Laura Washington: Sure, Suffredin is a political whore, but he's my political whore

Rabidly anti-gun columnist Laura Washington wrote Monday of her support for rabidly anti-gun Cook County (Illinois) Commissioner Larry Suffredin in his bid to become the next Cook County state's attorney. This is in spite of Suffredin's other job as a lobbyist.

Larry Suffredin's fatal flaw may be his longtime lobbying for gambling, tobacco and drug interests. It raises conflict of interest questions that are tough to set aside.

A list of his lobbying clients can be found here.

Why, despite Suffredin's "fatal flaw," would she support him?

Still, Suffredin has made fighting gun violence a signature initiative. He's got the NRA and its minions in a frenzy. His plan to go after gun shop owners and others who are peddling death on our streets will save our children.

In other words, so what about the clear conflict of interest--as long as it serves my pet agenda? By the way, does this make me one of the NRA's "minions"? Does Laura consider herself one of the Brady Bunch's minions?

Looking at that list of lobbying clients, we see that one of them is Illinois Citizens for Handgun Control, which, according to this, is another name for the rabidly anti-gun Illinois Council against Handgun Violence. Suffredin is also a longtime board member of yet another rabidly anti-gun, group, the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

So let's see, a commissioner of a county board, who pushes every restrictive gun ordinance he thinks he can manage to impose on the county (in addition to his latest attempt to shut down every gun dealer in the county, he was the author of Cook County's huge expansion of their ban of so-called "assault weapons"), and now is running for State's Attorney, is also a paid lobbyist for anti-gun groups, and is a board member of one such group. This goes beyond conflict of interest--this is closer to incest.

But never mind that, Laura Washington says--it's OK, because he's going after "gun shop owners and others who are peddling death on our streets . . . "

Let's just put the fox in charge of hen house security, while we're at it.

Laura Washington just doesn't get it

Just when I was wondering if my stomach was strong enough to respond to this pack of civilian disarmament advocacy lies, I discovered that the work has already been done, and done well, by SayUncle. Snowflakes in Hell gives it a brief, but penetrating, look, as well.

Speaking of SayUncle's skillful demolition of Laura Washington's garbage, something she wrote when I was AWOL also got the SayUncle treatment.

Well done.

I wonder what bothers Laura more

This will be quick--I was planning to write something else today, and still intend to do so later, but with this bit of drivel, Laura Washington has left me with too tempting a target to pass up.

Her article, "Republican pols pander to People of the Gun," tends to wander around rather aimlessly, but the gist seems to be an expression of disgust over the fact that Republican presidential candidates are trying to win the support of Americans who value the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

What I'm curious about is this: is Laura more upset that Republican candidates are "pandering" to gun owners, or that Democratic candidates don't seem to be going after the citizen disarmament vote? It seems to me that if citizen disarmament were a platform with any deep public support, someone would be trying to get that vote--especially in the Democratic primary (since candidates tend to lurch in the direction their party's extreme fringe for the primaries, and then lurch back to the middle for the general election).

I haven't seen that happening, though. In fact, recently, Obama actually tried (weakly) to sound as if he had some respect for gun rights. I can't imagine that he fooled anyone, but the mere fact that he tried is telling.

So, which is it, Laura?

UPDATE: Nicki, at the Liberty Zone, gives Laura's "article" the thorough stomping it deserves.

Paperwork for a gun? Already been filled out . . .

. . . And it begins: "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union . . . "

And it goes on from there. Of course, the BATFE and their civilian disarmament advocate masters don't see it that way, and will enforce their love of paper (or hatred of trees, maybe?) with the same kind of firepower they wish to deny the rest of us.

There remains, however, a legal way around that. I refer to "80% frames" (meaning that they are about 80% complete). These are, as far as the law is concerned, chunks of metal, requiring additional machining before they can be assembled into functional firearms. The significance of this is that as inert pieces of metal, they are not subject to all the onerous, draconian restrictions placed on complete firearm frames (and complete guns, of course), and can thus be sold to anyone, without any paperwork. All of the remaining parts necessary for assembling a gun are likewise not subject to regulation (with certain exceptions related to NFA weapons, such as machine gun parts, suppressors, etc.).

The bottom line is that, with the skill, the know-how, and the tools, one can perfectly legally build his own gun that need never appear on a single government-mandated form. I, sadly, am completely without such skills (or even the ability to ever learn them--I'm absolutely worthless when it comes to that sort of thing, with field-stripping and reassembly of my .45's being about the limits of my mechanical skills). Others, however, are not cursed with my incompetence, and with access to a garage or basement machine-shop, could simply make so-called "gun-control" laws irrelevant.

Unfortunately, probably the best known source of 80% frames, KT Ordnance, has already fallen victim to the BATFE's abuses (more here, here, and here). Mr. Celata's (the owner of KT Ordnance) case is still grinding its way through the courts, as the JBT's try to simply bankrupt him into submission.

KT Ordnance offered 80% frames for several types of guns, including both 1911's and AR-15's. Unfortunately, however, they are of course unable to take orders while our government tries to render Celata and his family destitute and homeless.

There are other options, though. Sarco, Inc., for example offers 80% frames for 1911 style pistols (part number C45214--about a quarter of the way down the page), for $19.95 (or 6 for $99.95).

Excellent descriptions of the build process can be found on a site helpfully set up by Ken Mays, with two accounts of 1911 builds (here and here), and an AR-15 build project. The work is clearly going to be beyond what many of us can do, but it is within the abilities of some.

For those who do have the ability (and the tools), perhaps you can guide your less skilled buddies through the process.

Laura Washington wants to "shove tougher gun policies right down [our] throats." I say let's shove our ability to resist civilian disarmament right down hers.

The cartoonist speaks (again)

I've taken exception to Martha Rosenberg's support for the civilian disarmament lobby, and their statist agenda, before (also briefly here). Now Martha has apparently decided that it's wrong for politicians to try to convince gun owners that they respect the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

The NRA's "Celebration of American Values" conference last week was supposed to be a ritual of public dotage in which presidential candidates kiss the hem of the NRA's camouflage jacket.

That's called campaigning, Martha, and a politician who doesn't do it is unlikely to be a politician for very long. I realize that you don't share the values being celebrated (that would be American values--this being America, it seems like a good place for them--but perhaps you would be happier elsewhere), but that does not change the fact that gun owners still (despite your efforts) wield considerable political power in this country.

Martha basically goes on to say that while this conference was going on, people were being shot to death in America . . . so, obviously, the Second Amendment doesn't matter, or something, I guess.

She mentions twice that "the NRA agenda" (by which she seems to mean the protection of the Second Amendment) has been run off the rails by the Virginia Tech murders:

Its very agenda is in a tailspin thanks to the Virginia Tech shootings and the school, church and assault weapon shootings which have followed.

And . . .

Nor is it likely the NRA can revive its pre-Cho campaigns for the right to bring weapons to work, to parks and on school yards.

Kinda looks as if she appreciates what she thinks Cho has done for the advancement of her agenda--but she would hardly be the first civilian disarmament advocate to be an enthusiastic blood dancer. By the way, Martha, are you saying that Cho's mass murder spree strengthens the case for rendering people defenseless at work and school?

Then there's the little matter of outright lying (again, hardly a new tactic for the civilian disarmament cheerleaders):

Faced with Somohano's death from a legally bought assault weapon . . . [emphasis mine]

Officer Somohano, you'll remember, was a Florida police officer, recently murdered by longtime criminal Shawn LaBeet. The problem is, LaBeet's murder weapon was not "legally bought"--the laws prohibiting someone with his criminal record from buying guns forced him to buy the gun under an assumed identity--quite illegal. Furthermore, the MAK-90 used by LaBeet is not a so-called "assault weapon" as defined by the now (thankfully) defunct "assault weapons" ban (which wasn't really a ban, but that's another topic).

She ends with this:

No, it's a new day for the NRA with a new sheriff coming to town who may not be sympathetic to the gun lobby--or even a white male. [emphasis mine]

Hmm--could it be that Martha's quarrel is not with gun rights advocacy, but with white males, instead? Yet another trait that seems to be more the rule than the exception in civilian disarmament advocacy circles, as Snowflakes in Hell points out, in reference to Laura Washington.

We see here that Martha is a staff cartoonist. I am not aware of ever having seen any of her cartoons, but I wonder if perhaps she would be better off sticking to those, rather than writing about gun politics.

Chicago store clerk successfully defends himself--will he go to jail for it (that is illegal in Chicago, you know)?

A clerk at a Chicago hardware store shot an armed robber in the head, according to CBS 2 Chicago News (you can also see video of the news report). The store is one block away from another that was robbed at gun point last week. Now most of us might figure "one thug seriously wounded, and no one else hurt--sounds like a pretty good outcome, to me," but there is a hitch.

As one can learn in this excellent, concise history of the Chicago campaign against self-defense, all guns in Chicago must be registered, and in a deliberately engineered Catch-22, handguns that were not registered by 1982 cannot be registered. Granted, I suppose it's possible that this hardware store clerk registered his gun 25 years ago (and every two years since), but I find it unlikely. If my suspicion is correct, then the fact of the clearly self-defense nature of the shooting notwithstanding, his possession of the gun could land him in jail.

Fits, at Shooting the Messenger, believes that precisely that is what will happen (if, indeed, the gun was unregistered).

While he may very well be right, I'm not so sure. I realize I am risking accusations of racism here (but I have decided that I do not care enough about the opinions of people stupid enough to believe I am racist to worry about what they think or say)--there could be some significance in what a clerk at the currency exchange (next door to the hardware store) pointed out: "This was a black-owned business. Black-owned." As eager as Mayor Daley, Jesse Jackson, "Snuffy" Pfleger, etc. are to crush those who own guns under the wheels of their brand of "justice," they make quite a point of claiming that their efforts are geared in large part to helping the black community (Laura Washington clearly thinks the race card is the ace in the civilian disarmament lobby's hand)--throwing blacks under the bus for using guns to defend themselves from criminals might put more of a hole in that myth than they are willing to risk.

Frankly, the fight for gun rights in Illinois might benefit from a decision to prosecute the brave clerk (Parker, er . . . Heller v District of Columbia, anyone?) , but I cannot wish that nightmare on him. Besides, his courageous stand has already demonstrated the benefits of peaceable people having the power to fight back against thugs.

Therefore, the Chicago bosses may just decide to let this incident fade away quietly. Interestingly (but not particularly surprisingly), the media might be playing along with such an endeavor--the CBS 2 Chicago News story I linked to at the beginning of this post is the only one I can find.

I guess the defensive use of firearms is not as newsworthy as atrocities committed with them (and what does that say about the relative frequency of those two types of gun use?).