge, men with guns have fought oppression and liberated nations. Guns made the extraordinary philosophical vision of America’s founders possible in the real world. Without guns, Thomas Paine’s stirring call to action in Common Sense would have remained mere rhetoric – or led to futile rebellion. Guns freed the slaves in America’s Civil War. Guns stopped Hitler’s mad dream of world conquest, and Tojo’s planned Pacific empire. Guns liberated Africa from colonial chains; Africans served their masters at war – then applied the weapons and tactics they learned in distant battles to win their freedom at home. Conversely, when citizens are denied the right to own guns, oppression often follows. In the 20th century – the bloodiest in human history – genocide from Armenia to Cambodia was in each case preceded by stripping the citizens of their arms.
Guns are beautiful. From pinfire pistols to Kentucky rifles, from Samuel Colt’s "equalizer" to the H&K battle rifle, guns are gorgeous physical objects, pleasing to the mind and the senses. To hold a 1911 model .45 in one’s hand is to experience ergonomic delight; to field-strip an FN-FAL is to thrill at the elegance of its engineering and the profound simplicity of its design. From the venerable Browning Hi-Power to the cutting-edge titanium revolvers of this new millennium, from the storied Lee-Enfield to the sexy new Steyr Scout, guns give eloquent testimony to the genius of man.
Guns are fun. From plinking with a Ruger Mark II to thundering away with a .44 Magnum, from cocking the lever on a Winchester 94 to feeding the belt into a 1919 Browning, recreational shooting is one of the most enjoyable sports ever devised. It is also one of the only sports in which age and athleticism hardly matter at all. A petite grandmother can shoot just as well as a massive linebacker; all it takes is a little practice.
Guns are teaching tools. Learning to shoot means learning discipline, respect and the right way to do things. Learning to handle guns means learning to master fear, and builds confidence. You don’t just shoot the gun. Afterwards, there is the joy of field-stripping, cleaning and maintaining your firearm. It’s easy to do (unlike, for example, performing maintenance on your car after taking it for a drive), and you learn how the weapon operates. Guns teach us about history. Do the serial number and cartouche on that old M-1 Garand mean it was used to liberate Europe from the Nazis? It may very well indeed. Was that nicked-up German Mauser refitted to .308 by the Israelis to help establish the Jewish homeland? What a satisfying irony! Go to a gun show, and seek out the display of Revolutionary War-era rifles. Each whorl in the stock, each unique, handcrafted metal band and stud, reminds us of the courageous individual Americans who took up arms, shed blood and gave blood to hand down the legacy of freedom we now take for granted.
Guns provide peace of mind. From the rancher protecting his stock from wolves, to the night clerk protecting his shop from hoodlums, from the homeowner protecting his lifelong investment from thieves, to the soccer mom protecting her child from molesters, guns provide security during waking hours, and a sound sleep at night.
Times change, fashions shift, political theories come and go. Crime rises, crime falls. Felons serve hard time, or plea-bargain their way to continued mischief. What never changes is human nature. There will always be those who devote their energies to taking what isn’t rightfully theirs, whether it be property or human life. There will always be despots who seek to rule by force rather than consent. As long as people have guns, they will have the ability to control their own destiny, rather than have it dictated to them.
That is what America is all about. And that is why I love guns.
_________________________________________________________
This essay originally appeared on GunTruths.com.
Charles Robert Carner wrote and directed "Vanishing Point," which is being released to DVD on March 8. If you think this is the kind of worldview that we need in Hollywood, I encourage you to read my review and see this film.--David Codrea
Guns. I love guns. Guns in the hands of private citizens are the best means for defense of home and family against criminals, and for restraining the tyrannical tendencies of government.
Guns save lives. All across the United States, from cities to suburbs to towns and rural hamlets, guns are used every day to prevent crime, protect property and deter predators. Guns allow women to walk alone without fear of assault. Guns protect policemen, and help them protect the citizens they watch over. Guns protect political leaders, prominent businessmen, celebrities, cabbies, bank guards and jewelry merchants. Every day, all day and all night, guns make it possible for people to perform risky but necessary work, and to remain alive and safe while so doing.
Guns ensure freedom. From Bunker Hill to the Battle of the Bulge, men with guns have fought oppression and liberated nations. Guns made the extraordinary philosophical vision of America’s founders possible in the real world. Without guns, Thomas Paine’s stirring call to action in Common Sense would have remained mere rhetoric – or led to futile rebellion. Guns freed the slaves in America’s Civil War. Guns stopped Hitler’s mad dream of world conquest, and Tojo’s planned Pacific empire. Guns liberated Africa from colonial chains; Africans served their masters at war – then applied the weapons and tactics they learned in distant battles to win their freedom at home. Conversely, when citizens are denied the right to own guns, oppression often follows. In the 20th century – the bloodiest in human history – genocide from Armenia to Cambodia was in each case preceded by stripping the citizens of their arms.
Guns are beautiful. From pinfire pistols to Kentucky rifles, from Samuel Colt’s "equalizer" to the H&K battle rifle, guns are gorgeous physical objects, pleasing to the mind and the senses. To hold a 1911 model .45 in one’s hand is to experience ergonomic delight; to field-strip an FN-FAL is to thrill at the elegance of its engineering and the profound simplicity of its design. From the venerable Browning Hi-Power to the cutting-edge titanium revolvers of this new millennium, from the storied Lee-Enfield to the sexy new Steyr Scout, guns give eloquent testimony to the genius of man.
Guns are fun. From plinking with a Ruger Mark II to thundering away with a .44 Magnum, from cocking the lever on a Winchester 94 to feeding the belt into a 1919 Browning, recreational shooting is one of the most enjoyable sports ever devised. It is also one of the only sports in which age and athleticism hardly matter at all. A petite grandmother can shoot just as well as a massive linebacker; all it takes is a little practice.
Guns are teaching tools. Learning to shoot means learning discipline, respect and the right way to do things. Learning to handle guns means learning to master fear, and builds confidence. You don’t just shoot the gun. Afterwards, there is the joy of field-stripping, cleaning and maintaining your firearm. It’s easy to do (unlike, for example, performing maintenance on your car after taking it for a drive), and you learn how the weapon operates. Guns teach us about history. Do the serial number and cartouche on that old M-1 Garand mean it was used to liberate Europe from the Nazis? It may very well indeed. Was that nicked-up German Mauser refitted to .308 by the Israelis to help establish the Jewish homeland? What a satisfying irony! Go to a gun show, and seek out the display of Revolutionary War-era rifles. Each whorl in the stock, each unique, handcrafted metal band and stud, reminds us of the courageous individual Americans who took up arms, shed blood and gave blood to hand down the legacy of freedom we now take for granted.
Guns provide peace of mind. From the rancher protecting his stock from wolves, to the night clerk protecting his shop from hoodlums, from the homeowner protecting his lifelong investment from thieves, to the soccer mom protecting her child from molesters, guns provide security during waking hours, and a sound sleep at night.
Times change, fashions shift, political theories come and go. Crime rises, crime falls. Felons serve hard time, or plea-bargain their way to continued mischief. What never changes is human nature. There will always be those who devote their energies to taking what isn’t rightfully theirs, whether it be property or human life. There will always be despots who seek to rule by force rather than consent. As long as people have guns, they will have the ability to control their own destiny, rather than have it dictated to them.
That is what America is all about. And that is why I love guns.
_________________________________________________________
This essay originally appeared on GunTruths.com.
Charles Robert Carner wrote and directed "Vanishing Point," which is being released to DVD on March 8. If you think this is the kind of worldview that we need in Hollywood, I encourage you to read my review and see this film.--David Codrea
Jay Knox’s NRA Board Picks
Jay Knox writes in an open letter:
“Don Turner, formerly of Arizona, was the manager of the Ben Avery Shooting Facility and stood up to the city of Phoenix when it wanted to carve up the range in a land grab. I will vote for him.
“Anyone who receives 250 write-in votes is eligible to run for the 76th Director at the Annual Meeting, so my other votes are going to be ‘write-ins’ for Christopher W. Knox of Phoenix, Arizona and Jeffrey Allen Knox of Gainesville, Virginia.”
I still maintain we need a way to rate Board candidates, just like politicians are rated. No meaningful change will ever come about unless and until candidates can be rated and supported based on values and performance, and punished for betrayals and compromises. But no one evidently cares, guaranteeing more of the same.
“Don Turner, formerly of Arizona, was the manager of the Ben Avery Shooting Facility and stood up to the city of Phoenix when it wanted to carve up the range in a land grab. I will vote for him.
“Anyone who receives 250 write-in votes is eligible to run for the 76th Director at the Annual Meeting, so my other votes are going to be ‘write-ins’ for Christopher W. Knox of Phoenix, Arizona and Jeffrey Allen Knox of Gainesville, Virginia.”
I still maintain we need a way to rate Board candidates, just like politicians are rated. No meaningful change will ever come about unless and until candidates can be rated and supported based on values and performance, and punished for betrayals and compromises. But no one evidently cares, guaranteeing more of the same.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Safe at Last, Safe at Last! Anna Kournikova Safe at Last!
“THE homeless man accused of stalking Russian tennis beauty Anna Kournikova has been issued with a civil restraining order.”
Let’s see, he stalks her both physically and via sexually explicit emails. He swims nude to her estate. He’s already been behind bars for stabbing a man. He’s hinting at pleading insanity. And if that isn’t enough, he’s a dude who knows who the individual members of the Spice Girls are--that’s nuts just by itself. (God help me—I saw a commercial and learned the Fanta Girls have individual names!)
I hope Anna feels safe with her “civil restraining order” when this wackjob is released. I’d be surprised if she doesn’t have armed bodyguards, but what about the next woman he fixates on?
The best restraining orders are issued from a modified Weaver or isosceles stance.
Let’s see, he stalks her both physically and via sexually explicit emails. He swims nude to her estate. He’s already been behind bars for stabbing a man. He’s hinting at pleading insanity. And if that isn’t enough, he’s a dude who knows who the individual members of the Spice Girls are--that’s nuts just by itself. (God help me—I saw a commercial and learned the Fanta Girls have individual names!)
I hope Anna feels safe with her “civil restraining order” when this wackjob is released. I’d be surprised if she doesn’t have armed bodyguards, but what about the next woman he fixates on?
The best restraining orders are issued from a modified Weaver or isosceles stance.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
How Gun Owners Can Make Society Safer and Protect Americans
Jennifer Freeman (cool last name, huh?) of Liberty Belles thinks ordinary Americans have a role to play in protecting our nation’s borders.
A citizen militia defending community, state and nation—why that’s a concept worthy of our Founders!
A citizen militia defending community, state and nation—why that’s a concept worthy of our Founders!
San Francisco Handgun Ban Media Project
Guy Smith wants to educate the public in San Francisco so that the proposed gun ban is defeated. He’s recruiting support for the project at http://www.gunfacts.info/sfban/.
If you’re not already aware of Gun Facts, check it out. It’s a great resource, and this announcement just reminded me to add it to my list of links.
If you’re not already aware of Gun Facts, check it out. It’s a great resource, and this announcement just reminded me to add it to my list of links.
Carner on "Standing Up For America"
From Rick Stanley:
"Charles Robert Carner will be the featured guest on 'Standing Up For America' with Rick Stanley, Sunday night at 7:00 PM MST, February 27, 2005, at http://www.americanvoiceradio.net to discuss his new movie remake of the cult classic 'Vanishing Point' . This movie has an incredible 'freedom and liberty' message not seen in mainstream Hollywood. I am not talking about the 'freedom and liberty' mentioned over and over by President Bush and his Police State of America either. We are talking the real thing. I would urge folks to listen in Sunday night and to check out the film as well.
"Information about the American Voice Radio Network and Rick Stanley are available by going to http://www.stanley2002.orgwith a link at the top of the main page for the Radio Network."
"Charles Robert Carner will be the featured guest on 'Standing Up For America' with Rick Stanley, Sunday night at 7:00 PM MST, February 27, 2005, at http://www.americanvoiceradio.net to discuss his new movie remake of the cult classic 'Vanishing Point' . This movie has an incredible 'freedom and liberty' message not seen in mainstream Hollywood. I am not talking about the 'freedom and liberty' mentioned over and over by President Bush and his Police State of America either. We are talking the real thing. I would urge folks to listen in Sunday night and to check out the film as well.
"Information about the American Voice Radio Network and Rick Stanley are available by going to http://www.stanley2002.orgwith a link at the top of the main page for the Radio Network."
Imagine That!
"Young people have some funny ideas about those days," [Black Panther historian Billy X Jennings] says. "They think it was all about the guns, but the guns were just a symbol. It was the right to carry them, and use them to defend yourself, that was important.” [Note: registration required to view article.]
Imagine that! The individual right to keep and bear arms stated clearly in the Contra Costa Times—with no hysterical counter-argument against the idea!!!
“Guns were front and center from the start," the article tells us, "partly because self-defense resonated in the black community because of a series of alleged police brutality incidents, partly because all that hardware got people's attention fast."
Imagine that! Guns are deemed useful for protecting citizens from abuse by those in power. Why, isn’t that the “Insurrectionary Theory” leftwing rags like the CCT discredit as the province and fantasy of white knuckle-draggers?
“That became evident in May 1967," the story continues, "when the Panthers exploded out of obscurity when news cameras filmed them on the steps of the state Capitol in Sacramento, carrying rifles to protest a bill that would have restricted gun ownership.”
Imagine that! Instead of suing gun makers, like the NAACP, or sponsoring gun turn-in programs, like so many urban churches, a group of blacks demand their right to keep and bear arms. They scared the Establishment so much with that event, that NRA’s Second Amendment Champion Ronald Reagan signed The Mulford Act into law, banning that type of open carry in California (along with supporting a host of other unconstitutional gun control edicts).
There's no outraged quote from a representative of VPC or the Million Moms/Brady Campaign, or from the cops, or from some posturing politician. The paper hasn't demonized the Panthers for being armed. Imagine that!
And, before protesting the Panthers were racist commie thugs, that’s not the point. This is.
Imagine that! The individual right to keep and bear arms stated clearly in the Contra Costa Times—with no hysterical counter-argument against the idea!!!
“Guns were front and center from the start," the article tells us, "partly because self-defense resonated in the black community because of a series of alleged police brutality incidents, partly because all that hardware got people's attention fast."
Imagine that! Guns are deemed useful for protecting citizens from abuse by those in power. Why, isn’t that the “Insurrectionary Theory” leftwing rags like the CCT discredit as the province and fantasy of white knuckle-draggers?
“That became evident in May 1967," the story continues, "when the Panthers exploded out of obscurity when news cameras filmed them on the steps of the state Capitol in Sacramento, carrying rifles to protest a bill that would have restricted gun ownership.”
Imagine that! Instead of suing gun makers, like the NAACP, or sponsoring gun turn-in programs, like so many urban churches, a group of blacks demand their right to keep and bear arms. They scared the Establishment so much with that event, that NRA’s Second Amendment Champion Ronald Reagan signed The Mulford Act into law, banning that type of open carry in California (along with supporting a host of other unconstitutional gun control edicts).
There's no outraged quote from a representative of VPC or the Million Moms/Brady Campaign, or from the cops, or from some posturing politician. The paper hasn't demonized the Panthers for being armed. Imagine that!
And, before protesting the Panthers were racist commie thugs, that’s not the point. This is.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Sauce for the Goose
Well, if anti-gun CNN can violate firearm edicts with impunity, why can't anti-gun churches?
Just don't expect "authoritah" to treat them like they would you and me. When it comes to the antis violating the law to make a point, BATFU has been committed to looking the other way for years. After all, if you have a group of useful idiots out there helping you demonize guns in private hands, that's free advertising.
Just don't expect "authoritah" to treat them like they would you and me. When it comes to the antis violating the law to make a point, BATFU has been committed to looking the other way for years. After all, if you have a group of useful idiots out there helping you demonize guns in private hands, that's free advertising.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Plea for Help: Publicola Was Here
Read Publicola's take, written in Sept. 2003, on the lawsuit against the "Plea for Help" gun store owners.
Monday, February 21, 2005
I Need a Drink...
“Britain’s Kalashnikov Joint Stock Vodka company has revealed plans to change its name to get rid of the military connotations. The move came after a number of campaigns were launched to boycott the brand because it allegedly promoted violence.”
Thanks to Dennis Walker of PRO for tipping me off to this one.
Thanks to Dennis Walker of PRO for tipping me off to this one.
Vanishing Point Reappears
FOX TV Movie releasing to DVD in March
By David Codrea
PRESS RELEASE:
“Charles Robert Carner’s action-packed remake of the cult classic 'Vanishing Point' roars onto DVD from Anchor Bay Entertainment, March 8, 2005. Viggo Mortensen (“The Lord of the Rings”) stars as Kowalski, the lone hero in the Dodge Challenger who leads an army of lawmen on a wild car chase across the American West…”
Viggo Mortensen in VANISHING POINT
Produced by Alan C. Blomquist
Directed by Charles Robert Carner
Screenwriter Charles Robert Carner
“Vanishing Point” also stars Jason Priestley, Christine Elise, Keith David, Steve Railsback, John Doe and Peta Wilson
________________________
HISTORY
Back when I was young and immortal, I fancied myself fast behind the wheel. But this was the era of muscle cars, and as proud as I was of my old Buick V-8, it fell short of the "gold standard"--it wasn't a Mopar.
As if to remind boys like me of our place in the food chain, the movie “Vanishing Point” came screaming into theaters, featuring Barry Newman as the pill-popping Kowalski, who leads police on an interstate chase over a bet. But for me, the real star of the film was the white 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T with the 440 Magnum engine.
“Vanishing Point” became a hit with a cult following, for many, the benchmark for car chase movies. There was no way for me to know at the time that a generation later it would bring a friend into my life, resulting in collaborative efforts on GunTruths.com and the Citizens of America national advertising campaign for gun rights.
When I first heard of Charles Robert Carner I was producing a newsletter for the Westside Los Angeles NRA Member’s Council, 2nd Amendment West, my first foray into gun rights commentary. Because he was a nominal member of the Council and wanted to publicize the film to gun owners, Charlie contacted me about his soon-to-be-broadcast television movie for 20th Century-Fox, a remake of the Newman classic.
“What is this guy,” I remember thinking to myself, “nuts?”
Besides, what did a car movie have to do with guns?
As it turned out, not that much--at least, not as it applies to We the People. But it had plenty to do with the main reason we have guns. It had plenty to do with freedom.
What follows is not going to be a “movie review” per se, as much as a series of observations. You can read a review I am told is good here. I informed Charlie I didn’t want to read it until after I had finished this article, to avoid any influence on what I wanted to say.
________________________
THE FILM (and why gun owners/liberty activists should care)
First impressions: Gentle guitar notes set a sad, serene mood. A horned toad establishes the terrain. Machine sounds invade—bulldozers, it turns out, doing what? Squad car lights are flashing. Helicopter blades thud. Other instruments have joined the guitar; the music is more urgent now, and ominous. A Man in Black directs activities. The bulldozers have formed a roadblock. A white Challenger appears over a rise, pursued by flashing police cars.
Protestors carry signs on the sidelines. One, just briefly visible, reads “Don’t Forget Mt. Carmel.”
This is a “mainstream” television movie?
“If you do not stay back,” a bullhorn blares, “you will be arrested.”
The Challenger stops. We see a close up shot of Kowalski, the driver. His face looks grim, determined, resigned.
It is Easter Sunday in Riddle, ID.
Basic Plot/Synopsis:
Former Army Ranger and racer Kowalski restores vintage muscle cars and delivers them to customers. While in transit to deliver a 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T, he learns his pregnant wife, who suffers from Lupus, has been admitted to the hospital and is gravely ill. Unable to schedule a flight at the local airport, he decides to take advantage of the awesome machine at his disposal and drive from New Mexico to the hospital in Boise. Cops stop him for speeding. They won't listen to him and want to take him in to process his citation, which will result in a long delay. Desperate, Kowalski takes off and the chase is on. And then the feds get involved.
In Carner's words, "The story is also a spiritual quest." It explores Kowalski's religious awakening, thanks to his wife, as well as the deep bond and commitment the two have made to each other. Faith and the sanctity of marriage--there are two concepts Hollywood doesn't beat to death.
Important Differences:
The car looks the same as it did in the Newman classic. There is a difference, we learn--the 440 Magnum has been replaced with a 426 Hemi.
One big difference is with Kowalski. Mortensen's has a first name (Jimmy), and unlike the pill-popper in the original, the new Kowalski has a purpose.
There's another big difference. This remake focuses its lens on the government's War on Freedom, and the evil tactics they employ.
"In the 25 years between Richard Sarafian's original and my remake," Carner writes, "the right and the left had switched places. It was deep in the Clinton era. The 'counter-cultural' 'anti-establishment' attitude of the original gave it a hip, '60's left-liberal-nihilism. In my remake, it's the small businessman (once the backbone of America) who has become the outcast - and that neo-fascist state is populated by Leftists. The FBI = the Gestapo. The theme - the individual vs the state - is the same; it's just that the state is now the former '60's radicals in power."
Memorable Characters:
That's why my favorite character in the new VP is The Man in Black, sinister FBI supervisor Warren Taftley, played as the Javert to Mortensen's Valjean by Tony-winning stage star Keith David. We first meet him when the camera pans down from portraits of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, as he is instructing a subordinate to tie Kowalski's flight in with drugs and guns.
"How do you figure guns?" the agent asks.
"Idaho. Extremists. Right-wing militias," Taftley replies. "That's our way in--domestic terrorism, high explosives, planning another Oklahoma City."
"It could be--but we don't have any evidence," the agent cautions.
"We'll get it," Taftley confidently assures him. "He's run across four state lines. It's gotta be something big."
In the minds of those corrupted by power, there can be no innocent explanation for a subject exercising freedom. We are all suspects. And evidence is just a formality.
Carner did something cool here in the casting, breaking away from sterotypes--having a black man represent corrupt authority to the point of being an enthusiastic persecutor. That had to be a very liberating role to play, and Mr. David does it well.
"We worked Keith's shooting schedule around a play he was doing," Charlie tells me. "He was great and he really enjoyed playing a guy who assumed his own righteousness to the point of absolute dictatorship."
There are other great characters as well--Kowalski is assisted in evading his pursuers by a happenstance ally, a libertarian/Constitutionalist talk radio broadcaster known as "The Voice," portrayed by Jason Priestley, in another bit of inspired casting that certainly helps break the sterotype of a Beverly Hills 90210 heartthrob.
Replacing the hip "SuperSoul" role Cleavon Little played so well in the original VP, The Voice warns Kowalski about his pursuers so that he can take alternate routes, all the while decrying tyrannical abuses and philosophizing to his listeners about liberty-oriented themes, and how "The Bill of Rights is as forgotten as the Dead Sea Scrolls."
"Once upon a time," The Voice laments, "the police would have given this man an escort, instead of trying to run him into the ground!"
Another good portrayal is turned in by Steve Railsback, playing Sgt. Preston of the New Mexico State police.
"It takes a Mopar to catch a Mopar," Preston explains to his deputy, abandoning his squad car for a black '68 Charger R/T in a subtle tribute to another great car chase film, Bullitt. (The Charger should have blown the doors off Steve McQueen's 390 fastback Mustang).
The rest of the cast acquit themselves nicely as well. Christine Elise as Raphinia, Kowalski's wife, provides a moral anchor and spiritual mentor for Jimmy, and the gorgeous Peta Wilson, as the Motorcycle Girl, plays a provocative temptress and then ally.
The Ending:
I won't reveal it here-- you'll have to get the DVD and see it for yourself. I will say that Carner doesn't let up on his freedom theme. We see the protestors more clearly now. In addition to the "Mt. Carmel" sign, there's one that reads "Remember Ruby Ridge."
How did he get away with it on Establishment TV?
"You can tell I had a lot of fun on the movie," he tells me. "When I wrote the script, I just ranted away - went for it. I figured when the network started whining, I could pull back a little and still respect myself in the morning. But when Viggo signed on - and was only available right this minute - that first draft got green-lit. And the network never squawked. I kept all the politics in the final cut."
Carner's is an important voice in the film industry for principles of freedom that are almost universally ignored. "Vanishing Point" is a good example of popular art we could use a lot more of.
_______________________
CHARLES ROBERT CARNER FILMOGRAPHY
Chicago-born Charles Robert Carner began working in the entertainment industry after graduating valedictorian of his class at Columbia College, where he directed the film Assassins, starring Joe Mantegna, which was named Best Student Film at the Chicago International Film Festival.
Carner then went to work as a story editor for director Tony Bill, writing screenplays in his spare time. His first produced script was Seduced, starring Gregory Harrison and Cybill Shepherd. He followed that with the action-adventure feature Gymkata; Let's Get Harry, with Mark Harmon, Robert Duvall and Gary Busey; and the telefilm Eyes of a Witness, starring Jennifer Grey and Daniel J. Travanti. Carner expanded into producing on the feature film Blind Fury, with Rutger Hauer. He then began realizing his lifelong dream of directing his own scripts. He began with episodes of "Midnight Caller", "Reasonable Doubts" and "The Untouchables", before moving on to such television movies as A Killer Among Friends and One Woman's Courage.
Carner's list of television movies continued to expand, with such titles as Vanishing Point, starring The Lord of the Rings’ Viggo Mortensen, and The Fixer, starring Jon Voight, both of which went on to win several awards. In July 2000, his film Who Killed Atlanta's Children?, starring Jim Belushi and Gregory Hines debuted on Showtime and became that network's highest rated movie of the year. Carner made a huge splash on basic cable when he wrote the TNT Western Crossfire Trail, the highest-rated cable movie in television history, starring Tom Selleck. He wrote, directed and executive produced the holiday hit Christmas Rush for TBS Superstation, starring Dean Cain and Eric Roberts, and directed Red Water, the highest-rated basic cable movie in history, starring Lou Diamond Phillips and Kristy Swanson for TBS Superstation. His last network directorial effort, Judas, aired on ABC Television in 2004.
Mr. Carner is a Life Member of both the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club, serves on the Executive Committee of Catholics in Media, and is a biographee in Who's Who in America.
You can read his gun commentaries here. (Click on "GunTruths Correspondents")
--Report compiled from various sources including Mr. Carner.
By David Codrea
PRESS RELEASE:
“Charles Robert Carner’s action-packed remake of the cult classic 'Vanishing Point' roars onto DVD from Anchor Bay Entertainment, March 8, 2005. Viggo Mortensen (“The Lord of the Rings”) stars as Kowalski, the lone hero in the Dodge Challenger who leads an army of lawmen on a wild car chase across the American West…”
Viggo Mortensen in VANISHING POINT
Produced by Alan C. Blomquist
Directed by Charles Robert Carner
Screenwriter Charles Robert Carner
“Vanishing Point” also stars Jason Priestley, Christine Elise, Keith David, Steve Railsback, John Doe and Peta Wilson
________________________
HISTORY
Back when I was young and immortal, I fancied myself fast behind the wheel. But this was the era of muscle cars, and as proud as I was of my old Buick V-8, it fell short of the "gold standard"--it wasn't a Mopar.
As if to remind boys like me of our place in the food chain, the movie “Vanishing Point” came screaming into theaters, featuring Barry Newman as the pill-popping Kowalski, who leads police on an interstate chase over a bet. But for me, the real star of the film was the white 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T with the 440 Magnum engine.
“Vanishing Point” became a hit with a cult following, for many, the benchmark for car chase movies. There was no way for me to know at the time that a generation later it would bring a friend into my life, resulting in collaborative efforts on GunTruths.com and the Citizens of America national advertising campaign for gun rights.
When I first heard of Charles Robert Carner I was producing a newsletter for the Westside Los Angeles NRA Member’s Council, 2nd Amendment West, my first foray into gun rights commentary. Because he was a nominal member of the Council and wanted to publicize the film to gun owners, Charlie contacted me about his soon-to-be-broadcast television movie for 20th Century-Fox, a remake of the Newman classic.
“What is this guy,” I remember thinking to myself, “nuts?”
Besides, what did a car movie have to do with guns?
As it turned out, not that much--at least, not as it applies to We the People. But it had plenty to do with the main reason we have guns. It had plenty to do with freedom.
What follows is not going to be a “movie review” per se, as much as a series of observations. You can read a review I am told is good here. I informed Charlie I didn’t want to read it until after I had finished this article, to avoid any influence on what I wanted to say.
________________________
THE FILM (and why gun owners/liberty activists should care)
First impressions: Gentle guitar notes set a sad, serene mood. A horned toad establishes the terrain. Machine sounds invade—bulldozers, it turns out, doing what? Squad car lights are flashing. Helicopter blades thud. Other instruments have joined the guitar; the music is more urgent now, and ominous. A Man in Black directs activities. The bulldozers have formed a roadblock. A white Challenger appears over a rise, pursued by flashing police cars.
Protestors carry signs on the sidelines. One, just briefly visible, reads “Don’t Forget Mt. Carmel.”
This is a “mainstream” television movie?
“If you do not stay back,” a bullhorn blares, “you will be arrested.”
The Challenger stops. We see a close up shot of Kowalski, the driver. His face looks grim, determined, resigned.
It is Easter Sunday in Riddle, ID.
Basic Plot/Synopsis:
Former Army Ranger and racer Kowalski restores vintage muscle cars and delivers them to customers. While in transit to deliver a 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T, he learns his pregnant wife, who suffers from Lupus, has been admitted to the hospital and is gravely ill. Unable to schedule a flight at the local airport, he decides to take advantage of the awesome machine at his disposal and drive from New Mexico to the hospital in Boise. Cops stop him for speeding. They won't listen to him and want to take him in to process his citation, which will result in a long delay. Desperate, Kowalski takes off and the chase is on. And then the feds get involved.
In Carner's words, "The story is also a spiritual quest." It explores Kowalski's religious awakening, thanks to his wife, as well as the deep bond and commitment the two have made to each other. Faith and the sanctity of marriage--there are two concepts Hollywood doesn't beat to death.
Important Differences:
The car looks the same as it did in the Newman classic. There is a difference, we learn--the 440 Magnum has been replaced with a 426 Hemi.
One big difference is with Kowalski. Mortensen's has a first name (Jimmy), and unlike the pill-popper in the original, the new Kowalski has a purpose.
There's another big difference. This remake focuses its lens on the government's War on Freedom, and the evil tactics they employ.
"In the 25 years between Richard Sarafian's original and my remake," Carner writes, "the right and the left had switched places. It was deep in the Clinton era. The 'counter-cultural' 'anti-establishment' attitude of the original gave it a hip, '60's left-liberal-nihilism. In my remake, it's the small businessman (once the backbone of America) who has become the outcast - and that neo-fascist state is populated by Leftists. The FBI = the Gestapo. The theme - the individual vs the state - is the same; it's just that the state is now the former '60's radicals in power."
Memorable Characters:
That's why my favorite character in the new VP is The Man in Black, sinister FBI supervisor Warren Taftley, played as the Javert to Mortensen's Valjean by Tony-winning stage star Keith David. We first meet him when the camera pans down from portraits of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, as he is instructing a subordinate to tie Kowalski's flight in with drugs and guns.
"How do you figure guns?" the agent asks.
"Idaho. Extremists. Right-wing militias," Taftley replies. "That's our way in--domestic terrorism, high explosives, planning another Oklahoma City."
"It could be--but we don't have any evidence," the agent cautions.
"We'll get it," Taftley confidently assures him. "He's run across four state lines. It's gotta be something big."
In the minds of those corrupted by power, there can be no innocent explanation for a subject exercising freedom. We are all suspects. And evidence is just a formality.
Carner did something cool here in the casting, breaking away from sterotypes--having a black man represent corrupt authority to the point of being an enthusiastic persecutor. That had to be a very liberating role to play, and Mr. David does it well.
"We worked Keith's shooting schedule around a play he was doing," Charlie tells me. "He was great and he really enjoyed playing a guy who assumed his own righteousness to the point of absolute dictatorship."
There are other great characters as well--Kowalski is assisted in evading his pursuers by a happenstance ally, a libertarian/Constitutionalist talk radio broadcaster known as "The Voice," portrayed by Jason Priestley, in another bit of inspired casting that certainly helps break the sterotype of a Beverly Hills 90210 heartthrob.
Replacing the hip "SuperSoul" role Cleavon Little played so well in the original VP, The Voice warns Kowalski about his pursuers so that he can take alternate routes, all the while decrying tyrannical abuses and philosophizing to his listeners about liberty-oriented themes, and how "The Bill of Rights is as forgotten as the Dead Sea Scrolls."
"Once upon a time," The Voice laments, "the police would have given this man an escort, instead of trying to run him into the ground!"
Another good portrayal is turned in by Steve Railsback, playing Sgt. Preston of the New Mexico State police.
"It takes a Mopar to catch a Mopar," Preston explains to his deputy, abandoning his squad car for a black '68 Charger R/T in a subtle tribute to another great car chase film, Bullitt. (The Charger should have blown the doors off Steve McQueen's 390 fastback Mustang).
The rest of the cast acquit themselves nicely as well. Christine Elise as Raphinia, Kowalski's wife, provides a moral anchor and spiritual mentor for Jimmy, and the gorgeous Peta Wilson, as the Motorcycle Girl, plays a provocative temptress and then ally.
The Ending:
I won't reveal it here-- you'll have to get the DVD and see it for yourself. I will say that Carner doesn't let up on his freedom theme. We see the protestors more clearly now. In addition to the "Mt. Carmel" sign, there's one that reads "Remember Ruby Ridge."
How did he get away with it on Establishment TV?
"You can tell I had a lot of fun on the movie," he tells me. "When I wrote the script, I just ranted away - went for it. I figured when the network started whining, I could pull back a little and still respect myself in the morning. But when Viggo signed on - and was only available right this minute - that first draft got green-lit. And the network never squawked. I kept all the politics in the final cut."
Carner's is an important voice in the film industry for principles of freedom that are almost universally ignored. "Vanishing Point" is a good example of popular art we could use a lot more of.
_______________________
CHARLES ROBERT CARNER FILMOGRAPHY
Chicago-born Charles Robert Carner began working in the entertainment industry after graduating valedictorian of his class at Columbia College, where he directed the film Assassins, starring Joe Mantegna, which was named Best Student Film at the Chicago International Film Festival.
Carner then went to work as a story editor for director Tony Bill, writing screenplays in his spare time. His first produced script was Seduced, starring Gregory Harrison and Cybill Shepherd. He followed that with the action-adventure feature Gymkata; Let's Get Harry, with Mark Harmon, Robert Duvall and Gary Busey; and the telefilm Eyes of a Witness, starring Jennifer Grey and Daniel J. Travanti. Carner expanded into producing on the feature film Blind Fury, with Rutger Hauer. He then began realizing his lifelong dream of directing his own scripts. He began with episodes of "Midnight Caller", "Reasonable Doubts" and "The Untouchables", before moving on to such television movies as A Killer Among Friends and One Woman's Courage.
Carner's list of television movies continued to expand, with such titles as Vanishing Point, starring The Lord of the Rings’ Viggo Mortensen, and The Fixer, starring Jon Voight, both of which went on to win several awards. In July 2000, his film Who Killed Atlanta's Children?, starring Jim Belushi and Gregory Hines debuted on Showtime and became that network's highest rated movie of the year. Carner made a huge splash on basic cable when he wrote the TNT Western Crossfire Trail, the highest-rated cable movie in television history, starring Tom Selleck. He wrote, directed and executive produced the holiday hit Christmas Rush for TBS Superstation, starring Dean Cain and Eric Roberts, and directed Red Water, the highest-rated basic cable movie in history, starring Lou Diamond Phillips and Kristy Swanson for TBS Superstation. His last network directorial effort, Judas, aired on ABC Television in 2004.
Mr. Carner is a Life Member of both the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club, serves on the Executive Committee of Catholics in Media, and is a biographee in Who's Who in America.
You can read his gun commentaries here. (Click on "GunTruths Correspondents")
--Report compiled from various sources including Mr. Carner.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
The Geek's NRA Board Recommendations
GeekWithA.45 tells us who he endorses for the NRA Board of Directors and why.
I'd be curious to see how his picks would answer this.
I'd be curious to see how his picks would answer this.
“A Plea for Help”
I don’t normally involve myself in individual requests for assistance. This one came through, and the gross unfairness of the situation struck me—as well as the implications for destroying lawful commerce in firearms. Here’s the gist of things:
Teenage reptiles plot and execute a “thrill killing” of two pizza deliverers. They obtain their weapons by breaking into a gun shop.
Lawsuits are filed by the victims’ survivors. Among those named, who settle for an undisclosed amount: the burglarized gun store and their alarm company.
Aside from having the predictable effect of scaring off New Jersey proprietors from dealing in firearms, the former owners of the gun store have also had their financial lives destroyed.
I received the following from Lawrence C. Farrell, Jr., of Gun Owners of New Jersey:
“A PLEA FOR HELP
"Hi Everyone, I am making a personal plea to help some folks who really need it. Keith and Sheila Hughes are the young couple who owned the gun shop in Sussex Co that was broken into 7 years ago and a gun stolen was used in a murder. They had followed every regulation concerning store security, however, the NJ courts said they were negligent and responsible for the crime and have been suffering ever since. I have been recently notified by friends that they are about to lose their home and belongings because of a court decision still related to the incident 7 years ago. They have lost their business, their credit, their jobs;---need I go further, simply because they owned a gun store in NJ. They are a young couple with 2 small children and they don't deserve this.
"On another note, the murder victim’s family sued and won millions of dollars from their insurance. Welcome to NJ! To get to the point, please send a small donation to them and let them know you are a gun owner and they have friends. They are really at the end of their rope after years of harassment. A $20.00 donation from each of us (or whatever you can) will go far to pay some bills and boost their morale.
"Please send donations to:
"HUGHES FAMILY C/O Vernon United Methodist Church PO Box 345 Vernon, NJ 07452
"THIS COULD HAPPEN TO ANY GUN STORE OWNER OR ANY OF US IF OUR HOMES WERE BURGLARIZED. THEY NEED SUPPORT FROM THE GUN OWNERS COMMUNITY. PASS THIS ON TO ANYONE WHO MIGHT CARE. We appreciate this very much.
"Peggy and Mike Bodner, ANJRPC"
Lawrence asks that donors write “GONJ” on the memo line of their checks.
Teenage reptiles plot and execute a “thrill killing” of two pizza deliverers. They obtain their weapons by breaking into a gun shop.
Lawsuits are filed by the victims’ survivors. Among those named, who settle for an undisclosed amount: the burglarized gun store and their alarm company.
Aside from having the predictable effect of scaring off New Jersey proprietors from dealing in firearms, the former owners of the gun store have also had their financial lives destroyed.
I received the following from Lawrence C. Farrell, Jr., of Gun Owners of New Jersey:
“A PLEA FOR HELP
"Hi Everyone, I am making a personal plea to help some folks who really need it. Keith and Sheila Hughes are the young couple who owned the gun shop in Sussex Co that was broken into 7 years ago and a gun stolen was used in a murder. They had followed every regulation concerning store security, however, the NJ courts said they were negligent and responsible for the crime and have been suffering ever since. I have been recently notified by friends that they are about to lose their home and belongings because of a court decision still related to the incident 7 years ago. They have lost their business, their credit, their jobs;---need I go further, simply because they owned a gun store in NJ. They are a young couple with 2 small children and they don't deserve this.
"On another note, the murder victim’s family sued and won millions of dollars from their insurance. Welcome to NJ! To get to the point, please send a small donation to them and let them know you are a gun owner and they have friends. They are really at the end of their rope after years of harassment. A $20.00 donation from each of us (or whatever you can) will go far to pay some bills and boost their morale.
"Please send donations to:
"HUGHES FAMILY C/O Vernon United Methodist Church PO Box 345 Vernon, NJ 07452
"THIS COULD HAPPEN TO ANY GUN STORE OWNER OR ANY OF US IF OUR HOMES WERE BURGLARIZED. THEY NEED SUPPORT FROM THE GUN OWNERS COMMUNITY. PASS THIS ON TO ANYONE WHO MIGHT CARE. We appreciate this very much.
"Peggy and Mike Bodner, ANJRPC"
Lawrence asks that donors write “GONJ” on the memo line of their checks.
More on the Questionable CNN Gun Buy
The Smallest Minority wants to do a “blogswarm.” (I’m new to blogging, but I can guess what that means. Still, please bear with me. Up until a few days ago, I’d have said “fisking” is what they’re teaching Massachusetts public school kids to do):
TriggerFinger has done a great job keeping on top of this story:
*His letter to CNN
*For those having trouble viewing the CNN video...
*CNN Felony Gunswarm!
* ...and a straw purchase, too!
*The 1968 Gun Control Act
*CNN reporter commits a federal felony to get an anti-gun story
TriggerFinger has done a great job keeping on top of this story:
*His letter to CNN
*For those having trouble viewing the CNN video...
*CNN Felony Gunswarm!
* ...and a straw purchase, too!
*The 1968 Gun Control Act
*CNN reporter commits a federal felony to get an anti-gun story
Did CNN Just Commit a "Gun Crime"?
Freedom Sight points us to a discussion over at The Claire Files. Apparently, a reporter at anti-gun CNN just committed a federal felony by purchasing a .50 cal. rifle without going through all the “legal” transfer requirements. Either that or he did, and he’s not disclosing it in his story to make it look like just anybody can do this.
To see the video, go here and click on the “Powerful Rifle Readily Available” link in the Video graphic at the top right of the page.
NOTE: "To view this CNN content you must have RealOne SuperPass or CNN NewsPass."
To see the video, go here and click on the “Powerful Rifle Readily Available” link in the Video graphic at the top right of the page.
NOTE: "To view this CNN content you must have RealOne SuperPass or CNN NewsPass."
Saturday, February 19, 2005
NRA Bashes U.N. on Small-Arms Reduction
"Others here may suggest the U.S. to get out of the U.N.” Wayne LaPierre thunders (just like he means it). “Right now I just want the U.N. to get out of the U.S."
Right.
Will you put your money where your mouth is, Mr. LaPierre?
Will you fold up shop on NRA's much-ballyhooed UN NGO and withdraw support and NRA membership from the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities?
Will you have the Board pass a resolution that NRA's official and only policy toward global gungrabbers is "Molon Labe"?
I wrote a rebuttal appearing in the Sept. 2003 issue of GUNS AND AMMO to a piece featured in their May 2003 issue that praised the World Forum as a “pro gun watchdog.”
In it, I documented WFFSSA’s backing of gun marking/ registration schemes, along with their assisting the UN in defining "non-sporting" firearms, and recommended "Rather than working with [the UN], we should withdraw and conduct our sovereign affairs as prescribed by the Constitution--observing Washington's admonishment to 'steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.'"
Interestingly, the California-based NRA Members Councils, which don't do a thing that is disapproved by their masters in Fairfax, attacked my endorsement of the Constitution and of Washington's philosophy, complaining "it is hard to imagine how an almost Islamist-like exclusionary world-view will enable the Codreas of the world to convert more than the occasional wandering 'Aryan' to the paradise of a rapidly diminishing gunowner 'reservation.'
"It is apparently more important for Codrea and his ilk to maintain an ideological purity of thought rather than achieve any of the incremental positional successes that could best guarantee eventual victory."
Just like all those incremental successes gun owners have enjoyed in California, right?
One more question: By calling for expulsion of the UN, does Wayne's new "ideological purity of thought" and "Islamist-like exclusionary world-view" now make him one of my "ilk"?
Right.
Will you put your money where your mouth is, Mr. LaPierre?
Will you fold up shop on NRA's much-ballyhooed UN NGO and withdraw support and NRA membership from the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities?
Will you have the Board pass a resolution that NRA's official and only policy toward global gungrabbers is "Molon Labe"?
I wrote a rebuttal appearing in the Sept. 2003 issue of GUNS AND AMMO to a piece featured in their May 2003 issue that praised the World Forum as a “pro gun watchdog.”
In it, I documented WFFSSA’s backing of gun marking/ registration schemes, along with their assisting the UN in defining "non-sporting" firearms, and recommended "Rather than working with [the UN], we should withdraw and conduct our sovereign affairs as prescribed by the Constitution--observing Washington's admonishment to 'steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.'"
Interestingly, the California-based NRA Members Councils, which don't do a thing that is disapproved by their masters in Fairfax, attacked my endorsement of the Constitution and of Washington's philosophy, complaining "it is hard to imagine how an almost Islamist-like exclusionary world-view will enable the Codreas of the world to convert more than the occasional wandering 'Aryan' to the paradise of a rapidly diminishing gunowner 'reservation.'
"It is apparently more important for Codrea and his ilk to maintain an ideological purity of thought rather than achieve any of the incremental positional successes that could best guarantee eventual victory."
Just like all those incremental successes gun owners have enjoyed in California, right?
One more question: By calling for expulsion of the UN, does Wayne's new "ideological purity of thought" and "Islamist-like exclusionary world-view" now make him one of my "ilk"?
Workplace Violence Carries Heavy Cost
"Never allow guns, knives or other weapons in or around company property, including parking lots," Louise Rogers-Feher authoritatively postures, as if she knows what the hell she's talking about.
"In some instances, employees have gone to their cars during breaks and returned with weapons," she warns.
Great idea, Louise! You first.
Let's ban all guns in all workplaces.
INCLUDING the Baltimore County Police Department, where YOU work.
"In some instances, employees have gone to their cars during breaks and returned with weapons," she warns.
Great idea, Louise! You first.
Let's ban all guns in all workplaces.
INCLUDING the Baltimore County Police Department, where YOU work.
Friday, February 18, 2005
I, Propagandist
One of my old GunTruths posters has turned up on the “Classroom Tools” website, along with a dissection of the “propaganda” techniques it employs.
The poster features the infamous AP photo taken during the federal home invasion to snatch Elian Gonzales, along with the caption, "Gun Control: The incomprehensible theory that this guy, and people like him, are the only ones who should be armed."
The analyst draws some conclusions about my intent that reflect much more on what’s going on inside his head than went on in mine. For instance:
5. At whom is it targeted?
Americans fearful of Big Government taking away their "2nd Amendment rights"
While GunTruths was definitely intended to be a resource for Second Amendment activists, the posters (as we stated on their index page) were primarily intended to make “people who support gun control …out of conditioning rather than out of deep conviction” take a closer look at the logical and moral implications of citizen disarmament.
7. In one clear, brief sentence, summarize the message with which you've decided to work.
You need guns to protect yourself against tyranny.
I would actually state this in a different way: A tyranny is the inevitable result of a monopoly of force.
10. Clearly state the behavior or belief the author wants from the target.
The author wants to reinforce the belief of those who already know that governments are tyrannical.
S/he wants these people to continue voting for and contributing to those who promise to protect their "2nd amendment rights".
Ah, no, I wasn’t attempting to “reinforce beliefs” with a poster. What good would that do? I was attempting to call hard evidence to the attention of people who might not have thought of gun control as tyranny-enabling citizen disarmament. And the poster is silent on voting for or contributing to politicians. It’s more elemental than that.
11. Does the message attempt to manipulate with emotion, reason or both?
Emotion
Sure, emotion plays a big part. The AP photo does that by itself. But the sentiment and conclusion of the caption—that gun control results in firearms controlled by the government, and that such control results in citizens helpless against abuses of power—is something I’ve never heard a reasoned argument against.
12. Describe how you think the manipulation works?
Red letters signal alarm.
Yo, egghead—I hate to disappoint you. But I’m not an artist, see? My sense of composition is pretty rudimentary. The reason is no more complicated than this: I picked red because I tried a couple other colors and thought it looked the prettiest.
The poster ignores most of the facts surrounding this particular situation—the Federal Government's need to enforce a court order to turn Elian Gonzalez (the child) over to his father after repeated attempts to negotiate the turnover were rejected by those holding the boy; the same people who had lost every legal challenge they'd filed in an effort to keep him. For example, there is no acknowledgement that the situation was resolved peacefully, and that Elian was photographed happily in his father's arms just a few hours later. Neither is there any consideration of what might have occurred had the man apparently attempting to protect Elian had a weapon. In fact, no one was injured or killed. Would that have been the case had the protector been armed? Probably not, unless he was unwilling to use his weapon; and in that case what would be the sense in having one?
No, the poster illuminates the facts: The deployment of stormtroopers against the public is the act of a tyrannical government. There was never any indication of violence on the part of the family warranting a military strike. There were many ways this could have been resolved without resorting to blitzkrieg home invasion tactics.
But the analyst’s prejudice is clear: The only safety lie in submission. Into the cattle cars, people. Resistance is futile.
13.Do you believe this item was successful propaganda?
Absolutely
14. What evidence supports your answer to the last question?
Polls showed that information like that in this poster contributed to a conviction among the members of the Cuban community in South Florida to support George W. Bush over Al Gore in the presidential election that took place a few months after the events illustrated by this image. Given the closeness of the outcome of the presidential race in Florida, this type of propaganda was clearly one of the factors that led to Mr. Bush's narrow Electoral College victory, and subsequent ascension to the presidency.
First, despite our stated intent to reach outside the choir with our posters, I doubt this saw much circulation in South Florida’s Cuban community. And I have never been silent in my criticisms of the Bush administration’s manipulation and betrayal of gun owners.
But it’s not like this “scholar” has been right in much else of his analysis.
The poster features the infamous AP photo taken during the federal home invasion to snatch Elian Gonzales, along with the caption, "Gun Control: The incomprehensible theory that this guy, and people like him, are the only ones who should be armed."
The analyst draws some conclusions about my intent that reflect much more on what’s going on inside his head than went on in mine. For instance:
5. At whom is it targeted?
Americans fearful of Big Government taking away their "2nd Amendment rights"
While GunTruths was definitely intended to be a resource for Second Amendment activists, the posters (as we stated on their index page) were primarily intended to make “people who support gun control …out of conditioning rather than out of deep conviction” take a closer look at the logical and moral implications of citizen disarmament.
7. In one clear, brief sentence, summarize the message with which you've decided to work.
You need guns to protect yourself against tyranny.
I would actually state this in a different way: A tyranny is the inevitable result of a monopoly of force.
10. Clearly state the behavior or belief the author wants from the target.
The author wants to reinforce the belief of those who already know that governments are tyrannical.
S/he wants these people to continue voting for and contributing to those who promise to protect their "2nd amendment rights".
Ah, no, I wasn’t attempting to “reinforce beliefs” with a poster. What good would that do? I was attempting to call hard evidence to the attention of people who might not have thought of gun control as tyranny-enabling citizen disarmament. And the poster is silent on voting for or contributing to politicians. It’s more elemental than that.
11. Does the message attempt to manipulate with emotion, reason or both?
Emotion
Sure, emotion plays a big part. The AP photo does that by itself. But the sentiment and conclusion of the caption—that gun control results in firearms controlled by the government, and that such control results in citizens helpless against abuses of power—is something I’ve never heard a reasoned argument against.
12. Describe how you think the manipulation works?
Red letters signal alarm.
Yo, egghead—I hate to disappoint you. But I’m not an artist, see? My sense of composition is pretty rudimentary. The reason is no more complicated than this: I picked red because I tried a couple other colors and thought it looked the prettiest.
The poster ignores most of the facts surrounding this particular situation—the Federal Government's need to enforce a court order to turn Elian Gonzalez (the child) over to his father after repeated attempts to negotiate the turnover were rejected by those holding the boy; the same people who had lost every legal challenge they'd filed in an effort to keep him. For example, there is no acknowledgement that the situation was resolved peacefully, and that Elian was photographed happily in his father's arms just a few hours later. Neither is there any consideration of what might have occurred had the man apparently attempting to protect Elian had a weapon. In fact, no one was injured or killed. Would that have been the case had the protector been armed? Probably not, unless he was unwilling to use his weapon; and in that case what would be the sense in having one?
No, the poster illuminates the facts: The deployment of stormtroopers against the public is the act of a tyrannical government. There was never any indication of violence on the part of the family warranting a military strike. There were many ways this could have been resolved without resorting to blitzkrieg home invasion tactics.
But the analyst’s prejudice is clear: The only safety lie in submission. Into the cattle cars, people. Resistance is futile.
13.Do you believe this item was successful propaganda?
Absolutely
14. What evidence supports your answer to the last question?
Polls showed that information like that in this poster contributed to a conviction among the members of the Cuban community in South Florida to support George W. Bush over Al Gore in the presidential election that took place a few months after the events illustrated by this image. Given the closeness of the outcome of the presidential race in Florida, this type of propaganda was clearly one of the factors that led to Mr. Bush's narrow Electoral College victory, and subsequent ascension to the presidency.
First, despite our stated intent to reach outside the choir with our posters, I doubt this saw much circulation in South Florida’s Cuban community. And I have never been silent in my criticisms of the Bush administration’s manipulation and betrayal of gun owners.
But it’s not like this “scholar” has been right in much else of his analysis.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
GUNS Magazine: "A Judgment Call"
Folksinger Peter Yarrow of Peter Paul & Mary believes we need more gun laws. Performing at the 2004 Million Mom March rally urging Congress to renew the federal "assault weapon" ban, Yarrow's main emphasis in the gun control movement has been to protect children.
It's too bad he wasn't thinking about protecting them when he was convicted of a sex offense for molesting a 14-year-old girl--but perhaps it explains why he wouldn't want to make it easy for parents to own a gun.
Read complete article here:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_3_51/ai_n8709820
It's too bad he wasn't thinking about protecting them when he was convicted of a sex offense for molesting a 14-year-old girl--but perhaps it explains why he wouldn't want to make it easy for parents to own a gun.
Read complete article here:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_3_51/ai_n8709820
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
More Black Arrow
I just ordered the hardback.
After reading Thomas L. Knapp's review, I didn't want to put it off any longer.
With all the good buzz, I wanted to make sure I got a copy before they ran out.
After reading Thomas L. Knapp's review, I didn't want to put it off any longer.
With all the good buzz, I wanted to make sure I got a copy before they ran out.
When There’s Not Enough Blood to Dance in, Just Flap Your Arms and Bray
Peter Hamm, Michael Barnes, Sarah Brady, et al, weigh in on the New York Mall shooting.
Any bets on whether the Hudson Valley Mall and its shops prohibit customers and employees from carrying concealed firearms?
Any bets on whether the Hudson Valley Mall and its shops prohibit customers and employees from carrying concealed firearms?
Microstamping for Macroinfringement
California Assemblything Paul Koretz (D-West Hollyweird, etc.), has introduced a bill that “would, commencing January 1, 2007, expand the definition of unsafe handgun to include semiautomatic pistols that are not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters, that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched into the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and which are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.”
Furthermore, “This bill would provide that…no handgun may be submitted for that testing unless the handgun is” so designed and equipped.
This will, of course, stop and/or solve no violent crimes (as if that's justification for infringing on our rights). That’s not the point.
The point is to further limit the availability of firearms to California citizens by drying up their sources of supply. The state started with their stupid “drop test” requirement (as if there was an epidemic of “gun deaths” and injuries resulting from that nonexistent problem, and as if there were no remedies through the courts if there were), and then moved on to mandated loaded chamber indicators (like the kind that was on the Beretta 92 Compact L that Michael Soe used to kill Kenzo Dix during a practical joke—but a Center to Prevent Handgun Violence-backed lawsuit was still filed because the gun didn’t have a written warning on it as well).
Like the reptiles that leave brass at crime scenes get their guns through channels traceable to them. Koretz, of course, knows that. It's just another calculated harassment of gun manufacturers and dealers, designed to drive them out of business by creating prohibitively expensive compliance requirements.
This is more "In your face, California gun owners!" from someone who hates them. It is, in fact, a hate crime.
Furthermore, “This bill would provide that…no handgun may be submitted for that testing unless the handgun is” so designed and equipped.
This will, of course, stop and/or solve no violent crimes (as if that's justification for infringing on our rights). That’s not the point.
The point is to further limit the availability of firearms to California citizens by drying up their sources of supply. The state started with their stupid “drop test” requirement (as if there was an epidemic of “gun deaths” and injuries resulting from that nonexistent problem, and as if there were no remedies through the courts if there were), and then moved on to mandated loaded chamber indicators (like the kind that was on the Beretta 92 Compact L that Michael Soe used to kill Kenzo Dix during a practical joke—but a Center to Prevent Handgun Violence-backed lawsuit was still filed because the gun didn’t have a written warning on it as well).
Like the reptiles that leave brass at crime scenes get their guns through channels traceable to them. Koretz, of course, knows that. It's just another calculated harassment of gun manufacturers and dealers, designed to drive them out of business by creating prohibitively expensive compliance requirements.
This is more "In your face, California gun owners!" from someone who hates them. It is, in fact, a hate crime.
The Trustbuster
TriggerFinger points us to a discussion over at The Claire Files about Boomershoot. I haven’t included a link to that site, and if you follow the ones I did include, and then read them thoroughly, you’ll see why: Concerned about potential terrorist activities, he’s turned over data to the feds that may end up bringing people under scrutiny who haven't done anything wrong. Motives notwithstanding, trust and credibility with many has been boomershot and probably won’t be regained. Too bad—cool site—if you decide to visit it after reading more.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Think Your Congressthing Will Endorse THIS Resolution?
What do you think the chances are that our current Congress would approve the following language? The Continental Congress did, back in 1775.
"We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we have received from our gallant ancestors. . . . We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them. . . . [We are] with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves." --Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson, “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking up Arms”
I’d recommend sending this to your representative to ask, but it would probably scare the hell out of them and get turned over to Die Abteilung der Homelandsicherheit.
"We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we have received from our gallant ancestors. . . . We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them. . . . [We are] with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves." --Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson, “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking up Arms”
I’d recommend sending this to your representative to ask, but it would probably scare the hell out of them and get turned over to Die Abteilung der Homelandsicherheit.
Gunman Opens Fire at Upstate New York Mall
Everyone who can’t run away is cowering helplessly until he runs out of ammo. They are disarmed under penalty of law by the same government that is NOT there to protect them.
Expect strident demands for yet more gun control in New York.
Expect strident demands for yet more gun control in New York.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Hobart Man Dies Testing Bulletproof Vest
“HOBART, Ind. -- A man whose friends initially said he was killed by gunfire outside a Gary liquor store actually died after he donned what he thought was a bulletproof vest and asked a cohort to shoot him.
“A friend then shot Daniel Wright with a .20-gauge shotgun, but it turned out the vest Wright had put on Thursday was a flak jacket not designed to stop a bullet.”
Read complete story here.
I’m sure there will be no shortage of smartass “Darwin Award” comments among the chatroom/forum warriors, but this is tragic. A young man is dead and his survivors must live on with this senseless and terrible loss.
I did plenty of stupid things when I was young, and am lucky to still be here.
This would not be as likely to happen in a society that inculcated respect for firearms at an early age, with attendant age-appropriate education as young people mature--as opposed to knee-jerk fear, loathing and avoidance.
It’s also illustrative of how uneducated most reporters are. The AP is notorious for ignorant articles when it comes to guns. One would think a professional reporter would learn his subject matter well enough to distinguish “shot” from a “bullet.”
And as we can see from the headline, the editors are no better, as the story clearly indicates that bullet resistant vests played no part in this.
“A friend then shot Daniel Wright with a .20-gauge shotgun, but it turned out the vest Wright had put on Thursday was a flak jacket not designed to stop a bullet.”
Read complete story here.
I’m sure there will be no shortage of smartass “Darwin Award” comments among the chatroom/forum warriors, but this is tragic. A young man is dead and his survivors must live on with this senseless and terrible loss.
I did plenty of stupid things when I was young, and am lucky to still be here.
This would not be as likely to happen in a society that inculcated respect for firearms at an early age, with attendant age-appropriate education as young people mature--as opposed to knee-jerk fear, loathing and avoidance.
It’s also illustrative of how uneducated most reporters are. The AP is notorious for ignorant articles when it comes to guns. One would think a professional reporter would learn his subject matter well enough to distinguish “shot” from a “bullet.”
And as we can see from the headline, the editors are no better, as the story clearly indicates that bullet resistant vests played no part in this.
Six Degrees of Hypocrisy
It's gonna be a slow day at the computer--we have company coming and the house and yard are a mess due to jobs, taking care of kids, my writing, etc.
Weren't we supposed to rest on the seventh day? Well I have chores to do.
So I'm gonna cheat and rely on an old effort from GUNS AND AMMO to be my entry for today. If you haven't already seen "Six Degrees of Hypocrisy," just click on the link.
It's about our many good friends in Hollywood. I guess when you're rich, famous and can afford the best personal security money can buy, worrying about "ordinary" people's ability to defend themselves just isn't a priority.
Besides, it's a numbers game--if they lose a few fans out of millions, it won't even be noticed at the box office.
And in the interests of complete disclosure, I have another motive for revisiting this article. I'm working on a piece about an established Hollywood producer/director/screenwriter who is one of the strongest supporters of the Second Amendment I know. I plan on posting more soon, but, alas, my charwoman/lawnboy duties come first.
Weren't we supposed to rest on the seventh day? Well I have chores to do.
So I'm gonna cheat and rely on an old effort from GUNS AND AMMO to be my entry for today. If you haven't already seen "Six Degrees of Hypocrisy," just click on the link.
It's about our many good friends in Hollywood. I guess when you're rich, famous and can afford the best personal security money can buy, worrying about "ordinary" people's ability to defend themselves just isn't a priority.
Besides, it's a numbers game--if they lose a few fans out of millions, it won't even be noticed at the box office.
And in the interests of complete disclosure, I have another motive for revisiting this article. I'm working on a piece about an established Hollywood producer/director/screenwriter who is one of the strongest supporters of the Second Amendment I know. I plan on posting more soon, but, alas, my charwoman/lawnboy duties come first.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Does This Make Me a Globalist?
I guess GUNS Magazine has an international presence I was unaware of.
I was totally surprised to find my February "Safe Schools" article reproduced in German as "Sichere Schulen.”
Now I find “Escuelas Seguras” (Spanish) and “Écoles Sûres” (French) as well.
Don't these people realize I barely speak American? Or as Homer Simpson asked: "What do we need to learn English for? We're never going to England."
I was totally surprised to find my February "Safe Schools" article reproduced in German as "Sichere Schulen.”
Now I find “Escuelas Seguras” (Spanish) and “Écoles Sûres” (French) as well.
Don't these people realize I barely speak American? Or as Homer Simpson asked: "What do we need to learn English for? We're never going to England."
The Black Arrow
Andy Barniskis has reviewed Vin Suprynowicz’s The Black Arrow.
I haven’t read the book yet, but am looking forward to doing so. Vin holds a prominent place in my personal pantheon of great liberty writers of our time. I’d like to see his column widely syndicated throughout the land--not just so that he would reap the rewards of being a magnificent talent, but because his message is sorely needed by our countrymen.
I hope The Black Arrow sells.
I note Bill St.Clair over at End the War on Freedom is like a kid at Christmas with this book.
I haven’t read the book yet, but am looking forward to doing so. Vin holds a prominent place in my personal pantheon of great liberty writers of our time. I’d like to see his column widely syndicated throughout the land--not just so that he would reap the rewards of being a magnificent talent, but because his message is sorely needed by our countrymen.
I hope The Black Arrow sells.
I note Bill St.Clair over at End the War on Freedom is like a kid at Christmas with this book.
Gun Groups Warn Against “National ID Card"
Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership have grave concerns over HR 418, “The Real ID Act.”
I have concerns too. I also have concerns about a wave of uncontrolled criminal migration that is fundamentally changing our culture and adding to the severely overstressed burdens on “We the People.” I know the Libertarian response is to end all welfare programs, but we know that isn’t going to happen any time soon, and we have a crisis NOW. And I know that anything proposed by the feds is going to have a hidden agenda for increasing their power and control at the expense of our freedom.
We must remember in this debate that the Founders ordained and established the Constitution to secure the blessings of Liberty for themselves and their posterity.
I have concerns too. I also have concerns about a wave of uncontrolled criminal migration that is fundamentally changing our culture and adding to the severely overstressed burdens on “We the People.” I know the Libertarian response is to end all welfare programs, but we know that isn’t going to happen any time soon, and we have a crisis NOW. And I know that anything proposed by the feds is going to have a hidden agenda for increasing their power and control at the expense of our freedom.
We must remember in this debate that the Founders ordained and established the Constitution to secure the blessings of Liberty for themselves and their posterity.
Friday, February 11, 2005
CA “Public Nuisance” Gun Lawsuit
Lawyer friend Geordan Goebel calls my attention to The People v. Arcadia Machine and Tool, Inc., et al, with the commentary: “Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of firearms manufacturers, distributors, and retailers and their trade associations in action by cities and counties for public nuisance and violation of the Unfair Competition Law where plaintiffs failed to present evidence that defendants’ business practices caused or were likely to cause the substantial injuries resulting from illegal use of firearms by criminals."
In re Firearm Cases- filed February 10, 2005, First District, Div. One
Cite as 2005 SOS 818
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0205%2FA103211
(Adobe Reader required)
In re Firearm Cases- filed February 10, 2005, First District, Div. One
Cite as 2005 SOS 818
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0205%2FA103211
(Adobe Reader required)
“Sichere Schulen”
Well, this is a first for me. Somebody has taken “Safe Schools,” my February GUNS Magazine Rights Watch column and translated it into German.
I’m gonna have to reverse-translate it and see how close they came to original intent.
Remind me never to title an article “My Struggle.”
I’m gonna have to reverse-translate it and see how close they came to original intent.
Remind me never to title an article “My Struggle.”
"Lead" Story From LA Times
"Science is clear," says James Birkelund of the Natural Resources Defense Council in the Los Angeles Times' latest editorial hit piece masquerading as hard news. "You need to phase out lead ammunition quickly or the only condors left in California will be stamped on the back of our new quarters."
Sounds serious. Sounds urgent. And, as per the MO of the social engineers at The Times, it sounds hysterical.
"Natural Resources Defense Council"? That sure sounds official, like they might actually rely on hard science instead of being a hobby for environmentalcase dilletantes like some who sit on their Board of Trustees, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert Redford and James Taylor--fine entertainers all, but hardly authorities competent to establish environmental regulations.
If we relied solely on the solons of the NRDC and the trusty public watchdogs at The Times, we'd never suspect that all might not be as they paint it.
For instance, we'd never know about "Two studies done at Virginia Tech [that] showed very little lead damage to the environment from bullets left on battlefields or on a carefully designed shotgun/rifle range."
We'd never know about Professor Donald Rimstidt, from the Department of Geosciences, College of Science at Virginia Tech, who reports " "Lead metal is unstable when it is in contact with air and water. It corrodes and forms hydrocerrussite, the white coating seen on old bullets in museums. That slows corrosion. However some lead escapes, but we learned that it is absorbed in the top few inches of soil and does not migrate beyond that. Lead is not very mobile. It does not wash away in surface or ground water."
We'd never hear about Fisheries and Wildlife professor Pat Scanlon, who before his death, Rimstidt reports,"found no evidence that birds were eating shot."
The alleged lead hazard is more hype and hysteria than anything else. The goal, of course, is to interfere with our ability to buy and use ammunition, as well as being part of a larger agenda.
Just remember that environmentalcase junk “science” was also used to ban DDT--and the result has been a politically-manufactured genocide in Third World nations from malaria.
Sounds serious. Sounds urgent. And, as per the MO of the social engineers at The Times, it sounds hysterical.
"Natural Resources Defense Council"? That sure sounds official, like they might actually rely on hard science instead of being a hobby for environmentalcase dilletantes like some who sit on their Board of Trustees, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert Redford and James Taylor--fine entertainers all, but hardly authorities competent to establish environmental regulations.
If we relied solely on the solons of the NRDC and the trusty public watchdogs at The Times, we'd never suspect that all might not be as they paint it.
For instance, we'd never know about "Two studies done at Virginia Tech [that] showed very little lead damage to the environment from bullets left on battlefields or on a carefully designed shotgun/rifle range."
We'd never know about Professor Donald Rimstidt, from the Department of Geosciences, College of Science at Virginia Tech, who reports " "Lead metal is unstable when it is in contact with air and water. It corrodes and forms hydrocerrussite, the white coating seen on old bullets in museums. That slows corrosion. However some lead escapes, but we learned that it is absorbed in the top few inches of soil and does not migrate beyond that. Lead is not very mobile. It does not wash away in surface or ground water."
We'd never hear about Fisheries and Wildlife professor Pat Scanlon, who before his death, Rimstidt reports,"found no evidence that birds were eating shot."
The alleged lead hazard is more hype and hysteria than anything else. The goal, of course, is to interfere with our ability to buy and use ammunition, as well as being part of a larger agenda.
Just remember that environmentalcase junk “science” was also used to ban DDT--and the result has been a politically-manufactured genocide in Third World nations from malaria.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
JPFO Alerts
More Intellectual Ammunition
"JPFO has added more intellectual ammunition to our website!"
Click here to read the alert.
Thanks for the kind words about WarOnGuns, JPFO!
I'm looking forward to receiving my copy of BATFE Fails the Test.
"JPFO has added more intellectual ammunition to our website!"
Click here to read the alert.
Thanks for the kind words about WarOnGuns, JPFO!
I'm looking forward to receiving my copy of BATFE Fails the Test.
How About Self Control Instead of Gun Control?
[I came across the clipping posted below while going through my research backup files the other day. This was the basis of an open letter I wrote several years ago that has disappeared from KABA, but has been retrieved through the miracle of Google cache.]
"PRESS RELEASE: NEW YORK - Renowned film and television actor Michael Douglas challenged the international community to do more to control the spread of small arms worldwide. Before a unique gathering of foreign ministers, UN officials, arms experts, and arms lobbyists, Douglas, a newly appointed UN Messenger of Peace, relayed movingly the facts that 'speak for themselves which underlie the need for responsible control of small weapons.'"
Click on the graphic to enlarge it.
Reproduced under "Fair Use" Doctrine
"PRESS RELEASE: NEW YORK - Renowned film and television actor Michael Douglas challenged the international community to do more to control the spread of small arms worldwide. Before a unique gathering of foreign ministers, UN officials, arms experts, and arms lobbyists, Douglas, a newly appointed UN Messenger of Peace, relayed movingly the facts that 'speak for themselves which underlie the need for responsible control of small weapons.'"
Click on the graphic to enlarge it.
Reproduced under "Fair Use" Doctrine
Physician, Heal Thyself
The political faction at the Journal of the American Medical Association is sticking their noses into the gun issue (again).
Here’s a form I came up with a few years back based on an article by Risk Manager Joe Horn. Print it out, and if your doctor starts to give you unsolicited and unqualified advice on guns in the home, ask him/her to complete it, sign it, and put it in your file. Then watch them back off.
Here’s a form I came up with a few years back based on an article by Risk Manager Joe Horn. Print it out, and if your doctor starts to give you unsolicited and unqualified advice on guns in the home, ask him/her to complete it, sign it, and put it in your file. Then watch them back off.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Rich White People Against Minority Gun Ownership
(It’s For Their Own Good)
Noted Cigarette…I mean, Gun Control Advocate Sarah Brady has joined forces with the Center for Justice & Democracy to stump for suing gun manufacturers and dealers whenever predatory reptiles hurt or kill their victims with a stolen gun.
“Center for Justice & Democracy.”
Typical socialist buzzwords. Kind of like “Progressive.” They, of course, play the race card, gleaning statements from Progressive Caucus Reps. John Conyers and Sheila Jackson-Lee against tort reform on the grounds that it disproportionately harms minorities. But curiously, every picture in CJ&D’s “List of Participants” report on the families who traveled to DC is one of white people.
And while principled, federalism-centered arguments can be made against national government-mandated tort reform in general, and as it relates to gun lawsuits in particular, the Brady Center, CJ&D and Progressive Caucus have a different agenda—this is just another tactic to help them achieve their goal of citizen disarmament.
Can you imagine having so little faith in your constituents that you feel compelled to drive the cost of guns beyond their economic reach? Because that’s what the nuisance lawsuits are designed to do.
As for being egalitarian, you can become a CJ&D member for $100, but you will “NOT HAVE FULL ACCESS TO [their] WEB SITE” [emphasis theirs]. To get that, you’ll need to pony up $1,000 and become an “Associate.” And if you want “inside information,” you’ll need to become a “Fellow” and pay them $5 Grand. [WarOnGuns offers a similar program—send me $5 G’s and I’ll send you all the inside information I can think of.]
I wonder how many of Rep. Conyers’ and Jackson-Lee’s constituents are in the Fellowship? Or how many will be able to afford a gun if their overseers get their way?
Noted Cigarette…I mean, Gun Control Advocate Sarah Brady has joined forces with the Center for Justice & Democracy to stump for suing gun manufacturers and dealers whenever predatory reptiles hurt or kill their victims with a stolen gun.
“Center for Justice & Democracy.”
Typical socialist buzzwords. Kind of like “Progressive.” They, of course, play the race card, gleaning statements from Progressive Caucus Reps. John Conyers and Sheila Jackson-Lee against tort reform on the grounds that it disproportionately harms minorities. But curiously, every picture in CJ&D’s “List of Participants” report on the families who traveled to DC is one of white people.
And while principled, federalism-centered arguments can be made against national government-mandated tort reform in general, and as it relates to gun lawsuits in particular, the Brady Center, CJ&D and Progressive Caucus have a different agenda—this is just another tactic to help them achieve their goal of citizen disarmament.
Can you imagine having so little faith in your constituents that you feel compelled to drive the cost of guns beyond their economic reach? Because that’s what the nuisance lawsuits are designed to do.
As for being egalitarian, you can become a CJ&D member for $100, but you will “NOT HAVE FULL ACCESS TO [their] WEB SITE” [emphasis theirs]. To get that, you’ll need to pony up $1,000 and become an “Associate.” And if you want “inside information,” you’ll need to become a “Fellow” and pay them $5 Grand. [WarOnGuns offers a similar program—send me $5 G’s and I’ll send you all the inside information I can think of.]
I wonder how many of Rep. Conyers’ and Jackson-Lee’s constituents are in the Fellowship? Or how many will be able to afford a gun if their overseers get their way?
JPFO Promotes "War on Guns"
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has noticed this blog and features a link to it at the top of their home page.
Thanks, Aaron Zelman!
The incomparable Claire Wolfe recommends JPFO's new video, "BATFE Fails the Test" on her blog, and while I haven't seen it yet, her testimonial is good enough for me. You can order it here.
A JPFO video I have seen is "Innocents Betrayed." You can read my review of this powerful documentary here.
Thanks, Aaron Zelman!
The incomparable Claire Wolfe recommends JPFO's new video, "BATFE Fails the Test" on her blog, and while I haven't seen it yet, her testimonial is good enough for me. You can order it here.
A JPFO video I have seen is "Innocents Betrayed." You can read my review of this powerful documentary here.
Parker vs DC: Next steps?
TriggerFinger has a good analysis of the latest legal wranglings in DC with the Seegars and Parker cases.
Go read.
Go read.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
BREAKING NEWS: Update to Indiana Gun Confiscation Bill
In my "There's a Reason Why They Call Us 'Gun Nuts" commentary about an Indiana bill proposing to confiscate guns from individuals that a police officer deems to be mentally ill, I cited The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette's claim that "Rep. Larry Buell, R-Indianapolis, who authored the bill, says that he consulted with the National Rifle Association when he drafted the bill and that it supports the legislation."
I spoke with Stacey Stumpf of the Journal Gazette and asked her if this was correct.
"Yes," she replied. "I spoke with Rep. Buell the day before the article."
I then spoke with Buell spokesman Graig Lubsen, who also confirmed NRA support for the bill.
He informed me that the bill is undergoing changes, where the police would "need a warrant to take any weapons, and the person is entitled to have a hearing within 14 days."
He also informed me that the legislature was "talking about--but it hasn't happened yet--on second reading, an amendment that one year is the longest the state can hold the weapon. Then the person can reapply to have the weapon returned. If they reapply and are denied, the state can hold it for another year."
Mr. Lubsen assured me that Rep. Buell is a stong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, and wanted to make sure I knew about the incident that precipitated the bill, the fatal shooting of the police officer son of a friend of Mr. Buell by a mentally ill person.
Editorial comments:
That is unfortunate. It is tragic. But it's also the rationale used to pass the Brady Law, the "assault weapon" ban, and many other gun control laws.
If a person can't be trusted with a gun because they are a danger to themselves and others, they can't be trusted without a custodian.
I spoke with Stacey Stumpf of the Journal Gazette and asked her if this was correct.
"Yes," she replied. "I spoke with Rep. Buell the day before the article."
I then spoke with Buell spokesman Graig Lubsen, who also confirmed NRA support for the bill.
He informed me that the bill is undergoing changes, where the police would "need a warrant to take any weapons, and the person is entitled to have a hearing within 14 days."
He also informed me that the legislature was "talking about--but it hasn't happened yet--on second reading, an amendment that one year is the longest the state can hold the weapon. Then the person can reapply to have the weapon returned. If they reapply and are denied, the state can hold it for another year."
Mr. Lubsen assured me that Rep. Buell is a stong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, and wanted to make sure I knew about the incident that precipitated the bill, the fatal shooting of the police officer son of a friend of Mr. Buell by a mentally ill person.
Editorial comments:
That is unfortunate. It is tragic. But it's also the rationale used to pass the Brady Law, the "assault weapon" ban, and many other gun control laws.
If a person can't be trusted with a gun because they are a danger to themselves and others, they can't be trusted without a custodian.
"Strip Search Yields Gun In 'Unusual' Place"
"LAWRENCEVILLE, GA -- -- A police spokeswoman called it 'unusual' that a 19-year-old almost smuggled a loaded pistol tucked between his buttocks into a county jail this week."
"Unusual." Now there's an understatement. Do you think they just put the gun in a Ziploc®, or did they make some poor deputy clean it before signing it into evidence?
And why can't I get the "Lemmiwinks Song" out of my head?
"Unusual." Now there's an understatement. Do you think they just put the gun in a Ziploc®, or did they make some poor deputy clean it before signing it into evidence?
And why can't I get the "Lemmiwinks Song" out of my head?
Monday, February 07, 2005
GunTruths Myths
I've been discussing bringing back GunTruths.com with my friend Russ Howard.
We did a lot of original things on that site, had a lot of fun, made a lot of friends, and a spinoff team launched the Citizens of America advertising campaign that ran pro-2A radio spots in every State of the union.
We may yet resurrect GT, but it won't be soon. In the meantime, I've been crawling back through time via the Wayback Machine and managed to retrieve the old GT "Myths" section. We created this figuring there's a finite set of arguments the antis use against us, and if we anticipated and recognized them in advance, it could be a useful tool for responding to their lies and for honing our debating skills.
We did a lot of original things on that site, had a lot of fun, made a lot of friends, and a spinoff team launched the Citizens of America advertising campaign that ran pro-2A radio spots in every State of the union.
We may yet resurrect GT, but it won't be soon. In the meantime, I've been crawling back through time via the Wayback Machine and managed to retrieve the old GT "Myths" section. We created this figuring there's a finite set of arguments the antis use against us, and if we anticipated and recognized them in advance, it could be a useful tool for responding to their lies and for honing our debating skills.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
There’s a Reason Why They Call Us “Gun Nuts”
NRA Backs Indiana Gun Confiscation Bill
“[A]s one reads the literature espoused by gun nut organizations,” University of Connecticut editorialist Robert Schiering tells his readers in The Daily Campus, “the reasoning behind this term becomes startlingly clear. Gun nuts are called as such because they are incontrovertibly insane.”
“People who bring guns into public buildings shouldn't have permits,” editorial letter writer and former mayoral candidate Charles Nance tells The Richmond Times-Dispatch. “They should have their heads examined.”
How often have we heard from the anti-choice in defense crowd that concealed carry will lead to Dodge City shootouts over fender-benders?
How often have we who warn against gun control’s “slippery slope” leading to confiscation been dismissed as paranoid?
The message is clear. Gun owners are psychotic, violent, out of control. We need to be treated for a mental disorder. And if we think anyone is trying to confiscate our guns, we’re paranoid to boot.
Enter Indiana Rep. Larry Buell, R-Indianapolis, who authored a bill that “would permit law enforcement officers to confiscate firearms from individuals for 45 days when an officer thinks the person is mentally ill and dangerous.”
Buell tells the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette “that he consulted with the National Rifle Association when he drafted the bill and that it supports the legislation.”
Buell was endorsed and given an "A" rating by NRA-PVF in the 2004 campaign--which means if you contributed to it, you enabled him. Buell says NRA supports this confiscation without due process scheme—which means if you contributed to them, you have helped finance this edict.
So now we’re supposed to buy into street cops having the professional qualifications to adjudicate a person mentally ill, and then empower them to confiscate guns WITHOUT DUE PROCESS? What is this, Gitmo? And NRA “supports the legislation”?
Furthermore, the Buell/NRA Firearm Confiscation Bill gives the cop immunity if he makes a bad call:
“6. (a) A person who without malice, bad faith, or negligence acts according to this article and…(3) participates in…(A) a proceeding under this article for the seizure or retention of a firearm possessed by an individual alleged to be mentally ill and dangerous…is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be imposed as a result of the person's actions.”
Here are a few questions I’d like to see NRA management and their slate of candidates for the upcoming Board of Directors election address:
Does NRA really support this legislation as A-rated Rep. Buell claims?
Does Indiana have no laws providing for the restraint and arrest of someone acting violently? If arrestees behave bizarrely, are there no statutory provisions to place them into an evaluation facility? Is there no current lawful means of removing a person deemed harmful to himself and others from the general population into custodial care and treatment?
Or do we just let a cop—any cop—declare a citizen unfit to keep and bear arms, and then implement that decision under color of authority and force of arms—with guaranteed immunity?
While some will no doubt argue the bill has provisions guaranteeing the suspect individual a hearing, how many gun owners faced with such allegations are financially able to prevail against the unlimited resources of the state?
What guarantees are there, especially with the vague criterion of “reasonableness” cited in the bill, that this confiscation edict will not be exploited by anti-gun police administrations in the guidelines they establish for its execution? Is it not apparent that there is tremendous police management opposition to citizens keeping and bearing arms, that they are looking for an excuse—any excuse—to disarm them? Doesn’t the same hold true for many of their political masters?
What if a woman is hysterical because a stalker or a vengeful ex-partner is threatening her? Seeing only the snapshot of her behavior at the moment, can we be assured the responding officer will not see fit to disarm her—for her own good? But, oh yeah, she can pick her gun back up in 45 days—if she can afford a lawyer, if she can afford a battery of self-financed psychological evaluations and if she hasn’t been attacked and killed in the interim.
Or how about a devastated individual grieving over the loss of a parent, spouse or child? Might there be instances where their behavior might indicate they are not in complete control of their emotions?
Is it not manifestly evident that the mere desire to own and use firearms is looked upon by anti-choice in defense advocates as a sign of mental instability? Doesn’t no less an “authority” than the American Psychological Association advise parents “Don't carry a gun or a weapon. If you do, this tells your children that using guns solves problems”?
What do you think the APA would say about someone who believes the reason the Founding Fathers wanted an armed citizenry was so that tyrannical leaders and their agents could be lethally repelled?
It has been my longstanding contention that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. After all, if we are to believe the Establishment Media (and, gee, why would we doubt them?), the single biggest mass murder in our nation’s history was initiated with mail room tools, the second biggest with fuel oil and fertilizer, and the third biggest with a dollar’s worth of gasoline.
How can any sane person advocate taking away a madman’s gun, but then leaving him free to wreak mayhem with box cutters and matches?
If the Buell/NRA Firearm Confiscation Bill becomes law, look for it to spread to other locales, and even to be proposed at the national level. After all, George Bush, who NRA reportedly amassed a $20,000,000 reelection war chest for, has introduced his Orwellian-titled “New Freedom Initiative,” which recommends mental health screening of the entire US population, from pre-school children on.
These are some of the reasons why I came up with my NRA BOD Candidate Questionnaire, to support those who will use their office to rein in the “Winning Team’s” baffling affinity for subverting “shall not be infringed,” and to expose those who will not.
So here’s another question for the candidates: Will you be an apologist for this outrage, or will you publicly and vocally condemn it?
“[A]s one reads the literature espoused by gun nut organizations,” University of Connecticut editorialist Robert Schiering tells his readers in The Daily Campus, “the reasoning behind this term becomes startlingly clear. Gun nuts are called as such because they are incontrovertibly insane.”
“People who bring guns into public buildings shouldn't have permits,” editorial letter writer and former mayoral candidate Charles Nance tells The Richmond Times-Dispatch. “They should have their heads examined.”
How often have we heard from the anti-choice in defense crowd that concealed carry will lead to Dodge City shootouts over fender-benders?
How often have we who warn against gun control’s “slippery slope” leading to confiscation been dismissed as paranoid?
The message is clear. Gun owners are psychotic, violent, out of control. We need to be treated for a mental disorder. And if we think anyone is trying to confiscate our guns, we’re paranoid to boot.
Enter Indiana Rep. Larry Buell, R-Indianapolis, who authored a bill that “would permit law enforcement officers to confiscate firearms from individuals for 45 days when an officer thinks the person is mentally ill and dangerous.”
Buell tells the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette “that he consulted with the National Rifle Association when he drafted the bill and that it supports the legislation.”
Buell was endorsed and given an "A" rating by NRA-PVF in the 2004 campaign--which means if you contributed to it, you enabled him. Buell says NRA supports this confiscation without due process scheme—which means if you contributed to them, you have helped finance this edict.
So now we’re supposed to buy into street cops having the professional qualifications to adjudicate a person mentally ill, and then empower them to confiscate guns WITHOUT DUE PROCESS? What is this, Gitmo? And NRA “supports the legislation”?
Furthermore, the Buell/NRA Firearm Confiscation Bill gives the cop immunity if he makes a bad call:
“6. (a) A person who without malice, bad faith, or negligence acts according to this article and…(3) participates in…(A) a proceeding under this article for the seizure or retention of a firearm possessed by an individual alleged to be mentally ill and dangerous…is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be imposed as a result of the person's actions.”
Here are a few questions I’d like to see NRA management and their slate of candidates for the upcoming Board of Directors election address:
Does NRA really support this legislation as A-rated Rep. Buell claims?
Does Indiana have no laws providing for the restraint and arrest of someone acting violently? If arrestees behave bizarrely, are there no statutory provisions to place them into an evaluation facility? Is there no current lawful means of removing a person deemed harmful to himself and others from the general population into custodial care and treatment?
Or do we just let a cop—any cop—declare a citizen unfit to keep and bear arms, and then implement that decision under color of authority and force of arms—with guaranteed immunity?
While some will no doubt argue the bill has provisions guaranteeing the suspect individual a hearing, how many gun owners faced with such allegations are financially able to prevail against the unlimited resources of the state?
What guarantees are there, especially with the vague criterion of “reasonableness” cited in the bill, that this confiscation edict will not be exploited by anti-gun police administrations in the guidelines they establish for its execution? Is it not apparent that there is tremendous police management opposition to citizens keeping and bearing arms, that they are looking for an excuse—any excuse—to disarm them? Doesn’t the same hold true for many of their political masters?
What if a woman is hysterical because a stalker or a vengeful ex-partner is threatening her? Seeing only the snapshot of her behavior at the moment, can we be assured the responding officer will not see fit to disarm her—for her own good? But, oh yeah, she can pick her gun back up in 45 days—if she can afford a lawyer, if she can afford a battery of self-financed psychological evaluations and if she hasn’t been attacked and killed in the interim.
Or how about a devastated individual grieving over the loss of a parent, spouse or child? Might there be instances where their behavior might indicate they are not in complete control of their emotions?
Is it not manifestly evident that the mere desire to own and use firearms is looked upon by anti-choice in defense advocates as a sign of mental instability? Doesn’t no less an “authority” than the American Psychological Association advise parents “Don't carry a gun or a weapon. If you do, this tells your children that using guns solves problems”?
What do you think the APA would say about someone who believes the reason the Founding Fathers wanted an armed citizenry was so that tyrannical leaders and their agents could be lethally repelled?
It has been my longstanding contention that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. After all, if we are to believe the Establishment Media (and, gee, why would we doubt them?), the single biggest mass murder in our nation’s history was initiated with mail room tools, the second biggest with fuel oil and fertilizer, and the third biggest with a dollar’s worth of gasoline.
How can any sane person advocate taking away a madman’s gun, but then leaving him free to wreak mayhem with box cutters and matches?
If the Buell/NRA Firearm Confiscation Bill becomes law, look for it to spread to other locales, and even to be proposed at the national level. After all, George Bush, who NRA reportedly amassed a $20,000,000 reelection war chest for, has introduced his Orwellian-titled “New Freedom Initiative,” which recommends mental health screening of the entire US population, from pre-school children on.
These are some of the reasons why I came up with my NRA BOD Candidate Questionnaire, to support those who will use their office to rein in the “Winning Team’s” baffling affinity for subverting “shall not be infringed,” and to expose those who will not.
So here’s another question for the candidates: Will you be an apologist for this outrage, or will you publicly and vocally condemn it?
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Good For Me, But Not For Thee?
"California's secretary of state announced his resignation Friday amid investigations into his handling of federal election funds and questionable campaign contributions," The Washington Post tells us.
Let's see if the government screws him over anywhere near as bad as it did Russ Howard.
I mean, we're all s'posed to be equal under the law, right?
Let's see if the government screws him over anywhere near as bad as it did Russ Howard.
I mean, we're all s'posed to be equal under the law, right?
First Responder
The first response to my NRA Board Candidate Questionnaire has been given by Joel Friedman. It’s posted over at The High Road.
That’s a good start, and I appreciate his not only meeting the challenge, but being the first to do so. As I mentioned in my earlier article, the questionnaire was adapted from one I have sent to politicians in the past, and with very few exceptions, most of them have ignored, evaded or weasel-worded.
If you’re a voting member, you’ll need to decide if his answers match how you would have responded, or if there are any you’d like to have clarified. I encourage you to take him up on his offer to answer more questions. After all, the NRA is the most influential of the "gun groups"--policies they set and endorsements they make end up affecting all of us.
Clarifying questions that immediately come to mind:
* Do you agree with the way NRA assigns political ratings? If not, what would you change and why? Who would you have given a different rating to, what would it been and why?
* Do you disagree with any policies being promulgated by NRA management? What is you biggest area of dissent? Have you offered superior alternatives and worked with others to implement them?
* Have you ever publicly spoken out against an NRA position because you thought it was wrong? When, where, and what were the results?
* What reforms do you think are needed at NRA and why?
* If elected, how will you inform members of your performance and voting record? Will you let us know when you dissent and why?
You can learn more about Mr. Friedman, including his contact information, at:
http://www.joelforboard.com/.
Addendum since first posted:
From Mr. Friedman's Mission Statement: "I fully support the successful NRA Winning Team philosophy that has been responsible for NRA's unprecedented growth and effectiveness and promises to continue throughout the next century. I look forward to being elected to the NRA Board of Directors and helping NRA leaders, like Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox, Kayne Robinson, and Sandy Froman, preserve the Second Amendment."
That’s a good start, and I appreciate his not only meeting the challenge, but being the first to do so. As I mentioned in my earlier article, the questionnaire was adapted from one I have sent to politicians in the past, and with very few exceptions, most of them have ignored, evaded or weasel-worded.
If you’re a voting member, you’ll need to decide if his answers match how you would have responded, or if there are any you’d like to have clarified. I encourage you to take him up on his offer to answer more questions. After all, the NRA is the most influential of the "gun groups"--policies they set and endorsements they make end up affecting all of us.
Clarifying questions that immediately come to mind:
* Do you agree with the way NRA assigns political ratings? If not, what would you change and why? Who would you have given a different rating to, what would it been and why?
* Do you disagree with any policies being promulgated by NRA management? What is you biggest area of dissent? Have you offered superior alternatives and worked with others to implement them?
* Have you ever publicly spoken out against an NRA position because you thought it was wrong? When, where, and what were the results?
* What reforms do you think are needed at NRA and why?
* If elected, how will you inform members of your performance and voting record? Will you let us know when you dissent and why?
You can learn more about Mr. Friedman, including his contact information, at:
http://www.joelforboard.com/.
Addendum since first posted:
From Mr. Friedman's Mission Statement: "I fully support the successful NRA Winning Team philosophy that has been responsible for NRA's unprecedented growth and effectiveness and promises to continue throughout the next century. I look forward to being elected to the NRA Board of Directors and helping NRA leaders, like Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox, Kayne Robinson, and Sandy Froman, preserve the Second Amendment."
Friday, February 04, 2005
Merchants of Death
The following article was bought and paid for by GUNS & AMMO a couple years back, but the Legal Department for their new owner balked at publishing it, presumably out of concern that some of the companies mentioned might take legal action.
That don't worry me none, as I have plenty of backup from media sources to substantiate each and every statement. Anyone wants to sue me over this, let's party.
Editor Lee Hoots graciously gave me permission to use it as I see fit. I see fit to let it see the light of day right here on my new blog.
---------------------------------
Merchants of Death
By David Codrea
The visitor conduct sign posted at entrances to The Block at Orange, an open-air Southern California mall featuring trendy shops and restaurants, reads like a contract. Among the numerous terms and conditions: rules against smoking, skateboarding, and, of course, guns—even if permitted and concealed. Violators will be asked to leave and prosecuted for trespassing if they refuse to comply.
One wonders what The Block would do should a violent criminal not heed their posted prohibitions and consequences. Or if they assume responsibility for the safety of their customers—with attendant liability should they fail to provide it. A stroll through the maze of colorful storefronts and kiosks reveals no visible security presence to ask, although there’s no shortage of smokers sitting on benches or extinguishing butts in conveniently placed urns located throughout the premises. Meanwhile, over by the surf wear shop, three adolescent boys are practicing flamboyant skateboard dismounts.
“FATAL STABBING RAISES CONCERNS AT THE BLOCK,” reads the Orange County Register headline. “[O]fficers and unarmed security guards broke up a fistfight between two groups [who] then moved about 200 feet away…where the fatal melee took place,” the report says, also citing “two rapes in 2000 [and] 50 misdemeanor assaults with 24 arrests.”
“Unarmed security guards.” Clearly, they can’t protect their customers and evidently would prefer them being raped, brutalized or killed instead of lawfully armed. And some companies aren’t satisfied to merely impose such stupid, life-endangering rules—some enthusiastically work toward criminalizing gun ownership.
Dannon Yogurt, for example, was a sponsor of the so-called “Million Mom March” (although analyses of event photos estimate a more plausible attendance number at around 40,000). Its parent company, the French dairy, snack and bottled water giant Danone, is a model of globalist expansion—so its affinity for UN-style “small arms control” is not surprising.
Then there’s Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, a homegrown experiment in corporate social(ist) engineering that has supported a variety of left-leaning causes, including funding gun control through sales of their “Peace Pops” bars. It figures— with heart disease the leading cause of death in this country, you wouldn’t expect an ice cream company to focus on that threat. They are so hostile to guns they seemingly can’t even acknowledge the word— when new CEO Perry Odak came on board from “U.S. Repeating Arms Co. (Winchester) and Browning,” their press release described it as “a manufacturer of outdoor and recreation sporting goods.” And after Ben & Jerry’s railed against the chemical dioxin as “one of the most toxic substances in our environment today,” JunkScience.com performed an analysis of their “World’s Best Vanilla” ice cream, concluding it contained 200 times the EPA’s standard daily dose (in reality not a hazardous level, but certainly an example of the hysteria they promote, as well as proving them profoundly hypocritical).
Nobody doesn’t like Sara Lee? Really? Because the activist conglomerate, which includes prominent brands among its holdings like L’leggs, Hanes, Ball Park, and Hillshire Farm, sure doesn’t like gun owners. Their foundation named Sarah Brady one of its “Frontrunners” in 1997 and awarded her $50,000 for her “humanitarian” work toward rendering their customers vulnerable to attack. That same year, the FDA reported a recall of cakes, pastries and muffins because “the products may contain small quantities of sifter wire.” In the wake of this came a listeria-tainted hotdog and deli meat scandal that left 21 people dead, caused three miscarriages, and resulted in over a hundred people being sickened. This was followed last year by a Class I recall (“a health hazard situation where there is reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death”) of its Bistro Collection Pecan Tart Trays.
There’s an old bumper sticker that says “Ted Kennedy’s Car Has Killed More People than My Gun.” Perhaps it’s time to create one that says “Sara Lee Has Killed More People than the Manson Family.” And to wonder why they don’t focus on controlling their product quality instead of our guns.
There are other ways companies sabotage the Second Amendment. Many have issued employee disarmament policies in response to legislative concealed carry reforms. And many, like the Blockheads at Orange, have posted signs forbidding armed customers on their property.
These are but a few examples. Names like Levi Strauss, Disney, Toys-“R”-Us, Hyatt, Time-Warner, 7-Eleven, and many others, also figure prominently. A complete list would be impractical to compile, and there is no space to print it here, but NRA-ILA has compiled a pretty thorough one on its website. If you’re not on the Internet, you should be—much serious grassroots activism takes place there, and it provides alternative news sources free of mainstream media anti-defense bias. Just don’t sign up with America Online (a whole ‘nother story in itself).
The point being, there are plenty of products and services gun owners purchase every day where parent company policies endanger our liberty and our lives. We owe it to ourselves to know who they are and to shop accordingly. Remember that profit margins are usually small, and most companies can’t afford to lose even a percentage point to their competitors (it’s widely speculated that a gun owner boycott helped force Kmart into bankruptcy). It just doesn’t make sense to reward such businesses with our patronage—especially when they turn around and use the money we pay them to undermine our right to keep and bear arms.
As does “educational” toy retailer Zany Brainy, recipient of the Million Mom March’s “Apple Pie Award” for sponsoring a “Violent Toy Turn-In”. While such ridiculous events no doubt help them live up to the first half of their name, such brain-dead posturing should guarantee that informed gun owners find another place to buy toys.
One can only hope the Million Moms get their pie from Sara Lee. And maybe serve it with a (healthy?) scoop of Ben & Jerry’s…
That don't worry me none, as I have plenty of backup from media sources to substantiate each and every statement. Anyone wants to sue me over this, let's party.
Editor Lee Hoots graciously gave me permission to use it as I see fit. I see fit to let it see the light of day right here on my new blog.
---------------------------------
Merchants of Death
By David Codrea
The visitor conduct sign posted at entrances to The Block at Orange, an open-air Southern California mall featuring trendy shops and restaurants, reads like a contract. Among the numerous terms and conditions: rules against smoking, skateboarding, and, of course, guns—even if permitted and concealed. Violators will be asked to leave and prosecuted for trespassing if they refuse to comply.
One wonders what The Block would do should a violent criminal not heed their posted prohibitions and consequences. Or if they assume responsibility for the safety of their customers—with attendant liability should they fail to provide it. A stroll through the maze of colorful storefronts and kiosks reveals no visible security presence to ask, although there’s no shortage of smokers sitting on benches or extinguishing butts in conveniently placed urns located throughout the premises. Meanwhile, over by the surf wear shop, three adolescent boys are practicing flamboyant skateboard dismounts.
“FATAL STABBING RAISES CONCERNS AT THE BLOCK,” reads the Orange County Register headline. “[O]fficers and unarmed security guards broke up a fistfight between two groups [who] then moved about 200 feet away…where the fatal melee took place,” the report says, also citing “two rapes in 2000 [and] 50 misdemeanor assaults with 24 arrests.”
“Unarmed security guards.” Clearly, they can’t protect their customers and evidently would prefer them being raped, brutalized or killed instead of lawfully armed. And some companies aren’t satisfied to merely impose such stupid, life-endangering rules—some enthusiastically work toward criminalizing gun ownership.
Dannon Yogurt, for example, was a sponsor of the so-called “Million Mom March” (although analyses of event photos estimate a more plausible attendance number at around 40,000). Its parent company, the French dairy, snack and bottled water giant Danone, is a model of globalist expansion—so its affinity for UN-style “small arms control” is not surprising.
Then there’s Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, a homegrown experiment in corporate social(ist) engineering that has supported a variety of left-leaning causes, including funding gun control through sales of their “Peace Pops” bars. It figures— with heart disease the leading cause of death in this country, you wouldn’t expect an ice cream company to focus on that threat. They are so hostile to guns they seemingly can’t even acknowledge the word— when new CEO Perry Odak came on board from “U.S. Repeating Arms Co. (Winchester) and Browning,” their press release described it as “a manufacturer of outdoor and recreation sporting goods.” And after Ben & Jerry’s railed against the chemical dioxin as “one of the most toxic substances in our environment today,” JunkScience.com performed an analysis of their “World’s Best Vanilla” ice cream, concluding it contained 200 times the EPA’s standard daily dose (in reality not a hazardous level, but certainly an example of the hysteria they promote, as well as proving them profoundly hypocritical).
Nobody doesn’t like Sara Lee? Really? Because the activist conglomerate, which includes prominent brands among its holdings like L’leggs, Hanes, Ball Park, and Hillshire Farm, sure doesn’t like gun owners. Their foundation named Sarah Brady one of its “Frontrunners” in 1997 and awarded her $50,000 for her “humanitarian” work toward rendering their customers vulnerable to attack. That same year, the FDA reported a recall of cakes, pastries and muffins because “the products may contain small quantities of sifter wire.” In the wake of this came a listeria-tainted hotdog and deli meat scandal that left 21 people dead, caused three miscarriages, and resulted in over a hundred people being sickened. This was followed last year by a Class I recall (“a health hazard situation where there is reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death”) of its Bistro Collection Pecan Tart Trays.
There’s an old bumper sticker that says “Ted Kennedy’s Car Has Killed More People than My Gun.” Perhaps it’s time to create one that says “Sara Lee Has Killed More People than the Manson Family.” And to wonder why they don’t focus on controlling their product quality instead of our guns.
There are other ways companies sabotage the Second Amendment. Many have issued employee disarmament policies in response to legislative concealed carry reforms. And many, like the Blockheads at Orange, have posted signs forbidding armed customers on their property.
These are but a few examples. Names like Levi Strauss, Disney, Toys-“R”-Us, Hyatt, Time-Warner, 7-Eleven, and many others, also figure prominently. A complete list would be impractical to compile, and there is no space to print it here, but NRA-ILA has compiled a pretty thorough one on its website. If you’re not on the Internet, you should be—much serious grassroots activism takes place there, and it provides alternative news sources free of mainstream media anti-defense bias. Just don’t sign up with America Online (a whole ‘nother story in itself).
The point being, there are plenty of products and services gun owners purchase every day where parent company policies endanger our liberty and our lives. We owe it to ourselves to know who they are and to shop accordingly. Remember that profit margins are usually small, and most companies can’t afford to lose even a percentage point to their competitors (it’s widely speculated that a gun owner boycott helped force Kmart into bankruptcy). It just doesn’t make sense to reward such businesses with our patronage—especially when they turn around and use the money we pay them to undermine our right to keep and bear arms.
As does “educational” toy retailer Zany Brainy, recipient of the Million Mom March’s “Apple Pie Award” for sponsoring a “Violent Toy Turn-In”. While such ridiculous events no doubt help them live up to the first half of their name, such brain-dead posturing should guarantee that informed gun owners find another place to buy toys.
One can only hope the Million Moms get their pie from Sara Lee. And maybe serve it with a (healthy?) scoop of Ben & Jerry’s…
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
NRA Board Candidate Questionnaire
The election of NRA Directors is once more upon us, with ballots due from voting members by March 27.
The only nomination of special note is actor Tom Selleck, who will no doubt be groomed as the next high-profile trophy president in the Charlton Heston mode—in other words, a handsome and popular star who reads his lines well. With the passing of Neal Knox, no serious challenge to the “Winning Team” exists, thus there is no need for a “Don’t vote for these guys” ad.
The choices this year ensure that Wayne La Pierre will maintain uncontested control. There are 31 candidates for 25 open slots, and the Nominating Committee has endorsed 28 of them. That’s outrageous.
No true reform will come to the NRA until voting members can rate director candidates based on unequivocal platforms of support for “shall not be infringed.” Unfortunately, no such demand has been made by the membership, so expect more status quo, backroom deals, political compromises and suspect politician ratings.
Too bad. As a start, I’d like to see each candidate for the BOD specifically answer the following questions, adapted from a questionnaire I have sent in the past to political candidates who claim to be pro-Second Amendment.
I won’t hold my breath, but if anyone can get a candidate to give straight for-the-record answers to these, please let me know.
--------------------------
1. Do you believe that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and that the Bill of Rights acknowledges the birthrights of all Americans?
2. If so, should these rights be proactively protected from infringement by all levels of government, including city, county and state?
3. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider constitutional.
4. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider unconstitutional.
5. Does the right to bear arms include the right for any peaceable citizen to carry them concealed without a permit, as in Vermont?
6. Do you believe that Americans have a right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern?
7. Do you support or oppose Project Exile, and do you agree with current NRA management’s call to “enforce existing gun laws”?
8. Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms? Why?
9. What specific gun laws will you work to get repealed?
10. If elected to the NRA Board, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? How?
The only nomination of special note is actor Tom Selleck, who will no doubt be groomed as the next high-profile trophy president in the Charlton Heston mode—in other words, a handsome and popular star who reads his lines well. With the passing of Neal Knox, no serious challenge to the “Winning Team” exists, thus there is no need for a “Don’t vote for these guys” ad.
The choices this year ensure that Wayne La Pierre will maintain uncontested control. There are 31 candidates for 25 open slots, and the Nominating Committee has endorsed 28 of them. That’s outrageous.
No true reform will come to the NRA until voting members can rate director candidates based on unequivocal platforms of support for “shall not be infringed.” Unfortunately, no such demand has been made by the membership, so expect more status quo, backroom deals, political compromises and suspect politician ratings.
Too bad. As a start, I’d like to see each candidate for the BOD specifically answer the following questions, adapted from a questionnaire I have sent in the past to political candidates who claim to be pro-Second Amendment.
I won’t hold my breath, but if anyone can get a candidate to give straight for-the-record answers to these, please let me know.
--------------------------
1. Do you believe that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and that the Bill of Rights acknowledges the birthrights of all Americans?
2. If so, should these rights be proactively protected from infringement by all levels of government, including city, county and state?
3. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider constitutional.
4. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider unconstitutional.
5. Does the right to bear arms include the right for any peaceable citizen to carry them concealed without a permit, as in Vermont?
6. Do you believe that Americans have a right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern?
7. Do you support or oppose Project Exile, and do you agree with current NRA management’s call to “enforce existing gun laws”?
8. Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms? Why?
9. What specific gun laws will you work to get repealed?
10. If elected to the NRA Board, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? How?
Request for Historical Examples of Bearing Arms
“PLEASE,” Judson Witham writes, “I am seeking as many HISTORICAL accounts of BEARING ARMS in defense of the Family Homestead (Farm) from Hostiles as possible. My work is being made FREE as I collect cases from Colonial or Civil War era Court OPINIONS from around the USA. I ask for cases from MAINE to California ‘Bearing Arms’, ‘The Defense of Self Defense’ are sought to BOLSTER the arguments for PASSAGE of the Self Defense Act of 2005 HR 47 Currently in the Judiciary Committee of the 109th Congress."
If you can help, contact him at jurisnot@yahoo.com.
If you can help, contact him at jurisnot@yahoo.com.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Absolutely Shameless Self-Promotion: "A Judgment Call"
Who should we trust more to establish gun policies--folksinger Peter Yarrow, pop tart Britney Spears, actor/UN "Messenger of Peace" Michael Douglas, grunge diva Courtney Love, and entertainer Rosie O'Donnell--or the Founding Fathers?
"A Judgment Call" is my Rights Watch column for the March issue of GUNS Magazine, coming this week to enlightened newsstands throughout the Republic.
"A Judgment Call" is my Rights Watch column for the March issue of GUNS Magazine, coming this week to enlightened newsstands throughout the Republic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)