"Plus, it's been scientifically shown to remove warts more effectively and less painfully than a common treatment, liquid nitrogen."
Some new wonderdrug? An age old herbal remedy recently rediscovered perhaps?
Nope, it's duct tape!
Saturday, February 15, 2003
I don't know much about Latvian politics, but after reading this I'm thinking it's not any worse than our own.
The Cost of Slavery. The NY Times has an Op/ed by Dalton Conley arguing for more discussion of reparations. He discusses several different formula to arrive at a fair dollar amount. & he discusses some of the possible social benefits for black people. Granted, it is a brief article. It does not attempt to answer every question or concern there is about reparations. Nor does it address the problems, for whites & blacks, that would occur as a result of reparations.
Yes, slavery was wrong. It is wrong now & it will be wrong in the future. Equally so are wealth distibution plans that punishes or rewards an entire group of people based on some perceived need or debt. In it's essence it is socialism - taking from the able & giving to the needy.
I have a better idea: instead of trying to give black people the impression that due to the condition of freedom their ancestors endured they are hindered now, let's help black people to give their kids a home, a decent education & as fair a chance in life as their individual abilities will allow them to partake of. Instead of constantly trying to reinforce the victim mentality on a whole race of people, let's start treating them as people. Individuals even. Let's stop racism as much as we can on both sides. Or do you think the "you did this to me so I want cash" attitude will really benefit anyone?
If slavery is really such an issue & you demand justice for that involuntary servitude, then you don't have to look as far back as the war between the states. Just look at your paycheck. 17% to 38% is gone before you see it. Slavery exists now, it's just more subtle, more comfortable, & it equally inflicts regardless of color. You want to do something about slavery now? go to Fairtax.org. They have some idea to start breaking the chains that bind us all.
7 if you want to strike at systems rooted in discrimination, then start protesting your states pistol permit laws. The idea of aquiring a permit to exercise a right is in & of itself reprehensible. But those laws did not exist untill reconstruction. They were a way to keep black people from possesing arms. They are the only Jim Crow laws on the books now that the NAACP & ACLU don't complain about. & like the tax, they are applied more or less equally. Except in cities with higher populations of blacks & hispanics, there are usually tougher standards for receiving the permission to exercise your rights.
There are many ways we can do things now to rid ourslves of slavery & it's baggage. Wealth redistribution is not one of them. In the end it will cause more dependence upon the government. That is the form of slavery that imperils us all right now.
Yes, slavery was wrong. It is wrong now & it will be wrong in the future. Equally so are wealth distibution plans that punishes or rewards an entire group of people based on some perceived need or debt. In it's essence it is socialism - taking from the able & giving to the needy.
I have a better idea: instead of trying to give black people the impression that due to the condition of freedom their ancestors endured they are hindered now, let's help black people to give their kids a home, a decent education & as fair a chance in life as their individual abilities will allow them to partake of. Instead of constantly trying to reinforce the victim mentality on a whole race of people, let's start treating them as people. Individuals even. Let's stop racism as much as we can on both sides. Or do you think the "you did this to me so I want cash" attitude will really benefit anyone?
If slavery is really such an issue & you demand justice for that involuntary servitude, then you don't have to look as far back as the war between the states. Just look at your paycheck. 17% to 38% is gone before you see it. Slavery exists now, it's just more subtle, more comfortable, & it equally inflicts regardless of color. You want to do something about slavery now? go to Fairtax.org. They have some idea to start breaking the chains that bind us all.
7 if you want to strike at systems rooted in discrimination, then start protesting your states pistol permit laws. The idea of aquiring a permit to exercise a right is in & of itself reprehensible. But those laws did not exist untill reconstruction. They were a way to keep black people from possesing arms. They are the only Jim Crow laws on the books now that the NAACP & ACLU don't complain about. & like the tax, they are applied more or less equally. Except in cities with higher populations of blacks & hispanics, there are usually tougher standards for receiving the permission to exercise your rights.
There are many ways we can do things now to rid ourslves of slavery & it's baggage. Wealth redistribution is not one of them. In the end it will cause more dependence upon the government. That is the form of slavery that imperils us all right now.
Another fine example of unbiased journalism & superior drama skills. This time the focus is on the .500S&W magnum.
"A hunting weapon? That's a joke," said Luis Tolley, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "What we have here is a weapon that's designed to appeal to people who just want to make a bigger hole in whatever they're shooting at and, hopefully, they're not living next door to me."
So, a .50 projectile pushing 1600 fps isn't a good choice for hunting? hmmm.
"Violence Policy Centre executive director Josh Sugarmann said: 'This gun is not being made for hunters in Africa. It's being made for bored white gun owners in America. Why are they putting so much fire power into people's hands?"
The VPC seems racist as well as ignorant. Tell me please, is there any reason why a black man would be genetically predispositioned to dislike a .500S&W magnum? Is he implying that since it's impractical to use in a liquor store hold up then black people wouldn't be interested in it? I am jesting, as this is the kind of thing the anti gunners let fly whenever race comes up. But the more I consider it, the more I think that some people may arrive at exactly that conclusion based upon what he said.
Personally I don't care for calibers that big, although it'd probably be fun to shoot. I am not so blind as to not see that the demonization of one type of firearm will lead to the demonization of them all. So as a show of support tomorrow I think I'll go out & buy a .500S&W Magnum. The cartridge, not the gun. I'd love to show $1000 of support by buying a gun I'm not particularly infatuated with, but alas, I am but a poor blogger.
"A hunting weapon? That's a joke," said Luis Tolley, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "What we have here is a weapon that's designed to appeal to people who just want to make a bigger hole in whatever they're shooting at and, hopefully, they're not living next door to me."
So, a .50 projectile pushing 1600 fps isn't a good choice for hunting? hmmm.
"Violence Policy Centre executive director Josh Sugarmann said: 'This gun is not being made for hunters in Africa. It's being made for bored white gun owners in America. Why are they putting so much fire power into people's hands?"
The VPC seems racist as well as ignorant. Tell me please, is there any reason why a black man would be genetically predispositioned to dislike a .500S&W magnum? Is he implying that since it's impractical to use in a liquor store hold up then black people wouldn't be interested in it? I am jesting, as this is the kind of thing the anti gunners let fly whenever race comes up. But the more I consider it, the more I think that some people may arrive at exactly that conclusion based upon what he said.
Personally I don't care for calibers that big, although it'd probably be fun to shoot. I am not so blind as to not see that the demonization of one type of firearm will lead to the demonization of them all. So as a show of support tomorrow I think I'll go out & buy a .500S&W Magnum. The cartridge, not the gun. I'd love to show $1000 of support by buying a gun I'm not particularly infatuated with, but alas, I am but a poor blogger.
The TSA is attempting to make the rules so complex that no pilot will want to be armed. & according to this article in the Washington Post, some pilots are opposed to that kind of treatment.
"Price's group objected to some of the language in a draft of the TSA's guidelines for arming the pilots. According to the draft provided to The Washington Post by the group, pilots had to "have the requisite mental, psychological and cognitive abilities as well as the discipline and judgment" to possess the firearms. The pilots also must "conduct themselves with maximum regard for the safety and security of the traveling public, crew" and federal air marshals.
'Our position is if you don't have those traits in abundance already, you have no business being an airline pilot,' Price said. "
& this is from GOA on the same issue.
Let's think for a minute shall we? If a pilot was disturbed & wanted to kill himself & a bunch of other people a gun wouldn't be neccesary: all he'd have to do is lean. & $500,000 to train 50 pilots? Are they teaching them to catch bullets with their teeth?
How about this: let the pilot buy his own gun, give him a map of places to try to avoid shooting, & then give him a $50 a year ammo allowance. & while we're at it, let's not foget that the passengers should be armed as well. Someone could get hurt you say? The government denied people their right to self defense & the tools neccesary to excercise that right by disarming all the passngers they could on 9-11-01. Because of the government denying their right, we had 3,000 dead. Now if a plane is hijacked, it'll be shot down. I'd rather take my chances than rely on anymore government "help". The worst case scenario with armed passengers seems a whole lot better than the worse case scenario w/o armed passengers.
But the truth is the feds won't admit that we have the right to carry when we fly. They don't like admitting we have the right to carry when we just stay at home.
So untill all the people, not just the pilots, are respected in their right to self defense, I'm driving everyplace I can. If I can't drive then I guess I'll sit around here & catch up on my blogging.
"Price's group objected to some of the language in a draft of the TSA's guidelines for arming the pilots. According to the draft provided to The Washington Post by the group, pilots had to "have the requisite mental, psychological and cognitive abilities as well as the discipline and judgment" to possess the firearms. The pilots also must "conduct themselves with maximum regard for the safety and security of the traveling public, crew" and federal air marshals.
'Our position is if you don't have those traits in abundance already, you have no business being an airline pilot,' Price said. "
& this is from GOA on the same issue.
Let's think for a minute shall we? If a pilot was disturbed & wanted to kill himself & a bunch of other people a gun wouldn't be neccesary: all he'd have to do is lean. & $500,000 to train 50 pilots? Are they teaching them to catch bullets with their teeth?
How about this: let the pilot buy his own gun, give him a map of places to try to avoid shooting, & then give him a $50 a year ammo allowance. & while we're at it, let's not foget that the passengers should be armed as well. Someone could get hurt you say? The government denied people their right to self defense & the tools neccesary to excercise that right by disarming all the passngers they could on 9-11-01. Because of the government denying their right, we had 3,000 dead. Now if a plane is hijacked, it'll be shot down. I'd rather take my chances than rely on anymore government "help". The worst case scenario with armed passengers seems a whole lot better than the worse case scenario w/o armed passengers.
But the truth is the feds won't admit that we have the right to carry when we fly. They don't like admitting we have the right to carry when we just stay at home.
So untill all the people, not just the pilots, are respected in their right to self defense, I'm driving everyplace I can. If I can't drive then I guess I'll sit around here & catch up on my blogging.
Revisionist history of revisionist history?
Soft Skull Press will republish Michael Belleisles' Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.
When allegations of scholarly misconduct arose "...Emory University in Atlanta appointed a committee to investigate the allegations. Following the committee's report (available on Emory University's website), Bellesiles resigned from Emory, and Columbia University rescinded the prestigious Bancroft Prize it had awarded the author. Last month, Knopf decided to end their contractual relationship with the author.
What the VPC's press release fails to state directly is that Bellesiles was discredited for using questionable methods & possibly fabricating research in order to reach his rather shakey conclusions. They do imply however that at least part of Mr. Bellesiles troubles are due to the "smear machine" of the NRA. Here is a brief account of who actually called Bellesiles to the carpet.
Gary Wills' initial review of the book is quoted in the article. I thought it only fair to add this Op/ed about Mr. Wills involvement in the Bellesiles saga from Larry Pratt, executive Director of GOA. Here is the whole series of Op/eds from Larry Pratt on the Bellesiles book. You'll also find some words on Bowling for Columbine if you're interested.
Here is the National Review Oct. '99 review of Arming America by Clayton Cramer & David Kopel.
Soft Skull Press will republish Michael Belleisles' Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.
When allegations of scholarly misconduct arose "...Emory University in Atlanta appointed a committee to investigate the allegations. Following the committee's report (available on Emory University's website), Bellesiles resigned from Emory, and Columbia University rescinded the prestigious Bancroft Prize it had awarded the author. Last month, Knopf decided to end their contractual relationship with the author.
What the VPC's press release fails to state directly is that Bellesiles was discredited for using questionable methods & possibly fabricating research in order to reach his rather shakey conclusions. They do imply however that at least part of Mr. Bellesiles troubles are due to the "smear machine" of the NRA. Here is a brief account of who actually called Bellesiles to the carpet.
Gary Wills' initial review of the book is quoted in the article. I thought it only fair to add this Op/ed about Mr. Wills involvement in the Bellesiles saga from Larry Pratt, executive Director of GOA. Here is the whole series of Op/eds from Larry Pratt on the Bellesiles book. You'll also find some words on Bowling for Columbine if you're interested.
Here is the National Review Oct. '99 review of Arming America by Clayton Cramer & David Kopel.
More on the legal battle to emancipate D.C.'s gun owners. From the Washington Times.
& while all these challenges to blatantly unconstitutional laws are going on, you must wonder where the NRA is. Well, they've been busy donating money to George Mason University Law School.
Now pursuing a continuance in educational honesty among professors as well as students is comendable. But I think it's a bit sad that while two lawyers from a libertarian think tank are in the trenches trying to defend the rights of an oppressed people (the D.C. residents) the second most powerful & influential lobbying org, the one who's supposed to be pro-second amendment is playing academic politics. Although I can't say I'm shocked.
& while all these challenges to blatantly unconstitutional laws are going on, you must wonder where the NRA is. Well, they've been busy donating money to George Mason University Law School.
Now pursuing a continuance in educational honesty among professors as well as students is comendable. But I think it's a bit sad that while two lawyers from a libertarian think tank are in the trenches trying to defend the rights of an oppressed people (the D.C. residents) the second most powerful & influential lobbying org, the one who's supposed to be pro-second amendment is playing academic politics. Although I can't say I'm shocked.
Daley is asking for more gun control. Apparently this isn't enough gun control. Well, I guess if banning guns the first time doesn't lower the crime rate the only thing to do is ban them again.
See, back home in North Carolina, they haven't heard about the Manchest'r O-fish-al poe-leese add-vice.
"Robinson said people who stocked up on food and water would need guns to fend off people who had no supplies. Federal officials would have recommended guns in the warning if not for anti-gun sentiment in the country, Robinson said."
When ridiculed by some who question the need for firearms anywhere, anytime:
"I invite everybody to put a sticker on their house saying, 'I'm a liberal, and I don't have a gun in my house,' he said."
"Robinson said people who stocked up on food and water would need guns to fend off people who had no supplies. Federal officials would have recommended guns in the warning if not for anti-gun sentiment in the country, Robinson said."
When ridiculed by some who question the need for firearms anywhere, anytime:
"I invite everybody to put a sticker on their house saying, 'I'm a liberal, and I don't have a gun in my house,' he said."
Ever wonder what the going rate is for using a badge, a gun, & a lot of beer while you're forcing someone to have sex with you? In Wyoming it's around $19,5000.
In all fairness a State Police investigation determined the sex, was in fact consensual. However a Wyoming Police Investigation determined the officer committed offense that should get him fired.
" [Officer] Pierce took her to Wyoming's Waste Water Treatment plant. Using a special code, Pierce got into the gated facility. He parked the car. According to court records, he pulled a gun from his waistband and put it under the seat and ordered Starr to have sex with him."
"He had a gun behind his back that he pulled out and made sure I saw it before he put it under the seat," she explained. "He made sure I was in a locked facility. He made sure there was beer there. He made sure I was intoxicated."
I do believe in innocence untill guilt is proven. It's unfortunate that a settlement was reached because that assures that it will be a "he said, she said" affair with no substantial proof one way or the other.
In all fairness a State Police investigation determined the sex, was in fact consensual. However a Wyoming Police Investigation determined the officer committed offense that should get him fired.
" [Officer] Pierce took her to Wyoming's Waste Water Treatment plant. Using a special code, Pierce got into the gated facility. He parked the car. According to court records, he pulled a gun from his waistband and put it under the seat and ordered Starr to have sex with him."
"He had a gun behind his back that he pulled out and made sure I saw it before he put it under the seat," she explained. "He made sure I was in a locked facility. He made sure there was beer there. He made sure I was intoxicated."
I do believe in innocence untill guilt is proven. It's unfortunate that a settlement was reached because that assures that it will be a "he said, she said" affair with no substantial proof one way or the other.
A San Francisco police officer received a 45 day non paid suspension for harrasing, annoying & intimidating his 71 year old neighbor
& according to the Manchester Conn. Police this is the kind of person that is going to protect us while we comply & wait patiently?
If you can get over the disgusted feeling that I have, it is of humorous note that one of the attorneys surnames is Lie.
& according to the Manchester Conn. Police this is the kind of person that is going to protect us while we comply & wait patiently?
If you can get over the disgusted feeling that I have, it is of humorous note that one of the attorneys surnames is Lie.
Luckily this woman was never given advice from the Manchester Police Department. You can tell that because she's alive.
A little more info on the Manchester, Conn. man who resisted an armed hold up successfully. Read the previous comments on Mr. Jarvis' ordeal here.
The cops are saying "...comply,comply,comply."
Mr. Jarvis says, "... My mother didn't raise me to be a sissy."
The cops are saying "...comply,comply,comply."
Mr. Jarvis says, "... My mother didn't raise me to be a sissy."
Friday, February 14, 2003
Another example of fine, investigative, unbiased reporting. This is from Ed Montini of the Arizona Republic.
You may reach Mr. Montini at ed.montini@arizonarepublic.com or (602) 444-8978.
You may reach Mr. Montini at ed.montini@arizonarepublic.com or (602) 444-8978.
So, even though Mr. Potter was justified in using deadly force to protect his sister from her ex when the restraining order failed to do so, he faces felony counts for illegally possessing the weapon. While Potter is being held on these charges, they are still deciding if any charges are going to be pressed against Washington, who is free. Washington has a restraining order against him that forbids contact with Ms. Potter as he was convicted of felony assault against her & her child!
Yes, Potter is a convicted felon & should receive punishment for the crime he committed. But no one should be punished for merely possessing the tool used to justifiably defend someone else's life.
& does anyone have any more doubts about how ineffective restraining orders are?
This is disgusting.
Read the details here.
Yes, Potter is a convicted felon & should receive punishment for the crime he committed. But no one should be punished for merely possessing the tool used to justifiably defend someone else's life.
& does anyone have any more doubts about how ineffective restraining orders are?
This is disgusting.
Read the details here.
Thursday, February 13, 2003
Rachel Lucas has a few words about the Canadian mother who didn't want her 7 year old spelling "gun", as does Eugene Volokh.
On the Michael Medved show yesterday the woman in question, Mrs. Sousa, appeared as a guest to discuss the situation. Mr. Medved asked her if the word "bomb" would be objectionable. As well as sword, God, death, etc...
The one that stuck out was "tank". Mrs. Sousa said she wouldn't find "tank" objectionable because people wore tank tops.
'nuff said?
On the Michael Medved show yesterday the woman in question, Mrs. Sousa, appeared as a guest to discuss the situation. Mr. Medved asked her if the word "bomb" would be objectionable. As well as sword, God, death, etc...
The one that stuck out was "tank". Mrs. Sousa said she wouldn't find "tank" objectionable because people wore tank tops.
'nuff said?
This would be funny if it didn't underline how screwed up our system of laws are. The IRSS is confused by the tax laws.
"Enron and other big companies have escaped taxes in recent years through financial maneuvers so complex that the Internal Revenue Service has been unable to understand them, the Senate Finance Committee will be told this morning by Congressional tax experts who spent nearly a year going over Enron's tax returns."
Now while absorbing that mull over the following:
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood . . . "
James Madison
Now visit Fairtax.org & see how much sense their idea make.
"Enron and other big companies have escaped taxes in recent years through financial maneuvers so complex that the Internal Revenue Service has been unable to understand them, the Senate Finance Committee will be told this morning by Congressional tax experts who spent nearly a year going over Enron's tax returns."
Now while absorbing that mull over the following:
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood . . . "
James Madison
Now visit Fairtax.org & see how much sense their idea make.
Feds had clues prior to Oklahoma City bombing.
Like that's 'news'. I'll try (no promises) to dig up some of my resources on the BATF & the O.C. bombing.
Like that's 'news'. I'll try (no promises) to dig up some of my resources on the BATF & the O.C. bombing.
EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center has filed an amicus curiae in the Chicago vs. BATF case.
The gist of it all is that Chicago wants the BATF to release all it's info on gun purchases, which would include names & addresses of gun owners. The BATF has refused saying it's a violation of an individuals privacy. EPIC is stepping in saying it can guarantee the individuals privacy while providing Chicago the info it wants.
Chicago wants the info to help prepare its lawsuit against gun manufacturers. BATF doesn't want to turn over records because it's a violation of federal law to keep a list of gun owners for the purposes of registration. The BATF keeps records liek that, but they don't like to talk about it. The GCA of 68 requires a form to be filled out for every firearms purchase made by an individual from a dealer. The dealer keeps those forms untill they go out of business, at which point the forms are turned in to the BATF, thereby giving the BATF a gun registry w/o having expressly set one up. So if info is made available that looks like a gun registry, the BATF may have some 'splainin' to do. & if you knwo anything about the BATF they don't do 'splainin' very well. I mention this just so you don't think the BATF is really concerned about your privacy. They're just trying to cover their own backside.
EPIC's angle is unclear, but suspicious.
The gist of it all is that Chicago wants the BATF to release all it's info on gun purchases, which would include names & addresses of gun owners. The BATF has refused saying it's a violation of an individuals privacy. EPIC is stepping in saying it can guarantee the individuals privacy while providing Chicago the info it wants.
Chicago wants the info to help prepare its lawsuit against gun manufacturers. BATF doesn't want to turn over records because it's a violation of federal law to keep a list of gun owners for the purposes of registration. The BATF keeps records liek that, but they don't like to talk about it. The GCA of 68 requires a form to be filled out for every firearms purchase made by an individual from a dealer. The dealer keeps those forms untill they go out of business, at which point the forms are turned in to the BATF, thereby giving the BATF a gun registry w/o having expressly set one up. So if info is made available that looks like a gun registry, the BATF may have some 'splainin' to do. & if you knwo anything about the BATF they don't do 'splainin' very well. I mention this just so you don't think the BATF is really concerned about your privacy. They're just trying to cover their own backside.
EPIC's angle is unclear, but suspicious.
Manchester Conn. is apparently jealous of NYC. While they haven't gone as far as pressing charges against a citizen who stopped a criminal from robbing him, they did insult him.
"Sgt. John Wilson, Manchester police: 'In a situation like this, I wouldn't recommend fighting back. The odds of surviving are very slim. . . . He was brave, but stupid. Even though he ended up safe and sound, it wasn't a smart thing to do. He could have been seriously injured'."
This coming from a public servant who was not around when the citizen was in need of him. So, even if we can't be there it's better to not resist no matter what, because if you resist you might get hurt by someone who threatens your life?
Of course if you fight back & don't resist there is a chance you may get hurt. There's also a chance that you won't, or at least not as badly. It's guaranteed that if you don't resist you are at the tender mercies of whoever is threatening you. True, they may just take your cash & run, but if they're going to rob you, which is against the law, then what prevents them from hurting, maiming, raping or killing you?
& the argument no one likes to hear: even if they take your cash & leave you unharmed, you will & should feel guilty every time they rob, assault, and/or injure someone else, because by complying you reinforced in their minds that they can get away with that sort of thing. & by not resisting you shirked your civic duty to try to stop criminals.
Cops cannot be everywhere at once. There is no thin blue line that protects society from anarchy. What will make the world safer is if citizens start doing their part to stop crime. Yes, being a good witness is part of it, but so is stepping in when you can. Resisting crime is an integral part of your responsibility as a citizen. Yes it's dangerous, but what part of life isn't? I'm not saying one should cruise the streets looking for purse snatchers to shoot down. But we should try to stop crime when it happens, especially when it happens to us. If that means blocking someone with your car so they can't getaway, or quietly dialing 911 while following someone who you think just robbed a store, or even stepping in & trying to apprehend someone whom you witnessed commit a crime, then that's what you have to do.
& if you know any LEO's such as Sgt. John Wilson, please try to correct them. If that fails encourage them to choose a safer line of work. After all, being a cop is dangerous & if he were to try to fight back against someone he was arresting he might get hurt.
"Sgt. John Wilson, Manchester police: 'In a situation like this, I wouldn't recommend fighting back. The odds of surviving are very slim. . . . He was brave, but stupid. Even though he ended up safe and sound, it wasn't a smart thing to do. He could have been seriously injured'."
This coming from a public servant who was not around when the citizen was in need of him. So, even if we can't be there it's better to not resist no matter what, because if you resist you might get hurt by someone who threatens your life?
Of course if you fight back & don't resist there is a chance you may get hurt. There's also a chance that you won't, or at least not as badly. It's guaranteed that if you don't resist you are at the tender mercies of whoever is threatening you. True, they may just take your cash & run, but if they're going to rob you, which is against the law, then what prevents them from hurting, maiming, raping or killing you?
& the argument no one likes to hear: even if they take your cash & leave you unharmed, you will & should feel guilty every time they rob, assault, and/or injure someone else, because by complying you reinforced in their minds that they can get away with that sort of thing. & by not resisting you shirked your civic duty to try to stop criminals.
Cops cannot be everywhere at once. There is no thin blue line that protects society from anarchy. What will make the world safer is if citizens start doing their part to stop crime. Yes, being a good witness is part of it, but so is stepping in when you can. Resisting crime is an integral part of your responsibility as a citizen. Yes it's dangerous, but what part of life isn't? I'm not saying one should cruise the streets looking for purse snatchers to shoot down. But we should try to stop crime when it happens, especially when it happens to us. If that means blocking someone with your car so they can't getaway, or quietly dialing 911 while following someone who you think just robbed a store, or even stepping in & trying to apprehend someone whom you witnessed commit a crime, then that's what you have to do.
& if you know any LEO's such as Sgt. John Wilson, please try to correct them. If that fails encourage them to choose a safer line of work. After all, being a cop is dangerous & if he were to try to fight back against someone he was arresting he might get hurt.
The D.C. gun ban is being challenged. For more info look here, here & here.
Also in Ohio it seems there is a judge who thinks the ban on concealed weapons is violative of a persons rights. A more detailed report can be found here.
& while we're talking about laws, here's an interesting read on how the recent decision by the Supreme Court on copywrite law may affect Second Amendment cases.
Here you'll find an article on how the Dred Scott decision may affect gun rights cases.
Also in Ohio it seems there is a judge who thinks the ban on concealed weapons is violative of a persons rights. A more detailed report can be found here.
& while we're talking about laws, here's an interesting read on how the recent decision by the Supreme Court on copywrite law may affect Second Amendment cases.
Here you'll find an article on how the Dred Scott decision may affect gun rights cases.
More on the Brooklyn dad being harassed by the local D.A. For some background, look here.
The NY Times had this article about the reasons why the D.A. should press charges against the homeowner defending his family.
"Turning a blind eye, even to a figure as sympathetic as Mr. Dixon, would indeed send a message, Mr. Hynes said. If this man is given a pass, what then? Does everyone get to own an illegal gun because, after all, you never know who may turn up someday at the top of the stairs?"
Well, yeah. Everyone should own a gun, even if it's an illegal gun, in case someone does appear at the top of the stairs. In fact, everyone should have a gun in case a NY Times reporter appears at the top of the stairs. It's obvious that the NY Times feels it's better to promote a draconian law that violates the rights as well as the safety of the people than to challenge the government, so I'd say that makes them more of a danger to the public than the average criminal. After all, the average criminal just wants to kill you. The NY Times wants you to exist in a sheepish state of servitude. I'd rather take death myself.
& what the hell is an illegal gun? It's a gun that the city of NY did not give you explicit permission to own. Never mind that owning a weapon in your own home is not remotely subject to anyone else's approval but your own. What the NY Times is advocating is a registration scheme that NYC has already used to confiscate weapons from otherwise law abiding people.
The following is from GOA:
"But why all the fuss about gun owner registration? Quite simply, gun registration has been used -- even in this country -- to later confiscate firearms. One such instance occurred in New York City just a few years ago.
It all began with promises made by New York City officials in the mid-1960s. They wanted to register long guns, over the vocal opposition of the city's gun owners. The city fathers promised they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns.
Gun owners were ordered to get rid of their newly-banned firearms. Those who didn't comply were subject to having their firearms taken away."
There is even a Statsi-like program in NYC, among other places, to encourage citizens to rat out there neighbors who posses "illegal guns".
But I wonder, have any NYC government officials, especially in the D.A.'s office, ever read this:
New York State Consolidated Laws
Civil Rights, Bill of Rights
ARTICLE 2, Section 4. Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
I don't think we need more proof that the media is biased, & that bias is against the people. There not questioning abusive practices such as NYC's "illegal gun" law is bad enough, but to attempt to justify it is contemptible. They imply it would have been better for society if Mr. Dixon had not been armed when an intruder invaded his home. I find that insulting & I’m pretty sure Mr. Dixon & his family would agree.
The NY Times had this article about the reasons why the D.A. should press charges against the homeowner defending his family.
"Turning a blind eye, even to a figure as sympathetic as Mr. Dixon, would indeed send a message, Mr. Hynes said. If this man is given a pass, what then? Does everyone get to own an illegal gun because, after all, you never know who may turn up someday at the top of the stairs?"
Well, yeah. Everyone should own a gun, even if it's an illegal gun, in case someone does appear at the top of the stairs. In fact, everyone should have a gun in case a NY Times reporter appears at the top of the stairs. It's obvious that the NY Times feels it's better to promote a draconian law that violates the rights as well as the safety of the people than to challenge the government, so I'd say that makes them more of a danger to the public than the average criminal. After all, the average criminal just wants to kill you. The NY Times wants you to exist in a sheepish state of servitude. I'd rather take death myself.
& what the hell is an illegal gun? It's a gun that the city of NY did not give you explicit permission to own. Never mind that owning a weapon in your own home is not remotely subject to anyone else's approval but your own. What the NY Times is advocating is a registration scheme that NYC has already used to confiscate weapons from otherwise law abiding people.
The following is from GOA:
"But why all the fuss about gun owner registration? Quite simply, gun registration has been used -- even in this country -- to later confiscate firearms. One such instance occurred in New York City just a few years ago.
It all began with promises made by New York City officials in the mid-1960s. They wanted to register long guns, over the vocal opposition of the city's gun owners. The city fathers promised they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns.
Gun owners were ordered to get rid of their newly-banned firearms. Those who didn't comply were subject to having their firearms taken away."
There is even a Statsi-like program in NYC, among other places, to encourage citizens to rat out there neighbors who posses "illegal guns".
But I wonder, have any NYC government officials, especially in the D.A.'s office, ever read this:
New York State Consolidated Laws
Civil Rights, Bill of Rights
ARTICLE 2, Section 4. Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
I don't think we need more proof that the media is biased, & that bias is against the people. There not questioning abusive practices such as NYC's "illegal gun" law is bad enough, but to attempt to justify it is contemptible. They imply it would have been better for society if Mr. Dixon had not been armed when an intruder invaded his home. I find that insulting & I’m pretty sure Mr. Dixon & his family would agree.
I found this & was actually taken aback. Well at least slightly.
The History Channel has a poll on it's website. The question is, "Which right or freedom is most crucial to America's democratic way of life?" The results? So far (at 4:00 a.m. MST) out of a total of 10,890 votes (drum roll please)...
Trial by jury 274
Due process 451
Freedom of religion 776
Freedom of speech 2251
Own & possess arms 7138
The History Channel has a poll on it's website. The question is, "Which right or freedom is most crucial to America's democratic way of life?" The results? So far (at 4:00 a.m. MST) out of a total of 10,890 votes (drum roll please)...
Trial by jury 274
Due process 451
Freedom of religion 776
Freedom of speech 2251
Own & possess arms 7138
Dear LEO... by Wayne Hicks. Apparently Mr. Hicks is not content to be bullied by agents of government. It's worth discussing, reading & passing along.
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
More on the NRA:
After getting into a heated discussion with a friend I've concluded that the NRA has some of the best P.R. people on the planet.
The NRA has backed almost every federal gun law (people on the left say it with me - federal gun laws are constitutionally prohibited!) passed since 1934. They are currently backing Project Exile which is a tightening down on enforcing federal gun laws which again, are not supposed to exist.
In most states that have debated a CCW law the NRA has usually backed the most horrible compromised piece of B.S. that could be passed off as a CCW, even when a better CCW was being proposed at the same time.
They back anti gun politicians. No matter how bad a republican incumbent’s record on gun control is, they will ask you to vote for him or her. As a matter of fact, come the next election, look at the NRA's list of recommend politicians, and then compare that to GOA's. GOA rates them: A for extremely pro gun to F for extremely anti gun. Even when there is a choice, most of the NRA's candidates get average or below average grades for the GOA. So there is no fear of voter reprisal from the NRA.
But yet I keep hearing justifications such as these:
The NRA is the biggest kid on the block. So's China: that doesn't mean they're ideologically pure now does it?
The NRA is effective. Yep, they're effective at blowing smoke while they sell you out for a little more political power.
Political power is necessary to preserve our second amendment rights. Yep, but having power & using it for it's intended purpose are two different things.
The NRA has the best chance of winning our rights back. Potentiality is no substitute for actuality. A car has the best chance of beating a horse in a race, but that doesn't mean anything if the driver sits there & idles while the horse is galloping away.
I'll try to make it simple: the NRA is concerned about the NRA. As long as it keeps you thinking it's the best & only chance of getting your rights back, it knows it has you as a member. & the NRA is not above throwing its members a bone. But as far as any progress is concerned, they fight just enough to qualify as a holding action, even though they could do much more. They do this because as long as they aren't gaining ground, or losing just a little ground, then the ones concerned about the second amendment will be scared & will join & renew with the NRA.
Bottom line: If the NRA actually accomplished what they are capable of, they would go back to being a target shooting club with 700,000 members. They don't want that. The execs like the fringes that 5,000,000 dues paying members bring. They don't want to win their way out of a job.
But as I said, they have extremely good P.R. Hell, some of the JPFO's ads have been attributed to the NRA. The JPFO is slightly different, being a non profit organization, but at least they are a no compromise non profit organization. The NRA is so about compromise that they seem afraid to be called too pro gun. Radical extremists can't compromise as effectively. Something about principles interfering with a good deal.
So support the GOA. Support the JPFO. If you want to support the NRA, here's a tip: go ahead & join the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership. You're dollars will be spent a little more effectively & the jump to there from the NRA isn't a long one.
After getting into a heated discussion with a friend I've concluded that the NRA has some of the best P.R. people on the planet.
The NRA has backed almost every federal gun law (people on the left say it with me - federal gun laws are constitutionally prohibited!) passed since 1934. They are currently backing Project Exile which is a tightening down on enforcing federal gun laws which again, are not supposed to exist.
In most states that have debated a CCW law the NRA has usually backed the most horrible compromised piece of B.S. that could be passed off as a CCW, even when a better CCW was being proposed at the same time.
They back anti gun politicians. No matter how bad a republican incumbent’s record on gun control is, they will ask you to vote for him or her. As a matter of fact, come the next election, look at the NRA's list of recommend politicians, and then compare that to GOA's. GOA rates them: A for extremely pro gun to F for extremely anti gun. Even when there is a choice, most of the NRA's candidates get average or below average grades for the GOA. So there is no fear of voter reprisal from the NRA.
But yet I keep hearing justifications such as these:
The NRA is the biggest kid on the block. So's China: that doesn't mean they're ideologically pure now does it?
The NRA is effective. Yep, they're effective at blowing smoke while they sell you out for a little more political power.
Political power is necessary to preserve our second amendment rights. Yep, but having power & using it for it's intended purpose are two different things.
The NRA has the best chance of winning our rights back. Potentiality is no substitute for actuality. A car has the best chance of beating a horse in a race, but that doesn't mean anything if the driver sits there & idles while the horse is galloping away.
I'll try to make it simple: the NRA is concerned about the NRA. As long as it keeps you thinking it's the best & only chance of getting your rights back, it knows it has you as a member. & the NRA is not above throwing its members a bone. But as far as any progress is concerned, they fight just enough to qualify as a holding action, even though they could do much more. They do this because as long as they aren't gaining ground, or losing just a little ground, then the ones concerned about the second amendment will be scared & will join & renew with the NRA.
Bottom line: If the NRA actually accomplished what they are capable of, they would go back to being a target shooting club with 700,000 members. They don't want that. The execs like the fringes that 5,000,000 dues paying members bring. They don't want to win their way out of a job.
But as I said, they have extremely good P.R. Hell, some of the JPFO's ads have been attributed to the NRA. The JPFO is slightly different, being a non profit organization, but at least they are a no compromise non profit organization. The NRA is so about compromise that they seem afraid to be called too pro gun. Radical extremists can't compromise as effectively. Something about principles interfering with a good deal.
So support the GOA. Support the JPFO. If you want to support the NRA, here's a tip: go ahead & join the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership. You're dollars will be spent a little more effectively & the jump to there from the NRA isn't a long one.
Monday, February 10, 2003
NRAWOL. A very interesting site that deals with the NRA, it's history & objectives.
If you get the feeling that i don't like the NRA, you're right. But understand that my dislike for that particular group is not fueled by a dislike of firearms or the second amendment. To the contrary, it is because I am pro-gun that I find much of what the NRA has done or attempts to do offensive.
As explained on the 'our mission' link at NRAWOL:
"NRAwol was created as a clearing house for information on the NRA, only from a pro-gun point of view. If we can expose the NRA's compromises on a daily basis, and compile them all right here, the NRA may have to re-think their terrible political strategy.
Never has a web site so accurately assessed the NRA and its tactics.
This web site does not seek to denigrate the good members of the NRA, but instead to inform them about what their organization is really doing.
This site will continue to add information regarding the NRA's support of gun control measures as we verify and process the information."
If you get the feeling that i don't like the NRA, you're right. But understand that my dislike for that particular group is not fueled by a dislike of firearms or the second amendment. To the contrary, it is because I am pro-gun that I find much of what the NRA has done or attempts to do offensive.
As explained on the 'our mission' link at NRAWOL:
"NRAwol was created as a clearing house for information on the NRA, only from a pro-gun point of view. If we can expose the NRA's compromises on a daily basis, and compile them all right here, the NRA may have to re-think their terrible political strategy.
Never has a web site so accurately assessed the NRA and its tactics.
This web site does not seek to denigrate the good members of the NRA, but instead to inform them about what their organization is really doing.
This site will continue to add information regarding the NRA's support of gun control measures as we verify and process the information."
This is about "Project Gestapo" penned by Dudley Brown, head honcho over at RMGO. It touches on the evils of Project Exile, some of the problems with the BATF, & the NRA's duplicity. It's fairly brief considering all that could be written upon those three subject but a good read nontheless.
This is a brief opinion about the BATF's move to the Justice Department as well as some BATF history from the pen of Neal Knox.
Also check out a brief rant'o'mine on the subject, as well as this resource on why the BATF means to me what it means to me.
But I will maintain that the move will give the BATF much undeserved esteem. I doubt their history of transgressions against the people will cease. & lest we forget: (Temptations sing!) All federal gun laws are constitutionally prohibited!!!
An agency that enforces a law that violates the U.S. Constitution shouldn't be expected to respect the U.S. Code, or departmental regulations. Face it, when you make you're living violatiing the second, what's keeping you from violating the fourth? or fifth? etc...
Also check out a brief rant'o'mine on the subject, as well as this resource on why the BATF means to me what it means to me.
But I will maintain that the move will give the BATF much undeserved esteem. I doubt their history of transgressions against the people will cease. & lest we forget: (Temptations sing!) All federal gun laws are constitutionally prohibited!!!
An agency that enforces a law that violates the U.S. Constitution shouldn't be expected to respect the U.S. Code, or departmental regulations. Face it, when you make you're living violatiing the second, what's keeping you from violating the fourth? or fifth? etc...
I found this link on HowAppealing. It's an Op/ed about the need for more gun control. It criticizes the gun control lobby as not pushing for more strict measures, such as the ban of all handguns. It seems to be motivated by the authors' personal loss. (Her brother & his girlfriend were killed by the girlfriends' deranged mother using a Glock)
"Most rights are relative: to ensure one right, you almost always have to restrict another, and surely the dubious right to carry a handgun in one's purse must be trumped by the more basic rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, which California's gun laws failed to guarantee my brother -- and his 9-year-old surviving son. These basic rights cannot be ensured as long as the person next door or at the next table or the next gas pump is free to carry a remarkably powerful weapon. I defy the NRA to tell my family, or the families of the 2-year-old boy or the 7-year-old boy or any of that week's victims, that the handgun ownership they have so successfully protected with such arguments is really worth this mountainous daily toll."
Well, first of all, 60,000 are killed every year in car crashes, accidents, etc. Now driving is considered by most a privilege (even though it should be considered a right). Yet I hear no cries for the banishment of cars, as driving them is merely a privilege & they kill at least twice as many people as firearms do.
Secondly, it is in no way necessary to restrict a right so that another may flourish. Does choosing your own religion suffer when your neighbor can speak his mind? Or does your protection against unreasonable searches diminish because your cousin can start his own newspaper? Rights can exist without trampling on the rights of another. Actual rights that is. One must learn that there is no "right to be not offended", a "right to be free from fear", or a "right to free public education & healthcare". If you don't want to be offended by what someone’s' saying, ask them to leave your home, or you can leave theirs, or leave the public space you're both in. If you don't ever want to be scared, you're just out of luck unless you're suicidal. Death is the only thing I think that can eliminate fear, unless you're not on good terms with God, but that's another topic. If you want education & healthcare, seek it out yourself w/o expecting a governmental handout to get it. Besides, socialized education & medicine is usually substandard in quality.
Lastly the Right of Self Defense is one of the most basic rights there is. Owning & carrying weapons is essential to the fulfillment of this right, unless you're 6'4'', 220lbs. & bulletproof. If it were the cause of 30,000 deaths a year, I'd still say it was worth it. But in actuality the cause of these murders is not the availability of weapons. It is the socio/economic factors & the willfully made bad choices by individuals that lead to their misuse. Banning guns won't change things much, there were killers before guns were available, I'd bet if all guns were magically removed there'd still be killers.
Guns laws aren't the solution. In fact they may be part of the problem. In a place where everyone is capable of defending his/herself & their loved ones, I'd bet confrontational crime wouldn't be as prevalent as in places where it's illegal to own weapons of defense, let alone use them.
Emotion is a powerful thing. It can make a person blame an inanimate object for a very real tragedy that they've experienced. & it can make them believe that by ridding society of the inanimate objects they can rid society of the problem. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that & all California's gun laws will do is make it easier for the criminals - the ones who own guns & use them for illicit purposes despite any laws to the contrary. & more laws will worsen the situation.
"So why do we continue to arm anyone without a criminal record who can pass a safety test and wants a gun?"
To answer the question, because they don't have a criminal record. It's a very archaic concept called “innocent until proven guilty" & guilt must be proven before a right, or in some cases even a privilege may be denied. More importantly however, it's their Right to own a weapon. If it makes you uncomfortable that they might do something evil with it, then by all means, avoid them if you wish. When you start infringing upon their right to own a weapon because they might abuse that right, then hang up your typewriter because you one day might commit libel against someone. Most arguments against the second amendment can be switched around with very little effort to be used against the first, or fourth, or any of the remainder.
But you see where this leads don't you? California has the most restrictive gun laws in the Union so far. Crime hasn't gone down. & California is likely to pass even more restrictive laws. (This is one reason why I haven't considered moving out there since '95 when a friend made me an offer. It's also a reason why I haven't visited there.)
The more gun laws they pass, the more they need to pass because the previous ones just aren't as effective as they'd liked. In the end, every person in favor of gun control will realize that they won't be satisfied until all guns are banned. Don't let anyone fool you - whether they realize it or not they won't rest until no one has guns but the military & police. & the criminals.
"Most rights are relative: to ensure one right, you almost always have to restrict another, and surely the dubious right to carry a handgun in one's purse must be trumped by the more basic rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, which California's gun laws failed to guarantee my brother -- and his 9-year-old surviving son. These basic rights cannot be ensured as long as the person next door or at the next table or the next gas pump is free to carry a remarkably powerful weapon. I defy the NRA to tell my family, or the families of the 2-year-old boy or the 7-year-old boy or any of that week's victims, that the handgun ownership they have so successfully protected with such arguments is really worth this mountainous daily toll."
Well, first of all, 60,000 are killed every year in car crashes, accidents, etc. Now driving is considered by most a privilege (even though it should be considered a right). Yet I hear no cries for the banishment of cars, as driving them is merely a privilege & they kill at least twice as many people as firearms do.
Secondly, it is in no way necessary to restrict a right so that another may flourish. Does choosing your own religion suffer when your neighbor can speak his mind? Or does your protection against unreasonable searches diminish because your cousin can start his own newspaper? Rights can exist without trampling on the rights of another. Actual rights that is. One must learn that there is no "right to be not offended", a "right to be free from fear", or a "right to free public education & healthcare". If you don't want to be offended by what someone’s' saying, ask them to leave your home, or you can leave theirs, or leave the public space you're both in. If you don't ever want to be scared, you're just out of luck unless you're suicidal. Death is the only thing I think that can eliminate fear, unless you're not on good terms with God, but that's another topic. If you want education & healthcare, seek it out yourself w/o expecting a governmental handout to get it. Besides, socialized education & medicine is usually substandard in quality.
Lastly the Right of Self Defense is one of the most basic rights there is. Owning & carrying weapons is essential to the fulfillment of this right, unless you're 6'4'', 220lbs. & bulletproof. If it were the cause of 30,000 deaths a year, I'd still say it was worth it. But in actuality the cause of these murders is not the availability of weapons. It is the socio/economic factors & the willfully made bad choices by individuals that lead to their misuse. Banning guns won't change things much, there were killers before guns were available, I'd bet if all guns were magically removed there'd still be killers.
Guns laws aren't the solution. In fact they may be part of the problem. In a place where everyone is capable of defending his/herself & their loved ones, I'd bet confrontational crime wouldn't be as prevalent as in places where it's illegal to own weapons of defense, let alone use them.
Emotion is a powerful thing. It can make a person blame an inanimate object for a very real tragedy that they've experienced. & it can make them believe that by ridding society of the inanimate objects they can rid society of the problem. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that & all California's gun laws will do is make it easier for the criminals - the ones who own guns & use them for illicit purposes despite any laws to the contrary. & more laws will worsen the situation.
"So why do we continue to arm anyone without a criminal record who can pass a safety test and wants a gun?"
To answer the question, because they don't have a criminal record. It's a very archaic concept called “innocent until proven guilty" & guilt must be proven before a right, or in some cases even a privilege may be denied. More importantly however, it's their Right to own a weapon. If it makes you uncomfortable that they might do something evil with it, then by all means, avoid them if you wish. When you start infringing upon their right to own a weapon because they might abuse that right, then hang up your typewriter because you one day might commit libel against someone. Most arguments against the second amendment can be switched around with very little effort to be used against the first, or fourth, or any of the remainder.
But you see where this leads don't you? California has the most restrictive gun laws in the Union so far. Crime hasn't gone down. & California is likely to pass even more restrictive laws. (This is one reason why I haven't considered moving out there since '95 when a friend made me an offer. It's also a reason why I haven't visited there.)
The more gun laws they pass, the more they need to pass because the previous ones just aren't as effective as they'd liked. In the end, every person in favor of gun control will realize that they won't be satisfied until all guns are banned. Don't let anyone fool you - whether they realize it or not they won't rest until no one has guns but the military & police. & the criminals.
This is from our good friends at the NRA. They want to remind everyone in Colorado that their CCW bill is up for a review in a state senate committee.
Funny though, the NRA doesn't even mention the CCW bill that's still alive in the house. It's the one supported by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a very pro-gun group.
But let's be fair about this. There is a comparison of the major proposals of the two bills.
Here's the comparison.
Now guess which one the NRA sponsors???
If you guessed the least intrusive, least expensive, & least prone to establishing a confiscation list, then you must have fell for that last NRA bumper sticker you read. The NRA's bill is sponsored by Sen. Chlouber & is called SB 24. The RMGO's bill is sponsored by Sen. Lamborn & is called SB 63.
Now we can all see that SB 63 is more desirable. So why does the NRA support the more intrusive bill? Easy: they’re afraid of being labeled too pro-gun. They also support Project Exile, & have supported numerous gun control measures, specifically the Brady Bill & the High Capacity Magazine Ban. They did it to limit damage by guns bills they claimed would have passed anyway. But don't take my word for it, call them up & ask them yourself why their afraid to be seen as being too pro-gun.
& just a note, I would not support either of the above CCW bills, simply because they do require a permit, & a fee & you must have governmental permission to exercise a right. If I had to choose between the two I would support SB 63 & strongly oppose SB 24, but I would like to imagine I'm not at a point where compromising is the only option.
RMGO has long claimed it is a no compromise group. Until I saw the details of SB 63 I had no reason to doubt that. I still think that they are the most pro-gun local group around the rocky mountain area, but this falls a bit short of my idea of Vermont style, which is how they advertised the bill. In fairness they have said subsequently that "Vermont style bill" is not the same as “a Vermont bill" & that their members wanted something now. They claim that a true Vermont bill has no chance of passing the Colorado legislature & while they feel it'd definitely be preferable, they just don't see it as possible.
In their explanations they did make some valid points & I can understand the nature of politics in a given area. I can also understand a bill having no chance of passing, again due to the nature of politics. An interesting twist is that the Republican Governor of Colorado Bill Owens has opposed Vermont style CCW bills in the past, & has said he would not support a bill that was too liberal. & here I thought Republicans were supposed to be for smaller government & more individual freedom.
So RMGO has had to make some hard choices. I do not agree with them but other than this issue I have found no fault with them or their methods. They are definitely preferable to the NRA, so if you live in the Rocky Mountain states & have been thinking of joining or renewing your NRA membership, I'd suggest joining the RMGO instead. & also join &/or support GOA & JPFO. All three of these groups are worth investing in. While they don't have the members’ base or political clout of the NRA, they at least won't sell you out for their own political growth.
Funny though, the NRA doesn't even mention the CCW bill that's still alive in the house. It's the one supported by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a very pro-gun group.
But let's be fair about this. There is a comparison of the major proposals of the two bills.
Here's the comparison.
Now guess which one the NRA sponsors???
If you guessed the least intrusive, least expensive, & least prone to establishing a confiscation list, then you must have fell for that last NRA bumper sticker you read. The NRA's bill is sponsored by Sen. Chlouber & is called SB 24. The RMGO's bill is sponsored by Sen. Lamborn & is called SB 63.
Now we can all see that SB 63 is more desirable. So why does the NRA support the more intrusive bill? Easy: they’re afraid of being labeled too pro-gun. They also support Project Exile, & have supported numerous gun control measures, specifically the Brady Bill & the High Capacity Magazine Ban. They did it to limit damage by guns bills they claimed would have passed anyway. But don't take my word for it, call them up & ask them yourself why their afraid to be seen as being too pro-gun.
& just a note, I would not support either of the above CCW bills, simply because they do require a permit, & a fee & you must have governmental permission to exercise a right. If I had to choose between the two I would support SB 63 & strongly oppose SB 24, but I would like to imagine I'm not at a point where compromising is the only option.
RMGO has long claimed it is a no compromise group. Until I saw the details of SB 63 I had no reason to doubt that. I still think that they are the most pro-gun local group around the rocky mountain area, but this falls a bit short of my idea of Vermont style, which is how they advertised the bill. In fairness they have said subsequently that "Vermont style bill" is not the same as “a Vermont bill" & that their members wanted something now. They claim that a true Vermont bill has no chance of passing the Colorado legislature & while they feel it'd definitely be preferable, they just don't see it as possible.
In their explanations they did make some valid points & I can understand the nature of politics in a given area. I can also understand a bill having no chance of passing, again due to the nature of politics. An interesting twist is that the Republican Governor of Colorado Bill Owens has opposed Vermont style CCW bills in the past, & has said he would not support a bill that was too liberal. & here I thought Republicans were supposed to be for smaller government & more individual freedom.
So RMGO has had to make some hard choices. I do not agree with them but other than this issue I have found no fault with them or their methods. They are definitely preferable to the NRA, so if you live in the Rocky Mountain states & have been thinking of joining or renewing your NRA membership, I'd suggest joining the RMGO instead. & also join &/or support GOA & JPFO. All three of these groups are worth investing in. While they don't have the members’ base or political clout of the NRA, they at least won't sell you out for their own political growth.
Yep, those California gun laws may seem a bit draconian, but they sure do keep guns out of the hands of undesirables.
Course I do doubt that a soldier would be trying to buy a compact 9mm, unless all he ever learned about guns he learned in boot camp. Most of the soldiers I hear about that buy supplemental weapons are not trying to have a hide out piece, they're trying to buy something that actually might stop an attacker, like a .40S&W or a .45ACP. I have even heard that troops in Afghanistan are commandeering every target rifle the shooting team nearest their chain of command has.
Why, you may ask?
'Cause the rifle teams all use M-14's. That's a Rifle, chambered for a real cartridge, the 7.62x51, as opposed to an assault carbine, chambered in a varmint round, the 5.56x45. Not that there's anything wrong with the M-4. In fact if I was ever to be attacked by a swarming mob of groundhogs, that'd be an adequate weapon to have. But if it was me who was facing, for the right or wrong reasons, a human enemy that was trying to kill me, I'd have a Garand in '06. Yeah, you can hear the 'ping' when it's time to change ammo, but that's only if they can get close enough.
Think about it:
AK-47 chambered in 7.62x39 effective range of about 300 yards
AK-74 chambered in 5.45x39 effective range of about 300 yards
M-16/M-4 chambered in 5.56x45 effective range of about 300 yards
M-1 Garand chambered in 7.62x51 or 7.62x63 ( a.k.a. .30-06) effective range of about 600 yards
But as I said, fortunately California's gun laws don't allow undesirables to purchase weapons. Especially when they're needed.
Course I do doubt that a soldier would be trying to buy a compact 9mm, unless all he ever learned about guns he learned in boot camp. Most of the soldiers I hear about that buy supplemental weapons are not trying to have a hide out piece, they're trying to buy something that actually might stop an attacker, like a .40S&W or a .45ACP. I have even heard that troops in Afghanistan are commandeering every target rifle the shooting team nearest their chain of command has.
Why, you may ask?
'Cause the rifle teams all use M-14's. That's a Rifle, chambered for a real cartridge, the 7.62x51, as opposed to an assault carbine, chambered in a varmint round, the 5.56x45. Not that there's anything wrong with the M-4. In fact if I was ever to be attacked by a swarming mob of groundhogs, that'd be an adequate weapon to have. But if it was me who was facing, for the right or wrong reasons, a human enemy that was trying to kill me, I'd have a Garand in '06. Yeah, you can hear the 'ping' when it's time to change ammo, but that's only if they can get close enough.
Think about it:
AK-47 chambered in 7.62x39 effective range of about 300 yards
AK-74 chambered in 5.45x39 effective range of about 300 yards
M-16/M-4 chambered in 5.56x45 effective range of about 300 yards
M-1 Garand chambered in 7.62x51 or 7.62x63 ( a.k.a. .30-06) effective range of about 600 yards
But as I said, fortunately California's gun laws don't allow undesirables to purchase weapons. Especially when they're needed.
I am interested in knowing the details of this case.
" Ronnie Gayle Perkins, 58, of 120 Hiawatha Trail, was charged with dealing in firearms without a license, possessing semiautomatic assault weapons, furnishing false identification to a firearms dealer and possessing unregistered firearms.
The warrant states that illegal guns can be found at Delta Gun Sales on 514 Mockingbird Lane. The address for Perkins’ business is 514 North Broadway. Another error in the legal document states that the warrant is to be served in “Georgetown, Clark County.”
'I’ve got the Constitution on my side, if that means anything anymore,' Perkins said. Perkins, who says he cannot afford an attorney at this time, plans to fight the battle as much as possible. ‘I have my mouth and my intellect,” he said. “And if there’s any justice at all, I’ll have a chance to use them.' ”
Now I do not put that much weight in indictments. Aside from that whole innocent 'till proven guilty" thing I know D.A.'s who brag that they could indict a ham sandwich.
But it would be interesting to find out exactly what happened.
" Ronnie Gayle Perkins, 58, of 120 Hiawatha Trail, was charged with dealing in firearms without a license, possessing semiautomatic assault weapons, furnishing false identification to a firearms dealer and possessing unregistered firearms.
The warrant states that illegal guns can be found at Delta Gun Sales on 514 Mockingbird Lane. The address for Perkins’ business is 514 North Broadway. Another error in the legal document states that the warrant is to be served in “Georgetown, Clark County.”
'I’ve got the Constitution on my side, if that means anything anymore,' Perkins said. Perkins, who says he cannot afford an attorney at this time, plans to fight the battle as much as possible. ‘I have my mouth and my intellect,” he said. “And if there’s any justice at all, I’ll have a chance to use them.' ”
Now I do not put that much weight in indictments. Aside from that whole innocent 'till proven guilty" thing I know D.A.'s who brag that they could indict a ham sandwich.
But it would be interesting to find out exactly what happened.
A terrible shooting has occurred in NJ. I am saddened for the victims & their families.
One thing I have noticed over the years is that most of these cowardly attacks on innocents occur at schools, bars, or governmental buildings. I have also noticed is that no mass shootings occur at rifle ranges, pistol ranges, police stations, military bases, or gun stores.
I could be wrong but I'm thinking that this has a lot to do with the ability of those who would be victims to fight back.
One thing I have noticed over the years is that most of these cowardly attacks on innocents occur at schools, bars, or governmental buildings. I have also noticed is that no mass shootings occur at rifle ranges, pistol ranges, police stations, military bases, or gun stores.
I could be wrong but I'm thinking that this has a lot to do with the ability of those who would be victims to fight back.
Sunday, February 09, 2003
This has allready been picked up by many other bloggers, but I felt it worth mentioning. There is evidence of plagiarisim in a press release from Marylanders Against Handgun Abuse.
as pointed out by the Instapundit piece,
"Of course, as the reader who sent this link noted, it's really the Associated Press who should be embarrassed -- for publishing a news story that could be turned into an advocacy-group press release with only a few words being altered."
as pointed out by the Instapundit piece,
"Of course, as the reader who sent this link noted, it's really the Associated Press who should be embarrassed -- for publishing a news story that could be turned into an advocacy-group press release with only a few words being altered."
Here is a copy of the affidavit filed by Robert Ricker in support of various lawsuits against the firearms manufacturing industry. For a little background, please look at my previous comments.
Again, I find nothing factually damning in any of Mr. Ricker's accounts. It mainly seems to be opinion about what the firearms industry can do to slow down the illegal trade in firearms. Not suprisingly it seems to be a lot of the same opinions voiced over the years by Handgun Control Inc, the Brady Campaigns, the VPC, etc.
Here are various pieces concerning Mr. Ricker's statements: Brady Campaign statement, a NY Times op/ed, an AP report picked up in the SF Gate & an article from Keepandbeararms.com which brings up some inportant points about Mr. Rickers testimony & credibility.
But what the affidavit does show is that certain members of the firearms industry were becoming suspicious of Mr. Ricker's opinions & interactions with Mr. Clinton, a notoriously anti-gun president. I would assume that Mr. Ricker has long held views that were contradictory to the idea of having less gun control. On the surface it seems like he was just calling for voluntary reform within the business that would make things easier on the gun industry. & to an extent that was the case: by pushing for the oluntary implementation of certain programs, then there would be no need to legislatively require those programs. But what must be remembered is that all of the programs Mr. Ricker seemed to be in favor of have never shown any positive effects & in some cases are detrimental to any effort to curtail the legal burden on citizens who own arms & manufacturers & dealers who supply those arms.
For example, the idea of voluntarily supplying gun locks with each firearm. Yes, there are situations where gun locks are useful, & some where they are essential. What Mr. Ricker & others who support these programs fail to realize is that most people who would use a gun lock would purchase it seperately. Throwing it in with the gun does little more than drive up the price of said gun. I doubt a person would use a lock included with the gun if they did not plan on using a lock even if they had to purchase it seperately. Consequently, there are situations where a gun lock is not a good idea. I would hate to fumble with a combination or a key & then have to look for my ammo & load the piece if I woke up in the middle of the night to the sounds of people breaking into my place. Any arm bought for the purpose of self defense should be immedietely accessible. Children are a legitimate consideration, as well as leaving the arm unattended, but as I've said before, I doubt the inclusion of a lock with the gun would effect a persons decision to use a lock. They sell all sorts of locking devices at every gun store that I remember being in. Any person purchasing a gun has the oppurtunity to purchase a lock at the same time. If a person does not wish to buy a lock, it shouldn't be thrust upon him along with the cost of said lock added to the gun.
Nevertheless Mr. Ricker touts the idea of mandatory inclusion as a proven method to reduce accidental shootings. There are other examples where his views can be easily & effectively contradicted, but unfortunately I don't have the time to go into them in detail. Perhaps in the future I'll list some of the bigger anti-gun ideas & their counter-arguements.
Again, I find nothing factually damning in any of Mr. Ricker's accounts. It mainly seems to be opinion about what the firearms industry can do to slow down the illegal trade in firearms. Not suprisingly it seems to be a lot of the same opinions voiced over the years by Handgun Control Inc, the Brady Campaigns, the VPC, etc.
Here are various pieces concerning Mr. Ricker's statements: Brady Campaign statement, a NY Times op/ed, an AP report picked up in the SF Gate & an article from Keepandbeararms.com which brings up some inportant points about Mr. Rickers testimony & credibility.
But what the affidavit does show is that certain members of the firearms industry were becoming suspicious of Mr. Ricker's opinions & interactions with Mr. Clinton, a notoriously anti-gun president. I would assume that Mr. Ricker has long held views that were contradictory to the idea of having less gun control. On the surface it seems like he was just calling for voluntary reform within the business that would make things easier on the gun industry. & to an extent that was the case: by pushing for the oluntary implementation of certain programs, then there would be no need to legislatively require those programs. But what must be remembered is that all of the programs Mr. Ricker seemed to be in favor of have never shown any positive effects & in some cases are detrimental to any effort to curtail the legal burden on citizens who own arms & manufacturers & dealers who supply those arms.
For example, the idea of voluntarily supplying gun locks with each firearm. Yes, there are situations where gun locks are useful, & some where they are essential. What Mr. Ricker & others who support these programs fail to realize is that most people who would use a gun lock would purchase it seperately. Throwing it in with the gun does little more than drive up the price of said gun. I doubt a person would use a lock included with the gun if they did not plan on using a lock even if they had to purchase it seperately. Consequently, there are situations where a gun lock is not a good idea. I would hate to fumble with a combination or a key & then have to look for my ammo & load the piece if I woke up in the middle of the night to the sounds of people breaking into my place. Any arm bought for the purpose of self defense should be immedietely accessible. Children are a legitimate consideration, as well as leaving the arm unattended, but as I've said before, I doubt the inclusion of a lock with the gun would effect a persons decision to use a lock. They sell all sorts of locking devices at every gun store that I remember being in. Any person purchasing a gun has the oppurtunity to purchase a lock at the same time. If a person does not wish to buy a lock, it shouldn't be thrust upon him along with the cost of said lock added to the gun.
Nevertheless Mr. Ricker touts the idea of mandatory inclusion as a proven method to reduce accidental shootings. There are other examples where his views can be easily & effectively contradicted, but unfortunately I don't have the time to go into them in detail. Perhaps in the future I'll list some of the bigger anti-gun ideas & their counter-arguements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)