Dear NRA: Not With My Money

[To avoid site registration use BugMeNot Userid: bob@jonessmith.com and BugMeNot password: Bug2not]

“The ‘survey’ consisted of one question: Do you think that the nation needs additional gun control laws, or should we just enforce the laws already on the books?”

Typical. It hasn’t seemed to dawn on most NRA contributors that enforcing existing gun laws is what the government was doing at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

I won’t help Fairfax perpetuate NRA Management-endorsed gun control with my money, either.

"Guns Aren't an Issue"

Howard Dean, on crafting a national Democrat party platform:

“I was a governor who was endorsed every year by the National Rifle Association."

“Guns, Dean predicted, would never come up - either pro or con - in his 50-state survey of what the Democratic message should be.

“‘Guns aren't an issue,’ he said. ‘If Philadelphia wants gun control, fine. If Alabama doesn't, also fine.’"

So I guess rights aren’t unalienable. I guess the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed, and the Constitution is not the “supreme law of the land.”

How about this, Howard?

“Slavery isn’t an issue,” he said. “If Philadelphia wants slavery, fine. If Alabama doesn’t, also fine.”

But in a way, you’re right, Howard. Guns aren’t an issue. It’s not about guns. It never really has been.

Stated more accurately, freedom isn’t an issue.

Slip Slidin' Away

Leaders in the civilian disarmament movement ridicule the notion that gun control laws are intended to result in, uh, civilian disarmament. There is no "slippery slope," they say, and suggestions to the contrary are unfounded.

"THE FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IS JUST THE FIRST STEP ON A SLIPPERY SLOPE TO BAN ALL GUNS IN AMERICA

"Response: Wrong. There is no hidden agenda behind saving the Federal Assault Weapons Act."--The Brady Campaign

"Fearful of becoming enmeshed in the gun lobby's 'slippery slope' argument (that any gun control, no matter how limited, is the first step toward total gun confiscation), many actively voiced their opposition to a handgun ban, warning that ban proponents would marginalize the entire movement. They could offer no proof of this claim—yet the argument took hold."--Ban Handguns Now

"In this debate, it is the National Rifle Assn. that is the true purveyor of fiction. In its paranoid world, any measure to make you safer is the first step on the slippery slope to taking away its members' rights."--Richard North Patterson at Common Dreams

In other words, the "slippery slope" argument is a myth. There is no hidden agenda. There is no proof that success in some gun control measures leads to other attempts at restrictions. The whole argument is a fiction. If you believe in it, you're living in a paranoid world where you think people are trying to take away your rights.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Just ignore the quotes Gun Scholar has compiled, or a similar collection posted by my favorite gun control organization.

Very seldom is a debate won by calling names, and if I just called the gun banners liars, I wouldn't expect it to be persuasive. So I won't.

I'll call them demonstrable liars.

But don't take my word for it. Take theirs. Follow the links and prove it yourself.

Microstamping...What is it?

Sam Parades of Gun Owners of California weighs in.

Also see:

Microstamping for Macroinfringement

Microstamping-An Alternative View

AB352 is pro-forensic, not anti-gun.

I Got Them Black Robe Blues

"Worried after recent attacks, federal judges on Wednesday urged Congress to provide more protection, including $12 million for security systems in most of their homes.

"'Unfortunately, at the present time federal judges across the country are feeling particularly vulnerable, not only for themselves, but also for their families,' said a letter from the Judicial Conference of the United States..."

Federal Judges feeling insecure?

Gee, I wonder why.

Seegars v Gonzalez: Petition for Rehearing

You need to stop what you're doing and go read Matthew's report.

To those who fear a Supreme Court Second Amendment ruling against an individual right, I say it's past time for the courts to tell us exactly where we stand--no more of this pretending we have some sort of "legal" chance, which only allows politicians and lobbyists to manipulate us.

If the bastards are going to say we have no right, I want to know so I can expend my energies on strategies that have a better chance of working.

SCOTUS, of course, has been ducking this issue for a long time. They'll probably take the path of least resistance again, and refuse to hear such cases. However, if they accept either Seegars or Parker, I believe the court will not dare say there is no individual rkba. But if they find there is one, it will be so heavily burdened with "reasonable restrictions" as to ensure the status quo. They'll never admit the truth unless someone, that would be us, has enough power to compel them.

Security Counter Measures Needed?

As I've explained before, my grasp of post-Jurassic technology is weak at best, so forgive me if the following is a non-issue.

A month ago, I added a site meter to this blog. I've recently noticed when a referring link comes from another blog's site meter, it allows me into their stats--and then lets me move around within, to see things like their daily averages, where people come to their sites from, etc.

Is this normal? I would have thought this would be considered intrusive.

If it's a glitch, I'd think the respective site meter providers would want to know. If it's just normal, and all of you who have progressed beyond the Stone Age know all about it, in the words of Rosanna Rosanadanna, "Never mind."

Is there some setting I (and apparently others, and some of the blogs I'm getting into seem to be pretty sophisticated) should know about to prevent this from happening?

I guess what I don't understand is why do I need a front-end userid and password if just anyone with a stat counter can saunter in through the back door?

Educational feedback would be appreciated.

WTF?

Acronym Finder can help you define all those pesky acronyms.

Well, almost all:

"Sorry, BATFU was not found in the database."

Would You Like a Regular Burger or a Whopper?

I found this old quote on the website of my favorite gun control organization. It's a good reminder for those of us who remember it, and a good illustration for those who haven't seen it before, of the mindset we face with many in the judiciary, including the Supreme Court:

"If I were writing the Bill of Rights now there wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment... This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud', on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."
- Warren Burger, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, Parade Magazine, 1/14/90

"Guns That Killed Presidents"

Now there’s a headline that’s sure to interest Homeland Security’s electronic surveillance spooks.

GUNS Magazine is celebrating its 50th anniversary by making its first issues available as free .pdf downloads. They post each mag for the month it corresponds with. The April 1955 issue is now online.

Ginsburg's Judicial Jihad

It’s scary enough that “Justice [Darth Vader] Ginsburg of the Supreme Court embraced the practice of consulting foreign legal decisions on Friday, rejecting the argument from conservatives that United States law should not take international thinking into account.”

A lot of people are jumping on that, and rightfully so.

But the most disturbing statement she made seems to have been overshadowed in all the “international law” hoopla”: "The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification."

In other words, she is of the mind that we have a “living Constitution,” with all that that implies.

As Walter Williams instructs us, “Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be ‘living’? Depending on ‘evolving standards,’ maybe my two pair could beat your flush.”

Another disturbing factoid: "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ...described Justice Ginsberg as 'a great and good friend.'"

Ear of the Beholder: Episode Two

My kid sister reminds me of another mondegreen from days gone by:

Sly and the Family Stone’s “It’s a Family of Hair.”

In the Ear of the Beholder

FreedomSight points us to a website for mis-heard lyrics.

I haven't thought about this in years, but back when Evita came out, the TV commercial had her on the balcony singing "Don't cry for me Argentina," with Che responding "You were supposed to have been immortal..."

A woman at work was singing "You were supposed to have been in Baltimore."

Close Your Books, Please, We're Going to Have a Pop Quiz

Dan Baron of The Northwest Indiana Times has created a multiple choice quiz designed to further spook the flock into fearing an armed citizenry.

I wonder how Dan would do on this quiz?
_______________________________________

TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF GUN CONTROL:

"No One But the Authorities Should Have Assault Weapons"

If these people had assault weapons, they would probably (check all that apply):

___ rob liquor stores
___ engage in drive-by shootings
___ leave them lying around where their kids could find them
___ blow away motorists during traffic disputes
___ go on schoolyard rampages
___ accidentally kill friends and family members
___ none of the above

Might there be a moral, historically justified need for "non-sporting" arms in the hands of "average citizens?" The next time someone tells you we need to ban "assault weapons," ask them to take this test. Why not send a copy of it to the politicians who represent you and see how they answer?

[Adapted from my poster that originally appeared on GunTruths.com]

Find-A-Human

QuickBase lets us speak to a real hooded minion of the soulless machine with their IVR Phone System Shortcuts.

"He's coming to the closet! He's coming to the closet! He's coming to the closet!"

The Smallest Minority presents a chilling real-life account of how dialing 911 and not being equipped and prepared to defend yourself results in tragedy.

He Walks the Night...

...He hungers. And he's coming for you!

So what's the solution? The typical politician might try making it illegal to carry a crucifix without a permit. We could also force everyone to wait 5 days and go through a background check before allowing them to buy a wooden stake. Or how about passing a law restricting people to one vial of holy water a month? If that doesn't work, we can come up with an arbitrary list of mallet features and ban those which don't comply. And just for good measure, let's require everyone buying garlic to register their purchase and leave a thumbprint. If this seems unreal to you, if you can think of no good reason to give the creatures of the night an advantage over their victims, then congratulations! You've just exposed the dark myth of gun control to the light of reason. Isn't it time we drove a stake through the heart of the gun control argument--for good?

[Adapted from my poster that originally appeared on GunTruths.com]

"Is the Joyce Foundation at it again?"

"Just saw a note that the Fordham Univ. Law Review is coming out with a symposium issue on the Second Amendment -- strangely, without a single recognizable pro-individual rights author (and almost without recognizable authors at all).

"Aha, thought I -- is the Joyce Foundation at it again? Sure enough, a Google quickly turned this up: 'The papers and commentaries presented at the conference will be published in the Fordham Law Review in Fall 2004. The conference was funded by a generous grant from The Joyce Foundation.'"

David Hardy's new weblog "Of Arms & the Law" offers some of the most intelligent and insightful commentary to be found--it should become a "must read" for serious 2A activists.

The site also lists Dave Kopel as a "Major Contributor," but so far, it seems pure Hardy.

“AB352 is pro-forensic, not anti-gun.”

Our anonymous comment poster in “Microstamping-An Alternative View” does not believe Assemblyman Paul Koretz’s AB352, requiring semiautomatic handguns to emply microstamp identifiers is a “gun control” measure.

Remember, according to the bill’s language, “This bill would…expand the definition of unsafe handgun to include semiautomatic pistols that are not [so] designed and equipped…”

Gun owners have particular reason to concern themselves with any firearm-related bills proposed by Mr. Koretz. From his biography:

“While on the [West Hollywood] City Council, Koretz played a key role on many high profile issues, foremost among them gun control issues. In 1988, Paul sponsored a ban on military-style assault weapons, which built momentum for a subsequent statewide ban. In 1996, Koretz co-sponsored the City's ban on ‘Saturday Night Specials.’ West Hollywood was the first city to enact such a ban, which survived various legal assaults by the NRA. Koretz also sponsored an ordinance limiting handgun purchases to one gun per month, to cut the resale of guns on the black market.”

Let’s examine his “Saturday Night Special” ban. Here was his reasoning behind it:

“Because the inferior quality of the alloys these parts are made of, the gun cannot reliably contain its own ballistic power. This means they are chambered to fire high pressure ammunition without the reliable ability to contain the pressures generated by the force of a bullet leaving the gun's chamber and barrel.”

Furthermore, that bill deemed that “as a result of inferior craftsmanship, Saturday Night Specials are not sufficiently accurate or reliable...as a...means of personal protection...they are not well suited for this purpose."

I took exception to that claim a few years back, but the bottom line is, Mr. Koretz has a history of banning guns he deems “unsafe.”

Now he wants to codify into state law the claim that semiauto handguns that don’t employ microstamping are “unsafe.”

And we’re supposed to give credence to the anonymous comment that “AB352 [which will ban the sale of all semiauto handguns in the state of California that Mr. Koretz & Co. claim are 'unsafe'] is pro-forensic, not anti-gun.”

Microstamping-An Alternative View

Here's somebody who thinks microstamping is a good idea:

Anonymous said...
Microstamping technology gave the forensic community something to counter the disasterous ballistic RBID idea. Dr. Tuelleners of CA DOJ was the catalyst on killing ballistic imaging. He also countered with the idea that ballistic id tagging, the technology called microstamping as an alternative. This wedge issue saved 100's thousands of legal firearms owners from being logged into a criminal database. The reason it did this, was that the anti-gun movement who wanted an RBID system, ie firearm registration, had to defend ballistic imaging. In essence Dr. Tuellenes got the anti-gun industry to shine a light on the technology, which led to testing of the ballistic imaging technology and reviews of its effectiveness.

As for the effectiveness of microstamping, it will provide the forensic community a good tool to plot and track illegal trafficing of firearms. Since the technology creates a code, it makes it easier to share between state and federal law enforcement. There is no need for chain of custody issues, since they are sharing codes, not physical evidence.

By identifying the firearms make, model and date of manufacture, the forensic experts can determine hot spots for trafficing and identify those sources. Straw purchases are a big issue and the forensic community needs new tools. As for impact to the industry, insignificant in comparison to ballistic imaging which costs as follows:(Maryland Gun Owner $20.00/gun, State cost:~$30.00/gun to input into IBIS (tax payer cost). NY is more expensive.

The cost of Ballistic ID Tagging is between $8.00 and $0.50, for custom firearms manufacturers and high volume manufacturers respectively, this range is due to access to the equipment and volume of firearms produced. There are 8 shops in the country that can provide the service.

AB352 is pro-forensic, not anti-gun.