Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Tom Mauser's letter from the Denver Post. I have taken the liberty of providing a translation for those not well versed in Idiotspeak.
"Imagine a world in which one of its most dangerous products is exempt from consumer-protection laws. Imagine a world in which the makers and sellers of that product are immune from civil lawsuits related to that product.
The first scenario is already the case; the second is close to happening, right here in America."
Translation: We're not going to be dealing with much factual information, so let's try to get used to the make believe world I'm about to describe to you.
"When consumer-protection laws were developed, the gun lobby convinced Congress to exempt guns from regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. That means your child's toy gun is subject to greater regulation than a real gun."
Translation: We couldn't get Congress to outlaw guns under the guise of consumer protection, so we'll try to convince you that toys are more regulated than guns are, despite the many thousands of firearms laws & the very few toy laws.
"Recently Colorado was shocked by the tragic accidental shooting of 11-year-old Sahil Ahmed. He was shot and killed by a friend who thought a handgun was empty because the magazine was removed. This tragic mistake has occurred before, and many times manufacturers have been urged to change designs so a bullet doesn't stay in the chamber after the magazine is removed - or to at least place an indicator warning that a bullet is in the chamber. But why should gun manufacturers change? They're exempt from regulation."
Translation: we much prefer to blame a company or an object than a human being's negligence. We sleep better that way. Also we don't know exactly how guns work, but since this is make believe we'll pretend that a gun could be designed to make it completely & utterly safe from the risk of an accidental discharge & blame the gun makers for not defying the laws of pyshics to accomodate our desires. & while we're at it let's blame the lawmakers for not requiring the gunmakers to do the impossible.
"Having this unprecedented exemption apparently isn't enough. The House recently passed a bill that will provide gunmakers and sellers with immunity from virtually all current and future civil lawsuits related to the use of guns. The Senate and President Bush are expected to approve it."
Translation: if we use words like 'unprecedented', even if incorrectly, then we'll seem smart. & the lawmakers are to blame for passing a law that keeps people from suing gunmakers for stuff that ain't their fault, but if we tell you that we won't seem that smart so we use broad sweeping descriptions instead. See? we still seem smart.
"They're poised to prohibit one group - victims of gun violence - the right to seek redress in civil courts, providing the broadest legal protection ever granted to one industry."
Translation: They actually want to keep people who have been victims of crimes from suing companies with 2nd, 3rd & 4th party relationships to the criminals?? what's next? sayig it was the criminals fault for shooting someone? huh. Like criminals have any money!
"Gun activists say immunity is needed because of frivolous lawsuits. Perhaps some lawsuits are frivolous, but that's why we have a court system - to sort them out."
Translation: yes some of the lawsuits are silly, but it's the only way we can bypass the legislature to restrict guns.
"But this law wouldn't even allow a case with merit to proceed. The law of unintended consequences comes into play here - it's entirely possible that a host of negligent and felonious parties will escape any liability for their acts or failures to act."
Translation: we think that if a gunmaker sells a gun to a gun store, who sells it to a person & someone else steals it, then sells it to someone else that the gunmaker is responsible, as is everyone with any wealth in that chain of people. That's a meritous lawsuit that won't happen because of this new law.
"Gun activists say immunity is appropriate because of the Second Amendment, but that amendment speaks of a right to bear arms, not of a right to immunity for arms-makers and -sellers. Likewise, the First Amendment doesn't immunize publishers from libel suits."
Translation: We are too smart to get involved in that whole constitution/bill of rights/second amendment thing, so we'll compare apples & oranges & hope no one realizes that libel is more appropriately compared to a gun maker shooting someone than it is to regulating an industry which produces a product specifically mentioned in the constitution.
"Gun activists say immunity is needed because it's unfair for gunmakers to be sued for a buyer's unlawful use of a gun. But it's not that simple. The way guns are sold can enable criminals to obtain guns - e.g., failing to question large-quantity sales."
Translation: well of course it's unfair unless you look at things our way. I mean despite all the regulations & laws & licenses & such a person can still buy guns, & that means even if he's able to buy them legally the gun maker should have known he had evil in his heart. How dare they not read minds before engaging in selling a constitutionally protected product!
"The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which is responsible for regulating gun dealers, says that a small number of dealers are responsible for selling the majority of new guns traced to crimes. Why does the gun industry want to shield these bad apples?"
Translation: not that many gun dealers break the law, so we must use inuendo to associate this new law which does not protect a gun maker or seller from criminal acts or even negligent ones with the small number of dealers that break one of the many thousands of gun laws.
"Robert Ricker, a whistleblower who once was an attorney for the NRA and spokesman for the gunmakers, says the gun industry has failed to crack down on questionable dealers and rejected his proposals to establish stricter guidelines for the industry."
Translation:If we use the term whistleblower it might cover up the fact that Ricker is being paid. It might also make people think that his claim that the gun makers were not reading minds of the gun sellers who were not reading minds of the customers seem legitimate.
"Gunmakers say they can't be responsible for policing dealers who sell their guns. But most manufacturers go to great lengths to control distribution of their products. Why not gunmakers?"
Translation: Why do the gun makers do things just because it's legal for them to do? Why can't they do the BATF's job for them? & just because it's legal, why do they still keep selling guns? That's just mean & we don't like it.
"Gunmakers say it's up to the ATF to police gun dealers. However, for years the gun lobby has fought against any increase in funding or regulatory power for the ATF. The NRA's top executive has referred to ATF agents as "jack-booted thugs." Does the gun lobby really expect us to believe they support ATF oversight of gun dealers?"
Translation:Just because it's not their job why should they place blame on the agency whose job it actually is? & why, just because the BATF is a bunch of jack booted statist thugs do people call them that? I don't care how many kittens they stomp to death or how many people's lives they needlessly ruin through the incompetant enforcement of Constitutionally prohibited laws, they shouldn't be calling them bad names.
"Gun activists say this legislation is simply part of tort reform. It's far beyond that. Most tort reform is aimed at limiting amounts of punitive damages, not at immunizing an entire industry. There surely are plenty of industries that would welcome such immunity."
Translation: I'm not sure what tort reform is, but we want you to believe that because it is not just limiting monetary awards that the new law isn't tort reform. We seem smart when we do that kind of stuff. & of course many other industries would want that kind of protection. But since no one is suing them in an attempt to wipe out the entire industry they don't need it. & since the gun makers need it & the others don't, then that's not fair!
"Gun activists say gunmakers are under attack and need protection. But we've heard other industries make that claim before. Automakers, for example, have said it's unfair to blame them for the misuse of a car by a driver."
Translation: Of course gun makers say they need protection, but that's only because they're getting sued. & othe rindutries would need that protection & they say so, but let's not dwell on the fact that the auto industry isn't getting sued because people drive drunk while gun makers are getting sued because criminals shoot people. It makes much more sense if we don't look at the facts or even go into much detail.
"Yet, despite lawsuits, automakers still thrive. More important, when automakers faced civil lawsuits, they made safety improvements in automobiles. Do you really think we'd see as many improvements if not for civil lawsuits? Lawsuits can succeed in reforming where reluctant regulators and heavily lobbied legislators fear to tread."
Translation: let's pretend that all lawsuits are the same. So suing a car company for having a faulty seat belt design is the same as suing a gun make for making a gun used by some criminal in a crime, even though in the one instance we're talking about material defects & in the other we're talking about intentional misuse. Besides, Congress won't let us ban all guns, but maybe the courts will. Trying to stop us from banning all guns using the courts rather than the legislature is wrong. I mean, we allready bought most of the judges!!!
"If we provide unprecedented immunity to the gun industry, where's the incentive to make guns safer and not as easy to slip into the hands of criminals?"
Translation: we used the word 'unprecedented' again so we must seem really smart. So let's not dwell on the free market regulating itself in terms of making safe weapons. & let's pretend that if we sue the pants off of gu makers that it will keep criminals from getting guns.
"I hear lots of rhetoric about how the gun industry believes in responsibility and accountability. Well, it's time its members start acting like it. It's time for them to accept responsibility and accountability like the rest of America and stop asking for special treatment not afforded to others."
Translation: Just because the gun industry is being sued in a manner unlike any other industry before in an attempt to bankrupt them & bypass the legislature to regulate them, let's use the words 'accountability' & 'responsibility' to make them seem like they being unfair, mean & whiny.
"Gunmakers and sellers are not above the law."
Translation: gunamkers & sellers should do what we want, because we mean it.
"Tom Mauser's e-mail address is email@example.com."
Translation: If i show a catchy e-mail address then maybe people will think i'm credible.
Denver Post ran the following letter which was written by Colorado state Senator Mark Hillman. Before you completely hyperventilate they also ran a letter by Tom Mauser, a very staunch gun control advocate. I'll get to Mauser's letter in the next post. For your convenience Sen. Hillman's letter in its entirety can be found below.
Anti-gun lobby's frustration exaggerates fact
By State Sen. Mark Hillman
Proponents of gun control prefer to blame their legislative failures on the gun lobby's campaign war chest rather than to look in the mirror.
By casting their opponents as corrupt and callous, the gun-control crowd avoids the unpleasant admission that its hysterical fear of guns isn't shared by mainstream Coloradans, that severe regulations don't bother criminals and that emotional tirades wither when held to intellectual scrutiny.
Moreover, if pro-gun legislators are mind-numbed robots captivated by campaign contributions, what does that say about anti-gun legislators?
Surely, groups like SAFE Colorado and Colorado Ceasefire aren't so self-righteous as to believe that all gun-rights supporters are gullible twits but that all anti-gun legislators are intellectual stalwarts.
Gun-rights supporters succeeded this year in establishing uniform standards for concealed-carry permits and replacing a patchwork of unpredictable and often discriminatory local gun laws with a uniform state law.
So, the gun-grabbers' newest retort is that guns are somehow "above the law."
Anyone who believes that guns are above the law hasn't attempted to purchase one lately. The gun inside the locked case at your favorite gun shop has a serial number on file with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. That gun came from a federally licensed manufacturer who sold it to a federally licensed dealer who must keep a record of all transactions and who cannot sell it to you unless you clear state and federal background checks.
Once you legally purchase a gun, understand that federal firearms laws cover a mere 365 pages and state law adds numerous restrictions on carrying, possession, discharge, purchase and use.
However, this "above the law" claim is more likely an expression of the anti-gun lobby's frustration than an assertion that guns are unregulated.
Legislators were one step away from enacting concealed-carry laws when the Columbine tragedy occurred in 1999. Despite the facts that the Columbine assailants ignored numerous firearms laws and that concealed-carry permits had no rational relationship to the crime, many legislators concluded that the ensuing days were not the time to discuss any sort of gun legislation.
Gun foes predictably assumed that withdrawing those bills represented a confession that guns are the problem. The next year, the legislature prohibited Columbine-style strawman purchases, and SAFE Colorado passed a ballot initiative requiring background checks at gun shows. Gun foes wrongly interpreted these events as their mandate.
Even after Columbine, polls showed that while Coloradans wished to keep guns from criminals, their support of the individual right to self-defense - including concealed-carry - had not wavered.
Not only do anti-gun forces ignore these indicators, they also ignore the shrillness of their own tactics:
They accuse foes of voting to put "hidden guns in schools," encouraging the politically nave to believe that gun-rights supporters would stand at the schoolhouse door and stuff guns into students' backpacks.
They disseminate outrageous "facts." Propagandists claimed that concealed-carry would make it "easier to obtain a permit than to purchase a firearm" and would put 160,000 additional handguns on Colorado streets.
In fact, Sen. Ken Chlouber's concealed-carry bills - even before Columbine - prohibited guns in schools, except for security personnel. Anyone ineligible to purchase a gun cannot receive a permit, and only abject paranoia suggests that this legislation puts 160,000 more guns in circulation.
Obviously, fear-mongering foes of responsible gun ownership believe anyone who wants a concealed-carry permit has a Clint Eastwood complex and wakes up every morning craving a hot cup of coffee and a loaded .45.
Lastly, gun foes cannot understand why legislators don't pass storage laws but do prohibit lawsuits that make gun manufacturers liable for the acts of criminals.
Gun manufacturers are no more responsible for crime than automakers are responsible for drunk driving.
Responsible gun ownership does demand responsible storage, but criminalizing "unsafe" storage is risky business.
Jessica Carpenter's father trained her to shoot effectively. He also complied with California's safe storage law and kept his .357 Magnum out of reach of his children.
When a crazed man wielding a pitchfork broke into the Carpenter home in Merced, Calif., in August 2000, 14-year-old Jessica was helpless to defend her three younger sisters and brother. With her parents away and the phone line cut, Jessica's only choice was to run for help, but the attacker stabbed to death 9-year-old Ashley and 7-year-old John before help arrived.
Contrast that story with the readily available .38 revolver which which 72-year-old Emogene Zamarripa of Colorado Springs used to scare off an intruder - later linked to at least one rape - who crashed through her backdoor in November 2000.
The constitutional protections afforded gun ownership are equivalent to the guarantees of freedom of speech, right to worship and security from unreasonable search and seizure. Legislators who take those rights seriously must defend them, whether against well-intentioned objectors or mean-spirited attacks.
Sen. Mark Hillman's e-mail address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Dixon pleads guilty to a reduced charge & gets 3 days.
To sum up, Dixon shot an intruder & was charged by a slime of a D.A. named Hynes for having an unregistered gun. Initially Hynes was throwing the book at him, but due to public pressure Hynes reduced the charge. He didn't do this because he thought maybe the people were right & he was being a bit harsh. Mope, he did it because reducing the charges meant that a judge, not a jury would decide the verdict & Hynes knew damn well that no self respecting jury would convict a father for having the means to protect his family, especially when it was undeniably necessary to have the means to protect his family.
I don't know why Dixon pleaded guilty as he had been pretty adament about fighting this thing. I do know that 1 minute in jail is too long when your only 'crime' is not having the governments permission to exercise a Right.
Allan C. Stover writes about the UN's civilian disarmament agenda:
"One of the many NGOs that participated in the conference was the International Action Network on Small Arms. IANSA is “an international network of over 340 organizations from 71 countries working to prevent the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons.” (And you thought this was a small effort!) Here is what just one section of IANSA´s Founding Document states it wants to accomplish:
'Effective domestic control over small arms requires: Establishing laws and regulations governing the ownership of small arms, including licensing and registration arrangements, along with promotion of the political will and technical capacity to enforce those laws. . . .' Now there´s a statement that could come from our own gun grabbers. 'Domestic control' means just what it says. Our government controls our weapons by passing even more 'laws and regulations governing the ownership of small arms.' We have some 20,000 of them already, but IANSA wants more 'licensing and registration” and “the political will and technical capacity to enforce those laws.' While UN documents tend to drag on and on, this NGO says a lot in a few words.
They have another goal: 'Reducing the availability of weapons to civilians in all societies.' Even Sarah Brady couldn´t have summarized it in fewer words. That´s what both groups want, although this group says it wants to do it around the world, while Brady supposedly just wants to impose gun control on America. The IANSA website lists a link to Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Brady changed the name to clean up its image, but we all know that the original name meant what it said. In fact, you can still get the Brady website."
J.J. Johnson of the Sierra Times writes about police shootings & what race may or may not have to do with it.
"East Chattanooga, Tennessee - What we find most interesting about Whack & Stack is how readers perceive the attitude of the author once the victim's race is mentioned. You either have to be biased against blacks or whites in order to even report on the latest state-sponsored execution. That is not the case, and we felt it best to warn you before reading this next one. When it comes to this lethal trade - race actually does matter. Read on."
Indeed read on. A very interesting take on the justifications for police shootings & the effects of such to the community.
Monday, June 09, 2003
The UN has announced it will hold a global gun control forum in, appropriately enough, New York City.
'The July 7-11 meeting builds on a similar forum held in 2001, in which participating nations signed a "Program of Action" to "Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.'
The Program of Action, or PoA, "sets the first global norms of good behavior to reduce small-arms proliferation," says a statement by the U.N. Small Arms Conference. "By agreeing to this document, all countries have formally committed themselves to take action" regarding the proliferation of "illicit" small arms and light weapons.
Among the provisions in the PoA agreed upon by member states:
A commitment to make "illicit gun production/possession a criminal offense";
The establishment of a national coordination agency on small arms;
A pledge to identify and destroy stocks of surplus weapons;
Track "officially held guns";
The notification of nations who were the original supplier of weapons when those weapons are re-exported;
The marking of guns and light weapons at the point of manufacture, so they can be tracked and traced globally; and
The maintenance of gun manufacture records.
'The purpose of the [meeting of states] in July 2003 is for governments to report their progress and lessons learned in the first two years of implementing the PoA," said the conference statement. Groups "will make their own independent report on governments' activities, as well as showcasing the important contributions that [non-governmental organizations] themselves are making to stop gun violence'. "
So they want to compare notes on which civilian disarmament programs are the most effective. I wonder if any will have the courage to say, " well, Hitler had great success with this method..." or "I think stalin was onto something when he...".
The emphasis on registration should be obvious: registration makes confiscation so much easier.
& don't expect them to invite JPFO or GOA to the forum, although I'd love to sit down with a White Russian or 5 & watch Aaron Zelman &/or Larry Pratt tell the truth. But do expect some of your favorites from the VPC & the Brady Bunch to make their feelings known on the matter.
But now onto some self damning statements from Mr. Annon himself:
The United Nations has a history of pushing an anti-gun agenda. As early as Sept. 24, 1999, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called on members of the Security Council to "tackle one of the key challenges in preventing conflict in the next century" – the proliferation and "easy availability" of small arms and light weapons. Annan identified them as the "primary tools of violence" in conflicts throughout the world.
Though the terms tend to be used interchangeably, the United Nations defines small arms as weapons designed for personal use, while light weapons are those designed for several persons operating as a crew. Together, however, such weapons account for virtually every kind of firearm from revolvers, pistols, rifles, carbines and light machine guns all the way to heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns, mortars up to 100-mm caliber, and land mines.
"Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence and political instability," said Annan "Controlling that easy availability is a prerequisite for a successful peace-building process."
He correctly says that small arms are used for violence. They are. & he also correctly states that they are used for violence in countries that are not engaged in civil war.
But there are two things he left out which make his statements less than honest:
Most of the time it is the government using small arms against their own people. In fact 170,000,000 non-military (i.e. civilian) deaths were attributed to their respective governments in the 20th century.
When a civilian population possess small arms, they cannot be controlled by the likes of the UN.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to quote someone with experience in the matter. I give you the words of Helga Hooper.
"In 1934 and 1935, the German people had to register all their firearms, pistols, rifles," she explained. "The Germans only had hunting weapons. They were great hunters.
"It's very seldom that Jews owned guns, but my whole family were avid hunters. My parents had to register their guns in '34 and '35, in '36 they were confiscated" by the German government headed by Adolph Hitler.
They allowed Hitler to have "total control over the people," she said. "First they (guns) were registered, then they were confiscated, then came concentration camps."
This is a link to a previous post about Ian McCollum examining Jewish resistance to the Holocaust.
Here's a previous post about David Kopel & associate's analysis of Hitler's means of control.
Here's a previous post about Ilana Mercer's thought on the dangers of globalism
Here's a previous post about Samizdata's David Carr's post about Andy Duncans analysis of a marxist approach to EU strategy
Here's a previous post on the UN's plans for global civilian disarmament
Here's a previous post on Rep. Ron Paul introducing a bill to withdraw the US from the UN.
After reading all the above I would suggest buying this, this & a couple of these. I would also suggest starting out by placing them at 300 yards before moving them out to 600. After all, ya might as well practice with realistic targets.
government is using the information from these electronic tags to track an individuals' movements.
"Virginia law enforcement authorities are using records from the state's Smart Tag electronic highway-toll-collection system in their investigations.
Though the Virginia Department of Transportation has been subpoenaed for the electronic toll-system records, it also hands over the records of vehicle movements to police without requiring a court order, the department said.
'We have provided Smart Tag information for criminal investigations that relate to activities of a specific car,' [Transportation Department spokeswoman Tamara Neale] said. 'We've done so without a subpoena.'
Virginia's Smart Tag operation has the names, addresses, phone numbers, credit-card numbers, driver's license numbers and vehicle license numbers of its customers.
It also records the date, time and location - down to the highway toll plaza and lane number - for every use of the tag.
VDOT says it takes requests for information on Smart Tag customer accounts from police in person, in writing or by telephone."
What this means is that the State of Virginia is allowing its law enforcement departments to access very personal information on you, at times without a warrant & at times merely by a telephone request. & among the information that they possess are any permits, such as a concealed carry permit, that you may have pertaining to firearms. In Virginia this information is tied into your drivers license so I suspect it would also be tied in to your Smart Tag records. Even if it is only accessible by looking at your drivers license record it provides a 'tool' to law enforcement for tracking the movements of gun owners should they so choose.
& not to go all Orwellian on ya, but I have long opinied that the most effective way to implement civilian disarmament in the US would be to quietly start confiscating weapons through road blocks disguised as DUI checkpoints. The theory being that once a drivers license is scanned any information about firearms, such as registration or a CCW permit if that state allows it, is found. If a person has any type of weapons permit or registered weapons that show up in the system then that person is detained while the vehicle &/or his house is searched & all weapons confiscated. That way, under the guise of a DUI checkpoint, you catch the gun owner with his guard down & it is subsequently easier & safer to disarm him. If it is done right then a good portion of the guns in this country could be confiscated in a short amount of time. I am just guessing, but if a gun owner is held under suspicion for three days, as is allowed in most states, & is further denied contact with the outside world, then there would be nothing to warn other gun owners of the confiscation untill it is too late. Perhaps as high as 20% of gunowners in the country could be disarmed this way. I think a higher percentage is unlikely while a smaller percentage is more probable.
This scenario is unlikely, at least anytime soon, but possible. I know if I were in charge that's what I'd do.
In any event a state government being able to track an individuals movements is disturbing.