Thursday, April 17, 2003

Gun Policy & the Second Amendment. It was the subject of a debate held at Harvard Law School & featured Eugene Volokh, Alan Dershowitz, & Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center.
While making the blog rounds I found this post at the Volokh Conspiracy which links to the debate in its entirety. It's just under two hours long but worth the investment in time.
For your conveinience you may access the site with the Realplayer link to the debate in question here.

Wednesday, April 16, 2003

I mentioned in an earlier post that Keep And Bear had a poll about whether or not you'd vote for Bush if he continues his support for a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban. For ease of reference here are the updated stats:

If Congress votes to re-authorize the 1994 Clinton/Feinstein federal so-called "Assault Weapons" ban, gives the bill to President Bush and he signs it into law, would you still vote for him in his bid for re-election to the Presidency in 2004?

Hell No, and I'll tell all of my friends to abandon him, too! 80.2% 4782 votes
No. 12.2% 728 votes
Yes. 4.6% 275 votes
Yes, I would still vote for him, even after he proves that he's a traitor. 3.0% 178 votes
Total Votes: 5963

Update: here are the stats as of 9:00p.m. MDT

Hell No, and I'll tell all of my friends to abandon him, too! 79.2% 6093 votes
No. 12.6% 971 votes
Yes. 5.2% 401 votes
Yes, I would still vote for him, even after he proves that he's a traitor. 2.9% 224 votes
Total Votes: 7689

Update: here are the stats as of 5:30 a.m. MDT
Hell No, and I'll tell all of my friends to abandon him, too! 79.5% 6765 votes
No. 12.4% 1059 votes
Yes. 5.1% 435 votes
Yes, I would still vote for him, even after he proves that he's a traitor. 2.9% 248 votes
Total Votes: 8507

Update: The final tally is
Hell No, and I'll tell all of my friends to abandon him, too! 79.6% 6903 votes
No. 12.4% 1072 votes
Yes. 5.1% 446 votes
Yes, I would still vote for him, even after he proves that he's a traitor. 3.0% 256 votes
Total Votes: 8677

That's 7,975 out of 8,677 (92%) who will not vote for Bush if he continues this support of the assault weapons ban.

Tuesday, April 15, 2003

April 15th. We're roughly 203 days away from the elections. 29 weeks or so. 6 &1/2 months more or less. Almost as far away from the elections as you can get in a calander year. What a perfect time for the government to extort from you! The idea is that in 6 &1/2 months you'll not be quite as angry about the money they take from you, so you won't have a problem voting for people who'll keep on taking & possibly people who will take more. A scam worthy of Al Capone.

On a more positive note it is officially "Buy a Gun to Spite Michael Moore Day". So go to your favorite gun store, go to your favorite sporting goods retailer, go to Wal-Mart if you must. But now's a good time to splurge on that firearm you've been thinking about buying. "Course, I imagine if you really want to tick of Michael Moore, you could always buy one gun at a store & buy another on the private market. I bet he'd hate thinking about how many people are buying & selling guns w/o paperwork or governmental permission.

But in honor of the usual significance of April 15th, I offer you these previous blogs:

Taxes & why the filing date is in April

Jason A. Junge on The Social Contract by Rousseau & how it could apply to our taxation system

Neal Boortz on taxes

Bush budget increase includes funds for finding 'tax cheats'

CATO slams Bush's budget

IRSS is confused by the tax laws

California is considering tax on ammunition & components

52 year old woman is on hunger strike in DC to protest tax laws

Kyle Williams writes about the "Life of a teen-age taxpayer"

Nevada court bans Irwin Schiffs book

Monday, April 14, 2003

Assume The Position has an article on the recent massacre of nearly 1,000 civilians in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

"Warring parties in the Democratic Republic of Congo signed a post-war political settlement in South Africa last Wednesday.
Just one day later, almost 1,000 civilians were massacred by tribal militias in northerneast region on the country."

(excerpted from this CNN piece & quoted in Assume The Position's post)

Seems this is a situation the UN is ignoring, or at least not giving a high priority. Not that I'm surprised, but I would hope this will help people to understand that the UN is abotu governments, not people. As long as they are involved in some way they're satisfied, even if it's ineffective for the people they claim to be helping.

Knight-Ridder thinks it's a surprise move that Bush is backing an extension of the Assult Weapons/High Capacity Magazine ban.

"The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law,' White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder."

To clarify, this ban affects weapons that are semi-automatic & possess certain cosmetic features. An assault weapon is a carbine or short rifle capable of fully automatic fire chambered in a medium powered cartridge.
Further it restricts the manufacture of new magazines to ten rounds or less. Considering many firearms' magazines that are affected by this prohibition were originally designed to hold in excess of ten cartridges, it would more properly be called a normal capacity magazine ban.

Finally, Bush only surprised those who think the NRA is fighting for our Rights. His father enacted an executive order prohibiting the import of 'assault weapons' which set the precedent for Congress to ban their manufacture domestically. It is no surprise that he would support such a measure. In fact he said he would during his campaign. The NRA didn't mention that did they?

The bill sunsets in 2004, but some senators will soon propose legislation to make the assault weapons ban permanent. If you listen to the NRA they'll tell you there are enough votes to prevent extending the assault weapons ban, but in reality there are very few truly pro-gun/pro-Rights legislators in either house.
So write your representatives & Senators & demand they not let this unconstitutional law be continued. Write Bush & tell him that unless he changes his mind about a few things, then you'll vote Libertarian in '04. In fact, tell him you'll vote Libertarian in '04 anyway, unless the Republicans decide to nominate Ron Paul as their candidate.
No matter what, don't be surprised by Bush perjuring himself. He did take an oath to uphold & defend the Constitution form all enemies, even domestic ones. & I don't think the Second Amendment excluded 'assault weapons'. In fact, they were its very purpose.

Update: has a poll up that's worth looking into. It asks, "If Congress votes to re-authorize the 1994 Clinton/Feinstein federal so-called "Assault Weapons" ban, gives the bill to President Bush and he signs it into law, would you still vote for him in his bid for re-election to the Presidency in 2004?"

The results as of 4:45 a.m. MDT are:

"Hell No, & I'll tell all my friends to abandon him too" 862 votes 80.9%
"No" 139 votes 13.1%
"Yes" 39 votes 3.7%
"Yes, I would still vote for him, even after he proves that he's a traitor" 25 votes 2.3%

Total 1065 votes

In Las vegas, Nevada U.S. District Court Judge Lloyd D. George extended a temporary ban on a book written by Irwin Schiff.

"The position of 'the people's' representative, Department of Justice lawyer Evan Davis: '...The First Amendment does not protect speech advocating illegal conduct..."

It seems they overlooked this:
"...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances..." - U.S. Constitution (Amendment One)"

In it I find no exception to content, even content that advocates possibly illegal activities.

"Schiff argued back that paying federal income taxes is voluntary.
Judge George interrupted Schiff's counter saying: 'That's your opinion.'' Strangely, the same was not mentioned of the Justice Department's claim.
Schiff replied, 'It's fact. OK, it's also my opinion that 2 and 2 is 4.''

Ya can't say that Mr. Schiff can't handle himself verbally.

The ACLU has filed a brief on Mr. Schiffs behalf, but made clear it did not endorse his position on taxes.

I have read the book in question. I cannot say that I find everything Mr. Schiff believes to be acceptable to my understanding of things, but there are two points worth mentioning: !. The judge who presided over Mr. Schiff's trial is beneath contempt & 2. Mr. Schiff's main point seems to be valid, that point being that there is nothing in the IRS code that specifically states that an individual is required to pay taxes on money that is made through employment, or earning money.
To complicate matters, the IRSS has taken the position that to ask such a question is frivolous. Judges have gone along with it & those found guilty of filing frivolous claims against the IRSS are summarily punished. If Mr. Schiff's basic premise is actually wrong, wouldn't it be easier & more productive to prove it rather than trying to intimidate people into not asking the question?

The We The People organization has been attempting to obtain answers from the IRSS & the Treasury Department for some time, but with no success. They even propose that we stop paying taxes untill the questions are addressed. To date they have been refused any answers & threatened with legal action if they stop paying taxes.

Again, wouldn't it be in the governments interest to answer these questions? To ignore them implies that they have merit.
Kyle Williams writes about the "Life of a teen-age taxpayer"

"Lastly, I am 14 years old. Memo to government: That's a whole four years under 18. What happens when you turn 18? Hopefully you register to vote, but primarily, you have the right to vote at that age. So, what exactly does that mean? It means that I am a minor, too young to vote, and I must pay federal and state income taxes to a government that does not represent me."

After you read this & are good & ticked off, visit & then write your representatives & your senators.

Nicki Fellenzer asks, "What the hell is wrong with women?"

"It appears the majority of women (69 percent, according to an ABC poll conducted in 2002) support stricter gun control laws. They’re afraid, they’re needy, they’re dependent and they’re clueless. Why would any woman or women’s group claim to have women’s best interests at heart, while unilaterally trying to disarm them? And worse yet, why would the women who support these organizations trust these organizations when they clearly have a political agenda in mind?
Well, here are a few clues:..."

Definitely worth a read.
Virginia has a candidate worth voting for.

"[ Rep. L. Scott] Lingamfelter, a retired U.S. Army colonel and Desert Storm veteran, quoted C.S. Lewis to explain how common sense conservatism safeguards freedom.
'Those who would torment us for our own good will torment us our life long, because they do so with the permission of their own conscience,' Lingamfelter said, quoting the author of the 'Narnia' books for children.

If he is re-elected, Lingamfelter said, he will continue to fight for the rights of Virginians to keep and bear arms.
'My idea of gun control is this: I'll control mine. You control yours,' Lingamfelter said."

Lingamfelter is running for reelection in the Virginia House of Delegates.

Sunday, April 13, 2003

Alphecca has an interesting post about the loss of Rights in England.

Coyote At The Dogshow has a post about a proposed change in tax law: moving the filing date to the Monday before elections. Permalinks are down but it's the second post down as we speak (or type rather), or look it up by date - 11:15 a.m. 04/13/03.

Clayton Cramer has a post about Sean Penn & his Concealed Carry Permit.

Over at Instapundit Glenn Reynolds tells the tale of U.S. Marines pulling back so Iraqi civilians can hunt down the volunteeers that are still fighting for Hussein.

Over at IsThatLegal Eric Howard has something that may bring some clarity to Wyoming Rep. Barbara Cubin's remarks from earlier in the week. The gist is she was making an argument against stereotyping but was interupted & her words were taken out of her intended context.

CNN hired armed security to accompany reporters in Iraq. A Parisian media 'watchdog' has commented that this goes too far.

"This behavior creates a dangerous precedent that could imperil all other reporters covering this conflict and others in the future,' Robert Menard, RSF secretary general, said in a statement.
Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF) made the comments after an incident in the northern Iraqi town of Tikrit in which a security guard hired by CNN fired his machinegun at a checkpoint when the CNN convoy came under gunfire."

So, the reporters come under gunfire but yet RSF asserts that having an armed escort puts them in danger??? Considering they're in a war zone & have come under fire I'd say they already were in danger. Add to that the treatment of the press in Iraq disclosed by CNN last week & I'd say not having arms would imperil the reporters.
If I was a reporter I'd damn sure be armed. If I was in charge of a group of reporters I'd make sure they were armed & had some rudimentary marksmanship training. In a country where reporters have been tortured & killed I'd think they would have learned that being unarmed means being defenseless.
Add to that the recent admission by CNN about torture & murder of reporters & contacts in Iraq & I'd say the case for being armed is difficult to argue against.

Not that RSF won't try:

"There is a real risk that belligerents will believe all press vehicles are armed,' he said, adding that the use of armed private security guards only increased the confusion between reporters and combatants in the conflict."

That would be a bad thing? If a person believes that the reporters are armed, then chances are he's gonna think twice about strolling up & kidnapping, shooting or otherwise attempting to harm them. & in the instances where merely possessing arms is not a deterant then at least the reporters would have the chance to fight back, possibly saving their lives. True, they might get killed in a gunfight, but I don't see how that would be worse than being unarmed & getting killed. In fact considering the reports of journalists being tortured I'd say death in a gunfight would be preferable.
But the RFS is content to hide behind erroneous ideaology. It's sad when CNN has a good idea & they catch grief for it. Lord knows they need all the encouragement they can get when they get something right.