Wednesday, March 10, 2004

Joey B. King has some thoughts on the Free State Project as well as an interesting alternative. Give it a read.
I have heard some talk of supporting Colin Powell should he venture into the '08 presidential race. Here's a good reason to re-think that:

"Powell next talked positively about arms control in a new Iraq, followed by mention of "rights" and 'liberty.'
'Read what it says about arms not being allowed within the society except under the control of civilian authorities,' he said. 'Read what it says about democracy, rights, liberty, and what the new Iraq will look like. ?…"

One sentence talks favorably about the restriction of an inherent, natural Right (the means of self defense) & the very next goes on to speak of liberty & Rights. & the most troubling part is that he probably doesn't realize that his views are self-contradictory.

& the Iraqi Constitution that Powell referred to? Here's what it says about arms in Article 17:

"It shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms except on licensure issued in accordance with the law."

Hell, that's all Sarah Brady, DiFi, Schumer & Boxer could ever ask for.

But there'ssomeonee else we should give credit for the Iraqi Constitution's views on arms:

"The U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority under the leadership of Paul Bremer has had significant input into the drafting of the new law. The preamble mentions the United Nations, saying the Iraqis are 'working to reclaim their legitimate place among nations."

Paul Bremer. The same Paul Bremer who announced the partial civilian arms confiscation program in Iraq just last May. & lest you think he's just the messenger I offer the following from the post I just linked to on the attempts at civilian disarmament in Iraq:

"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."
(emphasis mine)

The bright side is that this Constitution is temporary. A new one is supposed to be in the works as we speak & will replace this interim one when Iraq is ready to govern itself.

Of course there's no guarantee that Bremer, Powell &/or other gun control advocates won't influence the next constitution as well. I'm reminded of one of the most puzzling things I learned in my youth: Gen. Douglas MacArthur wrote Japan's Constitution in 1945. In it he included almost all of the U.S. Constitution's Bill or Rights. Can you guess which amendment he left out? Now you'd think that as a military man with hisexperiencee he'd be in favor of an armed citizenry. If everyFilipinoo had a rifle, ammo & some training in 1942 MacArthur probably wouldn't have had to take his unwanted detour inAustraliaa. But perhaps he feared a covert re-militarization of Japan. Maybe he just thought how badly it could go for him as an occupier if all the citizens had arms & decided they didn't like his presence there. Perhaps he had a fear that another Bonus Army scenario would happen but this time with deliberate & effective resistance to his troops. (in 1932 Gen. MacArthur & his aides Maj. Eisenhower & Maj. Patton were ordered to break up a group of WW1 veterans that were protesting in D.C. Their orders were to clear an area of the veterans as the protests were turning violent. MacArthur one upped his superiors & not only forced the veterans to move to their make-shift camp across the Anacostia River & burned them out. This played no small part in getting that socialist bastard FDR elected. For more look here, & here as well as here.)

But at least our government is consistent: they try to ignore the 2nd amendment here as well as abroad.


And just when you thought things couldn't get any more absurd down under, the Australian government presents.....


Yes, folks! Not satisfied with their ban on virtually every gun...

...thinking that having jack booted thuggies knocking on gun owners' doors to check if their firearms are stored properly is just not enough to keep the kiddies in Australia safe, dependent on government and virtually catatonic...

...the petty insane tyrants have decided that swords are a no-no!

All for the children, of course.

I'm thinking maybe the next step is to ban knives, scissors, nail files, razors and some keys that are just too sharp. After all, food can be pre-cut before sale, also creating the favorable side effect of manufacturing low-paying, taxpayer-footed jobs for those who are too stupid to get a job scraping up road kill from the nation's highways. After all, who wouldn't want an exciting career as a food pre-cutter, right? Body hair can remain long. Who cares if the entire population of Australia begins to look like Cousin It? It's for the children, after all! And people don't need keys anyway. They can just leave their homes unlocked to make it easier for the burglars to make a living. Nails can be bitten off - chewed to the quick. Oooh - wait a minute. Can't have that. Better ban teeth while you're at it. Who cares if a few thousand dentists are out of a job! They can obtain gainful employment as food pre-cutters.

Absurd? Perhaps. But not any more absurd than this sword ban.
UK: MP faces calls to resign over gun speech

Can the Brits get anymore charmingly stalinist?

After one of their conservative government officials had the brass hemorrhoids to speak the truth about the ineffectiveness and downright absurdity of their gun ban, the sheeple, hanky-wringing mommies and idiot bureaucrats are now calling for his resignation.

For the record, here's what Patrick Mercer said:

"It is clearly highly undesirable that people get killed on the roads by motor cars. But we don't ban motor cars. People need to learn how to drive a motor car safely and have respect for it."

Mercer also stated that instead of teaching children to be afraid of guns and banning them, the British should be teaching kids to have a respect for firearms and giving them the knowledge of how to use them safely.

He described the ban on handguns in the wake of the 1996 Dunblane massacre as "nonsense" and "a kneejerk reaction."

Well.................... That just set off the British panty-wetters in an uproar! The British equivalent of the "Thousand or so posing as million Moron Mommies" - something called "Mothers Against Murder and Agression" - called Mr. Mercer's comments "crass" and "appalling." As if giving children the knowledge about how to properly use the most effective tool of self defense on the market was an insult. As if teaching personal responsibility rather than using government force to impose ignorance is horrifying.

So in response to the few vocal sheeple who got their panties in a wad because of his comments, Patrick Mercer backpedaled faster than a circus clown on a unicycle.

"Mr Mercer responded to criticism yesterday by saying that his comments had been taken out of context. The politician claimed he had said that only children in rural communities should be taught how to use 'non-lethal' weapons such as air rifles as a prelude to using shotguns in later life.

He said: 'I made no mention of children being taught to use handguns. The only thing I said was that in rural areas it made sense for things like airguns and BB guns to be handled by children so that in later life, when they have access to shotguns, they knew how to handle them safely and with respect.' "

It's so sad to see how far the British have slid into the mire of ignorance, cowardice and general lack of decency. Their insistence on closing their eyes to the blood running in the streets caused by their government's unilateral victim disarmament and insistence on further pushing government dependence despite their government's very pronounced failure to protect the citizenry just stresses how absolutely crucial our battle for our rights is.

Lest we wind up like the Brits, cowering, wallowing in our own pathetic inadequacy and impotence and relying upon government bureaucrats and their armed thug agents for our very lives.

Tuesday, March 09, 2004

The NRA's management made the 1994 AW ban possible

Well, the NRA apologists can spin this all they want. They can claim that the NRA is the biggest dog in the fight. They can attack the writer, Executive Director Angel Shamaya, as being divisive, which they most likely will. But they cannot dodge the truth. The truth is that either through incompetence or deception, the NRA allowed the 1994 AW ban to pass. And they almost did it again this year with last week's S.1805 fiasco.

According to three U.S. Senate staffers — who worked on The Hill during the original 1993/94 semi-auto rifle and magazine ban and still work as Senate staffers today — in November of 1993 the NRA asked their bosses not to object to a unanimous consent agreement on the crime bill. (The unanimous consent agreement happened on November 19, 1993. The bill had had the Feinstein semi-auto ban amendment attached to it two days earlier, by a vote of 56 to 43.) No objection meant that no filibuster would be possible. An objection to the unanimous consent agreement would have delayed the crime bill at least through the holidays and into the next year, giving the grassroots critical time to mobilize against the bill.

According to these Senate staffers, the NRA explained that they did not mind the gun ban passing the Senate and going to a conference committee — where NRA officials felt the gun ban could be killed. (Of course, this strategy failed.) NRA officials' strategy was to keep the legislative process moving so they could get to the Brady Bill and make sure the instant background check was nailed down in it.

The House Committee assigned to “clean” the bill had an NRA Director on it back then — and it clearly did not get “cleaned” of the gun ban. In fact, when the bill left that committee, that same NRA Director even voted for the final passage of the gun ban, too.

Fact is the NRA's strategy of "pass the bill, and clean it up in committee" didn't work with the 1994 AW ban, but some, like Neal Knox, promoted this strategy almost to the very end, despite it being a historically BAD strategy.

Fact is that the NRA does give good grades to those who support gun control, and even supports them many times over more pro-freedom candidates.

Fact is, that despite NRA attorney Stephen Halbrook's protestations to the contrary, he did proudly voice his support for the registration of handgun owners in DC during the Seegars battle. And while Mr. Halbrook may claim that this is a necessary step in his gradualist model of regaining our rights, I vehemently disagree with this particular aspect of his strategy. And while Mr. Halbrook compared his strategy to the NAACP's gradual approach to the fight for equal rights for African Americans, I do point out AGAIN, that at no time in their gradual fight did the NAACP admit that any portion of the onerous laws that kept blacks inferior for so long were desirable or acceptable.

And fact is that while Larry Craig did a superb job fighting for S.1805 in the Senate last week, he came to the floor prepared to make concessions, having already developed a way to demonize one type of ammunition over others, and voted to create an elite class of citizens, whose only qualification for legally carrying a concealed weapon nationwide would have been a badge.

Those facts are unfortunate, but they are irrefutable. The NRA's allowing the unanimous consent agreement, so they could ensure background checks for Americans wishing to make a constitutionally protected purchase led to the passage of the Clinton AW ban. Their strategy of allowing a committee to clean up the bill cost us our freedoms then, and history almost repeated itself last week.

Monday, March 08, 2004

If you're in Colorado or willing to travel you might want to make sure you have May 14th, 15th & 16th free. That's when the Rocky Mountain Fifty Caliber Shooters Association is holding their machine gun shoot. It'll take place in Cheyenee Wells, Colorado which is about 185 miles east of Denver.

Now the cool thing is you not only get to watch other people sending vast amounts of lead & copper downrange, but most people on the firing line will let you shoot their firearms for a small price. This may not be exact but you're looking at $10 for 30 rounds of a 9mm subgun, $5 for 3 rounds of .50 BMG (either through a rifle or a Browning M2) & if I recall the 20mm (Soluthurn or Lahti) was around $5 per round. Thye also have mortars that shoot bowling balls, a musket that shoots bowling pins (as in the bowling pin is the projectile - not the target) & last year a fellow brought out his 25mm & 37.5mm (the show off - wonder how much factory ammo costs for him?).

Plus military vehicles & people dressed up in varous period uniforms.

Did I mention the reactionary targets (dynamite, propane cylinders & a gas filled wrecked car) & the Saturday night tracer shoot (imagine a horizontal 4th of July)?

If you need more encouragement click here for pics from previous shoots.

& holler at me if you plan on attending.

Robert of Backroad Blog finally gets around to answering my five questions.

Go read & learn a little bit more about Robert.
Alphecca's Weekly Check on the Bias is up.It's the
Postmortem Edition. Go read.