Saturday, June 07, 2003

"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." — John Philpot Curran, 1790

Looks like some people in Tennessee have come across a good idea. It's a petition to get the governor & legislature to pass a bill nullifying all federal gun control laws within the borders of Tenessee.


WHEREAS the Constitution of the United States of America mandates and guarantees the rights of the citizenry to keep and bear arms, and further mandates that the federal government shall make no law which infringes these rights, and

WHEREAS the federal government has violated, abrogated, ignored and vilified the Constitution by enacting laws which infringe these rights, and is thus in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,

THEREFORE, we, the undersigned, as citizens of the United States, call upon and hereby petition the Governor of the State of Tennessee to initiate a bill within the legislative body of the State of Tennessee, which will nullify and make void any and all federal firearms laws, within the boundaries of the Sovereign State of Tennessee, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.


The undersigned"

If you live in Tennesse then mosey on over & sign this thing.
The proposed California Ammunition & Component tax is in the news again.The Smallest Minority is all over it. Look here for the first post, then scroll up one for the second as his permalink to that one isn't working.
The Smallest Minority covers it nicely, except for one aspect: the tax is per item on components as well as loaded ammunition. So while a 20 round box of cartridges would have an additional $2 tax added on, a box of 100 primers or bullets would have a $10 tax added on.

What follows is a previous post I did on the component aspects of the tax which can be found here.

In California they're trying to pass a bill that would charge a ten cent tax per round or component of ammunition. Of course, cops are exempt.

"...For purposes of this section, "munition" means a projectile
with its fuse, propelling charge, or primer fired from a weapon, or
any of the individual components thereof..."

I'm not sure what the going rate is in Cali but in Colorado Federal 210 Large Rifle primers are roughly $2.00 per 100. A box of 100 .30 caliber 168 grain BTHP Match will set you back around $20. A pound of IMR 4831 runs around $18. 100 Remington .30-06 Springfield cases will set you back a little over $20.

That comes to roughly 58 cents per round for the first loading, 38 cents a round for the second, third fourth & fifth loadings for an average of 42 cents per round (assuming no more than 5 reloads per case) That equates to $8.40 for 20 rounds compared to $16 per box of Remington 165 grain soft point ammo at Wal-Mart. So it costs a little less than half to roll your own with match grade bullets than it does to buy factory ammo w/o match grade bullets.

So assuming California prices are similar to Colorado, should this tax bill get passed 100 cases would run $30; 100 bullets would run $30; 100 primers would run $12. I shudder to think of each flake of powder costing 10 cents, but let's assume 10 cents per canister.

That's 91 cents per round for the first loading, 61 cents for each subsequent one for an average of .67 cents per round. (Again assuming no more than5 reloads per case) That brings it up to $13.40 per 20 rounds compared to the $18 you'd pay at Wal-Mart for factory ammo.
& the Cali calculations are based on the hope that they don't tax each flake of powder. There's 7000 grains of powder per pound, but powders don't have the same mass or density, so that could equate to 6,800 pieces of powder in one brand, 7,240 in another, & 25,923 in yet another. But just going on the assumption that if they did tax the powder by individual piece I'd assume for logistical purposes they'd round it up to 10 cents per grain by weight. I mean, who wants to spend all day counting how many thousands of flakes are in each pound of gunpowder? So at 10 cents per grain that comes to a $700 tax per pound of powder, increasing the cost per round to $7.91 for the first loading, $7.61 for each subsequent loading for an average of $7.67 per round. (Yet again assuming5 loadings per case) That would mean $153.40 per 20 rounds compared to $18 at Wal-Mart for factory ammo. I hope I am correct in assuming the legislators in Cali are not that far gone, but it wouldn't surprise me to see them tax per grain of powder rather than per can.
To sum up:
$16 per 20 round box of factory ammo w/ softnose bullets
$8.40 per 20 rounds of handloaded ammo w/ match quality bullets
If the tax bill passes this translates into:
$18 per 20 round box of factory ammo w/ softnose bullets
$13.40 per 20 rounds of handloaded ammo w/ match quality bullets
If the new tax means 10 cents per grain of powder:
$18 per 20 round box of factory ammo w/ softnose bullets
$153.40 per 20 round box of handloaded ammo w/ match quality bullets

Either way the ammo & component tax unfairly burdens the reloaders: the ones who for economy or quality control reasons load their own ammo. & let us not forget there are many people who shoot 'wildcat' rounds. Wildcats are cartridges that for one reason or another ammunition makers do not make loaded rounds of. So they have to load their own.

The majority of people who load their own ammo participate in some form of high volume shooting sport. Some hunt as well, but the typical reloader does it simply in order to target shoot more often, target shoot more efficiently, or hunt more efficiently. These are not typically the people involved in drive-by's.

The stated reason for the tax is to help recompense the state for the high cost of violence perpetrated with firearms. It would seem though, that the tax would target gun owners who are at a very low risk of committing gun violence. It's similar to saying that a tax is levied to defray costs from building new roads, but the ones being taxed the most are pedestrians.

California is in a budget crisis & they are looking to tax their way out of it. Gun owners seem to have a small voice in government out there so they are an easy target. It shouldn't be this way, as there are quite enough gun owners in California to make their voices heard, but alas, I fear apathy is the culprit. Then again I have also heard that in California, a situation exists in which the urban centers hold the most political influence & therefore neglect the needs of the rural parts of the state. Same thing occurs in Illinois, where Chicago controls the state, & In Michigan where Detroit usually has the last word. Or so I hear.
California could do other things to help curb the costs of violence & help trim their budget such as encouraging, not arresting people who carry arms for protection, keeping violent offenders in prison for the length of their sentence, stop socializing everything that moves & most things that don't, & perhaps most importantly to the budget, stop spending beyond their citizens means.
But in typical leftist fashion, they choose a means which accomplishes multiple ends: taxing their way out of a budget problem they created while punishing gun owners for crime & discouraging shooting sports by artificially inflating the costs.

My advice to people in California: Nevada, Arizona, Oregon or Revolution.

Thursday, June 05, 2003

The California Assembly has approved a bill adding .50 rifles to the state's dangerous weapons list

"The Assembly approved a bill Wednesday that would add a high-powered rifle to the state's list of dangerous weapons. Under the bill, a criminal using the weapon would face up to 12 years in prison.
People who already own the gun would be allowed to keep them, but would have to register with the state Department of Justice.
'It requires a permit for people to buy them in the future,' [Assemblyman Paul] Koretz said. 'If terrorists want to buy them, hopefully we can catch them and prevent that.'
The bill was approved on a 42-26 vote, sending it to the Senate."

I refer you to an earlier post in which Michael Marks observed the California legislature as it contemplated a .50 ban.

Thanks to Say Uncle for the link

PBS & Bill Moyers promote an educational plan that could double as a Violence Policy Center press release.

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) program now with Bill Moyers has included on its Web site ( an extensive "lesson plan" for teachers to instruct their high school students about the Second Amendment. Its title is the first sign that objectivity will not be a paramount goal: 'Gun Control and Terrorism: Laws or Loopholes'.
This is not the first attack on the Second Amendment that has been financed by PBS with your tax dollars. It is simply the latest. However, its target should be of particular concern to all who value our liberties and the quality of education our youth receive.
By attempting to turn classrooms into echo chambers of anti-Second Amendment dogma, Moyers and PBS erode public trust in our schools.The future of our rights can only be protected if our children are taught that the fight is constant. To continue the fight, they must be armed with the truth, not shackled by revisionist history force fed them by an anti-gun elite. This effort by PBS to undermine the Second Amendment by spreading anti-gun propaganda in our schools will only succeed if we stand by and silently allow it."

Nice to know that they take your money in the form of taxes to help fund efforts to take away your guns.

PBS contact info:

Public Broadcasting Service
1320 Braddock Place
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-1649
Phone: (703) 739-5000
Fax: (703) 739-0775

Also keep in mind that your elected officials in D.C. have a say in PBS funding. So a letter to them expressing your displeasure at the way they're using your money against you wouldn't hurt either.

This may or may not be of assistance to you, but feel free to use it if you wish. The following is a sample letter to be given to companies, corporations, businesses, etc.. that have policies against carrying arms or defending ones self on the job. I do not know if it will be at all effective, but any & all feedback would be appreciated.

Company Policy Regarding Personal Security & Risk Management

It is a standard policy among many companies & corporations to prohibit any resistance to an actual threat. It is also standard to prohibit employees from carrying any means of resistance to potential threats. There are various reasons given for the enactment & enforcement of these policies, ranging from a belief that this will protect employees to limiting a company or corporation’s legal liability should an attacker or 3rd party be injured in the course of an employee defending him/herself.
I assert that the reasoning behind these policies is flawed & in fact more dangerous to the employee & employer than the perceived danger that is the basis of these policies.

First allow me to address the question of compliance when faced with a threat:

The logic behind compliance with an attacker’s demands as it relates to company policy is that the attacker will not harm the employee as long as the demands are met. This is flawed reasoning on a number of levels.

First we have to assume that the attacker wants a specific thing, such as money, jewelry, etc. This is often the prime motivation for an attack but by no means is it the sole reason. Many attacks occur simply to satisfy a desire to hurt someone else. Some attacks, albeit fewer than the first two categories, occur because of mistaken identity. Attacks can also have multiple motives. For example robbing someone with the intent to hurt them after the objects of the robbery have been obtained is not uncommon. & there is always the possibility that an attacker will harm the victim solely to make the victim unwilling or unable to identify them.
There is enough of a chance that attackers’ motives are not limited to theft that a policy of compliance will not prevent & may even encourage violence against an employee.

Second we must assume that for a compliance doctrine to be effective, the attackers’ are trustworthy. In essence the compliance doctrine establishes a contractual relationship between attacker & victim. The essence of the contract is that if the victim complies with the attackers’ demands, then the victim will not be harmed. Admittedly this may work in some instances, but only where the attacker is motivated solely by theft, is not concerned about the victim making an identification & does not have the desire &/or capacity to inflict violence upon the victim. Now if we assume that a high percentage of confrontations meet the criteria for the compliance policy to be effective we must also realize that the remaining situations will not meet the criteria for the compliance policy to be beneficial to the victim. In fact, in non-robbery or dual-purpose encounters the compliance doctrine benefits the attacker while increasing the risk for the victim.

In essence, the compliance doctrine relies on the attacker being willing to threaten violence, but not actually act upon that threat. This is simply not a logical assumption to make. Should a person be willing to threaten violence against another person, we should not assume that it is a bluff, or even that if the demands are met then there will be no realization of the threat. Rather, we should assume that any person who is willing to threaten violence against another person unless demands are met is not only capable, but likely to carry out that threat regardless of whether the demands are met or not. While statistically it may be that only a small percentage of attackers mean to commit harm, or actually commit harm to their victim I do not know of anyone who would, given an alternative, ask their loved ones to risk encountering that percentage of attackers no matter how remote the chances are. This is no more than a lottery, where the employee is forced to adopt a policy that simply does not work in all cases because there is a misguided belief that it works in the majority of cases.

Company policy also prohibits the carrying of any type of weapon or object that can be used for personal defense. This too is an unwise approach that causes more harm than it remedies.

Weapons have been the companion of humans since the dawn of humanity. They are tools whose purpose is quite simple: providing an advantage to those who are challenged by a physically superior force. Currently their very existence is often frowned upon. This is based on an irrational fear of the weapon itself more than the belief that all humans are evil. The company policy concerning weapons & other objects of defense reflects this trend & for absolutely no good reason.

There are two primary justifications for prohibiting weapons & other objects of defense: A fear that the presence of a weapon will escalate into violence & potential legal liability for the company &/or corporation.

The idea that an employee possessing a weapon during a confrontation will cause violence to erupt where there was no potential for violence to begin with is flawed.

For that assumption to be true we must have a situation where only a threat to the attacker would cause violence. In essence we are thinking that the attacker is bluffing. By following that logic we would also conclude that since the attacker is bluffing then as long as no threat were presented there would be no violence even if the demands were not met. That’s a very interesting way of saying that an attacker will not harm you even if you refuse to meet the demands given. & if that were true then robbery would disappear. After all if there is no danger of violence then why would anyone meet demands that are not agreeable?

The facts however are that an attacker who threatens violence will not act upon that threat solely because of the presence of a weapon. In fact it is more logical to assume that an attacker will not act upon a threat of violence if he is faced with a victim who is armed equally. Most attackers, assuming that robbery is the main or sole motive will seek easier victims than go through the risk of a violent encounter with an armed opponent. Those that are not deterred by an armed victim ready & capable of self defense would not be prevented from committing any violent acts merely because demands were met to satisfaction.

In fact it has been estimated that between 40,000 & 2,000,000 crimes are prevented every year merely because the victim possessed & showed a weapon to an attacker.

The presence of a weapon will not typically escalate a situation to violence when there was little or no threat of violence to begin with. In fact the presence of a weapon is much more likely to prevent violence.

The legal liability of a company or corporation is always a concern, but I feel there are some aspects which have been neglected.

It is true that should an employee cause harm to an assailant or in the process of defense a 3rd party that there exists a real potential for litigation. However there is another possible claimant that is being neglected, & one who offers a much stronger case in a civil trial: an employee &/or the family of an employee.

Should an employee be injured or killed by an attacker while following company policy regarding compliance & the absence of defensive tools, then a very real possibility exists that a lawsuit could be brought against the company or corporation for putting an employee at greater risk than would otherwise have occurred.

The ideal case for this would be an employee who had no weapons & offered no resistance as per company policy, yet was injured or killed by an attacker, despite having some reasonable degree of competence with self defense & the tools used therein. The claim would be that the company policy created an unnecessary hazard to the employee that resulted in injury &/or death. It in essence deprived the employee the fundamental Right of Self Defense while offering no compensatory protection.

The company would have to prove that they did in fact offer adequate protection for the employee while he was obligated to forego his ability to defend himself. As pointed out above a very reasonable & persuasive argument can be made that compliance & lack of defensive tools are not adequately substituted by hoping that an attacker will commit violence.

Now with all litigation involving juries there is a chance that any claims will be dismissed. However given a jury composed of people in a region where Self Defense & the carrying of weapons are regarded as basic & inherent Rights the odds are greatly against the company &/or corporation.

There are other reasons for changing company policy in regards to compliance & the use of defensive weapons.

Currently the U.S. is under a threat, albeit to varying degrees, of attack from foreign sources. The nature of the attacks in the past indicates that compliance is not effective as it just makes the attackers’ job easier with absolutely no benefit to the victims. Now, just as before all citizens are expected to provide for the common defense. In order to assist in the common defense it is reasonable to expect that every citizen who is able & willing have on or near their person the tools needed for defense. This would mean weapons or other objects of defense. This country was founded with the idea that all citizens are responsible for the collective defense. At the time this concept was embodied in the militia. It is still in effect today. Congress has defined the militia as all able bodied males between the ages of 17 & 45 & given the civil rights movement that should be assumed to encompass females as well. This can be found at 10 U.S.C. § 311 (enacted 1956, amended 1958). So to prohibit the possession of weapons &/or other objects of defense company policy is in effect negating a resource that the country has been dependent upon since its inception.

Another aspect is societal protection. Should an attack be made then the chances of apprehending, identifying & prosecution the attacker are slim. This is due mostly to the fact that eye witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence & often the only form of evidence in these types of cases. For this reason among others all who participate in society are obligated to act in the common defense of society. This not only includes being a good witness to a crime, but if possible attempting to prevent the crime &/or apprehending the perpetrator. It is much safer for society, which includes the company/corporation & employees, if a person who attempts to commit an act of violence is not subject to the consequences of their acts. This is not to say one must act foolishly in an attempt to apprehend a criminal, but where & when able a person is obligated to prevent a person escaping justice.

Currently it is assumed that most employees of certain companies/corporations are easy targets. While potentially not having access to large amounts of money this is negated by their obliged compliance & the lack of means to resist. This encourages rather than discourages criminal behavior. Procedures which limit the amount of money available to a thief do not deter them, as petty thefts are by far the most prevalent crimes involving robbery.

However should a small amount of money accessible to a potential victim coupled with no obligation of compliance, no prohibition on resistance & no prohibition on defensive tools become the policy then the deterrent factor would be measurably increased.

& lastly should an attacker be intent upon violence then the only persuasion that will deter him is violence. It is reasonable to conclude that when threatening violence the person intends to act upon it, even to the point of causing the death of the victim. Therefore logic would dictate that since compliance will only result in a victims injury &/or death, then nothing is lost in an attempt to use violence to deter or incapacitate the attacker.

Therefore I propose that the company policy regarding compliance & weapons be rescinded.

In its place there should be a policy of resistance to any & all threats of violence whether this resistance comprises an attempt at escaping the situation or actively resisting the attacker.

Further that no prohibitions be placed upon an employee carrying or possessing a weapon or other toll suitable for defensive purposes.

To ensure that this policy is understood & to make clear the legal ramifications of it I would recommend a waiver be signed by every employee absolving the company/corporation of any liability in the event of negligence, incidental or purposeful injury caused directly or indirectly by the employee.

I would also recommend that the company/corporation either;

A: Establish & institute a training program that focuses on crime prevention as well as self defense

B: Provide incentive for employees to take defensive instruction (such as a credited vacation day to every day they spend taking an approved defensive course)

C: Both A & B

If any further discussion is required feel free to contac me at ______________________

Thank you for your time.



Wednesday, June 04, 2003

I meant to post about this a few days ago, but I'm afraid life sometimes interferes with blogging. I've gotta do something about that.

The U.S. is seemingly relaxing its civilian disarmament program in Iraq.

"Iraqis can keep their assault rifles
U.S. retreats from previous policy. Military officials have said it's hard to disarm people who fear for their safety"

Well well well. Looks like someone's bene not only reading about history, but learning from it. There wouldn't be a U.S. military if a bunch of civilians who feared for their safety didn't make it hard to be disarmed in 1775.

"BAGHDAD, IRAQ – In a significant retreat from U.S. efforts to seize weapons held by Iraqi citizens, U.S. and British officials said Saturday that Iraqis would be allowed to keep AK-47 assault rifles in their homes and businesses.
While U.S. officials gave no public explanation for amending what had been a much tougher plan to rid postwar Iraq of heavy weapons, military officials have said they recognize the difficulties in disarming citizens at a time when Iraqis feel their personal safety is still at risk."

That means the military realized that Iraqis were willing to fight intrusive invasions & weapons confiscations. which I sincerely hope they remember should they ever try civilian disarmament here.

"The civilian disarmament policy is central to efforts by the U.S. and British occupation authorities to reduce the high level of violent street crime here. The policy is also aimed at stopping sporadic guerrilla attacks like those that have killed or injured U.S. soldiers in recent weeks."

All that's missing is the obligatory 'for the good of the children' excuse. The only reason to disarm any population is to control that population.

"The disarmament policy was announced in general terms May 22 by L. Paul Bremer, the top civilian administrator in Iraq.
According to a draft of the directive given to leaders of Iraqi's main political groups, the original plan sought to impose a broad ban on the owning or trading of "automatic firearms of any caliber" by civilians. The directive, however, did allow Iraqi civilians to retain some lighter arms."

So they weren't foolish enough to attempt a complete disarmament all at once. First the automatic weapons, then once they're used to that th semi-autmatic weapons, then... Hey, that strategy has been working here hasn't it?

"At the time, the list of automatic weapons to be banned specifically included AK-47 Kalashnikovs, the Russian assault rifles that are nearly ubiquitous in Iraq. But that approach came under heavy criticism from many Iraqis, who argued that families and business owners badly needed the weapons to defend themselves from looters and organized criminal gangs."

Not to mention the armed resistance to the idea. I guess that'd qualify as 'criticism'.

"That criticism apparently had an effect. Under a two- week amnesty program that begins today, Iraqis are being urged to voluntarily bring in prohibited weapons to police stations around the country. But an Arabic-language flier now being distributed says Iraqi citizens can keep certain automatic weapons inside their homes and businesses.
Asked Saturday whether Iraqis would be allowed to keep assault rifles in their homes, a spokesman for Bremer said, 'Yes, they will be allowed to keep their AK-47s'."

Translation: its foolish to disarm a people who don't want to be disarmed, so we'll attempt to save face by saying we're 'allowing' them to keep their AK-47's. Truth is, we don't have enough troops over here to take them away unless they let us.

"It is not a program for the disarmament of the Iraqi people," added the spokesman, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It is a weapons-control program."

Translation: we tried a disarmament program, calcualated the number of body bags we'd need & reconsidered the whole notion. Now we just want their RPG's & we hope they'll comply.

Alternate translation: Of course we want them defenseless, but they're not so we can't force it on them.

Analogy: our attempt at civilian disarmament is merely weapons control. Similarly our attempt at state sponsored religion is not directed at the people - think of it as God control.

The object of any 'weapons control program' is not control of the weapons, but control of the people. Control of the weapons is the only effective means at ensuring the control of the people.

"The nuances are confusing to many members of Baghdad's new police force. At a police station in the Dora neighborhood Saturday, Iraqi officers said they had learned only the day before that an amnesty program for weapons was to begin."

[Iraqi policeman on being given the details] They're gonna take away the what from the who??? man, I gotta crack open a lukewarm one & watch this!!!

"Many officers struggled to interpret the instructions on the new flier. Some said the flier seemed to permit only automatic weapons with a caliber of less than 7.62 mm, which is the caliber of a standard Kalashnikov. Others said the directive seemed to give a more general approval for keeping automatic weapons at home."

So lemme get this straight, an AK-47 is o.k., but a less powerful 9mm Uzi is banned?
[First iraqi officer] We must confiscate the prohibited weapons. It is our duty.
[Second Iraqi officer] Duty hell! That'll be our ass! I say we let them keep what they got as long as they don't shoot at any innocent bystanders, expecially us!

"Iraqis will still be allowed to keep handguns, rifles and shotguns. But the new instructions contain a lengthy list of much heavier weapons that would be prohibited to most people: machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, shoulder-fired missiles, antiaircraft guns, mortars, land mines and grenades."

[U.S. Beaurocrat] I know..let's make it look like we're letting the Iraqis keep their personal arms. That might take away the heat from our failed attempt at disarmament by force!

"The new weapons policy appears to be the outcome of a debate among top military officials in Iraq. Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, commander of U.S. and British land forces in Iraq, told reporters two weeks ago that he was skeptical about simply trying to disarm Iraqi civilians.
"For one thing, I don't think it would be enforceable," McKiernan said at the time.
But Bremer, keenly aware that his political priority in Iraq is to restore law and order, strongly suggested that he wanted to prohibit most weapons in civilian hands.'

So the General realizes that an armed people will kill a lot of soldiers if they attempt to forcibly disarm them. While the Politican doesn't care since he won't be the one getting shot. It seems we have been succesful in exporting our domestic policies haven't we?

Hopefully this won't be a temporary set back in a grand scheme to disarm the Iraqis. The worst thing one can do is deprive a free people of arms. Seems like some of our military is deserving of the credit given them, while as usual their political bosses are not.

The UN will hold yet another conference next week to promote civilian disarmament

"The Gun Owners of America say the agenda of the U.N. on this issue is not covert, but rather it is unabashed. The U.N. "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 U.N. itself," said Lawrence Auster, a reporter who covered a similar effort by the U.N. in 2001.
The U.N. will attempt to use this upcoming conference to put pressure on member nations, such as the United States, to apply tougher gun laws.
But, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has come to the defense of gun owners. He recently submitted H.R. 1146, a bill that would allow the United States to leave the U.N. He is lobbying House Republicans to allow a floor vote on his bill."

Rep. Paul has an on-line petition to demonstrate support for his bill. You can access it here.

While glancing through The Smallest Minority I stumbled upon a link he made in passing. It's the UN Security Council's Global Policy Forum on Small Arms & Light Weapons page. With links to such delightful sounding groups as UN Department for Disarmement Affairs ( Small Arms Branch) [Dept. of Propoganda & Damned Lies], UNDP Safe & Effecient Small Arms Collection & Destruction Prgramme [Dept. of Military Injustice], United Nations Institute for Disarmement Research[Dept. of Tyrannical/Despot Research - How did Hitler/Stalin/Mao do it Division]. Some of the links don't work, but some do.

Now this is probably coincidental, but if you type in the following URL

You get the following message:

You don't have permission to access /security/smallarms/ on this server.
Apache/1.3.22 Server at Port 80

Shotgun News has a column ( print version - it's not found online) by Fred who among other things sells M-14 stocks & gives advice on how to become a Rifleman. For years he's been using a scenario where UN troops come to disarm US citizens to stress the importance of marksmanship. His gun club even has a UN Day event where the official target is a blue helmet at 500 yards. Some think he goes a bit too far in preaching against the UN. I'm thinking that if they had read the info about the UN linked above, they might start joining Fred at his range on UN Day. Pick up a Shotgun News & judge his column for yourself.

Update: I neglected to include the following link when I initially posted. The link was found over at I Am Always Right.

At the G8 summit Brazil & France propose international tax on guns to end world hunger.

Interesting idea. Of course the US has been using taxation as a means of infringing upon an individual's Right to Arms for almost 70 years now. The article goes on to discuss the UN's efforts at civilian disarmament.

Nicki Fellenzer writes about the NRA in an article entitled Betrayal of Trust.

"When I first joined the NRA, I did so because I felt they were the best suited to represent my interests. As the biggest organization dedicated to the rights of gun owners in the United States, I felt they had the most political influence and were in the best position possible to achieve our pro-freedom goals. I thought they served a terrific purpose – to mainstream the views of gun owners. And even though I disagreed with some if their political moves, I felt we all supported the same cause – to ensure the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed – even though we took different roads to that goal.
I was wrong."

She lists quite a few of the NRA's transgressions against the people they claim to represent & goes on to make speculations about what harm the NRA may do in the future, especially concerning the assault weapons ban.
Go read it, then inform the NRA you'll be a member when they start acting right. 'Till then, might I recommend GOA?

Tuesday, June 03, 2003

Larry Pratt claims the Bush administration is treating Iraqis better than U.S. citizens.

"According to the June 1 issue of the New York Times, the U.S. officials are now allowing Iraqi citizens to keep their fully automatic AK-47s. 'And yet in this country, the Bush administration supports the Clinton-Feinstein ban on several types of semi-automatic firearms,' Pratt said."

He's got a point. Wonder why the NRA hasn't brought that up?

Mary Catherine Ham compares a fictious anti pre-marital sex law to factual seat belt laws.

I think she's onto something.

Monday, June 02, 2003

The blogroll has been updated & a few newcomers worth checking out have been added.

Also Layline has a post about an article by Jeff Snyder concerning laws. His permalinks are down but as of this posting it's the top entry.

KipperCat points us to this item which is now available & absolutely crucial for an coastal militia.

Jay Solo's Verbosity has a post about a post about Atlas Shrugged - the movie. It was posted at 12:43 a.m. June 2nd. His permalinks are down as well.

Alphecca has a toothache & needs your help. After you throw whatever you into the tip jar, read the rest of the page - he's a consistent & interesting source of info worth reading every weekday. (he takes weekends off)

So check out the blogroll. Also feel free to browse the previous Posts by Category section located underneath the blogroll.