Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. [More]
More status quo from National Rifle Control, Inc., aka the LaPierre Center to Prevent Gun Violence:
"Shortly after the Minnesota school shootings, [NRA president-elect Sandra Froman] said, 'I'm not saying that that means every teacher should have a gun or not, but what I am saying is we need to look at all the options at what will truly protect the students.'
"NRA Chief Executive Officer Wayne LaPierre clarified the following week that the NRA is not advocating arming teachers and supports the federal law that bars most guns from schools.
"On Tuesday, Froman seemed to retreat from her initial comments.
"'The only people that ought to have firearms in the schools are law enforcement and trained security personnel,' she said."
Well, we knew that was coming.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Coincidence? We Don't Think So.
On Wednesday, I posted "Hysteria on the Homefront."
Within two days, and to their credit, Science & Spirit deleted the sentence about "child" gun deaths.
Special thanks to my buddy and specialized headgear joint venture partner (sorry, it's an inside joke and I ain't sharing it) Uncle Tom for engineering that outcome by forwarding the War On Guns link along with some relevant CDC stats to the S&S editor.
Within two days, and to their credit, Science & Spirit deleted the sentence about "child" gun deaths.
Special thanks to my buddy and specialized headgear joint venture partner (sorry, it's an inside joke and I ain't sharing it) Uncle Tom for engineering that outcome by forwarding the War On Guns link along with some relevant CDC stats to the S&S editor.
Hardyville Taxes the Taxman
Claire Wolfe treats us to another masterpiece. As with all consummate pros, her style makes the painstaking labor, skill and training needed to produce such compositions seem effortless.
In a rational world, genius would be rewarded with widespread patronage.
In a rational world, genius would be rewarded with widespread patronage.
Friday, April 15, 2005
To The Men Of England
Percy Bysse Shelley had the timeless nature of government and governed pegged:
The seed ye sow another reaps;
The wealth ye find another keeps;
The robes ye weave another wears;
The arms ye forge another bears.
Sow seed, -- but let no tyrant reap;
Find wealth, -- let no imposter heap;
Weave robes, -- let not the idle wear;
Forge arms, in your defence to bear.
It may be too late for the men of England. Is it too late for us?
Read the complete poem here.
The seed ye sow another reaps;
The wealth ye find another keeps;
The robes ye weave another wears;
The arms ye forge another bears.
Sow seed, -- but let no tyrant reap;
Find wealth, -- let no imposter heap;
Weave robes, -- let not the idle wear;
Forge arms, in your defence to bear.
It may be too late for the men of England. Is it too late for us?
Read the complete poem here.
"O, what a tangled web we weave...
...when first we practise to deceive!" (Walter Scott)
From Frederick P. Blume, Jr.:
"Follow this link, let the applet load, and see the connections. This is an incredible job of connecting - with neural netware - the various groups that are working in concert to undo the United States of America. The folks at DISCOVERTHENETWORK.ORG have done a spectacular job and you should see what they've done."
From Frederick P. Blume, Jr.:
"Follow this link, let the applet load, and see the connections. This is an incredible job of connecting - with neural netware - the various groups that are working in concert to undo the United States of America. The folks at DISCOVERTHENETWORK.ORG have done a spectacular job and you should see what they've done."
Thursday, April 14, 2005
The Fruits of "Pragmatism"
Self-Proclaimed "Pro-Gun" Candidate Endorses Gun Grabber
Walter Moore ran for mayor of Los Angeles. Among his claims in an email to me: “I fully support our Second Amendment rights.”
He even addressed the Westside NRA Members’ Council to recruit gun owner support. I’ve spoken to some members who gave it.
I didn’t involve myself with his campaign because Moore refused to go on record answering specific questions about how he would support the right to keep and bear arms.
“Publicizing my stand on the Second Amendment to people who hate guns before the election would be counter-productive,” he told me. “It's fine for people WITHIN the Second Amendment community to know my stand, but if we start trumpeting it to the world, well, we risk losing a lot of votes unnecessarily.”
I pressed him on that, and his reply was “I've stated my position. Anyone who disagrees with my position can instead vote for one of the liberal Democrats against whom I'm running.”
Mr. Moore’s strategy of hiding from his claimed principles in order to glean votes resulted in a sixth-place finish, with 2.8 % of the vote.
And now, Mr. Moore, who had a problem “publicizing [his] stand on the Second Amendment” has no problem publicizing his support for a gun-grabbing rival.
The Los Angeles Times reports “Walter Moore, a Republican lawyer from Westchester…endorsed [incumbent mayor James] Hahn.”
That’s the same James Hahn who, according to The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence joined other big city mayors and “called on the Senate not to support legislation to give gunmakers, distributors and vendors immunity from civil liability.”
“As the city’s chief prosecutor,” Hahn’s website advertises, “he used innovative approaches to curbing gang violence, sued gun manufacturers to stop the illegal distribution of guns…”
In his Candidate Statement, Hahn brags that he “Joined members of the Million Mom March and other local organizations in calling for the renewal of the federal assault weapons ban. As City Attorney, Hahn wrote the law banning assault weapons in Los Angeles, the first major city in California to do so,” and “Signed into law an ordinance that prohibits the sale or transfer of large caliber handguns and rifles in the city."
I'm sure Mr. Moore will have plenty of justifications for voting "for one of the liberal Democrats against whom [he was] running." And we can all see how well his political "pragmatism" works to advance and secure freedom.
"Jim Hahn is straight with you," Moore told The Times, "and he follows through on what he says he's going to do."
Yeah, we know.
If you’re a gun owner who supported Walter Moore, this is what you got for your time, money and efforts. This is what you'll always get when a candidate won't proudly champion all of the Bill of Rights and makes excuses to avoid doing so.
Walter Moore ran for mayor of Los Angeles. Among his claims in an email to me: “I fully support our Second Amendment rights.”
He even addressed the Westside NRA Members’ Council to recruit gun owner support. I’ve spoken to some members who gave it.
I didn’t involve myself with his campaign because Moore refused to go on record answering specific questions about how he would support the right to keep and bear arms.
“Publicizing my stand on the Second Amendment to people who hate guns before the election would be counter-productive,” he told me. “It's fine for people WITHIN the Second Amendment community to know my stand, but if we start trumpeting it to the world, well, we risk losing a lot of votes unnecessarily.”
I pressed him on that, and his reply was “I've stated my position. Anyone who disagrees with my position can instead vote for one of the liberal Democrats against whom I'm running.”
Mr. Moore’s strategy of hiding from his claimed principles in order to glean votes resulted in a sixth-place finish, with 2.8 % of the vote.
And now, Mr. Moore, who had a problem “publicizing [his] stand on the Second Amendment” has no problem publicizing his support for a gun-grabbing rival.
The Los Angeles Times reports “Walter Moore, a Republican lawyer from Westchester…endorsed [incumbent mayor James] Hahn.”
That’s the same James Hahn who, according to The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence joined other big city mayors and “called on the Senate not to support legislation to give gunmakers, distributors and vendors immunity from civil liability.”
“As the city’s chief prosecutor,” Hahn’s website advertises, “he used innovative approaches to curbing gang violence, sued gun manufacturers to stop the illegal distribution of guns…”
In his Candidate Statement, Hahn brags that he “Joined members of the Million Mom March and other local organizations in calling for the renewal of the federal assault weapons ban. As City Attorney, Hahn wrote the law banning assault weapons in Los Angeles, the first major city in California to do so,” and “Signed into law an ordinance that prohibits the sale or transfer of large caliber handguns and rifles in the city."
I'm sure Mr. Moore will have plenty of justifications for voting "for one of the liberal Democrats against whom [he was] running." And we can all see how well his political "pragmatism" works to advance and secure freedom.
"Jim Hahn is straight with you," Moore told The Times, "and he follows through on what he says he's going to do."
Yeah, we know.
If you’re a gun owner who supported Walter Moore, this is what you got for your time, money and efforts. This is what you'll always get when a candidate won't proudly champion all of the Bill of Rights and makes excuses to avoid doing so.
At Least They're Consistent
Sarah Brady complained about state preemption legislation in Kansas, calling it the “No Local Rights bill.”
“[W]e should all agree that in a democracy,” she commands, “the people of a local community should be able to take the appropriate steps to ensure their safety locally. That's what democracy is all about. To pass this wrong headed language into law is contrary to democracy.”
Meanwhile, fellow gun grabber California Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg is backing state legislation to ban public school sports teams from using the name “Redskins.” Why the need for action from Sacramento?
“If local control were to govern civil rights," Goldberg said, "there would be none.”
“[W]e should all agree that in a democracy,” she commands, “the people of a local community should be able to take the appropriate steps to ensure their safety locally. That's what democracy is all about. To pass this wrong headed language into law is contrary to democracy.”
Meanwhile, fellow gun grabber California Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg is backing state legislation to ban public school sports teams from using the name “Redskins.” Why the need for action from Sacramento?
“If local control were to govern civil rights," Goldberg said, "there would be none.”
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
What Do You Call a Cop Who Points a Gun at His Own Head?
Reinstated.
I'm sure glad the bill was passed so guys like this can legally carry a concealed firearm in 50 states and us ordinary citizens can't. I mean, we all know LEOs are more "professional" than you and me.
I'm sure glad the bill was passed so guys like this can legally carry a concealed firearm in 50 states and us ordinary citizens can't. I mean, we all know LEOs are more "professional" than you and me.
Hysteria on the Homefront
[Scroll to “Hatred on the Homefront,” toward bottom of page.]
“Each day in the United States,” Heather Cunnigham states authoritatively, “10 children are murdered, 16 die from guns, and 8,042 are reported abused or neglected.”
“16,” Heather? The gungrabbers used to say “13.” I guess they’ve updated their stats since the FBI released their Uniform Crime Statistics in 1997.
Have they also updated their statistics so they don’t—depending on the source—include “children” from 19 to 24 engaging in criminal gang activities?
(See Guy Smith’s excellent online resource, Gun Facts, “Myth 13”.)
“Each day in the United States,” Heather Cunnigham states authoritatively, “10 children are murdered, 16 die from guns, and 8,042 are reported abused or neglected.”
“16,” Heather? The gungrabbers used to say “13.” I guess they’ve updated their stats since the FBI released their Uniform Crime Statistics in 1997.
Have they also updated their statistics so they don’t—depending on the source—include “children” from 19 to 24 engaging in criminal gang activities?
(See Guy Smith’s excellent online resource, Gun Facts, “Myth 13”.)
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
The Last Gun Shop
Coming Soon to a City Near You
Per Dave Polaschek, "The last gun shop in Minneapolis is about to be shut down (deadline April 18th)."
So much for being "paranoid" about the "slippery slope."
Per Dave Polaschek, "The last gun shop in Minneapolis is about to be shut down (deadline April 18th)."
So much for being "paranoid" about the "slippery slope."
Lynch Mob, Anyone?
Statement of Sarah Brady on Kansas Legislation
(Translated from the original German)
Sarah thinks local communities should be able to violate unalienable rights because the majority rules, and “that’s what democracy is all about.”
(Translated from the original German)
Sarah thinks local communities should be able to violate unalienable rights because the majority rules, and “that’s what democracy is all about.”
"The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope"
In re "Slip Slidin' Away," correspondent Randy Hudson calls my attention to an authoritative paper by Eugene Volokh, available as a .pdf file or in html.
Monday, April 11, 2005
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.
“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.
“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.
"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.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Saturday, April 09, 2005
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.
"'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.
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.
Friday, April 08, 2005
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.
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."
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
"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
Thursday, April 07, 2005
"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.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
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.'"
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.”
Sly and the Family Stone’s “It’s a Family of Hair.”
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
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."
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"
I wonder how Dan would do on this quiz?
_______________________________________
TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF GUN CONTROL:
"No One But the Authorities Should Have Assault Weapons"
___ 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.
Monday, April 04, 2005
"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.
"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.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
“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.”
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.
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.
Zero Tolerance Insanity and Corruption
A young man gets thrown in the slammer and booted out of the government indoctrination kamp for a drawing he made two years earlier. His kid brother found the sketchbook in the closet, and another kid on the schoolbus reported the "offending" picture.
As outrageous and ludicrous as that is, another story involves the black robe who agreed with this madness every step of the way.
This is not the first time that U.S. District Judge Frank J. Polozola , who determined the drawing constituted a threat, has been noted to exhibit paranoia.
A year ago, he "took control of an accident case involving his car and issued an order transferring evidence about his medical condition to a sealed federal court file."
Another case he ruled on was challenged "because the judge admitted in his accident suit to being impaired and to using Oxy-Contin, a pain medication, in that period.
"In the accident case, filed in 1998, Judge Polozola, 62, sought compensation for a 'serious physical injury' that caused him mental anguish and "impairment of function." In the trial in 2000, [lawyers] wrote in filings, the judge engaged in 'erratic, even paranoid' behavior. The accident case was settled in 2001, and testimony from the judge, his psychiatrist and his psychologist was sealed."
When it looked like those records might be unsealed, "Judge Polozola ordered the evidence in his accident case transferred to federal court and sealed," and get this, it was done at the request of federal prosecutors "to avoid 'irreparable injury to a national interest.'"
These are the people who impose "Zero Tolerance" on a supposedly free people--and expect us to tolerate it.
As outrageous and ludicrous as that is, another story involves the black robe who agreed with this madness every step of the way.
This is not the first time that U.S. District Judge Frank J. Polozola , who determined the drawing constituted a threat, has been noted to exhibit paranoia.
A year ago, he "took control of an accident case involving his car and issued an order transferring evidence about his medical condition to a sealed federal court file."
Another case he ruled on was challenged "because the judge admitted in his accident suit to being impaired and to using Oxy-Contin, a pain medication, in that period.
"In the accident case, filed in 1998, Judge Polozola, 62, sought compensation for a 'serious physical injury' that caused him mental anguish and "impairment of function." In the trial in 2000, [lawyers] wrote in filings, the judge engaged in 'erratic, even paranoid' behavior. The accident case was settled in 2001, and testimony from the judge, his psychiatrist and his psychologist was sealed."
When it looked like those records might be unsealed, "Judge Polozola ordered the evidence in his accident case transferred to federal court and sealed," and get this, it was done at the request of federal prosecutors "to avoid 'irreparable injury to a national interest.'"
These are the people who impose "Zero Tolerance" on a supposedly free people--and expect us to tolerate it.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Gun Control's Best Friend
"The slaughter, rape and torment of the citizens of Darfur would end if humanitarian aid included guns."--Dimitri Vassilaros
Read and share this compelling article.
As the good folks at JPFO have been trying to tell everyone, "gun control" enables genocide.
I learned about the Vassilaros piece from Alphecca.
Read and share this compelling article.
As the good folks at JPFO have been trying to tell everyone, "gun control" enables genocide.
I learned about the Vassilaros piece from Alphecca.
Sarah, Jane ‘n Me
Or How I Almost Got Arrested For Trying to Ask a Question
[This originally appeared in a newsletter I was producing for the Westside Los Angeles NRA Members Council, 2nd Amendment West, Vol. 5, No.4, September/October 1996. I'm dusting it off because it's never appeared on the internet, the example of imperial arrogance it illustrates still holds true, and because the question of just who has the authority to declare someone a "journalist" is still being usurped.]
HARMAN AND BRADY STIFLE FREE SPEECH AT "PRESS CONFERENCE"
Shamelessly exploiting the memorial site of slain Manhattan Beach police officer Martin Ganz, Congresswoman Jane Harman and Handgun Control, Inc.'s Sarah Brady staged a "rally" on Sept. 5 to malign gun owners and to spread further distortions about your right to keep and bear arms.
Ostensibly held to announce Ms. Brady's support of Ms. Harman, the event quickly degenerated into a blatant propaganda festival, replete with a mock check from the NRA to Harman's opponent, Susan Brooks, and a display table full of "assault weapons." Both Jane and Sarah then went on to speak out against gun rights by decrying the need for hunters to use "weapons of war" (!), by somehow holding us responsible for the criminal actions of, er, criminals, and by trumpeting the absurd claim that the Brady Act has stopped over 100,000 felons from purchasing guns.
Fortunately, pro-gunners from the South Bay and Westside got wind of the event, and showed up in substantial numbers to protest both the anti-gun rights lies being promulgated, as well as Rep. Harman's abysmal attendance record (she has the worst in the California delegation, being "AWOL" from her duties about one day out of ten- imagine what your boss would do if you had an absenteeism rate of 10%).
Not content to repeal the Second Amendment, Ms. Harman and Ms. Brady also tried to squelch that pesky First, by not allowing questions from the crowd. That's right, public figures holding a public forum on public property would not entertain the concerns of the public! They would only take questions from the "media," and if we had any private concerns, they would have to be asked afterwards, one-on-one (i.e., out of earshot of the crowd, to avoid public exposure of their falsehoods). And knowing the media's antagonism to our rights, we're supposed to trust their objectivity?
I attempted to ask a question anyway, challenging Ms. Brady to disclose the author of the study resulting in the claim that 100,000 felons have been denied guns due to the Brady Law, to reveal the source of her data, the statistical methods used to collect and tabulate the data, and to publish the study and its conclusions in their entirety for peer scrutiny.
An unidentified man in a suit approached me from a group of Jane-and-Sarah-loving law enforcement honchos, and opined that what I was doing was "not free speech."(!!) He told me that questions were reserved for the press.
I responded that I was editor of this modest journal. He told me I did not have "legitimate credentials."
I countered (loudly, so that I would have witnesses) that I was not aware that I needed a permit to exercise my First Amendment rights under the Constitution, and challenged him to cite the law requiring a citizen to get permission to ask a question at a public event.
Seeing that his attempt at intimidation had failed, he turned around and walked back to the cadre of police officials he had emerged from. Still, I could not help feeling that his tactics were worthy of the KGB, and probably portend the shape of things to come if those who love control more than liberty prevail.
Refreshingly, challenger Susan Brooks held a press conference of her own following the Harman/Brady travesty, but one with two distinctive differences; anyone there was welcome to ask any question they wanted to, and (surprise!) the tv cameras somehow didn't make it to the Brooks event. It would seem the "credentialed" media, like my unidentified friend, aren't really very interested in presenting both sides of the issues. Surprise, indeed.
[This originally appeared in a newsletter I was producing for the Westside Los Angeles NRA Members Council, 2nd Amendment West, Vol. 5, No.4, September/October 1996. I'm dusting it off because it's never appeared on the internet, the example of imperial arrogance it illustrates still holds true, and because the question of just who has the authority to declare someone a "journalist" is still being usurped.]
HARMAN AND BRADY STIFLE FREE SPEECH AT "PRESS CONFERENCE"
Shamelessly exploiting the memorial site of slain Manhattan Beach police officer Martin Ganz, Congresswoman Jane Harman and Handgun Control, Inc.'s Sarah Brady staged a "rally" on Sept. 5 to malign gun owners and to spread further distortions about your right to keep and bear arms.
Ostensibly held to announce Ms. Brady's support of Ms. Harman, the event quickly degenerated into a blatant propaganda festival, replete with a mock check from the NRA to Harman's opponent, Susan Brooks, and a display table full of "assault weapons." Both Jane and Sarah then went on to speak out against gun rights by decrying the need for hunters to use "weapons of war" (!), by somehow holding us responsible for the criminal actions of, er, criminals, and by trumpeting the absurd claim that the Brady Act has stopped over 100,000 felons from purchasing guns.
Fortunately, pro-gunners from the South Bay and Westside got wind of the event, and showed up in substantial numbers to protest both the anti-gun rights lies being promulgated, as well as Rep. Harman's abysmal attendance record (she has the worst in the California delegation, being "AWOL" from her duties about one day out of ten- imagine what your boss would do if you had an absenteeism rate of 10%).
Not content to repeal the Second Amendment, Ms. Harman and Ms. Brady also tried to squelch that pesky First, by not allowing questions from the crowd. That's right, public figures holding a public forum on public property would not entertain the concerns of the public! They would only take questions from the "media," and if we had any private concerns, they would have to be asked afterwards, one-on-one (i.e., out of earshot of the crowd, to avoid public exposure of their falsehoods). And knowing the media's antagonism to our rights, we're supposed to trust their objectivity?
I attempted to ask a question anyway, challenging Ms. Brady to disclose the author of the study resulting in the claim that 100,000 felons have been denied guns due to the Brady Law, to reveal the source of her data, the statistical methods used to collect and tabulate the data, and to publish the study and its conclusions in their entirety for peer scrutiny.
An unidentified man in a suit approached me from a group of Jane-and-Sarah-loving law enforcement honchos, and opined that what I was doing was "not free speech."(!!) He told me that questions were reserved for the press.
I responded that I was editor of this modest journal. He told me I did not have "legitimate credentials."
I countered (loudly, so that I would have witnesses) that I was not aware that I needed a permit to exercise my First Amendment rights under the Constitution, and challenged him to cite the law requiring a citizen to get permission to ask a question at a public event.
Seeing that his attempt at intimidation had failed, he turned around and walked back to the cadre of police officials he had emerged from. Still, I could not help feeling that his tactics were worthy of the KGB, and probably portend the shape of things to come if those who love control more than liberty prevail.
Refreshingly, challenger Susan Brooks held a press conference of her own following the Harman/Brady travesty, but one with two distinctive differences; anyone there was welcome to ask any question they wanted to, and (surprise!) the tv cameras somehow didn't make it to the Brooks event. It would seem the "credentialed" media, like my unidentified friend, aren't really very interested in presenting both sides of the issues. Surprise, indeed.
Friday, April 01, 2005
BREAKING NEWS: Feinstein Arrested After Gun Mishap
Senator Injures Multiple Constituents in Accidental Discharge--Reportedly Challenges Marshals: "Do You Know Who I Am?"
"WASHINGTON (DC)- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) has been charged with negligent discharge of a firearm after wounding 3 constituents in a town hall meeting Thursday evening. The Senator was displaying an assault weapon to argue for a renewed federal ban when the weapon suddenly went off.
"Agents of the US Marshal's Service forcibly rushed a distraught and screaming Senator from the auditorium.
"'If this can happen to an experienced gun handler like Senator Feinstein,' an unidentified aide told the crowd, 'it shows the need for heightened legislation.'"
Read complete story.
"WASHINGTON (DC)- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) has been charged with negligent discharge of a firearm after wounding 3 constituents in a town hall meeting Thursday evening. The Senator was displaying an assault weapon to argue for a renewed federal ban when the weapon suddenly went off.
"Agents of the US Marshal's Service forcibly rushed a distraught and screaming Senator from the auditorium.
"'If this can happen to an experienced gun handler like Senator Feinstein,' an unidentified aide told the crowd, 'it shows the need for heightened legislation.'"
Read complete story.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Me & my AK-47
Josie Roberts buys a WASR-10.
She really doesn't like the fact that she can.
"Six days after Watts was murdered, four days after I applied for a driver’s license, one hour after entering the store and five minutes after a criminal record check, I legally owned a semiautomatic AK-47-style rifle," she writes.
Horrors!
Josie, I can buy gasoline, fertilizer and box cutters in a lot less time. [And, yeah, I'm aware of the disputes about OKC and 9-11.]
You can't ban everything that's potentially dangerous, Josie.
Except for balconies. Ban them.
[Thanks to SayUncle for the tip on this story.]
She really doesn't like the fact that she can.
"Six days after Watts was murdered, four days after I applied for a driver’s license, one hour after entering the store and five minutes after a criminal record check, I legally owned a semiautomatic AK-47-style rifle," she writes.
Horrors!
Josie, I can buy gasoline, fertilizer and box cutters in a lot less time. [And, yeah, I'm aware of the disputes about OKC and 9-11.]
You can't ban everything that's potentially dangerous, Josie.
Except for balconies. Ban them.
[Thanks to SayUncle for the tip on this story.]
Mother Sues Cops For Failing to Protect Kids
"[I]t would establish restraining orders as de facto Constitutional entitlements, the enforcement of which are guaranteed by procedural due process; and, second, it would hold state police federally liable for actions they did not take rather than for their bad acts."
As tragic as this story is, the cure is worse than the disease. Innocent victims could be denied fundamental rights without due process--based solely on the say-so of a spiteful accuser. RO's are routinely issued in divorces, even though a spouse may be the most gentle soul in the world.
Society does not have the resources to provide everyone a 24/7 bodyguard, and imagine the totalitarian outcome if it tried. The truth is, we're each of us ultimately responsible for our own defense. That's the way it's always been. To deny that is to deny reality.
This proposal makes about as much sense as balcony control.
As tragic as this story is, the cure is worse than the disease. Innocent victims could be denied fundamental rights without due process--based solely on the say-so of a spiteful accuser. RO's are routinely issued in divorces, even though a spouse may be the most gentle soul in the world.
Society does not have the resources to provide everyone a 24/7 bodyguard, and imagine the totalitarian outcome if it tried. The truth is, we're each of us ultimately responsible for our own defense. That's the way it's always been. To deny that is to deny reality.
This proposal makes about as much sense as balcony control.
NYU Imposes Balcony Control
"In an effort to prevent suicides, New York University will restrict access to balconies in two dormitories, Carlyle Court and Coral Towers, which together house more than 1,000 students."
Let me guess: background checks, one balcony a month, registration and licensing, "smart" balconies...
Gosh, this living in a physical universe with cause and effect certainly poses some dilemmas. And this business of people making wrong choices has got to stop! But we should certainly be thankful the solons of higher education are, at least, addressing the balcony loophole.
[Note: if not registered with the NY Times, try BugMeNot.]
Let me guess: background checks, one balcony a month, registration and licensing, "smart" balconies...
Gosh, this living in a physical universe with cause and effect certainly poses some dilemmas. And this business of people making wrong choices has got to stop! But we should certainly be thankful the solons of higher education are, at least, addressing the balcony loophole.
[Note: if not registered with the NY Times, try BugMeNot.]
Godzilla vs The Bradys
Oh, the humanity!
You can visit assorted disasters on the deserving recipient of your choice thanks to the fine folks at NetDisasters.com.
You can visit assorted disasters on the deserving recipient of your choice thanks to the fine folks at NetDisasters.com.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
A Smarter Way
I nominate Ronald Brownstein over at The Los Angeles Times for the Nobel Peace Prize. He's single-handedly come up with "A Smarter Way to Control Outbreaks of School Gun Violence."
If only the fed-gov would force us to use "smart guns," the Red Lake Massacre wouldn't have happened.
Well, the technology isn't actually ready yet, Brownstein admits, but if it was, this would sure be a smarter way to control outbreaks of school violence.
Of course he doesn't address what we'll need to do with the estimated 250 million or so "dumb" guns already in circulation. Nor that the Red Lake killer would have still been able to steal guns from his LEO grandfather, since the police will exempt themselves from using them (even though the justification for the original research was to create a smarter way to control incidents where perps shoot cops with their own guns.)
He doesn't say anything about how the new technology will likely raise the cost of basic defense pistols out of the reach of many low-income people, the ones who live in the most crime-prone neighborhoods and presumably in the most routine danger. Nor does he consider how criminals, like the police, will also be exempted from any mandates.
He also doesn't consider the near universal experience of pointing a remote control at a TV or garage door and having absolutely nothing happen. But maybe increasing the likelihood of a firearm failing to perform as intended will turn out to be a smarter way to revive gun industry lawsuits.
And he's dead silent on the certain demands for the police to have a "shutoff switch" like the engine disablers being developed as a smarter way to stop car chases. After all, what excuse could a "law-abiding" citizen have for not supporting this? Like someone who asserts his Fourth Amendment rights during a traffic stop, what have you got to hide?
The sad thing is, I'll bet over 90% of The Times' readers will never hear such arguments, and of the ones who do, the majority will find the outcomes desirable.
Ronald Brownstein is counting on that. After all, we've established that he's a pretty smart fellow.
If only the fed-gov would force us to use "smart guns," the Red Lake Massacre wouldn't have happened.
Well, the technology isn't actually ready yet, Brownstein admits, but if it was, this would sure be a smarter way to control outbreaks of school violence.
Of course he doesn't address what we'll need to do with the estimated 250 million or so "dumb" guns already in circulation. Nor that the Red Lake killer would have still been able to steal guns from his LEO grandfather, since the police will exempt themselves from using them (even though the justification for the original research was to create a smarter way to control incidents where perps shoot cops with their own guns.)
He doesn't say anything about how the new technology will likely raise the cost of basic defense pistols out of the reach of many low-income people, the ones who live in the most crime-prone neighborhoods and presumably in the most routine danger. Nor does he consider how criminals, like the police, will also be exempted from any mandates.
He also doesn't consider the near universal experience of pointing a remote control at a TV or garage door and having absolutely nothing happen. But maybe increasing the likelihood of a firearm failing to perform as intended will turn out to be a smarter way to revive gun industry lawsuits.
And he's dead silent on the certain demands for the police to have a "shutoff switch" like the engine disablers being developed as a smarter way to stop car chases. After all, what excuse could a "law-abiding" citizen have for not supporting this? Like someone who asserts his Fourth Amendment rights during a traffic stop, what have you got to hide?
The sad thing is, I'll bet over 90% of The Times' readers will never hear such arguments, and of the ones who do, the majority will find the outcomes desirable.
Ronald Brownstein is counting on that. After all, we've established that he's a pretty smart fellow.
A Sticky Situation
Jennifer Freeman over at Liberty Belles says some of their "members and supporters have been placing the Liberty Belles bumper stickers on newspaper racks and public telephone booths. Apparently these stickers have been popping up all over the country.
"While we appreciate the enthusiasm and support," Ms. Freeman says, "it has generated some complaints from the owners of the property. As such, we kindly ask that you request and receive permission prior to placing our sticker in a place where it can be easily viewed by the public."
In other words, STOP IT. STOP IT NOW.
"In the meantime," she reminds us, "Liberty Belles bumper stickers still look great on your car. (Please don't put them other people's cars!)."
These stickers are complimentary and can ordered on their website at http://www.libertybelles.org/shop.htm
"While we appreciate the enthusiasm and support," Ms. Freeman says, "it has generated some complaints from the owners of the property. As such, we kindly ask that you request and receive permission prior to placing our sticker in a place where it can be easily viewed by the public."
In other words, STOP IT. STOP IT NOW.
"In the meantime," she reminds us, "Liberty Belles bumper stickers still look great on your car. (Please don't put them other people's cars!)."
These stickers are complimentary and can ordered on their website at http://www.libertybelles.org/shop.htm
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Joy, and Danger, of Witlessness
The family of a bicyclist slain by a cougar at Southern California's Whiting Wilderness Park is suing the state, that would be us private individuals who have taxes extorted from us.
"Because the county installs signs warning about mountain lions — and rattlesnakes — at the entrances to all its wilderness parks," The Los Angeles Times intones, "it's likely Reynolds knew there was some chance of a mountain lion encounter."
The Times actually argues for individual responsibility for one's own safety!
Yep, the Park Rules are posted.
But I wonder why the editorial doesn't mention the one that says "Possession or use of firearms or weapons is prohibited."
Yeah, I wonder.
"Because the county installs signs warning about mountain lions — and rattlesnakes — at the entrances to all its wilderness parks," The Los Angeles Times intones, "it's likely Reynolds knew there was some chance of a mountain lion encounter."
The Times actually argues for individual responsibility for one's own safety!
Yep, the Park Rules are posted.
But I wonder why the editorial doesn't mention the one that says "Possession or use of firearms or weapons is prohibited."
Yeah, I wonder.
Tough on Guns, Weak on Brains
Mark Benjamin of Salon.com thinks frivolous lawsuits should be employed against the gun industry.
Mark Benjamin of Salon.com wants BATFU to be able to harrass dealers out of existence.
And perhaps most importantly, Mark Benjamin of Salon.com wants the government to be able to declare people terrorists and deny them their right to keep and bear arms without due process.
In other words, Mark Benjamin of Salon.com is yet another in a long line of boringly unoriginal anti-gun Establishment propagandists.
Correspondent Brian Naylor shared his letter to Salon.com with WarOn Guns. Among his pithy observations:
"You go on to raise all the VPC/Brady cornerstone spectres - 'TEC-9 submachine guns' and 'street-sweepers.' You use the all-too-familiar VPC tactic of purposefully confusing fully-automatic M-16s with semi-automatics. You fail to mention that the armor-penetrating rounds for the recently fearsome FN 5.7 are not available to the public at all.
"You continue to pretend that there is a gun show 'loophole' when there is no such thing. You even weigh in on the VPC's latest manufactured boogeyman, the .50BMG, with their canonical list of imagined horrors. As far as I can tell, the only VPC bullet points you failed to hit were the use of the phrases, 'spray bullets' and 'blood in the streets.'
"Do they actually send out a list of talking points, or did you go to the trouble to cull them all yourself? I'm not sure which would be worse."
To view "Tough on terror, weak on guns," you'll need to get a "day pass" and watch an ad.
Mark Benjamin of Salon.com wants BATFU to be able to harrass dealers out of existence.
And perhaps most importantly, Mark Benjamin of Salon.com wants the government to be able to declare people terrorists and deny them their right to keep and bear arms without due process.
In other words, Mark Benjamin of Salon.com is yet another in a long line of boringly unoriginal anti-gun Establishment propagandists.
Correspondent Brian Naylor shared his letter to Salon.com with WarOn Guns. Among his pithy observations:
"You go on to raise all the VPC/Brady cornerstone spectres - 'TEC-9 submachine guns' and 'street-sweepers.' You use the all-too-familiar VPC tactic of purposefully confusing fully-automatic M-16s with semi-automatics. You fail to mention that the armor-penetrating rounds for the recently fearsome FN 5.7 are not available to the public at all.
"You continue to pretend that there is a gun show 'loophole' when there is no such thing. You even weigh in on the VPC's latest manufactured boogeyman, the .50BMG, with their canonical list of imagined horrors. As far as I can tell, the only VPC bullet points you failed to hit were the use of the phrases, 'spray bullets' and 'blood in the streets.'
"Do they actually send out a list of talking points, or did you go to the trouble to cull them all yourself? I'm not sure which would be worse."
To view "Tough on terror, weak on guns," you'll need to get a "day pass" and watch an ad.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Brady Campaign: NRA Calls for More Guns in Schools
Hey, if you dry up sources of blood, how is Michael Barnes gonna dance?
I'm sure if he was addressing a school assembly on the benefits of being helpless sheep, and an armed teen psycho rushed in and opened fire, Mike would spring right into action.
I just wonder how many kids he'd trample in his haste to escape?
I'm sure if he was addressing a school assembly on the benefits of being helpless sheep, and an armed teen psycho rushed in and opened fire, Mike would spring right into action.
I just wonder how many kids he'd trample in his haste to escape?
NRA Leader Advocates Guns for Teachers
"All options should be considered to prevent rampages like the Minnesota school shooting that took 10 lives -- including making guns available to teachers, a top National Rifle Association leader said Friday.
"'I'm not saying that that means every teacher should have a gun or not, but what I am saying is we need to look at all the options at what will truly protect the students,' the NRA's first vice president, Sandra S. Froman, told The Associated Press.'"
Why not every teacher? And why limit keeping and bearing arms based on profession? Why not acknowledge Patrick Henry's "great object"?
But there's one obstacle Sandra faces, even with her modest goal: Wayne LaPierre.
"First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period," he told NRA Annual Meeting attendees in 1999, "with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.
"We believe America's schools should be as safe as America's airports. You can't talk about, much less take, bombs and guns onto airplanes.Such behavior in our schools should be prosecuted just as certainly as such behavior in our airports is prosecuted."
Right, Wayne, make 'em as safe as pre-911 airports.
I've heard some laud Ms. Froman's selection as NRA's president-elect because she likes to shoot machineguns. If being a good shooter was the sole criterion, I'd be hard pressed not to vote for Lon Horiuchi.
Call me irresponsible, but I prefer to look at things like past support for gun control.
"To curb gun violence, Froman says that it is important to enforce old laws instead of passing new ones. 'If the Brady law stopped 600,000 illegal gun purchases, where were the 600,000 prosecutions?'
"One measure she [supports] is Project Exile. 'It works...it doesn’t victimize peaceable gun owners.'"
How about REPEALING instead of ENFORCING "old laws," Sandra? Not only are most a violation of the 2nd Amendment, but the recent exhaustive National Academy of Sciences report couldn't find a single instance of these laws reducing violent crime--even the ones suppported by NRA. Besides, wasn't "enforcing existing gun laws" the reason Mr. Horiuchi was deployed in the first place?
As for Exile, no, it does not "work." Look at the results in Richmond and Philadelphia. Besides which, maybe someone from NRA leadership would be kind enought to point us to the clause in the Constitution where We the People delegated gun law prosecutions to the feds.
What, there isn't one?
"'I'm not saying that that means every teacher should have a gun or not, but what I am saying is we need to look at all the options at what will truly protect the students,' the NRA's first vice president, Sandra S. Froman, told The Associated Press.'"
Why not every teacher? And why limit keeping and bearing arms based on profession? Why not acknowledge Patrick Henry's "great object"?
But there's one obstacle Sandra faces, even with her modest goal: Wayne LaPierre.
"First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period," he told NRA Annual Meeting attendees in 1999, "with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.
"We believe America's schools should be as safe as America's airports. You can't talk about, much less take, bombs and guns onto airplanes.Such behavior in our schools should be prosecuted just as certainly as such behavior in our airports is prosecuted."
Right, Wayne, make 'em as safe as pre-911 airports.
I've heard some laud Ms. Froman's selection as NRA's president-elect because she likes to shoot machineguns. If being a good shooter was the sole criterion, I'd be hard pressed not to vote for Lon Horiuchi.
Call me irresponsible, but I prefer to look at things like past support for gun control.
"To curb gun violence, Froman says that it is important to enforce old laws instead of passing new ones. 'If the Brady law stopped 600,000 illegal gun purchases, where were the 600,000 prosecutions?'
"One measure she [supports] is Project Exile. 'It works...it doesn’t victimize peaceable gun owners.'"
How about REPEALING instead of ENFORCING "old laws," Sandra? Not only are most a violation of the 2nd Amendment, but the recent exhaustive National Academy of Sciences report couldn't find a single instance of these laws reducing violent crime--even the ones suppported by NRA. Besides, wasn't "enforcing existing gun laws" the reason Mr. Horiuchi was deployed in the first place?
As for Exile, no, it does not "work." Look at the results in Richmond and Philadelphia. Besides which, maybe someone from NRA leadership would be kind enought to point us to the clause in the Constitution where We the People delegated gun law prosecutions to the feds.
What, there isn't one?
Feelings, Nothing More than Feelings
As the ninnies who bleat for government destruction of our rights have consistently demonstrated, it’s not about results. Commentator Martha Blume, in Chesapeake’s Bay Weekly calls for a Constitutional amendment: “The right of the people to feel safe from gun violence in their homes, neighborhoods, schools, places of worship, employment, on the streets and in any other public places shall not be infringed.”
"Feelings, Nothing More than Feelings" is my submission for the May issue of GUNS Magazine, on sale now at emotionally secure newsstands throughout the Republic.
"Feelings, Nothing More than Feelings" is my submission for the May issue of GUNS Magazine, on sale now at emotionally secure newsstands throughout the Republic.
Friday, March 25, 2005
It's Easter Weekend
So WarOnGuns is taking a break for a few days.
I suggest you get off the damn computer and go be with the people you love.
If there are no people you love, I suggest you get off the damn computer and work on that.
I suggest you get off the damn computer and go be with the people you love.
If there are no people you love, I suggest you get off the damn computer and work on that.
Where There's Smoke
One of the themes I’ve been covering is government interference with the internet—from the FEC trial balloon to judges declaring just who gets to be an “official journalist.” After all, we can’t expect the Establishment lapdogs to give fair coverage to Second Amendment issues.
Here’s another example: Kid catches principal smoking on school grounds, in violation of state law—something the kid would get suspended for. Kid posts pictures on the internet. Principal demands kid remove pictures and suspends him.
In other words, a sovereign citizen exposes a corrupt official violating the law. The official demands that he erase all traces of his expose, and uses her official capacity to punish him.
“The school, says an AP account, “had sent the sophomore a letter telling him he was suspended for harassment and slander via the Internet.”
Yo, public skool administraitors: That would be “libel." Assuming you had a case. Which you don't.
Once exposed, the tyrant wannabe apologized—FOR SMOKING, as opposed to abusing authority to trample a sovereign individual's unalienable rights in order to protect her sorry butt. Here’s what is unclear:
“On Tuesday, the sophomore was offered reinstatement but only if he complied with the removal order.”
WTF? If I were the kid, my response would be “Remove THIS!” followed with a hefty lawsuit.
To his credit, the site still stands.
You can reach Czarina (or is that Fuhrerette?) Elaine Almagno here. Ask her who the OTHER “adult” in the picture with her is, and why HE thinks it’s OK for the law to apply to the ruled but not to the rulers.
Elaine—try suing ME for “slander,” you abusive mandarin.
Here’s another example: Kid catches principal smoking on school grounds, in violation of state law—something the kid would get suspended for. Kid posts pictures on the internet. Principal demands kid remove pictures and suspends him.
In other words, a sovereign citizen exposes a corrupt official violating the law. The official demands that he erase all traces of his expose, and uses her official capacity to punish him.
“The school, says an AP account, “had sent the sophomore a letter telling him he was suspended for harassment and slander via the Internet.”
Yo, public skool administraitors: That would be “libel." Assuming you had a case. Which you don't.
Once exposed, the tyrant wannabe apologized—FOR SMOKING, as opposed to abusing authority to trample a sovereign individual's unalienable rights in order to protect her sorry butt. Here’s what is unclear:
“On Tuesday, the sophomore was offered reinstatement but only if he complied with the removal order.”
WTF? If I were the kid, my response would be “Remove THIS!” followed with a hefty lawsuit.
To his credit, the site still stands.
You can reach Czarina (or is that Fuhrerette?) Elaine Almagno here. Ask her who the OTHER “adult” in the picture with her is, and why HE thinks it’s OK for the law to apply to the ruled but not to the rulers.
Elaine—try suing ME for “slander,” you abusive mandarin.
Download GUNS from 50 Years Ago
GUNS Magazine is doing something cool. Each month you can download a complete copy of their issue from 50 years prior.
The March 1955 issue is now online.
And by all means, buy the current issue, or better yet, subscribe, and tell them to “Pay Codrea lots of money.” There’s no advertising or Tip Jar on WarOnGuns, nor do I plan to change this, but young Uday and Qusay have this nasty habit of expecting regular meals.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
End the War on Freedom on “Vanishing Point”
Mr. St. Clair recommends it.
“Man did I hate the cops by the end of the movie,” he says.
Have you seen it yet?
Also see:
“If you love freedom, get this film. You will not regret it.”
Vanishing Point Reappears Today
Why I Love Guns
Vanishing Point Reappears
“Man did I hate the cops by the end of the movie,” he says.
Have you seen it yet?
Also see:
“If you love freedom, get this film. You will not regret it.”
Vanishing Point Reappears Today
Why I Love Guns
Vanishing Point Reappears
A Bum Rap
"Rising rapper THE GAME is prepared to risk going to jail by keeping a gun at his California home, because he deems the firearm vital to his survival."
What have we here, a 2A champion in The Hood, someone who can demonstrate the virtues of an armed citizenry to his peers through the example he sets?
Not exactly. It appears he's not that wholesome a character:
"A shoot-'em-up at the Hot 97 studios was triggered by a simmering feud between gangster rapper 50 Cent and his turncoat protégé The Game - and cops are bracing for more bullets."
What a disappointment. He seemed like such a nice young man.
What have we here, a 2A champion in The Hood, someone who can demonstrate the virtues of an armed citizenry to his peers through the example he sets?
Not exactly. It appears he's not that wholesome a character:
"A shoot-'em-up at the Hot 97 studios was triggered by a simmering feud between gangster rapper 50 Cent and his turncoat protégé The Game - and cops are bracing for more bullets."
What a disappointment. He seemed like such a nice young man.
NRA's Montana SNAFU Redux
FreedomSight makes some interesting counter-arguments about when property rights conflict with RKBA.
He raises some good points.
If you want to enter my premises, I should have the right to set the terms: only if you give me a million dollars, poke out one eye and paint yourself blue.
Assuming I can't coerce you into doing this, you have the right to either accept my terms or tell me to go to hell, and go someplace where the terms are more to your liking.
My main point is that I don't believe a state rep acts in defiance of Beltway policy.
Words and actions are sometimes very different things.
He raises some good points.
If you want to enter my premises, I should have the right to set the terms: only if you give me a million dollars, poke out one eye and paint yourself blue.
Assuming I can't coerce you into doing this, you have the right to either accept my terms or tell me to go to hell, and go someplace where the terms are more to your liking.
My main point is that I don't believe a state rep acts in defiance of Beltway policy.
Words and actions are sometimes very different things.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
The Blood Dancers Have a Toll-Free Hotline…
...and they’d like to hear from YOU:
866-SPEAK-UP
Go ahead. Speak up.
Just remember, toll-free numbers generally record the originating number, so don't say anything they can turn you in on.
866-SPEAK-UP
Go ahead. Speak up.
Just remember, toll-free numbers generally record the originating number, so don't say anything they can turn you in on.
Red Lake "Security" Guard Unarmed
Why is the Establishment Press Avoiding the Issue?
Say Uncle points us to Joe Huffman, who links to ABC News where this tidbit is buried.
It's not like the lapdogs are straining themselves getting this information out there. A Google search of the terms: "red lake" guard unarmed (leave the quotation marks that way to ensure the most precise results) shows what I'm talking about.
So in other words, the ones highlighting and spreading this information are the blogs--but somehow we've got to validate our journalistic originality and worth to the black robes because we're just not as legitimate as CBS and Al-Jazeera.
Say Uncle points us to Joe Huffman, who links to ABC News where this tidbit is buried.
It's not like the lapdogs are straining themselves getting this information out there. A Google search of the terms: "red lake" guard unarmed (leave the quotation marks that way to ensure the most precise results) shows what I'm talking about.
So in other words, the ones highlighting and spreading this information are the blogs--but somehow we've got to validate our journalistic originality and worth to the black robes because we're just not as legitimate as CBS and Al-Jazeera.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Red Lake High School Rampage: Let the Blood Dance Begin!
Plenty of people are going to sound in on the Minnesota reservation school massacre. New shrill demands for more "gun control" will certainly feature prominently on editorial pages and broadcasts across the land, and some might even grudgingly acknowledge that it looks like the weapons were taken from a cop.
I've pretty much written all I have to say on this and any other school shootings here.
I've pretty much written all I have to say on this and any other school shootings here.
Buckeye State Blackmail
Ted E. Daniels, editor of the Ashland Times-Gazette is threatening to publish the names of CHL holders if the Ohio legislature amends the concealed carry law so that the information is no longer disclosed to “journalists.”
Well, I guess if you’re gonna ask permission to exercise a right, this sort of nonsense should be expected. Still, Daniels is behaving like a cheap extortionist thug, and ought to be treated like one.
What has always struck me about this law is how government takes it on itself to decide who they will and will not recognize as a “legitimate” journalist. I’ve raised this concern several times now.
As I understand the law, I probably wouldn’t qualify to get the list of names (not that I would want it), but this group would.
Well, I guess if you’re gonna ask permission to exercise a right, this sort of nonsense should be expected. Still, Daniels is behaving like a cheap extortionist thug, and ought to be treated like one.
What has always struck me about this law is how government takes it on itself to decide who they will and will not recognize as a “legitimate” journalist. I’ve raised this concern several times now.
As I understand the law, I probably wouldn’t qualify to get the list of names (not that I would want it), but this group would.
Cop Killer
“Ban bill to target cop-killer handguns and rifles,” declares Michael P. Norton of State House News Service, just like he knows what he’s talking about.
Of course, the first line of the story admits that what’s being talked about is potential capability—no real cops killed with the pariah firearms can actually be produced. But the damage is done, and once more, the establishment propaganda machine manages to score a point with the uninformed under the guise of objective journalism.
But perhaps we’re taking the wrong tack on this. Perhaps we ought to up the ante.
Maybe we should insist they’re not cop-killer weapons, but soldier-killer weapons. After all, what they’re alleged to be capable of defeating is paramilitary equipment, as opposed to traditional police gear. It’s only when the police have become militarized that the special capabilities of these firearms are spotlighted.
Then we can invoke Justice James McReynolds’ rationale in US v Miller, when he observed: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
The corollary to this, of course, is, if a firearm can be shown to have such a reasonable relationship, the Second Amendment would guarantee the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Yeah, I know. Keep dreamin'.
Of course, the first line of the story admits that what’s being talked about is potential capability—no real cops killed with the pariah firearms can actually be produced. But the damage is done, and once more, the establishment propaganda machine manages to score a point with the uninformed under the guise of objective journalism.
But perhaps we’re taking the wrong tack on this. Perhaps we ought to up the ante.
Maybe we should insist they’re not cop-killer weapons, but soldier-killer weapons. After all, what they’re alleged to be capable of defeating is paramilitary equipment, as opposed to traditional police gear. It’s only when the police have become militarized that the special capabilities of these firearms are spotlighted.
Then we can invoke Justice James McReynolds’ rationale in US v Miller, when he observed: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
The corollary to this, of course, is, if a firearm can be shown to have such a reasonable relationship, the Second Amendment would guarantee the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Yeah, I know. Keep dreamin'.
How Many Lies Can You Tell in 60 Minutes?
SayUncle has made a good start at deconstructing last Sunday's anti-gun hit piece on 60 Minutes.
He exposes some of the obvious lies, and provides some good dope on Ed Bradley's narco-terrorist source--a John Kerry fundraiser, naturally.
"I TiVoed it and may have more later," he says. I hope he does, because he's doing a good job with this.
Leave it to the Establishment propagandists to spook the Eloi by claiming overseas insurgents need to come here for guns. NRA printed an excellent article on this by Jim Pate.
He exposes some of the obvious lies, and provides some good dope on Ed Bradley's narco-terrorist source--a John Kerry fundraiser, naturally.
"I TiVoed it and may have more later," he says. I hope he does, because he's doing a good job with this.
Leave it to the Establishment propagandists to spook the Eloi by claiming overseas insurgents need to come here for guns. NRA printed an excellent article on this by Jim Pate.
NRA's Montana SNAFU
News Release, Montana Shooting Sports Association
It looks like NRA is sabotaging Montana legislation clarifying "the right to self defense with firearms."
MSSA attributes it to a mid-level staffer thwarting the clear will of NRA management.
Call me cynical, but if NRA doesn't fire the guy, I'd say he's doing exactly what his masters want him to do. I can't help but wonder which legislator(s) they're appeasing?
It's not like we haven't seen a disconnect between what Fairfax says and what it does before.
I'd like to be wrong this time. But the term "SNAFU" speaks volumes.
--------------------
Andy Barniskis passes along this on-topic addendum:
Last year in Pennsylvania, NRA employee John Hohenwarter agreed to not to oppose legislation that was very hostile to gun rights (HB 2403) on condition that it be kept in committee until after the 2004 NRA Convention in Pittsburgh. Perhaps he didn't want betrayed NRA members to make a fuss at the convention. Mr. Hohenwarter and his boss Randy Kozuch did this without consulting any grass roots organizations or NRA legal council [sic] and they never responded to inquiries into the matter. Every major sportsmen's group in Pennsylvania united in the largest coalition in our history to oppose the anti-gun rights legislation that the NRA did not oppose.
We have received recent reports that John Hohenwarter replaced a competent NRA state liaison in New Hampshire and NRA members in New Hampshire are now trying to undo the damage.
Now we see that Montana NRA members have good reason to be angry with Randy Kozuch...
Harry Schneider, PSA Chairman
Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Assn.,
NRA Life Member
It looks like NRA is sabotaging Montana legislation clarifying "the right to self defense with firearms."
MSSA attributes it to a mid-level staffer thwarting the clear will of NRA management.
Call me cynical, but if NRA doesn't fire the guy, I'd say he's doing exactly what his masters want him to do. I can't help but wonder which legislator(s) they're appeasing?
It's not like we haven't seen a disconnect between what Fairfax says and what it does before.
I'd like to be wrong this time. But the term "SNAFU" speaks volumes.
--------------------
Andy Barniskis passes along this on-topic addendum:
Last year in Pennsylvania, NRA employee John Hohenwarter agreed to not to oppose legislation that was very hostile to gun rights (HB 2403) on condition that it be kept in committee until after the 2004 NRA Convention in Pittsburgh. Perhaps he didn't want betrayed NRA members to make a fuss at the convention. Mr. Hohenwarter and his boss Randy Kozuch did this without consulting any grass roots organizations or NRA legal council [sic] and they never responded to inquiries into the matter. Every major sportsmen's group in Pennsylvania united in the largest coalition in our history to oppose the anti-gun rights legislation that the NRA did not oppose.
We have received recent reports that John Hohenwarter replaced a competent NRA state liaison in New Hampshire and NRA members in New Hampshire are now trying to undo the damage.
Now we see that Montana NRA members have good reason to be angry with Randy Kozuch...
Harry Schneider, PSA Chairman
Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Assn.,
NRA Life Member
Monday, March 21, 2005
“Free” Gun Locks
The police department in my wonderful home town, the City of Redondo Beach, is offering “free” gun locks.
“The distribution project to promote firearm safety is supported by a grant from the United States Department of Justice.”
Yep, sounds “free” to me—as long as you consider distribution of plunder a no-cost proposition.
They give us the typical pitchfork murderer-enabling advice: “Unload your guns and lock them away. Lock and store ammunition separately.”
Not that your typical home invader isn’t the patient sort. Many of them actually take the time to bind and rape their victims before killing them.
They also invite you to snoop on your neighbors to see if they have guns, but, hey, isn’t that what America is supposed to be about?
Here’s my favorite part of the deal:
“The Redondo Beach Police Department will provide two free gunlocks to residents who will show valid identification and sign a release of liability form.”
Liability form? You mean there might be some danger to locking up our safety? We might rely on locks instead of knowledge and judgment, and they might not work? We or someone we love could be seriously injured or killed by following their advice and using their locks? Is that why they need us to sign a release?
I guess they realize we can’t sue them for failing to protect us, so they’re just trying to cover all the bases.
“The distribution project to promote firearm safety is supported by a grant from the United States Department of Justice.”
Yep, sounds “free” to me—as long as you consider distribution of plunder a no-cost proposition.
They give us the typical pitchfork murderer-enabling advice: “Unload your guns and lock them away. Lock and store ammunition separately.”
Not that your typical home invader isn’t the patient sort. Many of them actually take the time to bind and rape their victims before killing them.
They also invite you to snoop on your neighbors to see if they have guns, but, hey, isn’t that what America is supposed to be about?
Here’s my favorite part of the deal:
“The Redondo Beach Police Department will provide two free gunlocks to residents who will show valid identification and sign a release of liability form.”
Liability form? You mean there might be some danger to locking up our safety? We might rely on locks instead of knowledge and judgment, and they might not work? We or someone we love could be seriously injured or killed by following their advice and using their locks? Is that why they need us to sign a release?
I guess they realize we can’t sue them for failing to protect us, so they’re just trying to cover all the bases.
What's This World Coming To When You Can't Trust the "Gun Lobby"?
Andy Barniskis warns us that those "gun rights lobbyists" we trust to represent us in the legislatures have their own agenda and priorities.
When Nicki Fisked Matthew
Nicki Fellenzer takes on an ignorant, anti-gun college journalism major.
He's lucky she's just beating him up virtually. My money says if she ever went after him for real, he'd either be crying for a gun, or more likely, for his mommy.
He's lucky she's just beating him up virtually. My money says if she ever went after him for real, he'd either be crying for a gun, or more likely, for his mommy.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
"Thinking of England" Now Online
"Direct contact should be avoided whenever possible ... If unavoidable, the victim should adopt a state of active passivity ... be careful what you say or do and give up valuables without a struggle. This allows the victim to take charge of the situation ... By doing nothing there is no chance of inadvertently initiating violence by saying something such as 'Please don't hurt me.'"
"Thinking of England" appears in the April issue of GUNS Magazine, now online. Click here to read the rest.
"Thinking of England" appears in the April issue of GUNS Magazine, now online. Click here to read the rest.
DEA Buffoon Update
The world-class idiot who shot himself in front of a room full of kids after telling them he's the only one "professional enough" to carry a gun has been suspended.
I have a few questions:
Why does he still have a job?
Why hasn't he been prosecuted for reckless child endangerment and negligent discharge of a firearm, as would you or I be, save for the fact that we're not dumb, incompetent and irresponsible enough to pull such a bone-headed move?
Who's the jihadi in the ski mask? Dont'cha feel safer knowing guys like him are kicking in doors across the land?
And why is there an investigation to determine who "leaked" what is being described as a "home video"?
Maybe the'yre afraid someone has discovered the location of their secret clubhouse.
I have a few questions:
Why does he still have a job?
Why hasn't he been prosecuted for reckless child endangerment and negligent discharge of a firearm, as would you or I be, save for the fact that we're not dumb, incompetent and irresponsible enough to pull such a bone-headed move?
Who's the jihadi in the ski mask? Dont'cha feel safer knowing guys like him are kicking in doors across the land?
And why is there an investigation to determine who "leaked" what is being described as a "home video"?
Maybe the'yre afraid someone has discovered the location of their secret clubhouse.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Warning: This is NOT Authorized Commentary
Jed at FreedomSight discusses the issue of bloggers protecting confidential sources.
Lauren Gelman is asking for instances where bloggers have broken stories. One that immediately comes to mind is JPFO's exposing how BATFU almost destroyed a man's life through incompetence--in other words, performing a watchdog role in the protection of individuals from abuse by government. If that isn't the role of the press, I don't know what is. Now tell me you would have seen that in the NY Times.
I'm glad to see others raising the flag on this. See "Bloggers: Have You Applied for Your Reporting License?" and "Judge Creates Special Class of Journalist--Just Because He Says So".
I suppose if judges can tell us who a journalist is, it's not a far stretch to imagine they can dictate what qualifies as news.
But I believe our friend Mr. Garrison might have something to say to them about that.
Lauren Gelman is asking for instances where bloggers have broken stories. One that immediately comes to mind is JPFO's exposing how BATFU almost destroyed a man's life through incompetence--in other words, performing a watchdog role in the protection of individuals from abuse by government. If that isn't the role of the press, I don't know what is. Now tell me you would have seen that in the NY Times.
I'm glad to see others raising the flag on this. See "Bloggers: Have You Applied for Your Reporting License?" and "Judge Creates Special Class of Journalist--Just Because He Says So".
I suppose if judges can tell us who a journalist is, it's not a far stretch to imagine they can dictate what qualifies as news.
But I believe our friend Mr. Garrison might have something to say to them about that.
"IIIIII WAAAAAAA!!!"
"An attorney for Terri Schiavo said the severely brain-injured woman cried and yelled out that she wants to live after being told today her life-sustaining feeding tube was about to be removed by court order."
Anyone want to bet Michael orders an immediate cremation?
After all, a body would allow for a later medical examination.
But I’m sure those reports about unexplained bone fractures are just desperate hype from a bunch of religious extremists, right?
I mean, otherwise, the pro-death Establishment media that generates 26,800 Google hits on the term "Terri Schiavo" coma (even though she's not in one) would certainly be investigating Michael as thoroughly as they have OJ, Scott Peterson and Robert Blake. Wouldn’t they?
After all—he’s turned down money to walk away. What possible motive could he have, other than a deep and loving commitment to the woman he abandoned?
The parents have given the "law" every opportunity and it has failed them. There comes a time when sovereign individuals must defy edicts.
If this was my kid being tortured to death, I'd go in and get her.
Anyone want to bet Michael orders an immediate cremation?
After all, a body would allow for a later medical examination.
But I’m sure those reports about unexplained bone fractures are just desperate hype from a bunch of religious extremists, right?
I mean, otherwise, the pro-death Establishment media that generates 26,800 Google hits on the term "Terri Schiavo" coma (even though she's not in one) would certainly be investigating Michael as thoroughly as they have OJ, Scott Peterson and Robert Blake. Wouldn’t they?
After all—he’s turned down money to walk away. What possible motive could he have, other than a deep and loving commitment to the woman he abandoned?
The parents have given the "law" every opportunity and it has failed them. There comes a time when sovereign individuals must defy edicts.
If this was my kid being tortured to death, I'd go in and get her.
Smart Guns Don't Always Make the Grade
There’s an understatement. “Smart guns” never make the grade.
The original National Institute of Justice grant to Sandia Labs to develop them was specifically justified by “takeaway” incidents where cops were killed with their own gun. But the cops don’t want to have anything to do with them—no surprise there.
"If a weapon is taken from an officer, I personally believe it is primarily a training issue. Most folks seem to try and solve most tactical problems through some sort of hardware improvement without looking at the core system. The human operator should be the primary system to be improved upon. Many departments are dangerously low in their delivery of ongoing advanced officer training. If an officer cannot be trusted to deploy and keep his or her weapon, please don't give them one in the first place!”
That was told to me by former Navy SEAL Ken Good, at the time, director of the SureFire Institute. He is an expert’s expert, providing weapons and tactics training to elite military fighting personnel, civilian law enforcement tactical specialists, and security professionals.
Training certainly seems to be the core issue in this “news report”—one cop killed with his own gun, the other closes his eyes and prays. And if the gun did “backfire,” the training deficiencies quite possibly extend to proper maintenance of issued firearms.
The creepiest line in this story: “Grants also have gone to private gun makers looking into…a gun that reads a rice grain-sized computer chip injected into the owner's hand.”
Who but a pathological government-worshipping Nazi dreams up stuff like this? And who are the industry whores turning tricks for them?
Two other questions to consider:
Has anyone not had the experience of pointing a remote control unit at a TV or garage door and having nothing happen?
And does anyone really think that once “smart guns” are mandated, an edict giving “authoritah” a shutoff switch will be far behind?
The original National Institute of Justice grant to Sandia Labs to develop them was specifically justified by “takeaway” incidents where cops were killed with their own gun. But the cops don’t want to have anything to do with them—no surprise there.
"If a weapon is taken from an officer, I personally believe it is primarily a training issue. Most folks seem to try and solve most tactical problems through some sort of hardware improvement without looking at the core system. The human operator should be the primary system to be improved upon. Many departments are dangerously low in their delivery of ongoing advanced officer training. If an officer cannot be trusted to deploy and keep his or her weapon, please don't give them one in the first place!”
That was told to me by former Navy SEAL Ken Good, at the time, director of the SureFire Institute. He is an expert’s expert, providing weapons and tactics training to elite military fighting personnel, civilian law enforcement tactical specialists, and security professionals.
Training certainly seems to be the core issue in this “news report”—one cop killed with his own gun, the other closes his eyes and prays. And if the gun did “backfire,” the training deficiencies quite possibly extend to proper maintenance of issued firearms.
The creepiest line in this story: “Grants also have gone to private gun makers looking into…a gun that reads a rice grain-sized computer chip injected into the owner's hand.”
Who but a pathological government-worshipping Nazi dreams up stuff like this? And who are the industry whores turning tricks for them?
Two other questions to consider:
Has anyone not had the experience of pointing a remote control unit at a TV or garage door and having nothing happen?
And does anyone really think that once “smart guns” are mandated, an edict giving “authoritah” a shutoff switch will be far behind?
Friday, March 18, 2005
Justice Department: Gun Violence Falls 63%
There are definitely some politically incorrect conclusions that could—and should—be drawn from this. We can’t fix thing unless we’re willing to accept the truth. But before jumping on the “Firearms Violence 200% Higher for Blacks Than For Whites" bandwagon, let's not lose sight of our understanding that unalienable rights are attributes of individuals, not of groups.
The most interesting comment I saw in this was also the most predictable: "The government study received minimal if any mainstream media attention."
No, duh.
Conspicuously absent from the study are two other problematic factoids for the antis:
There is no mention of defensive gun use.
There are more guns in circulation now than at the start of the study period. If guns were truly responsible for violent crime, such a reduction would be impossible.
Any thesis suggesting otherwise deserves to be ridiculed as the barbaric superstition that it is.
The most interesting comment I saw in this was also the most predictable: "The government study received minimal if any mainstream media attention."
No, duh.
Conspicuously absent from the study are two other problematic factoids for the antis:
There is no mention of defensive gun use.
There are more guns in circulation now than at the start of the study period. If guns were truly responsible for violent crime, such a reduction would be impossible.
Any thesis suggesting otherwise deserves to be ridiculed as the barbaric superstition that it is.
“If you love freedom, get this film. You will not regret it.”
“How many really, truly anti-government movies are out there? How many of them are told from the perspective of liberty, rather than a leftist dystopian fantasy? Of those that are left, how many are intended to be taken seriously?
“I'll tell you.
“There is at least one.”
TriggerFinger reviews Charles Robert Carner’s film "Vanishing Point".
Claire Wolfe also comments, calling Carner “one of the good guys. A Hollywood insider who's also pro-gun and pro-freedom.”
“I'll tell you.
“There is at least one.”
TriggerFinger reviews Charles Robert Carner’s film "Vanishing Point".
Claire Wolfe also comments, calling Carner “one of the good guys. A Hollywood insider who's also pro-gun and pro-freedom.”
Thursday, March 17, 2005
The Road to Damascus
I've corresponded a few times with a guy who approached me for more information after reading Microstamping for Macroinfringement. He told me he was "tracking this issue for my class at school (USC) for Policy and Management."
Some basic misconceptions on his part made it apparent he was not that steeped in gun rights issues. I generally answer politely when sincere requests are made, but then send such folks on their way with a few helpful links relevant to what they're looking for. After all, who has the time to go one-on-one with everyone who wants information?
In this case, I spent a little more time. In truth, I was expecting to find my correspondent had used our email exchanges to craft an anti-armed citizen thesis. So I was more than a little surprised to open the following email last night (note I have removed all identifying information out of deference to his privacy):
"I need to mention this to you before we go any further. I was an intern for the City of _______________. I mention this because yesterday I was fired. I was researching SB 352 where they were deciding whether to support this bill or not. My last day I made a recommendation to not support this bill. I really don't know whether they were tracking my conversation with you or not. I just came to realize that gun owners, gun store owners and the people involved in guns are people also. As for the criminal element, well that's another story.
"I lived in area called Lincoln Heights where gun shooting was a given. I grew up where drive-bys were like a trip to Disneyland on a weekend. I never used a gun, and never had an inclination to ever use one because I have always associated it to gangs, violence and yes, especially death. When I was in the sixth grade, my friend was shot point blank by his neighbor who hated Asian-Americans. Since then I was reticent to even get close to a gun. I've gone to shooting ranges where all I've done is sit there and watch others shoot. I HAVE NEVER SHOT A GUN. I know that sounds like a anomaly but I've always associated guns with that incident.
"When I was given this issue pertaining to SB 352, I knew that I was totally for this bill and that I would make sure that I would be able to substantiate whatever information there was in relation to this issue. And I thought that all NRA members are racist, KKK members. You proved that to be NOT TRUE at all. There are people just like me. With lives who are interested in being part of the American dream, regardless of what the government might think of them, or the media for that matter. This was truly an experience. I truly don't know whether the City will or will not support SB 352 but I just hope that my recommendation will remind them that there are victims involved here and its not the criminal element (gun owners and stores).
"I do hope you accept my apology for what I've said, this was not to slam you or to criticize what you have done. I just want to say thank you for everything you have done because if it wasn't because of you I would not be here."
Pretty intriguing. Am I being played here? Did he approach this with enough of an open mind to reverse his conception? Did the city he worked at can him for coming up with a politically incorrect conclusion?
I've offered to introduce him to some folks in the pro-2A community here, and to take him shooting. I'll post updates if I think they're warranted.
Some basic misconceptions on his part made it apparent he was not that steeped in gun rights issues. I generally answer politely when sincere requests are made, but then send such folks on their way with a few helpful links relevant to what they're looking for. After all, who has the time to go one-on-one with everyone who wants information?
In this case, I spent a little more time. In truth, I was expecting to find my correspondent had used our email exchanges to craft an anti-armed citizen thesis. So I was more than a little surprised to open the following email last night (note I have removed all identifying information out of deference to his privacy):
"I need to mention this to you before we go any further. I was an intern for the City of _______________. I mention this because yesterday I was fired. I was researching SB 352 where they were deciding whether to support this bill or not. My last day I made a recommendation to not support this bill. I really don't know whether they were tracking my conversation with you or not. I just came to realize that gun owners, gun store owners and the people involved in guns are people also. As for the criminal element, well that's another story.
"I lived in area called Lincoln Heights where gun shooting was a given. I grew up where drive-bys were like a trip to Disneyland on a weekend. I never used a gun, and never had an inclination to ever use one because I have always associated it to gangs, violence and yes, especially death. When I was in the sixth grade, my friend was shot point blank by his neighbor who hated Asian-Americans. Since then I was reticent to even get close to a gun. I've gone to shooting ranges where all I've done is sit there and watch others shoot. I HAVE NEVER SHOT A GUN. I know that sounds like a anomaly but I've always associated guns with that incident.
"When I was given this issue pertaining to SB 352, I knew that I was totally for this bill and that I would make sure that I would be able to substantiate whatever information there was in relation to this issue. And I thought that all NRA members are racist, KKK members. You proved that to be NOT TRUE at all. There are people just like me. With lives who are interested in being part of the American dream, regardless of what the government might think of them, or the media for that matter. This was truly an experience. I truly don't know whether the City will or will not support SB 352 but I just hope that my recommendation will remind them that there are victims involved here and its not the criminal element (gun owners and stores).
"I do hope you accept my apology for what I've said, this was not to slam you or to criticize what you have done. I just want to say thank you for everything you have done because if it wasn't because of you I would not be here."
Pretty intriguing. Am I being played here? Did he approach this with enough of an open mind to reverse his conception? Did the city he worked at can him for coming up with a politically incorrect conclusion?
I've offered to introduce him to some folks in the pro-2A community here, and to take him shooting. I'll post updates if I think they're warranted.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
The World of Yesterday and Today
08/16/17 UPDATE: Since this post is over 12 years old, many of the internal links no longer work. I have replaced what I could with Internet Archive and other links which may load very slowly.
In today's earlier post, I acknowledged the danger of predicting what tomorrow will bring. Here are some prime examples:
Mayor Declares City Violence A Crisis
"PHILADELPHIA (KYW) Police and prosecutors concerned with a spate of killings in the city begged the public Monday for more help identifying murderers...Within the past eight days there have been 21 homicides in Philadelphia, including three in the late-night and early morning hours after the prosecutor made her appeal Monday."
This wasn't supposed to happen. NRA promised us a different scenario.
NRA PRESS RELEASE: HESTON DARES CRIMINALS TO "MAKE MY DAY"
"NRA joins Mayor Rendell, Senators Specter and Santorum, in launching Project Exile to fully enforce existing federal gun laws and remove armed felons from Philadelphia streets...
"'If you're a felon out on the streets of Philadelphia today, I dare you to carry a gun,' Heston warned...
"'I promise you,' Heston told Mayor Rendell, 'If you and your prosecutors stick to the simple, proven model of Richmond, the murder rate in Philadelphia will decline and your citizens will be safer."
And how has following "the simple, proven model" worked out for Richmond, the template for Philadelphia crime-fighting?
Richmond's murder rate climbs again-- national numbers decline
"In the final hours of 2004, Richmond topped its 2003 murder rate by one, securing its distinction as one of the nation's most dangerous cities.
"The city's final homicide of the year _ called in to police around 8 p.m. New Year's Eve was number 95, surpassing the previous year's 94. In 2002, there were 83 and in 2001, 69.
"Murders in the United States dropped by nearly 6 percent in the first half of 2004 after rising for four straight years, the FBI reported. Numbers from the second half of 2004 have not been compiled.
"Richmond had the country's fourth highest murder rate in 2003 and was ranked the nation's ninth most dangerous city overall in 2004 _ beating out Miami and Compton, Calif. Richmond is the sixth most dangerous when compared to other cities with populations of 100,000 to 499,999."
Note to NRA Management:
We tried to tell you that "Exile" was a bad idea. It's time to follow your own professed beliefs and admit that gun control does not reduce violent crime--even those edicts that you endorse.
I'm still waiting for someone at NRA-HQ to cite the Constitutional authority for the feds to be involved in gun control at all. It's past time for the suits at Fairfax to adopt the motto "Repeal existing gun laws," and stop calling for their enforcement.
After all, wasn't enforcing existing gun laws what precipitated Waco and Ruby Ridge?
In today's earlier post, I acknowledged the danger of predicting what tomorrow will bring. Here are some prime examples:
Mayor Declares City Violence A Crisis
"PHILADELPHIA (KYW) Police and prosecutors concerned with a spate of killings in the city begged the public Monday for more help identifying murderers...Within the past eight days there have been 21 homicides in Philadelphia, including three in the late-night and early morning hours after the prosecutor made her appeal Monday."
This wasn't supposed to happen. NRA promised us a different scenario.
NRA PRESS RELEASE: HESTON DARES CRIMINALS TO "MAKE MY DAY"
"NRA joins Mayor Rendell, Senators Specter and Santorum, in launching Project Exile to fully enforce existing federal gun laws and remove armed felons from Philadelphia streets...
"'If you're a felon out on the streets of Philadelphia today, I dare you to carry a gun,' Heston warned...
"'I promise you,' Heston told Mayor Rendell, 'If you and your prosecutors stick to the simple, proven model of Richmond, the murder rate in Philadelphia will decline and your citizens will be safer."
And how has following "the simple, proven model" worked out for Richmond, the template for Philadelphia crime-fighting?
Richmond's murder rate climbs again-- national numbers decline
"In the final hours of 2004, Richmond topped its 2003 murder rate by one, securing its distinction as one of the nation's most dangerous cities.
"The city's final homicide of the year _ called in to police around 8 p.m. New Year's Eve was number 95, surpassing the previous year's 94. In 2002, there were 83 and in 2001, 69.
"Murders in the United States dropped by nearly 6 percent in the first half of 2004 after rising for four straight years, the FBI reported. Numbers from the second half of 2004 have not been compiled.
"Richmond had the country's fourth highest murder rate in 2003 and was ranked the nation's ninth most dangerous city overall in 2004 _ beating out Miami and Compton, Calif. Richmond is the sixth most dangerous when compared to other cities with populations of 100,000 to 499,999."
Note to NRA Management:
We tried to tell you that "Exile" was a bad idea. It's time to follow your own professed beliefs and admit that gun control does not reduce violent crime--even those edicts that you endorse.
I'm still waiting for someone at NRA-HQ to cite the Constitutional authority for the feds to be involved in gun control at all. It's past time for the suits at Fairfax to adopt the motto "Repeal existing gun laws," and stop calling for their enforcement.
After all, wasn't enforcing existing gun laws what precipitated Waco and Ruby Ridge?
The World of Tomorrow
Predicting near-future potentials based on current trends is always a risky business—it’s one of the reasons why “The Wrath of Khan” fails modern audiences—the original Star Trek’s core audience lived to know there was no “Eugenics War” in the 1990s, no race of genetically-engineered “supermen,” no “sleeper ship” technology, and thankfully, no preponderance of chest-baring, aging actors wearing mullets—perhaps Gene Roddenberry should have placed the origin scenario from “Space Seed” a hundred, rather than 30 years into the future.
So this flash presentation, set 9 years from now, is going out on a limb—but it does seem to posit a pretty likely scenario. On the one hand, I am drawn to the potential like a moth to a flame—which means, as attractive and compelling as I find certain generalized “predictions,” it’s dangerous to disregard that invoking the name “Winston Smith” is purposeful.
So this flash presentation, set 9 years from now, is going out on a limb—but it does seem to posit a pretty likely scenario. On the one hand, I am drawn to the potential like a moth to a flame—which means, as attractive and compelling as I find certain generalized “predictions,” it’s dangerous to disregard that invoking the name “Winston Smith” is purposeful.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Attack from the Underworld
Pocket gophers are ruining my yard.
I’ve tried the gas bombs. I’ve tried flooding them out. Now I’m reduced to digging into tunnels and sprinkling zinc phosphide pellets.
The frustrating thing is, I can sit in my enclosed back patio and see their evil little heads pop up as they clear new holes. If I lived in a civilized community, John and Eli (aka Uday and Qusai) would be able to earn bounties with the Crossman.
I’ve tried the gas bombs. I’ve tried flooding them out. Now I’m reduced to digging into tunnels and sprinkling zinc phosphide pellets.
The frustrating thing is, I can sit in my enclosed back patio and see their evil little heads pop up as they clear new holes. If I lived in a civilized community, John and Eli (aka Uday and Qusai) would be able to earn bounties with the Crossman.
Ignorance and Fear Go Hand in Hand...
TriggerFinger deconstructs [How you say in Bloggese, "fisks," yes?] an ignorant and fearful woman's anti-gun editorial, and does a great job if it.
He's much nicer than I am about these things.
He's much nicer than I am about these things.
Shoot to Live
"A RECENT WAVE of violent attacks with axes and cleavers raises the issue, once again, about the effectiveness of restricting, banning, or simply scaring people away from owning firearms."—Jennifer Freeman
The 3rd Annual Nigerian EMail Conference
"I present to you an urgent and confidential request: I request your attendance at The 3rd Annual Nigerian EMail Conference. This is an excellent opportunity to meet your distinguished colleagues, learn new marketing techniques, and spend your hard-earned money. Attending this conference demands the highest trust, security and confidentiality between us."
Hysterical!
Hysterical!
Monday, March 14, 2005
Technical Difficulties
The site is slow to load and the blogroll has disappeared. The Blogrolling site page can't be accessed, so this is the same as what happened last time--I suspect there are site problems there affecting the page--as Douglas Adams said, "Don't Panic."
Your highly trained WarOnGuns technical support staff (me, who knows virtually nothing about post-Triassic technology) is working 'round the clock to restore the site to peak performance.
UPDATE:
Yep—as Bart Simpson says, “I didn't do it, no one saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything!”
Blogrolling has been having recurring system problems they can't seem to fix.
This has been a relatively heavy day—wonder how many site visitors gave up and think this is par for the course?
Oh well, I get what I pay for.
Your highly trained WarOnGuns technical support staff (me, who knows virtually nothing about post-Triassic technology) is working 'round the clock to restore the site to peak performance.
UPDATE:
Yep—as Bart Simpson says, “I didn't do it, no one saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything!”
Blogrolling has been having recurring system problems they can't seem to fix.
This has been a relatively heavy day—wonder how many site visitors gave up and think this is par for the course?
Oh well, I get what I pay for.
Another Fool With an Opinion
"If she was pointing that gun at me I could take it from her in a heart beat."
On March 5, I congratulated friend Deborah Courtney for getting front page ink in The Orange County Register.
One Ian Fitz-Gibbon wrote to the OCR reporter:
After reading your article on Deborah I just had to laugh. She’s another fool with a gun. Does she walk around with a gun in her purse? LOL My guess is that if she had that gun when she was raped she would either be dead or be wondering why she bought it in the first place. A criminal won’t wait for her to reach into her purse or run out to her car to retrieve a gun. It’s also my guess that if she was pointing that gun at me I could take it from her in a heart beat. Being smart……..or not doing something stupid will do more for a person’s protection and security than carrying a gun. The most important thing in self-defense is what’s in your head, not what’s in your hand!
Regards,
Ian Fitz-Gibbon
Mr. Fitz-Gibbon apparently considers himself an authority on defensive tactics.
He’s evidently more educated on the matter than Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, whose surveys indicate up to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year by Americans.
He’s obviously done more thorough research than economist John Lott [scroll down to bottom of right column to download CV], whose exhaustive analyses of statistics from all 3,054 counties in the United States from 1977 to 1994 confirm the title of his aptly named More Guns, Less Crime.
“Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger change in a woman's ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men,” Lott concludes.
But we must assume that Mr. Fitz-Gibbon has amassed and analyzed superior empirical evidence.
He’s clearly reported on more case studies than Robert Waters, whose The Best Defense provides chilling, real life examples of ordinary people repelling brutal criminals with firearms. And “being smart”—just like Ian Fitz-Gibbon—would no doubt assure superior outcomes for those people chronicled in KeepAndBearArms.com’s “Operation Self Defense,” each of whom was, evidently, “just another fool with a gun.”
“My guess is that if she had that gun when she was raped she would either be dead or be wondering why she bought it in the first place. A criminal won’t wait for her to reach into her purse or run out to her car to retrieve a gun,” Fitz-Gibbon smirks.
Unfortunately, your guess is wrong, Mr. Fitz-Gibbon. Without going into the details of her ordeal, her assailant trapped her. She knew he was coming for her before the actual physical assault, and would have had time to retrieve a concealed firearm if she’d had one.
“It’s also my guess that if she was pointing that gun at me I could take it from her in a heart beat,” he claims.
Really?
Do you have any idea how many shots a trained shooter can squeeze off “in a heartbeat” Mr. Fitz-Gibbon?
Here's a concession: Back when I was young and immortal, I was pretty heavily into martial arts. I used to do a demonstration, and, when I established the conditions (that is, having someone point a toy gun at me when I was standing within three feet of them, with instructions to shoot if I made a false move), I could—without fail—disable their gun hand and strike a simulated crippling blow. But it wasn’t real—there was no danger. And importantly, I controlled the situation.
What makes you think you would control the situation and be allowed to get within striking distance? I guess you must be a greater authority on such matters than Col. Jeff Cooper, so a trained shooter who has mastered the mental discipline of applying his Color Code would be no match against your awesome prowess.
Your point is not that you could surprise and ambush a targeted victim—hell, anyone could do that. You claim you can disarm someone who is trained and equipped, and who has you in their sights!
I could arrange a demonstration, if you like, Mr. Fitz-Gibbon. I’m sure I could assemble an audience that would love to see you exhibit how what’s in your head will overcome what’s in a trained shooter’s hand. I can probably even arrange for you to place bets on your ability to prevail against, say, my 10-year-old, someone who is elderly, and maybe even a disabled shooter. We’ll even videotape it, and post it on the Internet. And don't worry, we'll only use props. Care to prove your words?
How did you dismiss Deborah? Oh, yeah, "LOL!"
You should be careful about laughing at people, Mr. Fitz-Gibbon, especially when you're obviously in over your head—it makes you come across as just another fool with an opinion.
AFTERWORD FROM TJ JOHNSTON
Ian: being Deborah's trainer, I want to respond to your comments.
Deborah's rape was typical in that the assailant didn't jump out of the bushes and attack her. That media stereotype is so far from reality. Rapists set up their victims. And when they do, the potential victim has a series of options, which are greatly expanded if they have access to a firearm.
In Deborah's case, the assailant locked her in her personal office and then carefully walked around the rest of the building, closing windows and locking the front door. If she had her Glock in her office, he would have found a nasty confrontation when he returned to attack her.
You sound very courageous, in that you feel you could disarm somebody very easily. Candidly, it is possible. I teach those techniques and it requires much disciplined practice, considerable confidence, speed and precision to do it safely. With the hammer cocked, most handguns will fire with only minimal pressure on the trigger, and the movement that action requires is much less than the movement to reach out and take the gun away. If the person with the firearm maintains his/her distance, the person encroaching WILL BE SHOT.
Most importantly, as the statistics from John Lott, Gary Kleck, and a host of other criminologists show, the mere presence of a firearm deters most criminals, usually without the gun being discharged. No one wants to get shot, and criminals are not brave people. They run away.
The facts are clear and irrefutable. In her situation, if Deborah had been armed, she wouldn't have been raped.
And I would challenge you to take a loaded handgun away from her. Knowing her current attitude and aptitude, I am confident that you would have at least one more hole in you than before the attempt.
Regards,
TJ Johnston
www.allsafedefense.com
On March 5, I congratulated friend Deborah Courtney for getting front page ink in The Orange County Register.
One Ian Fitz-Gibbon wrote to the OCR reporter:
After reading your article on Deborah I just had to laugh. She’s another fool with a gun. Does she walk around with a gun in her purse? LOL My guess is that if she had that gun when she was raped she would either be dead or be wondering why she bought it in the first place. A criminal won’t wait for her to reach into her purse or run out to her car to retrieve a gun. It’s also my guess that if she was pointing that gun at me I could take it from her in a heart beat. Being smart……..or not doing something stupid will do more for a person’s protection and security than carrying a gun. The most important thing in self-defense is what’s in your head, not what’s in your hand!
Regards,
Ian Fitz-Gibbon
Mr. Fitz-Gibbon apparently considers himself an authority on defensive tactics.
He’s evidently more educated on the matter than Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, whose surveys indicate up to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year by Americans.
He’s obviously done more thorough research than economist John Lott [scroll down to bottom of right column to download CV], whose exhaustive analyses of statistics from all 3,054 counties in the United States from 1977 to 1994 confirm the title of his aptly named More Guns, Less Crime.
“Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger change in a woman's ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men,” Lott concludes.
But we must assume that Mr. Fitz-Gibbon has amassed and analyzed superior empirical evidence.
He’s clearly reported on more case studies than Robert Waters, whose The Best Defense provides chilling, real life examples of ordinary people repelling brutal criminals with firearms. And “being smart”—just like Ian Fitz-Gibbon—would no doubt assure superior outcomes for those people chronicled in KeepAndBearArms.com’s “Operation Self Defense,” each of whom was, evidently, “just another fool with a gun.”
“My guess is that if she had that gun when she was raped she would either be dead or be wondering why she bought it in the first place. A criminal won’t wait for her to reach into her purse or run out to her car to retrieve a gun,” Fitz-Gibbon smirks.
Unfortunately, your guess is wrong, Mr. Fitz-Gibbon. Without going into the details of her ordeal, her assailant trapped her. She knew he was coming for her before the actual physical assault, and would have had time to retrieve a concealed firearm if she’d had one.
“It’s also my guess that if she was pointing that gun at me I could take it from her in a heart beat,” he claims.
Really?
Do you have any idea how many shots a trained shooter can squeeze off “in a heartbeat” Mr. Fitz-Gibbon?
Here's a concession: Back when I was young and immortal, I was pretty heavily into martial arts. I used to do a demonstration, and, when I established the conditions (that is, having someone point a toy gun at me when I was standing within three feet of them, with instructions to shoot if I made a false move), I could—without fail—disable their gun hand and strike a simulated crippling blow. But it wasn’t real—there was no danger. And importantly, I controlled the situation.
What makes you think you would control the situation and be allowed to get within striking distance? I guess you must be a greater authority on such matters than Col. Jeff Cooper, so a trained shooter who has mastered the mental discipline of applying his Color Code would be no match against your awesome prowess.
Your point is not that you could surprise and ambush a targeted victim—hell, anyone could do that. You claim you can disarm someone who is trained and equipped, and who has you in their sights!
I could arrange a demonstration, if you like, Mr. Fitz-Gibbon. I’m sure I could assemble an audience that would love to see you exhibit how what’s in your head will overcome what’s in a trained shooter’s hand. I can probably even arrange for you to place bets on your ability to prevail against, say, my 10-year-old, someone who is elderly, and maybe even a disabled shooter. We’ll even videotape it, and post it on the Internet. And don't worry, we'll only use props. Care to prove your words?
How did you dismiss Deborah? Oh, yeah, "LOL!"
You should be careful about laughing at people, Mr. Fitz-Gibbon, especially when you're obviously in over your head—it makes you come across as just another fool with an opinion.
AFTERWORD FROM TJ JOHNSTON
Ian: being Deborah's trainer, I want to respond to your comments.
Deborah's rape was typical in that the assailant didn't jump out of the bushes and attack her. That media stereotype is so far from reality. Rapists set up their victims. And when they do, the potential victim has a series of options, which are greatly expanded if they have access to a firearm.
In Deborah's case, the assailant locked her in her personal office and then carefully walked around the rest of the building, closing windows and locking the front door. If she had her Glock in her office, he would have found a nasty confrontation when he returned to attack her.
You sound very courageous, in that you feel you could disarm somebody very easily. Candidly, it is possible. I teach those techniques and it requires much disciplined practice, considerable confidence, speed and precision to do it safely. With the hammer cocked, most handguns will fire with only minimal pressure on the trigger, and the movement that action requires is much less than the movement to reach out and take the gun away. If the person with the firearm maintains his/her distance, the person encroaching WILL BE SHOT.
Most importantly, as the statistics from John Lott, Gary Kleck, and a host of other criminologists show, the mere presence of a firearm deters most criminals, usually without the gun being discharged. No one wants to get shot, and criminals are not brave people. They run away.
The facts are clear and irrefutable. In her situation, if Deborah had been armed, she wouldn't have been raped.
And I would challenge you to take a loaded handgun away from her. Knowing her current attitude and aptitude, I am confident that you would have at least one more hole in you than before the attempt.
Regards,
TJ Johnston
www.allsafedefense.com
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Bloggers: Have You Applied for Your Reporting License?
One of the more shopworn arguments in the civilian disarmament playbook says the Founders were talking about muskets when they penned the Second Amendment, and they could not possibly have conceived of the terrible firepower of today’s weaponry—to which our side generally replies they couldn’t have conceived of modern communications technology when establishing the First Amendment, yet no one is suggesting limits on free speech.
Right.
While bloggers have rightly bared their teeth at the recent McCain-Feingold trial balloon, there’s another looming threat that hasn’t generated much of a response on 2A sites I frequent: the state assuming it is the sole arbiter of who among us will be recognized as a “journalist.”
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg has again raised this issue, and we need to pay attention to his ruling, especially the part where he writes “Defining what is a 'journalist' has become more complicated as the variety of media has expanded."
Judge, I don’t see that being your call. You have no legitimate authority to issue de facto reporting permits. The only argument in this case should be whether the rights of another, in this case, Apple, via alleged theft and dissemination of their proprietary trade secrets, have been violated.
We all know of the many instances where the internet community covers vital liberty issues that are ignored by the lapdog Establishment press, especially in its coverage of citizens persecuted for taking the Second Amendment at its word. Case in point--don’t expect CBS or The Los Angeles Times to tell us about BATFU incompetence almost destroying a man’s life.
If we independents are muffled, the only thing you’ll hear about such cases is how an antisocial threat to society has been removed by heroic community helpers.
How very Red Chinese.
Right.
While bloggers have rightly bared their teeth at the recent McCain-Feingold trial balloon, there’s another looming threat that hasn’t generated much of a response on 2A sites I frequent: the state assuming it is the sole arbiter of who among us will be recognized as a “journalist.”
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg has again raised this issue, and we need to pay attention to his ruling, especially the part where he writes “Defining what is a 'journalist' has become more complicated as the variety of media has expanded."
Judge, I don’t see that being your call. You have no legitimate authority to issue de facto reporting permits. The only argument in this case should be whether the rights of another, in this case, Apple, via alleged theft and dissemination of their proprietary trade secrets, have been violated.
We all know of the many instances where the internet community covers vital liberty issues that are ignored by the lapdog Establishment press, especially in its coverage of citizens persecuted for taking the Second Amendment at its word. Case in point--don’t expect CBS or The Los Angeles Times to tell us about BATFU incompetence almost destroying a man’s life.
If we independents are muffled, the only thing you’ll hear about such cases is how an antisocial threat to society has been removed by heroic community helpers.
How very Red Chinese.
I’m a Lumberjack and I’m Okay…
Kyle Shelton, who foolishly believes he possesses both wit and insight, scribed a panty-wringing warning against guns in bars for a student rag called The Lumberjack.
“As soon as guns are allowed in bars,” he snipes, “…guns in schools can't be far behind.”
Uh, yeah.
Comments from site visitors were going swimmingly until Kumbaya-soloist “Rachel” chimed in:
"People feeling they need to carry concealed weapons is a sad testimony of the time we live in—it’s not sad because crime rates have escalated, but because people’s thinking has shifted so dramatically, from loving their neighbor to suddenly being afraid of him."
Kids.
“As soon as guns are allowed in bars,” he snipes, “…guns in schools can't be far behind.”
Uh, yeah.
Comments from site visitors were going swimmingly until Kumbaya-soloist “Rachel” chimed in:
"People feeling they need to carry concealed weapons is a sad testimony of the time we live in—it’s not sad because crime rates have escalated, but because people’s thinking has shifted so dramatically, from loving their neighbor to suddenly being afraid of him."
Kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)