GOA informs us of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tx) stepping up to the plate once again.
This time Rep. Paul has introduced a bill to withdraw the U.S. from the U.N. He also is asking for help on a petititon to urge the House to vote on his bill. You can view & sign the petition here.
Why, you may ask, is this bill to dissolve ties with the U.N. important? I'll let GOA answer that:
"But as the battle to block the reauthorization of the semi-auto ban continues to wage within our own borders, a sinister effort continues from without. In early June, the United Nations will be sponsoring a global "Week of Action Against Small Arms."
"Small arms" as defined by UN documents refers to many of the revolvers, pistols and rifles that millions of Americans already own.
Lawrence Auster is a Newsmax.com reporter who covered a similar UN gun control conference in 2001. He says the disarmament agenda at the UN is so blatant that it "unembarrassedly admits that it wants to strip small arms from all non-government individuals [like you] because the possession of such weapons allows people to oppose the UN itself."
This upcoming disarmament conference is just another U.N. attempt to pressure member states like the U.S. to adopt more stringent gun controls."
Look the petition over & sign it. Calling &/or writing your reps & telling them you want the U.S. out of the U.N. wouldn't hurt. & drop a note to Rep. Paul to tell him how much you appreciate all the work he's tried to do on your behalf.
Saturday, May 24, 2003
Salon.com has a vicious article demonizing the militia's that are patrolling the U.S./Mexico border.
"There are those in Tombstone who say that the 41-year-old former teacher is an eccentric, an egomaniac and a threat to the local tourism industry. While Simcox says his militia has 600 members, others here say the number is far smaller. 'Chris can only get a three-man patrol going,' says Jeff, a bartender at the Crystal Bar on Main Street. 'Basically, the kind of people who want to join his group can't even pass a background check."
Nothing like the expert opinion of a bartender on who can & cannot pass a background check. Nothing against bartenders mind you - they perform an invaluable service & should be tipped more than they are - but the only named source in a paragraph long critique is a bartender who, unless the liquor laws in Arizona are vastly different than everywhere else, could have no idea who could or couldn't pass a background check, let alone what 'kind' of people are willing to step up to perform their civic duty.
"In Cochise County alone, self-styled vigilante groups in recent years have harassed and detained hundreds, perhaps thousands, of migrants suspected of entering the country illegally. They claim they are only enforcing U.S. laws too often ignored by law enforcement officials. But human rights advocates are worried about a climate here and through much of southern Arizona that seems increasingly primed for violence."
If a group has detained hundreds or perhaps thousands of people 'suspected' of entering the country illegally, wouldn't that be a more newsworthy focus than trying to demonize a group of citizens who are attempting to do what they think is right?
Here's the kicker:
"Vigilante injustice
Arizona militia members, a Colorado Republican and a national group with white supremacist ties have made a remote stretch of the Mexico border a flash point for anti-immigrant hostility."
That's the title of the article. Of course you expect to read about how the Aryan Nation or some other such group is involved, but here's where the 'white supremecay' connection is revealed:
"The alliance includes not only local ranchers, landowners and law enforcement officials, but also former high-ranking Border Patrol agents and U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican. Quietly backing their efforts is the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a controversial anti-immigration group that in the 1980s and 1990s received more than $1 million from a shadowy group accused of white-supremacist leanings."
Lemme try this again:
"...a controversial anti-immigration group that in the 1980s and 1990s received more than $1 million from a shadowy group accused of white-supremacist leanings."
One more time, with some clarity:
"...a shadowy group accused of white-supremacist leanings."
The gist of it is that Salon.com relies on a very politically incorrect novel that's published by Federation for American Immigration Reform founder John Taton's publishing company, The Social Contract Press. Mr. Taton resigned as executive director of FAIR after a 1988 scandal which involved white seperatist statements, but remains on the board of directors. FAIR is also accused of receiving funds from racially motivated groups. This ties in with the border patrols set up by the citizens how? Apparently FAIR has donated around $50,000 over 3 years to two of the groups mentioned. That's roughly $8,000 per year per group from 1998 to 2001. The article fails to mention how much of the respective groups total contributions this amounted to, or what ideaological ties the respective groups have with FAIR &/or Mr. Taton. It is guilt by third party association, as FAIR itself does not seem to have an officail white supremecist or white seperatist policy. There is nothing in the article that shows any white-supremicist ideaologies advocated by the 3 respective border patrol groups.
While all of this is going on Hispanic-seperatist groups plan to confront the citizen patrol groups mentioned above.
"While most Americans will spend Memorial Day weekend honoring those that died defending America, along with the thousands killed by illegal aliens on September 11th 2001, some are using the weekend to demonstrate in support of illegal aliens and Hispanic racial solidarity.
"The Hispanic separatist web site Aztlan has reported that race based Hispanic organizations will attempt to confront leaders of three citizen volunteer border organizations over the weekend from May 22-25.
Aztlan reports that organizers of the meeting say it is designed to ‘demonstrate bi-national solidarity’ with pro-illegal alien groups and to ‘send a powerful warning’ to leaders of citizen volunteer groups that they will be ‘dealt with accordingly.’
Targets of the Hispanic separatist groups are Glenn Spencer from American Border Patrol, Chris Simcox from the Civil Homeland Defense, and Jack Foote and Dave Stoddard of Ranch Rescue."
In other words Aztlan doesn't like the idea of a militia patrolling the borders in an effort to stem illegal immigration. Perhaps this can be partly explained by one of Aztlan's goals:
"Aztlan promotes the secession of the southwestern U.S. and the creation of the Nation Of Aztlan, a mythical Hispanic nation."
Of course they object to anyone preventing illegal immigration - they believe the southwestern U.S. belongs to them & they should decide who stays & who goes.
If you're down on the border, consider lending a hand & perhaps some time to help out the border patrol militias. With Democrats, Mexican Government & hispanic anti-semitic groups such as Aztlan (look at their home page) coming down on them, they need all the help & encouragement they can get.
"There are those in Tombstone who say that the 41-year-old former teacher is an eccentric, an egomaniac and a threat to the local tourism industry. While Simcox says his militia has 600 members, others here say the number is far smaller. 'Chris can only get a three-man patrol going,' says Jeff, a bartender at the Crystal Bar on Main Street. 'Basically, the kind of people who want to join his group can't even pass a background check."
Nothing like the expert opinion of a bartender on who can & cannot pass a background check. Nothing against bartenders mind you - they perform an invaluable service & should be tipped more than they are - but the only named source in a paragraph long critique is a bartender who, unless the liquor laws in Arizona are vastly different than everywhere else, could have no idea who could or couldn't pass a background check, let alone what 'kind' of people are willing to step up to perform their civic duty.
"In Cochise County alone, self-styled vigilante groups in recent years have harassed and detained hundreds, perhaps thousands, of migrants suspected of entering the country illegally. They claim they are only enforcing U.S. laws too often ignored by law enforcement officials. But human rights advocates are worried about a climate here and through much of southern Arizona that seems increasingly primed for violence."
If a group has detained hundreds or perhaps thousands of people 'suspected' of entering the country illegally, wouldn't that be a more newsworthy focus than trying to demonize a group of citizens who are attempting to do what they think is right?
Here's the kicker:
"Vigilante injustice
Arizona militia members, a Colorado Republican and a national group with white supremacist ties have made a remote stretch of the Mexico border a flash point for anti-immigrant hostility."
That's the title of the article. Of course you expect to read about how the Aryan Nation or some other such group is involved, but here's where the 'white supremecay' connection is revealed:
"The alliance includes not only local ranchers, landowners and law enforcement officials, but also former high-ranking Border Patrol agents and U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican. Quietly backing their efforts is the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a controversial anti-immigration group that in the 1980s and 1990s received more than $1 million from a shadowy group accused of white-supremacist leanings."
Lemme try this again:
"...a controversial anti-immigration group that in the 1980s and 1990s received more than $1 million from a shadowy group accused of white-supremacist leanings."
One more time, with some clarity:
"...a shadowy group accused of white-supremacist leanings."
The gist of it is that Salon.com relies on a very politically incorrect novel that's published by Federation for American Immigration Reform founder John Taton's publishing company, The Social Contract Press. Mr. Taton resigned as executive director of FAIR after a 1988 scandal which involved white seperatist statements, but remains on the board of directors. FAIR is also accused of receiving funds from racially motivated groups. This ties in with the border patrols set up by the citizens how? Apparently FAIR has donated around $50,000 over 3 years to two of the groups mentioned. That's roughly $8,000 per year per group from 1998 to 2001. The article fails to mention how much of the respective groups total contributions this amounted to, or what ideaological ties the respective groups have with FAIR &/or Mr. Taton. It is guilt by third party association, as FAIR itself does not seem to have an officail white supremecist or white seperatist policy. There is nothing in the article that shows any white-supremicist ideaologies advocated by the 3 respective border patrol groups.
While all of this is going on Hispanic-seperatist groups plan to confront the citizen patrol groups mentioned above.
"While most Americans will spend Memorial Day weekend honoring those that died defending America, along with the thousands killed by illegal aliens on September 11th 2001, some are using the weekend to demonstrate in support of illegal aliens and Hispanic racial solidarity.
"The Hispanic separatist web site Aztlan has reported that race based Hispanic organizations will attempt to confront leaders of three citizen volunteer border organizations over the weekend from May 22-25.
Aztlan reports that organizers of the meeting say it is designed to ‘demonstrate bi-national solidarity’ with pro-illegal alien groups and to ‘send a powerful warning’ to leaders of citizen volunteer groups that they will be ‘dealt with accordingly.’
Targets of the Hispanic separatist groups are Glenn Spencer from American Border Patrol, Chris Simcox from the Civil Homeland Defense, and Jack Foote and Dave Stoddard of Ranch Rescue."
In other words Aztlan doesn't like the idea of a militia patrolling the borders in an effort to stem illegal immigration. Perhaps this can be partly explained by one of Aztlan's goals:
"Aztlan promotes the secession of the southwestern U.S. and the creation of the Nation Of Aztlan, a mythical Hispanic nation."
Of course they object to anyone preventing illegal immigration - they believe the southwestern U.S. belongs to them & they should decide who stays & who goes.
If you're down on the border, consider lending a hand & perhaps some time to help out the border patrol militias. With Democrats, Mexican Government & hispanic anti-semitic groups such as Aztlan (look at their home page) coming down on them, they need all the help & encouragement they can get.
Denver has filed a lawsuit against the state over the new pre-emption law which prohibits Denver from regulating &/or prohibiting weapons.
"We're going to enforce personnel regulations that say, for instance, that you cannot bring a gun to work even though some may interpret the new law to allow that,' Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell said."
So they intend to enforce their violative laws despite the state explicitly forbidding it. They are content that the people of Denver are defenseless even though they have no obligation to provide for their defense.
"Filed in Denver District Court, the suit asks for a judgment that allows the city to continue to enforce local regulations. If the home rule challenge is successful, it will apply to 84 communities statewide.
The suit targeted a law that removed local control over the permits by establishing a statewide policy that is more liberal than some jurisdictions have allowed."
Why don't they be honest about it & simply ask the court to not take away their ability to infirnge upon an individuals' Rights?
But suprisingly the Denver Post actually spoke to someone who's on our side:
"Dudley Brown, spokesman for the lobbying group Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said Denver is using home rule as an excuse to restrict firearms, violating the state Constitution.
'This would be a legitimate dispute if we were talking about parking fines or fees for a water tap. This is an issue of people's civil rights,' Brown said."
Mr. Brown is correct. Denver is using the premise of home rule to restrict a person's Rights. What's more they are using taxpayer money to attempt to repeal the protection of a Right for those same taxpayers. If I could be sure of enough support to keep 10 or 20 people from going to jail, I would encourage every taxpayer within the city & county of Denver to withold tax money until this foolishness ends.
"We're going to enforce personnel regulations that say, for instance, that you cannot bring a gun to work even though some may interpret the new law to allow that,' Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell said."
So they intend to enforce their violative laws despite the state explicitly forbidding it. They are content that the people of Denver are defenseless even though they have no obligation to provide for their defense.
"Filed in Denver District Court, the suit asks for a judgment that allows the city to continue to enforce local regulations. If the home rule challenge is successful, it will apply to 84 communities statewide.
The suit targeted a law that removed local control over the permits by establishing a statewide policy that is more liberal than some jurisdictions have allowed."
Why don't they be honest about it & simply ask the court to not take away their ability to infirnge upon an individuals' Rights?
But suprisingly the Denver Post actually spoke to someone who's on our side:
"Dudley Brown, spokesman for the lobbying group Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said Denver is using home rule as an excuse to restrict firearms, violating the state Constitution.
'This would be a legitimate dispute if we were talking about parking fines or fees for a water tap. This is an issue of people's civil rights,' Brown said."
Mr. Brown is correct. Denver is using the premise of home rule to restrict a person's Rights. What's more they are using taxpayer money to attempt to repeal the protection of a Right for those same taxpayers. If I could be sure of enough support to keep 10 or 20 people from going to jail, I would encourage every taxpayer within the city & county of Denver to withold tax money until this foolishness ends.
Friday, May 23, 2003
Norinco is being sanctioned for the next two years by the U.S.
"The Bush administration has imposed stiff economic sanctions on one of China's largest state-run manufacturers for selling missile-related goods to Iran.
The two-year sanctions will, for the first time, bar any exports to the United States from a Chinese firm, in this case North China Industries Corp., known as Norinco, which manufactures an array of military and civilian products."
For those of you unfamiliar with Norinco, they're a company in China that among other things makes firearms. The semi-auto AK-47's are perhaps there most well known import into the U.S. but the also have made M-1A receivers as well as assorted shotguns, rifles & pistols.
This isn't the first time Norinco has been under scrutiny for acts that threaten the security of the U.S.
"Several Norinco employees were indicted in 1996 for being part of a covert effort uncovered by the U.S. Customs Service to smuggle 2,000 AK-47 assault rifles into Oakland, Calif., to arm urban street gangs."
I see to remember some connection to Clinton but I cannot remember the details. It seems like he had a business interest in the ship that was found to contain the fully automatic AK-47's intended for the black market, but my memory fails to recall any of the particulars.
Norinco also manufactures & exports other products.
"Norinco is China's third-largest manufacturer, and the sanctions could cost the company up to $100 million in lost business in the United States, through such retailers as Wal-Mart and Kmart.
Norinco makes some 4,000 products ranging from toys to short-range ballistic missiles, according to U.S. officials. Since it was formed in 1980, Norinco has had about $25 billion of import and export business.
As for businesses that will complain of the inconvenience of not being able to purchase inexpensive Norinco products, the official said, 'It's also inconvenient to have an Iranian missile come down on you."
That is a good point.
I have never been a fan of products made in China. China is a communist nation where the government in effect owns all the businesses. This in & of itself is not necessarily a reason for boycotting their goods, but China is also one of the most repressive governments around. So when you buy something made in China, you're supporting the government that used force against students protesting for a democratic government, which the Chinese government still has not accounted for. So for that & the Chinese governments other injustices against its own people, I've been trying to avoid buying products made in China. Not to mention they are, despite any diplomatic pretenses, still one of the most dangerous adversaries that the U.S. has.
The sanctions against Norinco don't bother me. I think they are appropriate considering the reasons for them. However I really feel we should cut off all economic relations with China until such time as they are truly governed by their own people, so naturally sanctions againt one company would not seem that drastic to me.
But for those of you who were looking into a Norinco firearm, I doubt there'd be a lack of availability unless everyone & his brother decided they had to have one. In any event if you had your eye on a particular Norinco firearm e-mail me or use the 'comment' box & I'll be more than happy to recommend several alternatives not made by company owned by a repressive government.
"The Bush administration has imposed stiff economic sanctions on one of China's largest state-run manufacturers for selling missile-related goods to Iran.
The two-year sanctions will, for the first time, bar any exports to the United States from a Chinese firm, in this case North China Industries Corp., known as Norinco, which manufactures an array of military and civilian products."
For those of you unfamiliar with Norinco, they're a company in China that among other things makes firearms. The semi-auto AK-47's are perhaps there most well known import into the U.S. but the also have made M-1A receivers as well as assorted shotguns, rifles & pistols.
This isn't the first time Norinco has been under scrutiny for acts that threaten the security of the U.S.
"Several Norinco employees were indicted in 1996 for being part of a covert effort uncovered by the U.S. Customs Service to smuggle 2,000 AK-47 assault rifles into Oakland, Calif., to arm urban street gangs."
I see to remember some connection to Clinton but I cannot remember the details. It seems like he had a business interest in the ship that was found to contain the fully automatic AK-47's intended for the black market, but my memory fails to recall any of the particulars.
Norinco also manufactures & exports other products.
"Norinco is China's third-largest manufacturer, and the sanctions could cost the company up to $100 million in lost business in the United States, through such retailers as Wal-Mart and Kmart.
Norinco makes some 4,000 products ranging from toys to short-range ballistic missiles, according to U.S. officials. Since it was formed in 1980, Norinco has had about $25 billion of import and export business.
As for businesses that will complain of the inconvenience of not being able to purchase inexpensive Norinco products, the official said, 'It's also inconvenient to have an Iranian missile come down on you."
That is a good point.
I have never been a fan of products made in China. China is a communist nation where the government in effect owns all the businesses. This in & of itself is not necessarily a reason for boycotting their goods, but China is also one of the most repressive governments around. So when you buy something made in China, you're supporting the government that used force against students protesting for a democratic government, which the Chinese government still has not accounted for. So for that & the Chinese governments other injustices against its own people, I've been trying to avoid buying products made in China. Not to mention they are, despite any diplomatic pretenses, still one of the most dangerous adversaries that the U.S. has.
The sanctions against Norinco don't bother me. I think they are appropriate considering the reasons for them. However I really feel we should cut off all economic relations with China until such time as they are truly governed by their own people, so naturally sanctions againt one company would not seem that drastic to me.
But for those of you who were looking into a Norinco firearm, I doubt there'd be a lack of availability unless everyone & his brother decided they had to have one. In any event if you had your eye on a particular Norinco firearm e-mail me or use the 'comment' box & I'll be more than happy to recommend several alternatives not made by company owned by a repressive government.
Ian McCollum writes an interesting piece entitlted An Inquiry into the General Lack of Violent Jewish Resistance to the Holocaust
"Where these revolts occurred, German activity was slowed or halted. The Warsaw ghetto was the scene of active fighting for more than six weeks, and sporadic resistance continued, unbelievably, until mid-June of 1944 15 months after the outbreak of the revolt!(12) If such violence had engulfed German executioners wherever they had attempted to harm Jews, the Holocaust would have been stillborn. To quote Emmanuel Ringelblum, archivist of the Warsaw ghetto, (13)
…if everybody had attacked the Germans with knives, clubs, shovels, choppers; if we had received the Germans, Ukrainians, Latvians, and the Jewish ghetto police with acid, molten pitch, boiling water, and so on to put it in a nutshell, if men, women, and children, the young and the old, had risen in a single people’s levy, there would not have been 350,000 murdered at Treblinka, but only the 50,000 shot dead in the streets of Warsaw.
A final, and oft overlooked outcome of the revolts was the reclamation of simple human dignity by the fighters. The individuals incarcerated in the camps of the German extermination system died deliberately starved, beaten, helpless and dehumanized. They were subjected to the most brutal of tortures and the most degrading of conditions. No human being deserves to die in such a state. To fight back gave them the opportunity to have a hand in their fate; it gave them back the dignity that is the essence of being human."
Thanks to End the War on Freedom where I found the article.
"Where these revolts occurred, German activity was slowed or halted. The Warsaw ghetto was the scene of active fighting for more than six weeks, and sporadic resistance continued, unbelievably, until mid-June of 1944 15 months after the outbreak of the revolt!(12) If such violence had engulfed German executioners wherever they had attempted to harm Jews, the Holocaust would have been stillborn. To quote Emmanuel Ringelblum, archivist of the Warsaw ghetto, (13)
…if everybody had attacked the Germans with knives, clubs, shovels, choppers; if we had received the Germans, Ukrainians, Latvians, and the Jewish ghetto police with acid, molten pitch, boiling water, and so on to put it in a nutshell, if men, women, and children, the young and the old, had risen in a single people’s levy, there would not have been 350,000 murdered at Treblinka, but only the 50,000 shot dead in the streets of Warsaw.
A final, and oft overlooked outcome of the revolts was the reclamation of simple human dignity by the fighters. The individuals incarcerated in the camps of the German extermination system died deliberately starved, beaten, helpless and dehumanized. They were subjected to the most brutal of tortures and the most degrading of conditions. No human being deserves to die in such a state. To fight back gave them the opportunity to have a hand in their fate; it gave them back the dignity that is the essence of being human."
Thanks to End the War on Freedom where I found the article.
More details on the NRA member that the NRA had arrested for passing out pro-gun literature at their convention.
"Condon is a member of the NRA. He registered for the free convention two months ago. He was distributing information to members of his own clan. 'How can you be guilty of trespassing on a piece of property you were invited to come onto?' asks Frederick W. Vollrath, Condon's attorney.
Vollrath says the case will likely be thrown out as soon as an Orange County prosecutor is assigned to it. He's prepared to point out the large number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions showing that Condon had a right to distribute information on the very spot he was arrested.
Condon, meanwhile, blames the NRA for his arrest. He says legislative-affairs director Glen Caroline warned him to stop distributing fliers and that a security officer told him the arrest was approved by NRA leadership.
'Somebody decided to make a decision,' Condon says. 'The idiots at the NRA had one of their own members, a pro-gun rights advocate, arrested.'
The NRA failed to return phone calls. But the Convention Center's manager of security and transportation, Greg Forehand, agrees with Condon, saying he was arrested "on behalf of the NRA management staff."
'We don't like to trespass anyone,' Forehand says. 'It's not what we are all about here. We believe in family. We believe in hospitality. These things are very important to us."
To be honest, this still kinda has me baffled. The only thing I can think of is that the NRA simply didn't like pro-gun literature being passed out that showed no NRA connection.
"Condon is a member of the NRA. He registered for the free convention two months ago. He was distributing information to members of his own clan. 'How can you be guilty of trespassing on a piece of property you were invited to come onto?' asks Frederick W. Vollrath, Condon's attorney.
Vollrath says the case will likely be thrown out as soon as an Orange County prosecutor is assigned to it. He's prepared to point out the large number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions showing that Condon had a right to distribute information on the very spot he was arrested.
Condon, meanwhile, blames the NRA for his arrest. He says legislative-affairs director Glen Caroline warned him to stop distributing fliers and that a security officer told him the arrest was approved by NRA leadership.
'Somebody decided to make a decision,' Condon says. 'The idiots at the NRA had one of their own members, a pro-gun rights advocate, arrested.'
The NRA failed to return phone calls. But the Convention Center's manager of security and transportation, Greg Forehand, agrees with Condon, saying he was arrested "on behalf of the NRA management staff."
'We don't like to trespass anyone,' Forehand says. 'It's not what we are all about here. We believe in family. We believe in hospitality. These things are very important to us."
To be honest, this still kinda has me baffled. The only thing I can think of is that the NRA simply didn't like pro-gun literature being passed out that showed no NRA connection.
Thursday, May 22, 2003
This is perhaps a bit overdue. A majority of the news stories I comment on come from Keep and Bear Arms.com. Among other things they run a centralized database of news stories related to the Right to Arms as well as other Rights. They compile news stories from all over the country, provide a listing of those stories by date, give a brief summation of each story & the links to acces it. Needless to say it's time consuming. & time does equal money.
So if you want to help the fine folks at KABA meet operating expenses so they can keep on providing this valuable service, please click here.
So if you want to help the fine folks at KABA meet operating expenses so they can keep on providing this valuable service, please click here.
Wednesday, May 21, 2003
Remember all those paranoid militia types who ranted about the blue helmets (UN troops) coming to disarm us? Well, it's not paranoia when they're really out to get ya.
World Net Daily has an article about the UN's plan for global government.
"The U.N.'s plan, dubbed 'Our Global Neighborhood,' is a 410-page final report of the Commission on Global Governance, and was first published in 1995 by Oxford University Press. That 28-member 'independent commission,' created by former German Chancellor Willy Brandt, developed the following strategy, as reported in the EcoSocialist Review: 'To represent a shot-across-the-bow of George Bush's New World Order, and make clear that now is the time to press for the subordination of national sovereignty to democratic transnationalism."
It gets more interesting.
"The plan calls for dramatically strengthening the United Nations, by implementing a laundry list of recommendations, including these:
Eliminating the veto and permanent member status in the Security Council;
Authorizing global taxation on currency exchange and use of the "global commons;"
Creating an International Criminal Court;
Creating a standing army under the command of the secretary-general;
Creating a new Economic Security Council;
Creating a new People's Assembly;
Regulating multinational corporations;
Regulating the global commons;
Controlling the manufacture, sale and distribution of all firearms."
A lot of what I see is troubling, but for the purposes of this blog, let's talk about two of the proposals:
Creating a standing army under the command of the secretary-general
Controlling the manufacture, sale and distribution of all firearms
Actually there's not much need to discuss these two provisions of the plan at all. There is little doubt how this will play out in the real world if it ever comes to pass. Civilian disarmament will come to America under the direction of a UN army. which means another revolution will happen in America, perhaps the bloodiest to date. Then again if domestic gun control laws are set up gradually & effectively then perhaps it won't be as much of a revolution as a quickly put down rebellion.
In any event this is yet another, & perhaps the most important reason to disassociate ourselves from the UN. It is also a very important reason to improve our marksmanship since there is a possibility that the U.S. will go along with this plan eventually. & it is a very very important reason to pass on our knowledge of Rights, freedoms & the ability to defend them by force if necessary to the next generation, so they won't find themselves staring at the blue helmets marching down their street. Incrementalism is the key to making something like this work & perhaps it won't reach the U.S. untill we are dead & our children &/or grandchildren have to take up the cause.
In any event this bears watching.
World Net Daily has an article about the UN's plan for global government.
"The U.N.'s plan, dubbed 'Our Global Neighborhood,' is a 410-page final report of the Commission on Global Governance, and was first published in 1995 by Oxford University Press. That 28-member 'independent commission,' created by former German Chancellor Willy Brandt, developed the following strategy, as reported in the EcoSocialist Review: 'To represent a shot-across-the-bow of George Bush's New World Order, and make clear that now is the time to press for the subordination of national sovereignty to democratic transnationalism."
It gets more interesting.
"The plan calls for dramatically strengthening the United Nations, by implementing a laundry list of recommendations, including these:
Eliminating the veto and permanent member status in the Security Council;
Authorizing global taxation on currency exchange and use of the "global commons;"
Creating an International Criminal Court;
Creating a standing army under the command of the secretary-general;
Creating a new Economic Security Council;
Creating a new People's Assembly;
Regulating multinational corporations;
Regulating the global commons;
Controlling the manufacture, sale and distribution of all firearms."
A lot of what I see is troubling, but for the purposes of this blog, let's talk about two of the proposals:
Creating a standing army under the command of the secretary-general
Controlling the manufacture, sale and distribution of all firearms
Actually there's not much need to discuss these two provisions of the plan at all. There is little doubt how this will play out in the real world if it ever comes to pass. Civilian disarmament will come to America under the direction of a UN army. which means another revolution will happen in America, perhaps the bloodiest to date. Then again if domestic gun control laws are set up gradually & effectively then perhaps it won't be as much of a revolution as a quickly put down rebellion.
In any event this is yet another, & perhaps the most important reason to disassociate ourselves from the UN. It is also a very important reason to improve our marksmanship since there is a possibility that the U.S. will go along with this plan eventually. & it is a very very important reason to pass on our knowledge of Rights, freedoms & the ability to defend them by force if necessary to the next generation, so they won't find themselves staring at the blue helmets marching down their street. Incrementalism is the key to making something like this work & perhaps it won't reach the U.S. untill we are dead & our children &/or grandchildren have to take up the cause.
In any event this bears watching.
The NY Times has more details of the civilian disarmament of Iraq.
"Iraqi citizens will be required to turn over automatic weapons and heavy weapons under a proclamation that allied authorities plan to issue this week, allied officials said today.
The aim of the proclamation is to help stabilize Iraq by confiscating the huge supply of AK-47's, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons that are used by criminal gangs, paramilitary groups and remnants of the Saddam Hussein government.
Iraqis who refuse to comply with the edict will be subject to arrest. Only Iraqis authorized to use military-type weapons because of their police or military duties will be exempt."
I wonder if they have considered that in addition to criminal groups & Hussein loyalists, that paramilitary groups such as a militia can use those weapons to repel attacks launched by criminals & Hussein loyalists.
"We are in the final stages of formulating a weapons policy to put rules on who can and cannot possess a weapon,' Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, the chief allied land commander said in an interview. 'We want to get explosives and AK's out of the wrong hands."
Of course getting weapons out of the wrong hands can only be accomplished by getting them out of the right hands, & even then the people they don't want to be armed will still be armed.
"Iraqis who are in the military, the police or an authorized security organization supervised by the allies will be authorized to carry automatic or heavy weapons. But other Iraqis will not be allowed to possess weapons, and open-air arms markets, common in Baghdad, will be banned.
Iraqis will be allowed to keep small arms at home for protection.
For a nation as dangerous as Iraq and as rife with weapons, total disarmament is impractical, allied officials say. But Iraqis will not be allowed to take their weapons outside their home without a special license.
Those who do obtain such licenses — security guards, for example — will not be allowed to carry concealed weapons."
I wonder what thye consider 'small arms'? An AK-47 is considered a 'small arm' but they seem to have problems with the iraqi civilians possesing them. But I do see a pattern: since total disarmament is impractical, they set up a system of registration & criminalization for mere possession. & even with a license they prohibit carrying in a certain manner. They've used the same tactics in the US.
"To ensure that Iraqis are aware of the new policy the allies will saturate Iraqis with leaflets, use loudspeaker announcements and radio and television broadcasts. The edict will establish an amnesty period during which weapons can be turned in without fear of arrest."
Again, it reminds me of domestic strategies such a Project Exile which uses billboards & other advertising to promote gun control laws.
I am terribly ashamed the our military is participating in civilian disarmament. & I have problems with a standing army 'practicing' civlian disarmament abroad as they very well might use the experience here at home.
Also I have a very obscure theory about the Conbstitution: the Constitution is a document that establishes certain powers for the federal government & restricts the same power to specific areas. In other words it's a document that applies to the federal government as a restraint, rather than to U.S. citizens as a shield, so the federal government is prohibited from enacting gun control anywhere it has influence. This means that, if my theroy holds up, that civilian disamrament by the U.S. military is a direct violation of the Constitution even it it occurs on foreign soil. There are a few ways in which this theory can be supported & perhaps more than a few ways in which it can be refuted. I mention it only to give ya'll something to ponder.
But the real problem is that the U.S. military is disarming civilians. Because it is in a foreign country most people don't give it a second thought, but I believe there is a real possibility that they could use this experience as a guideline if they ever attempted civilian disarmament here. In any event I am ashamed of this action by our military.
"Iraqi citizens will be required to turn over automatic weapons and heavy weapons under a proclamation that allied authorities plan to issue this week, allied officials said today.
The aim of the proclamation is to help stabilize Iraq by confiscating the huge supply of AK-47's, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons that are used by criminal gangs, paramilitary groups and remnants of the Saddam Hussein government.
Iraqis who refuse to comply with the edict will be subject to arrest. Only Iraqis authorized to use military-type weapons because of their police or military duties will be exempt."
I wonder if they have considered that in addition to criminal groups & Hussein loyalists, that paramilitary groups such as a militia can use those weapons to repel attacks launched by criminals & Hussein loyalists.
"We are in the final stages of formulating a weapons policy to put rules on who can and cannot possess a weapon,' Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, the chief allied land commander said in an interview. 'We want to get explosives and AK's out of the wrong hands."
Of course getting weapons out of the wrong hands can only be accomplished by getting them out of the right hands, & even then the people they don't want to be armed will still be armed.
"Iraqis who are in the military, the police or an authorized security organization supervised by the allies will be authorized to carry automatic or heavy weapons. But other Iraqis will not be allowed to possess weapons, and open-air arms markets, common in Baghdad, will be banned.
Iraqis will be allowed to keep small arms at home for protection.
For a nation as dangerous as Iraq and as rife with weapons, total disarmament is impractical, allied officials say. But Iraqis will not be allowed to take their weapons outside their home without a special license.
Those who do obtain such licenses — security guards, for example — will not be allowed to carry concealed weapons."
I wonder what thye consider 'small arms'? An AK-47 is considered a 'small arm' but they seem to have problems with the iraqi civilians possesing them. But I do see a pattern: since total disarmament is impractical, they set up a system of registration & criminalization for mere possession. & even with a license they prohibit carrying in a certain manner. They've used the same tactics in the US.
"To ensure that Iraqis are aware of the new policy the allies will saturate Iraqis with leaflets, use loudspeaker announcements and radio and television broadcasts. The edict will establish an amnesty period during which weapons can be turned in without fear of arrest."
Again, it reminds me of domestic strategies such a Project Exile which uses billboards & other advertising to promote gun control laws.
I am terribly ashamed the our military is participating in civilian disarmament. & I have problems with a standing army 'practicing' civlian disarmament abroad as they very well might use the experience here at home.
Also I have a very obscure theory about the Conbstitution: the Constitution is a document that establishes certain powers for the federal government & restricts the same power to specific areas. In other words it's a document that applies to the federal government as a restraint, rather than to U.S. citizens as a shield, so the federal government is prohibited from enacting gun control anywhere it has influence. This means that, if my theroy holds up, that civilian disamrament by the U.S. military is a direct violation of the Constitution even it it occurs on foreign soil. There are a few ways in which this theory can be supported & perhaps more than a few ways in which it can be refuted. I mention it only to give ya'll something to ponder.
But the real problem is that the U.S. military is disarming civilians. Because it is in a foreign country most people don't give it a second thought, but I believe there is a real possibility that they could use this experience as a guideline if they ever attempted civilian disarmament here. In any event I am ashamed of this action by our military.
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
Instapundit has a post about the CNN stories on assault weapons.
Apparently CNN has admitted it was wrong & ran a correction of the previous stories.
Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit himself doesn't let them off the hook so easily, although he tends to believe they are ignorant rather than intentionally deceptive.
Apparently CNN has admitted it was wrong & ran a correction of the previous stories.
Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit himself doesn't let them off the hook so easily, although he tends to believe they are ignorant rather than intentionally deceptive.
Clint E. Lacy writes about the Missouri Concealed Carry Law which is being considered by the legislature.
"I have to give thanks to Gun Owners of America for e-mailing me some very interesting facts about Missouri HB 349, the concealed weapons law currently awaiting what will assuredly be Missouri Governor Bob Holden's veto. Don't worry Governor Holden has a while before he has to make a decision and you can bet that when he does veto this bill, it won't be because of his love of freedom or Constitutional law.
The Republicans on the other hand aren't supporting this bill for their beliefs in the second amendment or love of freedom either. No this bill is about subverting gun rights. It's just one more example of how little real differences their are between the two parties.
According to Gun Owners of America the current legislation contains provisions that would make the minimum age to obtain a permit 23. There would be a long list of "No-Safety Zones" in which law-abiding citizens would be disarmed. Excessive training requirements. High fees making it harder to obtain a permit. A loophole that would allow any local law enforcement official to deny a permit to anyone who might be suspected of "negative behavior". HB 349 would also make it mandatory to fingerprint all applicants. There is also a provision to post information on drivers' licenses stating that a citizen is carrying.
Gun Owners of America are reluctantly supporting this bill. Reluctantly because it has been so hard to even get our elected officials in Missouri to even consider another concealed weapons proposal. I can't support this legislation and I won't support it. It's like a voter going into the booth and voting for the lesser of two evils. Evil is evil so why compromise on the subject? "
"I have to give thanks to Gun Owners of America for e-mailing me some very interesting facts about Missouri HB 349, the concealed weapons law currently awaiting what will assuredly be Missouri Governor Bob Holden's veto. Don't worry Governor Holden has a while before he has to make a decision and you can bet that when he does veto this bill, it won't be because of his love of freedom or Constitutional law.
The Republicans on the other hand aren't supporting this bill for their beliefs in the second amendment or love of freedom either. No this bill is about subverting gun rights. It's just one more example of how little real differences their are between the two parties.
According to Gun Owners of America the current legislation contains provisions that would make the minimum age to obtain a permit 23. There would be a long list of "No-Safety Zones" in which law-abiding citizens would be disarmed. Excessive training requirements. High fees making it harder to obtain a permit. A loophole that would allow any local law enforcement official to deny a permit to anyone who might be suspected of "negative behavior". HB 349 would also make it mandatory to fingerprint all applicants. There is also a provision to post information on drivers' licenses stating that a citizen is carrying.
Gun Owners of America are reluctantly supporting this bill. Reluctantly because it has been so hard to even get our elected officials in Missouri to even consider another concealed weapons proposal. I can't support this legislation and I won't support it. It's like a voter going into the booth and voting for the lesser of two evils. Evil is evil so why compromise on the subject? "
David C. Stolinsky, M.D. wonders if they're Journalists or Propagandists?
"Some time ago, another leading newspaper claimed that a gun-control bill had been weakened and would not "take grenade launchers off the street."
I wrote the author, noting that both grenades and launchers were banned by the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. Possessing even the parts to construct one would subject a person to heavy penalties. In addition, they are virtually never used in crimes.
I added that I would send a $100 check to his favorite charity if he could show me where to buy a grenade launcher legally.
The author wrote back, claiming he was quoting an aide to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. He felt that since the quote was accurate, the facts need not be. That is, if the quote furthered the anti-gun agenda of the paper, he was satisfied to print it without stating that it was factually false. I kept my $100."
"Some time ago, another leading newspaper claimed that a gun-control bill had been weakened and would not "take grenade launchers off the street."
I wrote the author, noting that both grenades and launchers were banned by the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. Possessing even the parts to construct one would subject a person to heavy penalties. In addition, they are virtually never used in crimes.
I added that I would send a $100 check to his favorite charity if he could show me where to buy a grenade launcher legally.
The author wrote back, claiming he was quoting an aide to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. He felt that since the quote was accurate, the facts need not be. That is, if the quote furthered the anti-gun agenda of the paper, he was satisfied to print it without stating that it was factually false. I kept my $100."
Apparently Chase-Manhattan Bank USA doesn't want to do business with gun owners.
"Dan Whinery of Dan's Guns And Ammo in Warren, IN recently applied for a Chase Business Credit Card and was turned down for the following reason and this is a direct quote from the letter the bank sent him:
We are prohibited from extending credit to businesses operating in your industry."
I think we should respect their wishes & take our business elsewhere.
"Dan Whinery of Dan's Guns And Ammo in Warren, IN recently applied for a Chase Business Credit Card and was turned down for the following reason and this is a direct quote from the letter the bank sent him:
We are prohibited from extending credit to businesses operating in your industry."
I think we should respect their wishes & take our business elsewhere.
World Net Daily has an article about the possibility of the House voting on the Assault Weapons Ban.
"Also ambiguous regarding the fate of the ban is House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, who dodged questions from reporters Thursday about the ban's renewal.
'I had a discussion with Mr. DeLay [about] what he actually said to the press. I think he was trying to put his old whip's hat on and trying to figure out whether there are the votes or not,' Hastert said when asked if he agreed with DeLay that a new bill reauthorizing the ban should not even go to the House floor.
'The bill has not been discussed by the leadership yet, and I have not had a discussion with the president yet. I am not ready to make that decision,' he said."
Nothing new: DeLay doesn't want a vote, while Hastert isn't dismissing the possibility of a vote. A vote on the renewal or expansion of the assault weapons ban depends heavily upon what Bush wants. He could influence it either way. & the votes are there for passing a renewal or expansion of the assault weapons ban, if Bush actively supports it & the GOA ratings of pro-gun & anti-gun Representatives & Senators are accurate.
Nicki Fellenzer has written an article for Armed Females of America taking Bush to task for his support of the assault weapons ban.
"Well, here we go again. Power-hungry cowards in Congress are once again seeking to ram gun control down our throats, and this time, our president – the man who was painted as a friend to the some 80 million-gun owners in this country by the National Republican Apologists (NRA) – says he will sign it if it reaches his desk.
But my goal today is not to take aim at the NRA for its obsequious and quite obvious silence on the G.W. Bush promise to sign the odious legislation to expand and make permanent the Clinton “Assault” weapons ban of 1994 into law – although God and Goddess know the NRA’s hypocrisy and ass kissing of the seat of power are glaring, to say the least. No, today I’m taking on the President himself…"
"Also ambiguous regarding the fate of the ban is House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, who dodged questions from reporters Thursday about the ban's renewal.
'I had a discussion with Mr. DeLay [about] what he actually said to the press. I think he was trying to put his old whip's hat on and trying to figure out whether there are the votes or not,' Hastert said when asked if he agreed with DeLay that a new bill reauthorizing the ban should not even go to the House floor.
'The bill has not been discussed by the leadership yet, and I have not had a discussion with the president yet. I am not ready to make that decision,' he said."
Nothing new: DeLay doesn't want a vote, while Hastert isn't dismissing the possibility of a vote. A vote on the renewal or expansion of the assault weapons ban depends heavily upon what Bush wants. He could influence it either way. & the votes are there for passing a renewal or expansion of the assault weapons ban, if Bush actively supports it & the GOA ratings of pro-gun & anti-gun Representatives & Senators are accurate.
Nicki Fellenzer has written an article for Armed Females of America taking Bush to task for his support of the assault weapons ban.
"Well, here we go again. Power-hungry cowards in Congress are once again seeking to ram gun control down our throats, and this time, our president – the man who was painted as a friend to the some 80 million-gun owners in this country by the National Republican Apologists (NRA) – says he will sign it if it reaches his desk.
But my goal today is not to take aim at the NRA for its obsequious and quite obvious silence on the G.W. Bush promise to sign the odious legislation to expand and make permanent the Clinton “Assault” weapons ban of 1994 into law – although God and Goddess know the NRA’s hypocrisy and ass kissing of the seat of power are glaring, to say the least. No, today I’m taking on the President himself…"
As most people (both of ya) who come here know I am not a big fan of the NRA. If you're new here, then this link will help explain my position regarding the NRA. I do not encourage anyone supporting them as I percieve them to be more of a hinderance than a help when it comes to our Rights. However they have done something that I can't fault them for. In two video segments they have called attention to a very misleading story that CNN did about 'assault weapons'. You can access those videos by clicking here, then clicking 'video archives' at the top right of the page. The two video clips are "NRA demands the truth from CNN" from May 19th, 2003 & "Can 'the most trusted name in news'...be trusted?" from May 21rst, 2003.
The CNN stories are supposed to demostrate the difference between pre-ban & post-ban 'assault weapons', however a fully automatic firearm is used as the pre-ban weapon. In all it is a very misleading piece & the NRA's Wayne Lapierre accuses CNN of lying & using deceptive practices during a CNN interview.
This in no way atones for all the harm the NRA has caused, but in this particular instance I will give them credit for calling CNN on a very questionable piece of journalism.
The CNN stories are supposed to demostrate the difference between pre-ban & post-ban 'assault weapons', however a fully automatic firearm is used as the pre-ban weapon. In all it is a very misleading piece & the NRA's Wayne Lapierre accuses CNN of lying & using deceptive practices during a CNN interview.
This in no way atones for all the harm the NRA has caused, but in this particular instance I will give them credit for calling CNN on a very questionable piece of journalism.
Capitalism Magazine has an interview with John Ross. John Ross is the author of Unintended Consequences, a very interesting (& thick) book. While many of the characters are fictional, it draws heavily on historical events that have had direct or indirect effects on the Right to arms, from the Bonus Army to Waco.
Monday, May 19, 2003
Kurt Amesbury over at Armed females of America is encouraging a consumer boycott directed at John Walsh.
"I don't watch the John Walsh show since he did his hatchet job on women who use guns to protect themselves. But as I flipped through the channels today, I saw a brief mention of the word "guns" on the Walsh Show and just had time to see a text blurb at the bottom of the screen claiming, "almost 40,000 people a year are killed by guns."
Of course, this is another lie.
According to the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the number of people who died from firearms-related injuries in the last reported year was 28,663.
Of those, 16,586 (57%+) were suicides."
Not that this is the only reason - apparently Mr. Walsh has made some rather biased shows about guns in the hands of domestic violence victims. I refer you here, here, here & here for more info.
But go to the site urging the boycott. It has simple & quick instructions on how to make your feelings known to Mr. Walsh's sponsors, which is the only hope of changing Mr. Walsh's deceitful practices.
"I don't watch the John Walsh show since he did his hatchet job on women who use guns to protect themselves. But as I flipped through the channels today, I saw a brief mention of the word "guns" on the Walsh Show and just had time to see a text blurb at the bottom of the screen claiming, "almost 40,000 people a year are killed by guns."
Of course, this is another lie.
According to the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the number of people who died from firearms-related injuries in the last reported year was 28,663.
Of those, 16,586 (57%+) were suicides."
Not that this is the only reason - apparently Mr. Walsh has made some rather biased shows about guns in the hands of domestic violence victims. I refer you here, here, here & here for more info.
But go to the site urging the boycott. It has simple & quick instructions on how to make your feelings known to Mr. Walsh's sponsors, which is the only hope of changing Mr. Walsh's deceitful practices.
Denver is getting ready to fight for its constitutionally granted 'right' to infringe on its citizens constitutionally acknowledged Rights.
"The problem was municipalities were passing so many different laws, it was becoming de facto gun banning, said Sen. Jim Dyer, R-Arapahoe County, sponsor of the legislation.
But Denver has a different viewpoint. As a result, the city is getting ready for a court battle that likely will go all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court, and other communities are cheering Denver on."
Of course other cities are cheering them on. It's not those cities who have to foot the legal bill. In fact isn't it a bit ironic that Denver is using tax money collected from the same citizens it is attempting to disarm?
"The City and County of Denver cannot and will not give up on the fight to preserve its authority to regulate how and where firearms may be carried within the city,' Webb vowed."
To Webb this means Denver should be able to restrict which room in your house you may keeep your gun in & only if it's an 'approved' gun.
"I have directed the city attorney's office to take legal action to confirm and preserve the city's historic authority to regulate where firearms may be carried, regardless of whether a person has a permit."
That's like saying because the Klu Klux Klan has historically persecuted black people that they should be allowed to do so indefinitely.
"The new law actually caught many by surprise. Everyone expected the conceal-carry bill - a regular in the legislature for the past decade.
Most thought it would pass this year, and it did.
But Dyer's bill was different. It let people carry guns within hand's reach in cars - a definite violation of city law in Denver and many other communities."
Chances are if more people carry handguns within arms reach in their cars, then these carjackings we've been experiencing might stop. But Denver is more concerned with its ability to create unjust laws than it is about public safety.
"It also requires cities that ban the open carrying of firearms to clearly post the specific places where guns are prohibited - whether it be a park or a city building or recreation facilities.
The idea behind the law was to eliminate what Dyer described in his bill as 'a confusing patchwork of laws' that makes Coloradans subject to criminal and civil penalties in some jurisdictions for conduct that is lawful in others."
That seems totally unresonable - posting signs where local laws are contrary to state laws. Why just think of how much money a city could lose if people knew what the local laws were & therefore didn't break them, especially if the laws interfered with a Right protected by state laws, or if a local law was to the detriment of public safety contrary to common sense?
"Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell has been preparing for the legal battle that will challenge the pre-emption law as well as parts of the new conceal-carry law.
'It's going to be fairly soon - a couple of weeks,' Broadwell said."
Broadwell. I hope every convenience store owner in Denver who values his/her Right to Self Defense finds a picture of Mr. Broadwell & posts it in their store so everyone , especially employyes, can recognize him & then throw him off the premises. Let him buy gas from someone he's not attempting to put in mortal or legal jeopardy.
"Cynthia Stone, a spokesperson for the anti-gun coalition Colorado Ceasefire,...said among the city ordinances that would be wiped out would be the ban on assault weapons and Denver's safe storage law.
She cited the recent tragic shooting in suburban Centennial of Sahil Ahmed, an 11-year-old sixth- grader at Thunder Ridge Middle School.
Ahmed, who had won a battle with leukemia, was shot to death accidentally by a 15-year-old acquaintance who found an unlocked semiautomatic handgun in his parents' bedroom."
Of course she failed to mention that the tragic shooting could have happened despite Denver's gun control laws. A 15 year old who should have had some basic firearms instruction commited this act in front of an 18 & 19 year old who should have had some firearms training. A 15 year old should be responsible enough to not play with a loaded gun. A 15 year old can get a permit to drive a car with an adult present in the vehicle. A 15 year old should have known better, but chances are said 15 year old was simply told guns were bad or dangerous instead of being instructed properly in their use. I would recomend even for the most hard core anti-gun pacifist to receive at least rudimentary safety training involving firearms & insist that their children, even pre-teens go through the same sort of training for the sole purpose of preventing negligent shootings such as this one. For more reading on Sahil Ahmed, I recommend this write up by Ari Armstrong.
But Ms. Stone prefers to use tragedies as justification for her position, so I doubt any sensible approach to preventing these rare but tragic occurances would sway her.
In short Denver is using tax money to try to keep the state from slapping their wrist & forbidding them from denying their citizens Rights. The city council & mayor's office are reprehensible.
The sad part is, even though Webb is term limited & will be out of office soon, the two candidates for mayor have vowed to continue his fight against freedom.
"Mares: Says state should not be able to dictate to the city. Held a news conference in March asking the legislature to drop the bills.
Quote: "Denver and every other city should be allowed to make rules around the safety of their citizens that they deem appropriate."
Hickenlooper: Says he would "absolutely" continue the legal action against the laws that Mayor Wellington Webb has promised is forthcoming.
Quote: "I think historically it's pretty clear that in most of these issues we have a right to self-determination"
& Denver looked so nice in the brochure. It seems that I may have to put my attempts to teach these heathens out here the proper way to cook a hushpuppy (no, not the shoe) on the backburner so to speak until I can get them straightened out on more important things - like how not to ignore two constitutions in order to enact bad policy that violates a persons' Rights. I have a feeling I'll have to put in over-time for this one.
"The problem was municipalities were passing so many different laws, it was becoming de facto gun banning, said Sen. Jim Dyer, R-Arapahoe County, sponsor of the legislation.
But Denver has a different viewpoint. As a result, the city is getting ready for a court battle that likely will go all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court, and other communities are cheering Denver on."
Of course other cities are cheering them on. It's not those cities who have to foot the legal bill. In fact isn't it a bit ironic that Denver is using tax money collected from the same citizens it is attempting to disarm?
"The City and County of Denver cannot and will not give up on the fight to preserve its authority to regulate how and where firearms may be carried within the city,' Webb vowed."
To Webb this means Denver should be able to restrict which room in your house you may keeep your gun in & only if it's an 'approved' gun.
"I have directed the city attorney's office to take legal action to confirm and preserve the city's historic authority to regulate where firearms may be carried, regardless of whether a person has a permit."
That's like saying because the Klu Klux Klan has historically persecuted black people that they should be allowed to do so indefinitely.
"The new law actually caught many by surprise. Everyone expected the conceal-carry bill - a regular in the legislature for the past decade.
Most thought it would pass this year, and it did.
But Dyer's bill was different. It let people carry guns within hand's reach in cars - a definite violation of city law in Denver and many other communities."
Chances are if more people carry handguns within arms reach in their cars, then these carjackings we've been experiencing might stop. But Denver is more concerned with its ability to create unjust laws than it is about public safety.
"It also requires cities that ban the open carrying of firearms to clearly post the specific places where guns are prohibited - whether it be a park or a city building or recreation facilities.
The idea behind the law was to eliminate what Dyer described in his bill as 'a confusing patchwork of laws' that makes Coloradans subject to criminal and civil penalties in some jurisdictions for conduct that is lawful in others."
That seems totally unresonable - posting signs where local laws are contrary to state laws. Why just think of how much money a city could lose if people knew what the local laws were & therefore didn't break them, especially if the laws interfered with a Right protected by state laws, or if a local law was to the detriment of public safety contrary to common sense?
"Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell has been preparing for the legal battle that will challenge the pre-emption law as well as parts of the new conceal-carry law.
'It's going to be fairly soon - a couple of weeks,' Broadwell said."
Broadwell. I hope every convenience store owner in Denver who values his/her Right to Self Defense finds a picture of Mr. Broadwell & posts it in their store so everyone , especially employyes, can recognize him & then throw him off the premises. Let him buy gas from someone he's not attempting to put in mortal or legal jeopardy.
"Cynthia Stone, a spokesperson for the anti-gun coalition Colorado Ceasefire,...said among the city ordinances that would be wiped out would be the ban on assault weapons and Denver's safe storage law.
She cited the recent tragic shooting in suburban Centennial of Sahil Ahmed, an 11-year-old sixth- grader at Thunder Ridge Middle School.
Ahmed, who had won a battle with leukemia, was shot to death accidentally by a 15-year-old acquaintance who found an unlocked semiautomatic handgun in his parents' bedroom."
Of course she failed to mention that the tragic shooting could have happened despite Denver's gun control laws. A 15 year old who should have had some basic firearms instruction commited this act in front of an 18 & 19 year old who should have had some firearms training. A 15 year old should be responsible enough to not play with a loaded gun. A 15 year old can get a permit to drive a car with an adult present in the vehicle. A 15 year old should have known better, but chances are said 15 year old was simply told guns were bad or dangerous instead of being instructed properly in their use. I would recomend even for the most hard core anti-gun pacifist to receive at least rudimentary safety training involving firearms & insist that their children, even pre-teens go through the same sort of training for the sole purpose of preventing negligent shootings such as this one. For more reading on Sahil Ahmed, I recommend this write up by Ari Armstrong.
But Ms. Stone prefers to use tragedies as justification for her position, so I doubt any sensible approach to preventing these rare but tragic occurances would sway her.
In short Denver is using tax money to try to keep the state from slapping their wrist & forbidding them from denying their citizens Rights. The city council & mayor's office are reprehensible.
The sad part is, even though Webb is term limited & will be out of office soon, the two candidates for mayor have vowed to continue his fight against freedom.
"Mares: Says state should not be able to dictate to the city. Held a news conference in March asking the legislature to drop the bills.
Quote: "Denver and every other city should be allowed to make rules around the safety of their citizens that they deem appropriate."
Hickenlooper: Says he would "absolutely" continue the legal action against the laws that Mayor Wellington Webb has promised is forthcoming.
Quote: "I think historically it's pretty clear that in most of these issues we have a right to self-determination"
& Denver looked so nice in the brochure. It seems that I may have to put my attempts to teach these heathens out here the proper way to cook a hushpuppy (no, not the shoe) on the backburner so to speak until I can get them straightened out on more important things - like how not to ignore two constitutions in order to enact bad policy that violates a persons' Rights. I have a feeling I'll have to put in over-time for this one.
If you're into petitions then here's one for ya:
Petition to reject renewal of Feinstein-Schumer Gun Control Act
"A citizen petition to affirm the Second Amendment to our Constitution, requesting that the President, our Representatives and Senators reject legislation to renew the 1994 Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer gun-control law scheduled to sunset in September of 2004.
To President George Bush, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist:
Petition Text:
We, the people of these United States, rightfully petition our President, House of Representatives and Senate in affirmation of the Second Amendment to our Constitution, and request that you reject legislation to renew the 1994 Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer gun-control law scheduled to sunset in September of 2004.
Though House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says "The votes in the House are not there" to renew the measure, Feinstein and Schumer have introduced a bill in the Senate to renew the law, and they will press the House for a roll call vote in the upcoming election year. I am appalled that President Bush has reiterated his support for this assault on my Constitutional right as a law abiding citizen, to own a semi-automatic rifle for lawful purposes. Feinstein and Schumer even applauded President Bush, saying: "We welcome your support and look forward to working with you to gain swift passage of this legislation. With your assistance, we will be able to pass legislation to continue the ban and help make America's streets safer."
"Safer"? For whom? Such laws claim, ostensibly, to protect law-abiding citizens. Of course, only law-abiding citizens comply with these restrictions -- and at their own peril. Criminals don't care if the weapon they are using comport with the 23,000 federal, state and local gun restrictions already on the books. The Democrat's "incremental encroachment" on the Second Amendment is a thinly-veiled strategy to achieve their ultimate goal of gun confiscation, as Ms. Feinstein made clear after passage of her 1994 legislation: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate...for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it!"
Reject renewal of the 1994 Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer Gun-Control Act!"
Go sign it, & thank Bill St. Clair of End the War on Freedom for a correction on the petition as explained by this excerpt from his blog:
"When I read this last week, I was unwilling to sign it, so I wrote the following letter explaining why:
To: info@patriotpetitions.us
Subject: AW Ban petition
From: "Bill St. Clair"
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 14:59:58 -0400
http://patriotpetitions.us/nogunban/
I would sign this petition, but for one word.
"I am appalled that President Bush has reiterated his support for this assault on my Constitutional right as a law abiding citizen, to own a semi- automatic sporting rifle for lawful purposes."
"Sporting" has nothing whatsoever to do with the second amendment. We should never mention it in that context. Strike this one word, and I'll sign your petition. The second amendment exists to ensure that we the people always have the power to defend ourselves from tyrants, especially tyrants in our own government.
-Bill St. Clair
The removed the word "sporting". I signed it."
Petition to reject renewal of Feinstein-Schumer Gun Control Act
"A citizen petition to affirm the Second Amendment to our Constitution, requesting that the President, our Representatives and Senators reject legislation to renew the 1994 Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer gun-control law scheduled to sunset in September of 2004.
To President George Bush, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist:
Petition Text:
We, the people of these United States, rightfully petition our President, House of Representatives and Senate in affirmation of the Second Amendment to our Constitution, and request that you reject legislation to renew the 1994 Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer gun-control law scheduled to sunset in September of 2004.
Though House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says "The votes in the House are not there" to renew the measure, Feinstein and Schumer have introduced a bill in the Senate to renew the law, and they will press the House for a roll call vote in the upcoming election year. I am appalled that President Bush has reiterated his support for this assault on my Constitutional right as a law abiding citizen, to own a semi-automatic rifle for lawful purposes. Feinstein and Schumer even applauded President Bush, saying: "We welcome your support and look forward to working with you to gain swift passage of this legislation. With your assistance, we will be able to pass legislation to continue the ban and help make America's streets safer."
"Safer"? For whom? Such laws claim, ostensibly, to protect law-abiding citizens. Of course, only law-abiding citizens comply with these restrictions -- and at their own peril. Criminals don't care if the weapon they are using comport with the 23,000 federal, state and local gun restrictions already on the books. The Democrat's "incremental encroachment" on the Second Amendment is a thinly-veiled strategy to achieve their ultimate goal of gun confiscation, as Ms. Feinstein made clear after passage of her 1994 legislation: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate...for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it!"
Reject renewal of the 1994 Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer Gun-Control Act!"
Go sign it, & thank Bill St. Clair of End the War on Freedom for a correction on the petition as explained by this excerpt from his blog:
"When I read this last week, I was unwilling to sign it, so I wrote the following letter explaining why:
To: info@patriotpetitions.us
Subject: AW Ban petition
From: "Bill St. Clair"
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 14:59:58 -0400
http://patriotpetitions.us/nogunban/
I would sign this petition, but for one word.
"I am appalled that President Bush has reiterated his support for this assault on my Constitutional right as a law abiding citizen, to own a semi- automatic sporting rifle for lawful purposes."
"Sporting" has nothing whatsoever to do with the second amendment. We should never mention it in that context. Strike this one word, and I'll sign your petition. The second amendment exists to ensure that we the people always have the power to defend ourselves from tyrants, especially tyrants in our own government.
-Bill St. Clair
The removed the word "sporting". I signed it."
Sunday, May 18, 2003
I just criticize the news - I don't make it!
Scientist confirm that politicians lie.
"LONDON (Reuters) - It's official -- after intensive research, scientists have concluded that politicians lie.
In a study described in the Observer newspaper, Glen Newey, a political scientist at the University of Strathclyde, concluded that lying is an important part of politics in the modern democracy.
"Politicians need to be more honest about lying," he told the newspaper
According to Newey, whose findings were published by the government-funded Economic and Social Research Council, voters expect to be lied to in certain circumstances, and sometimes even require it.
Newey said lying by politicians can occasionally be entirely justified, such as when national security is at risk, and the public even has a "right to be lied to" in cases where they do not expect to be told the whole truth, such as during a war.
But the main cause of lying is increased probing by the public into areas that the government would rather not discuss candidly. If voters only asked fewer questions, politicians would tell them fewer lies. "When journalists or parliamentary colleagues start to probe at that area which the government wants to keep secret, you are more likely to be pushed further and further toward the territory of lying," Newey said."
I'd make the case that while being seemingly impartial, government funded research is usually a waste, but this article & study beat me to it. All that's really left to say about this 'study' is the obligatory, "duh".
Scientist confirm that politicians lie.
"LONDON (Reuters) - It's official -- after intensive research, scientists have concluded that politicians lie.
In a study described in the Observer newspaper, Glen Newey, a political scientist at the University of Strathclyde, concluded that lying is an important part of politics in the modern democracy.
"Politicians need to be more honest about lying," he told the newspaper
According to Newey, whose findings were published by the government-funded Economic and Social Research Council, voters expect to be lied to in certain circumstances, and sometimes even require it.
Newey said lying by politicians can occasionally be entirely justified, such as when national security is at risk, and the public even has a "right to be lied to" in cases where they do not expect to be told the whole truth, such as during a war.
But the main cause of lying is increased probing by the public into areas that the government would rather not discuss candidly. If voters only asked fewer questions, politicians would tell them fewer lies. "When journalists or parliamentary colleagues start to probe at that area which the government wants to keep secret, you are more likely to be pushed further and further toward the territory of lying," Newey said."
I'd make the case that while being seemingly impartial, government funded research is usually a waste, but this article & study beat me to it. All that's really left to say about this 'study' is the obligatory, "duh".
Update - KeepAndBearArms.com poll as of 4:00 p.m. MDT :
Should firearm manufacturers pledge that if the ban on ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds is renewed, they will only market and sell limited-capacity feeding devices to all Government entities as well as civilians -- in effect making the government abide by its own laws?
Yes. 95.8% 3118 votes
No. 4.2% 138 votes
Total Votes: 3256
Should firearm manufacturers pledge that if the ban on ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds is renewed, they will only market and sell limited-capacity feeding devices to all Government entities as well as civilians -- in effect making the government abide by its own laws?
Yes. 95.8% 3118 votes
No. 4.2% 138 votes
Total Votes: 3256
A woman died of a heart attack after a no-knock warrant was served at her apartment in NYC.
"Ms. Spruill, 57, a longtime city employee who lived alone, died of an apparent heart attack after officers broke down her door and tossed a flash grenade into her apartment.Police said an informant had told them the apartment contained drugs and weapons.
'The New York City Police Department is conducting a thorough investigation into Friday morning's incident,' Michael O'Looney, the department's chief spokesman, said yesterday. On Friday, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said he had suspended the use of the grenades, which are meant to stun people with a loud noise and a flash, and reassigned the lieutenant who had decided to use one at Ms. Spruill's apartment.
Mr. Kelly also apologized to the family of Ms. Spruill. She was a devoted member of the Convent Avenue Baptist Church nearby, where funeral arrangements were still pending yesterday.
'Now I'm afraid, I'm afraid of them busting down my door,' said Ms. Geiger, who sat with other building residents in the first-floor laundry room yesterday morning, reading the newspapers and weeping. They said they were not aware of any drug activity in the building, which has round-the-clock security."
Of course this lady is afraid that she could be the next victim of a no-knock warrant. But the frequency of issuing no-knowck warrants has been on the rise ever since the 'war on drugs' was declared. It is also a favorite 'tool' in the 'war on guns'.
I can see absolutely no justification for any judge to issue a no-knock warrant. The potentail benefits (catching drug dealers red handed) are grossly outweighed by the potential liabilities (the instance linked above). The further enforce the idea that the state has jurisdiction in a persons' home when it has reason to believe that person is committing a crime. there are countless stories of no-knock raids resulting in the death of the occupants & even when the occupants were completely innocent of any allegations used to obtain the warrant the officers who were resposnible for these innocent deaths are immune from punishment. I cannot express enough resentment at the practice in general & cases like these specifically.
Also I have heard of severally robberies that were committed under the guise of police using a no-knock warrant. The criminals busted in, declared they were cops serving a warrant & proceeded to rob the occupants. The criminals, just like real police, demanded everyone lay on the ground & proceeded to make sure they were unarmed. To me this is yet another reason to abandon the practice of no-knock warrants.
Personally, even though it might mean legal hardships I would advise anyone to actively defend themselves against any intrusion into their dwellings. In other words, unless & until you read the warrant for yourself & verify any credentials presented don't assume that they're cops serving a legitimate warrant. If you shoot someone under these circumstances & it turns out to be a cop there is a substantial risk of being prosecuted, but that is preferable to the definite possibility of the armed guys that just broke down your door being criminals with murderous intent.
All in all, no-knock warrants should be prohibited. They do more harm than good to society.
"Ms. Spruill, 57, a longtime city employee who lived alone, died of an apparent heart attack after officers broke down her door and tossed a flash grenade into her apartment.Police said an informant had told them the apartment contained drugs and weapons.
'The New York City Police Department is conducting a thorough investigation into Friday morning's incident,' Michael O'Looney, the department's chief spokesman, said yesterday. On Friday, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said he had suspended the use of the grenades, which are meant to stun people with a loud noise and a flash, and reassigned the lieutenant who had decided to use one at Ms. Spruill's apartment.
Mr. Kelly also apologized to the family of Ms. Spruill. She was a devoted member of the Convent Avenue Baptist Church nearby, where funeral arrangements were still pending yesterday.
'Now I'm afraid, I'm afraid of them busting down my door,' said Ms. Geiger, who sat with other building residents in the first-floor laundry room yesterday morning, reading the newspapers and weeping. They said they were not aware of any drug activity in the building, which has round-the-clock security."
Of course this lady is afraid that she could be the next victim of a no-knock warrant. But the frequency of issuing no-knowck warrants has been on the rise ever since the 'war on drugs' was declared. It is also a favorite 'tool' in the 'war on guns'.
I can see absolutely no justification for any judge to issue a no-knock warrant. The potentail benefits (catching drug dealers red handed) are grossly outweighed by the potential liabilities (the instance linked above). The further enforce the idea that the state has jurisdiction in a persons' home when it has reason to believe that person is committing a crime. there are countless stories of no-knock raids resulting in the death of the occupants & even when the occupants were completely innocent of any allegations used to obtain the warrant the officers who were resposnible for these innocent deaths are immune from punishment. I cannot express enough resentment at the practice in general & cases like these specifically.
Also I have heard of severally robberies that were committed under the guise of police using a no-knock warrant. The criminals busted in, declared they were cops serving a warrant & proceeded to rob the occupants. The criminals, just like real police, demanded everyone lay on the ground & proceeded to make sure they were unarmed. To me this is yet another reason to abandon the practice of no-knock warrants.
Personally, even though it might mean legal hardships I would advise anyone to actively defend themselves against any intrusion into their dwellings. In other words, unless & until you read the warrant for yourself & verify any credentials presented don't assume that they're cops serving a legitimate warrant. If you shoot someone under these circumstances & it turns out to be a cop there is a substantial risk of being prosecuted, but that is preferable to the definite possibility of the armed guys that just broke down your door being criminals with murderous intent.
All in all, no-knock warrants should be prohibited. They do more harm than good to society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)