No, Mike. Just No.

A career statist loon wants to ban handguns and dictate barrel lengths of long arms. [More]

Here's my reply. I encourage you to follow the link and leave comments of your own.

No, Mike.

That's it, just "no."

Now what are you going to do about it?

How many men like me, who refuse to bend to your will, are you willing to have killed or ruined in the futile attempt to enact your agenda? Because we won't just give up. We won't just surrender our guns.

And in order to get them out of the 80-plus million households in this country, you're going to need to conduct a full-blown national occupation. The "authorities" won't have time for 80-plus million search warrants and habeas corpus and all that other Constitutional nonsense, so it will just be block sweeps and dynamic entries. Nice police state your little fantasy will create.

What, you thought "benefits" didn't come with offsetting costs?

You're talking tripwire scenario here, Mike--real resistance and everything that implies.

And I assume you won't be doing the disarmament yourself--you expect hirelings to risk their necks doing your dirty work for you. Except most of those hirelings
have family. I wouldn't count on all of them staying "loyal."

It doesn't surprise me that you've worked for the state your entire career, that is, been a career statist, Mike. That much is evident from your attitudes. So I guess you haven't dealt all that much with free men who earn their own keep without relying on plundering the productive sector--perhaps you even had power to deny permits--that kind of stuff--make the rabble jump through your hoops, rather than be a public servant.

Free people don't need your permission to keep and bear arms, Mike. If you try to act like they do, you'll be in for a rude awakening.

[Via Alphecca]

Ryan Horsley Video Interview

WarOnGuns has talked about the deficiencies in reporting on Red's Trading Post by High Country Times, first in the "Guns R Us" piece, and then in the "Ready, Aim, Compromise" editorial.

By contrast, their video interview comes off as balanced--it's easy to see why Ryan Horsley would feel a reporter asking such questions in such a manner would be sympathetic, and Ryan comes across more than anything else as a decent man.

One thing struck me as particularly ironic, and it didn't happen until the last few seconds of the last video segment, "Ryan Horsley on the 2nd Amendment." I recalled that the interviewer and reporter, Ray Ring, made a specific point in his story of telling readers that JPFO's "The Gang" video "includes no substantial interviews with ATF staffers."

Well, gee, Mr. Ring. Based on your admission that "The feds have been characteristically tight-lipped about their enforcement actions," I wonder why, particularly considering the last frame of your video interview:

Kennesaw Agrees to Consider Repealing Gun Ban

From Matt Knighten:

Yes, that Kennesaw, Gun Town USA has an ordinance that bans the carry of firearms in city parks (even those legally carried by license individuals). Though the state has a law preempting it, they have agreed to "consider" repealing the ban. Actually, that is what the AJC says. The letter from the city attorney to GCO says they have agreed period.

The AJC has most of the story. http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/08/09/guns_0810.html

Letter from the City attorneys is found on this page: http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/2007/08/07/kennesaw-agrees-to-repeal-parks-ban/

Also, to put it in perspective, here is a link to GA's preemption law 16-11-173 http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=11&section=173

In light of all that, notice that in the AJC article that the county of Coweta (which has a similar ordinance) is fighting GeorgiaCarry over it. They have even one the first court case. GCO is who is appealing to the GA Appeals Court. If you want to read more about that, you can read our updates about it http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/category/action-items/coweta-county-preemption/

and/or if you feel like reading the court/lawsuit related documents http://www.georgiacarry.com/county/coweta_parks

Matt Knighten
Owner GeorgiaPacking.org
Secretary and Member of the Board GeorgiaCarry.org

"Y" and "N"

Here are some questions I'd like to see put to BATFU DIO Richard Van Loan under oath:

Q: Form 4473 states that "The information you provide will be used to determine whether you are prohibited under law from receiving a firearm." Is any other purpose for completing it stated on the form?

Q: You cite as a violation that firearm purchase forms were found that had "Y" and "N" entered instead of "Yes" and "No". What difference does that make?

Q: If the only stated intent of the form is to determine if a person is "prohibited...from receiving a firearm," can you cite one instance where a gun has been sold to such a person by a licensed dealer for no other reason than BECAUSE "Y" and "N" were accepted in lieu of "Yes" and "No"?

Q: Question 13 of Form 4473 has check boxes for "Yes", "No" and "Not Applicable". As it's not specified on the form, would an "X" instead of a check mark be a violation, and if so, has a dealer ever been found in noncompliance for accepting it? If not, we're back to the question: What difference does it make?

Q: Form 4473 states that a false statement on the form is "a crime punishable as a felony." Would a prohibited person who wrote "Y" or "N" when they should have given opposite answers be exempted from such charges? If not, what difference does it make?

Q: Is it fair to say that entering "Y" or "N" instead of "Yes" of "No" makes NO DIFFERENCE in terms of determining whether a person is "prohibited under law from receiving a firearm" or the government's ability to prosecute a person for making false statements on Form 4473? If so, hasn't the stated intent of the form been accomplished regardless of whether a letter or a word has been entered on the form?

Overlooking the Obvious

This feeble comparison overlooks the obvious: There is no constitutional right to dress as you please, or to sell cookies at work.

My point here is not to engage in the property rights vs gun rights debate--it's to return to a point I've tried to make again and again, yet some of our "conservative" leaders just won't get it.

The Constitution was never intended to define all of our rights. Workplace dress codes and charitable solicitations on company premises have everything to do with voluntary agreements and nothing to do with government infringements of rights.

This Day in History: August 10

On August 10, 1776, seven months after being elected Governor, Archibald Bulloch read a copy of the Declaration of Independence to the council members of Savannah , Georgia . Afterward, he read the Declaration to an audience at the public square. After reading it for a third time at the Liberty Pole, the Declaration of Independence was praised for its importance by thirteen thunderous rounds from a canon. Every since that historic event, residents of Bulloch County have celebrated "Archibald Bulloch Day" on August 10 th .