'You Are a Citizen'

. . . Says Mike Beard, president of a group that would reduce us to no more than subjects. I have written much about Mike Beard's Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV)--especially that group's startling and chilling assertion that government must have a monopoly on force. This week, though, he says that "You Are a Citizen," in a blog post that tries to sell itself as a celebration of American liberty.

To make his "point" (being generous here), he quotes the late Molly Ivins (herself no friend of the only sure means of defending freedom).

A few years ago, Molly wrote an essay exhorting Americans not to be cynical, to treasure the most magnificent political legacy any people has ever received.

In her words, we inherit certain powers and rights just by being born in this country:

...For more than two hundred years people all over the world have been willing to die for a chance to live by these ideals. They died in South Africa, they died at Tiananmen Square ... You have more political power than 99% of all the people who have ever lived on this planet. You can not only vote, you can register other people to vote, round up your friends, get out and do political education, talk to people, laugh with people, call the radio, write the paper, write your elective representative, use your email list, put up signs, march, volunteer, and raise hell. All your lives, no matter what else you do...you have another job, another responsibility; you are a citizen. It is your obligation and requires attention and effort. And on top of that you should make it into a heck of a lot of fun.

As far as it goes, I would call that some of Ivins' better work--she at least makes a valid point that freedom is wasted on those unwilling to do the work of enjoying the liberties paid for with so much blood and sacrifice.

Then, Beard gets to the punchline.

Let us make one more New Year's resolution: to have a heck of a lot of fun pushing the Obama administration, the new Congress and our state legislators to seek creative solutions to the tired old problem of gun violence. It is our duty as citizens. Happy New era!

I don't know how much "pushing" the Obama/Biden administration (and this "New era's" Congress, and many state legislators) is going to need to seek these "creative solutions" (what might those be, anyway--"creative solutions" like giving a rabidly anti-gun Attorney General the power to unilaterally "ban guns at will"?).

Beard says that "[i]t is our duty as citizens" to render ourselves (and our fellow "citizens") powerless to resist the whims of the government--to make "Defiance" of whatever tyrannical edict is handed down by the government impossible.

Go ahead and try it, Beard--but I seriously doubt you and your fellow travelers are going to "have a heck of a lot of fun" doing it.

III

'Assault Rifle Ban Would Enhance Rights . . . '

There's some New Jersey "logic" for you. I don't know if even Illinois legislators are brazen enough to make a claim like that, but that's what a "study," released by a "non-partisan" group in NJ claims--"NEW ANALYSIS: ASSAULT RIFLE BAN WOULD ENHANCE RIGHTS OF BATTLEFIELD RE-ENACTORS." The group in question is the Office of Legislative Services (OLS), and the proposed law under discussion, New Jersey A-2116, is actually a ban on .50 caliber rifles (including in-line muzzleloaders) and handguns.

So "How," you ask, "would such a law enhance rights?" I'll just let OLS explain:

The nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services (OLS) analysis found the legislation would enhance the rights of battlefield re-enactors. That’s because it includes an exemption for antique and muzzle loading firearms with a caliber greater than 60 that use a traditional flintlock or cap lock and rely on black powder.

A popular firearm for Revolutionary War re-enactors is the Brown Bess, a .75-caliber muzzleloader that, it turns out, is actually illegal to possess under state law.

Ah, well that explains it, then; it makes it easier to re-enact the Revolutionary War. On the other hand, it does make it more difficult to actually fight a battle to throw off modern tyranny, but we are apparently to believe that that's a small price to pay. If I seem to be trivializing Revolutionary War re-enacting, that's not at all my intention--I think it's a fine way to honor the courage and sacrifice that won American liberty, and established our national and cultural identity.

Still, given a choice between the ability to legally re-enact the War of Independence, and the ability to acquire the tools for fighting a potential future War of Restoration, I would have to put the re-enactment in second place.

Anyone who believes that such a law would be a net gain for rights must also believe "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

A hold on Holder--convincing a confirmed statist

One of the most important political fronts right now in the fight to defeat forcible citizen disarmament is blocking the nomination of rabidly anti-gun Eric Holder's confirmation as Attorney General. David Codrea is hoping to mobilize gun rights advocates (which tends to be a more monumental task than it should be--and I'm as guilty of being slow to act as anyone) here and here, and also with today's Gun Rights Examiner column, here.

In taking up this endeavor, David joins Jeff Knox, who has been sounding this alarm for a while now (here, here, and here).

Mike Vanderboegh (here and here) and Western Rifle Association have also been getting the ball rolling. I'm sure I'm missing some, but you get the idea--Eric Holder as Attorney General, as part of an Obama/Biden administration, with the Congress we have coming in, would be an absolute nightmare for the gun rights movement--but it's not a done deal, and can be stopped, with sufficient resolve and willingness to get involved on our parts.

The problem for me is that my United States Senator (my only U.S. Senator, for the moment, unless the appointment of rabidly anti-gun Roland Burris, by rabidly anti-gun and nearly unimaginably corrupt Governor Blagojevich, succeeds soon) is rabidly anti-gun Senator Dick Durbin. Obviously, all the excellent reasons to oppose Holder's nomination laid out in the above links won't help--he, no doubt, sees Holder's radical agenda of citizen disarmament as a good thing.

Therefore, I decided to point out some other reasons to oppose Holder's appointment. The letter I came up with will hopefully be convincing to a statist like Durbin. Keep in mind that I don't hold some of the sentiments implied in the letter (referring to tax evasion as "nothing less than theft, on a massive scale, from the American people," for example), but I think that Durbin might be receptive to them. Not especially honorable, perhaps, but as David says, "Any chair in a bar fight." Anyway, the following is what I'll be sending to Senator Durbin. Perhaps others with rabid statists for Senators might see something in it they can use.

Dear Senator Durbin,

As you are no doubt well aware, the Senate will soon be tasked with determining the suitability of President-elect Obama's choice of Eric Holder for United States Attorney General. Frankly, I would have difficulty imagining a less suitable choice, and I urge you in the strongest possible terms to refuse to confirm his appointment.

As Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, Mr. Holder played a significant role in securing the presidential pardon of billionaire financier Marc Rich, whose tax evasion crimes constitute nothing less than theft, on a massive scale, from the American people. Some dismiss Mr. Holder's role in that pardon as nothing more than obedience to former President Clinton's quite legal (if extremely ill-advised and distasteful) prerogative, but the evidence points to Mr. Holder having played a large part in the pardon*.

Perhaps even worse is the prominent role Mr. Holder played in the granting of clemency to sixteen FALN terrorists. In an era when Americans face nearly unprecedented danger from terrorists, it would be the height of madness to entrust the Department of Justice to a man with anything less than a relentless drive to hunt down and stop every violent, radical extremist who threatens the safety, and indeed the very lives, of American citizens.

In the trying days that lie ahead, the United States will certainly need an Attorney General with vastly better judgment than can be counted on from Eric Holder. Senator Durbin, as your constituent, I urge you to fulfill your responsibility as a United States Senator, and block this dangerous appointment. Failure to do so would be an inexcusable dereliction of your duty to the American people. History never looks kindly on such failings.

* "Pardon is Back in Focus for the Justice Nominee," New York Times, Dec. 1, 2008

Thank you,
Kurt Hofmann

Follow the above links, and let your senators know that you will be holding them to their obligation to refuse to confirm clearly disastrous choices for important Cabinet positions. Those who cannot be bothered to do so will have no one to blame but themselves.

Update: For those with anti-gun senators who didn't yet get a letter written, David Codrea has something for you. No--this isn't yelling at you for not moving (although we really do need to be moving on this)--it's just that David came up with a lot of good stuff that I didn't think of, for convincing even a citizen disarmament advocating senator that Holder would be a disaster. Actually, even though I have sent a letter, I think I'll now be sending another.

Mandating a culture of victimhood

The Violence Policy Center is now loudly proclaiming that the door-to-door seizures of legally owned firearms in New Orleans, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, was apparently somehow a good thing, in light of a recent article in the far left The Nation magazine, claiming that white, racist (and armed, of course) vigilantes waged a campaign of terror against innocent black victims of the storm. The article, "Katrina's Hidden Race War," describes some indisputably horrid behavior on the part of armed white people.

Herrington shouted at the other men to run and turned to face his attackers: three armed white males. Herrington says he hadn't even seen the men or their weapons before the shooting began. As Alexander and Collins fled, Herrington ran in the opposite direction, his hand pressed to the bleeding wound on his throat. Behind him, he says, the gunmen yelled, "Get him! Get that nigger!"

I'll admit to having some reservations about accepting at face value these "revelations," in a magazine that makes little secret of having an agenda, of events of which (as far as I know) there hadn't been a hint previously.

Still, I'll acknowledge that it's almost certain that there were white racists in the area at the time, that some were armed, and that it's far from inconceivable that some of them participated in atrocities, and used firearms to facilitate their evil.

What I cannot help but contemplate, though, is how unlikely it would have been for this evil, predatory behavior to have taken place had some version of the Deacons for Defense and Justice (whom I have discussed here, among other places) been present. Ironically, the article in The Nation quotes Professor Lance Hill, the author of what is probably the most important book about the Deacons, The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement, although he was quoted only in reference to the racism that is undeniably part of the problem, with no mention of the possibility of armed black citizens defending themselves.

The title of the article refers to a "Race War"--certainly a terrible thing to contemplate--but not the most terrible thing. What the article actually describes, if it's true, is something more terrible still--a Race Massacre, in which at least eleven innocent and defenseless black people were murdered by armed, white, racist vigilantes, who have not faced punishment, and who probably never will (although again, I am not vouching for the veracity of the portrayal of events presented by the article--that is simply something I am not in a position to judge). If it had been a war, in the traditional sense, the black people would at least have had some capacity to fight back.

. . . But would be criminals if they did so under policies favored by President-elect Obama, who "believe[s] in keeping guns out of inner cities."

Disarmament of those who live in the inner city--a bigot's dream.

Update on RNC Chairmanship selection

The most important part of my earlier post today was my urging to get involved with choosing the questions that will (hopefully) be asked of the aspirants to the chair in tomorrow's debate.

Since then, a great many good questions about what the candidates would do to thwart the citizen disarmament advocates have been submitted. Please keep voting for those questions.

Along related lines, there's a straw poll up now (with the clearly anti-gun Michael Steele currently holding a narrow lead over the clearly pro-gun Ken Blackwell).

Blackwell may not be the only good choice, but Steele is certainly a wrong choice--let's knock him down a few pegs.

Some housekeeping

A bit of a mixed bag of things I should have taken care of already:

David Codrea will be on Tom Gresham's Gun Talk Radio today at 2 PM (Eastern). The topic will apparently be predictions on gun rights politics for 2009 (a somewhat frightening prospect, but no less important for that).

Also (and there's real time pressure here), if one registers at RNCDebate.org (a quick, painless process, that doesn't require one to provide personal or sensitive information), one can help determine what questions will be asked in tomorrow's debate (1:00 PM Eastern) for the Republican National Committee chairmanship. If you spend two minutes on it, you're taking your time--there's that little excuse to not bother. David Codrea asked (HTML code isn't allowed in the submissions on the RNCDebate website, but I inserted some links in the quote below, for the sake of clarity):

I want an unequivocal statement from each candidate on the right to keep and bear arms. I should note that Mr. Blackwell looks good*, and Mr. Steele's bizarre advocacy that "society should draw line" about the right to own semiautos** makes him about as acceptable to gun owners as Barack Obama. How about the rest of the field? No equivocation, please! It will be recognized and held against you. * "Gun Rights and Presidential Politics," Townhall.com, Nov. 26, 2007 ** Washington Post interview Oct 16, 2006

I, being an unapologetic plagiarizer when it suits me, asked pretty much the same thing, and Pistolero has a good question, as well. Time is running out on this, folks, and I hope the importance of it is obvious. By the way, in addition to submitting questions of your own, once you register, you can vote on questions already submitted. "Yes" votes on the three questions linked to above would be greatly appreciated.

Finally, I want to (very belatedly) thank Masters in Criminal Justice (a web resource for those interested in pursuing a career in criminal justice) for including Armed and Safe among their Top 50 Constitutional Law Blogs (#22, in the "Second Amendment" category). I'm not sure how my blog (not bad for a wannabe "3%" blogger) was chosen for that, when so many others were not, but it's much appreciated.

Triggers with a pulse?

A longtime nemesis of gun rights (and thus liberty) in Illinois, state Commissar Senator Dan Kotowski (whom I have discussed often) was interviewed last month by the citizen disarmament advocacy organization he once directed, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV). ICHV's website is laid out rather awkwardly, and I can't link directly to the interview, but at the moment, it's the top item here.

The interview is pretty much what one would expect ("Guns are bad, mmkay?"), but the last question sheds some light on what Kotowski apparently considers the next front in the war on the peaceable armed citizenry of Illinois.

ICHV: In your view, what should the gun control movement be focusing on in the coming years?

Sen. Kotowski: We have to think outside of the box. It's not just about focusing on owners, since the vast majority are law abiding, but making sure that the gun industry is looking out for the health and safety of children. How can we get this industry to be more accountable? That is where the battle will be waged.

In the next year or two, we have to show that there are reasonable ways to keep our kids and families safe. In Illinois, for example, we need to give the Attorney General authority to approve health and safety standards for loading indicators, drop fire tests, finger-printing recognition software, and trigger pulse standards.

So, California-style "safety" requirements, New Jersey-style "smart gun" requirements (just don't even get me started), and . . . "trigger pulse standards"? Being the generous sort, I'll give Kotowski the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he's no Carolyn "What's a barrel shroud" McCarthy, and that it was whoever at ICHV who did the interview who mistook "trigger pull standards" (meaning, presumably, that guns would be required to have triggers too heavy to fire accurately) for "trigger pulse", rather than Kotowski himself.

Still, one would think that an organization whose sole purpose is attacking gun rights would at least have learned enough about the subject of what they're trying to regulate to know that triggers don't have a pulse.

What I don't understand about 'pragmatism'

I had pretty much made up my mind to step away from the rancorous, and apparently endless, debate between the "pragmatists," on the one hand, and the "3 percenters," on the other. It's an argument that will pretty clearly never be "won" by anyone, except perhaps the citizen disarmament advocates. After catching up on my reading of the Sispsey Street Irregulars, however ("catching up" being necessary after my month-long break from involvement with the gun rights issue), and seeing the intensity of vitriol* some of the more outraged "prags" have seen fit to direct at Mr. Vanderboegh and his "merry band," I feel compelled to once again wade into the fray.

In the interest of full disclosure, my sympathies are very strongly and unabashedly with the "3 percenters," although to count myself actually among them would be to give myself vastly too much credit, considering my physical inability to usefully participate in any militia endeavor. Still, if Mike and the rest don't object to me referring to myself as an "honorary 3 percenter," I'll gratefully do so.

As far as the "prags" go, I don't consider them cowards, or collaborators, or many of the other insults that "3 percenters" have tossed their way. I do consider them vastly overly optimistic about the prospects of gun rights prevailing through solely "within the system" activism. They remind me a bit of Neville Chamberlain, with the Heller decision being their Munich Agreement (and by the way--don't give me Godwin's Law--that ain't what this is about).

And this brings me to the source of my confusion. The "pragmatic" strategy, apparently, requires gun rights activists to count on the Constitution for protection against people who have made it absolutely clear that they consider the Constitution to be so much Charmin substitute. At least one "prag," for example, has railed against some other gun rights advocates, for their refusal to vote for one of the chief architects of one of the most brazen attacks on the First Amendment in recent history.

I have frequently criticized proponents of restrictive gun laws for their bizarre "strategy" of attempting to use laws to rein in the behavior of the lawless. I can't really see much of a difference between that, and counting on the Constitution to protect freedom from those bent on subverting it.


* Some examples (just a couple, of many):

"Three Percenters" are self-righteous, anarchist, egotistical, self-centered, solipsistic, incorrigible asses, and are appropriately full of shit.

and;

I love this “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” nonsense from the .3-percenters. Fine: I’m against you. Not in principle, actually, but just in the childish, moronic way that you draw attention to yourselves. Typical, from people who’ve never actually had to fight a war against an oppressive state.

Pathetic bunch of losers.

Pretty please, with sugar on top, keep your filthy hooks off our @!#% guns, so we don't have to kill you

A couple days ago, I wrote about Robert Smith, Jr, who, in a blog he writes for The Detroit News, contends that the Founding Fathers were wrong to extend Constitutional protection to the fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and who indeed argues that we should "Ban All Guns." I wasn't the only gun rights advocate to take exception to this advocacy of such an attack on liberty--Pistolero, David Codrea, and Mike Vanderboegh (must read) have all weighed in on the subject.

Some of the criticism came not in blogs, but in comments left at the site of Mr. Smith's opinion piece. Now, it seems that another Detroit News blogger, Libby Spencer, thinks the criticism is out of line (excerpt follows):

Nonetheless, the point is, most people who are for gun bans don't have experience with hunters or recreational gun owners. Their only knowledge comes from the real dangers of inner city use in the commission of crimes. When you respond to the slightest whiff of disagreement with hateful pile-ons such as we're seeing in the comment section now, you not only make supporters of your rights like me want to rethink my position but also solidify the fears of those who would ban guns altogether.

If you don't want to be treated like a raging pack of trigger happy hotheads, don't act like one. A little civility in making your case would go a long way.

In other words, it seems that Libby, although supposedly one of the "supporters of [our] rights" (she can keep her "support," as far as I'm concerned), thinks that we should be polite in defense of our fundamental rights.

The problem with that is that it's just so damned difficult to come up with a polite way of saying "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you." The title of this blog post is about the best I could do.

Thanks, Pistolero, for bringing Libby's chastisement of gun rights advocates to my attention.

HopeandChange™: coming to a school near you!

One recent development I failed to cover during my last hiatus is the announcement of the "Lightworker's" choice for Secretary of Education--you know--to oversee the federal government's Constitutionally enumerated power to regulate education (what's that you say--nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted that power? An issue for another day). Obama's choice is the CEO of the Chicago Public School system, Arne Duncan.

Readers can be forgiven for wondering why, in a blog ostensibly dedicated to gun rights, I am talking about the next Secretary of Education. It's actually not as off-topic as it may seem. This is, in fact, not the first appearance of Arne Duncan's name on this blog. Duncan has a pretty extensive history of using his position as head of the CPS to push for ever more draconian forcible citizen disarmament laws. This, despite the fact that his area of operations has been Chicago, where private citizens are outright prohibited from purchasing handguns and most semi-automatic rifles.

Back in October, in fact, Illinois' chief citizen disarmament group, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence presented him with an award for his efforts to disarm peaceable Illinoisans, although he theatrically declined the award, because Illinoisans are not yet disarmed enough for him to think his work on this task is finished.

In refusing the Lincoln Award -- a statue of a hand holding a gun broken into pieces -- Duncan asked the crowd of dignitaries to renew their commitment to reducing gun violence.

"I won't accept this award today, but I will accept your hand in partnership -- and our commitment to keep on fighting to end the violence,'' said Duncan, who had been selected for his anti-violence efforts at CPS, including encouraging kids to text-message police with tips, and his lobbying against handguns in Springfield.

About that "lobbying against handguns in Springfield"--Duncan refused to content himself with doing his own lobbying--he also repeatedly bused CPS students down to Springfield to do that.

I imagine busing all those students all the way from Chicago to Springfield and back was pretty expensive--I'm glad the CPS is apparently rich enough to afford that--with state and federal budgets in such disarray, it's encouraging that Chicago will apparently not need help on the monetary front.

I guess it's not a concern that all these field trips to Springfield eat into classroom time--and why should it be a concern? After all, the CPS boasts a whopping 51% graduation rate.

That's the kind of leadership I want brought to the entire nation's education system.

Freedom--the Founding Fathers' greatest 'mistake'

Well whaddya know--the day I finally decide to end my sudden disappearance from the blogosphere, but am kind of hard pressed to find material, I stumble (pretty much by accident) on this little gem, by Robert Smith, Jr. (titled, simply enough, "Ban All Guns"):

The Founding Fathers of our country made a mistake when they said we had the right to bear arms. They did not know we would be allies with the British and no longer have to worry about them coming over to oppress and colonize us. The British found greater spoils in Africa and India and never looked back on the United States after the Revolutionary War.

Never heard of the War of 1812, eh Robert (and why should he have heard of it--it's not as if it inspired our national anthem or anything)? There's also the little issue of the fact that the Constitutional guarantee of the fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms exists not only for fighting off British imperialistic ambitions--actually, that was never even the primary reason for the Second Amendment.

The right to bear arms is killing all of us.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that rights don't kill, I'm a little puzzled about how, with a national population that grows every year, anything can be said to be "killing all of us."

In 2005 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported 3,006 children and teens killed by gunfire, most of them young, black men in inner-city neighborhoods.

Most of these "children and teens" are men? Apparently, Robert defines either "children" or "men" (perhaps both) in a rather . . . unusual manner (unusual, at least, outside forcible citizen disarmament circles).

Robert then lays some numbers on us.

The Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois gun killings took 32 lives, and the world was upset and every day 128 young people are shot to death in hard-pressed, poor communities across America and there is no outcry to change it, just report it on the local news.

Punctuation, evidently, is no more a strong suit of Robert's than history is. Looking at those numbers, I'm afraid I can't vouch for his mathematics skills either. I refer to his claim that "every day 128 young people are shot to death in hard-pressed, poor communities across America." That would come out to over forty-six thousand shooting deaths per year. The number of shooting deaths in the U.S. (all U.S. shooting deaths--more than half of which are suicides--with no filtering for age or economic status) has hovered around or a bit above thirty thousand per year for the last several years, but Robert somehow finds over one and a half times that number of deaths, just among young people in poor communities.

And this is the guy who would lecture the Founding Fathers about their "mistake."

Easing back into things, with an exciting announcement that's probably not news to anyone here

I've kinda developed a bad habit of burning out on blogging for weeks at a time, without warning or explanation. I really need to stop doing that. If I still have any readers, I apologize.

Anyway, I'm feeling motivated to write again, but after a month of being out of touch, I'm going to set the bar for myself kinda low, and instead of trying to come up with any deep insights, point to an exciting new development relating to one of my (many) betters (a much better, in fact).

Back in October, I mentioned that David Codrea (War on Guns) had a new gig (yet another one--this is a guy who knows how to work through the kind of burnout that shuts me down so often). I refer to the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner column.

The exciting news is that the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner column will soon be known as simply the Gun Rights Examiner--it's going national.

Coming in early January, the "Cleveland" is going away.

The column has done well both regionally and in the "Politics" category. So the powers that be have decided they'll be better served if it goes national--meaning it will now show up on the national page as well as be accessible from 59 separate city pages.

This is big news, folks. This is one of the best gun bloggers (and I would make the case for dropping the "one of the") gaining a national audience that's not limited to the gun blogosphere.

Congratulations, David, and go get 'em.

This could have been the GOP's response to Obama

I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving weekend.

I see that "Iron" Mike Ditka wants to disarm the entire NFL.

"This is all about priorities. When you get stature in life, you get the kind of contract, you have an obligation and responsibility to your teammates, to the organization, to the National Football League and to the fans. He just flaunted this money in their face. He has no respect for anybody but himself. I feel sorry for him, in the sense that, I don't understand the league, why can anybody have a gun? I will have a policy, no guns, any NFL players we find out, period, you're suspended."

This, of course, was in response to New York Giants receiver Plaxico Burress negligently shooting himself in the thigh in a Manhattan nightclub. Seems a bit drastic as a reaction to one knucklehead doing what knuckleheads do.

As for the Sean Taylors and Darrent Williamses
produced by such an edict, I suppose that's just their tough luck.

My point isn't that this could happen to the NFL--those guys can find a way to take care of themselves. My point is that Ditka--the guy whose "solution" to an ignoramus negligently shooting himself is to treat everyone as an ignoramus--was once pursued by the Illinois GOP to run against Obama for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Iron Mike declined, after some consideration.

I don't think he would have won, and I'm certainly not arguing that he would not only win, but go on to win the presidency four years later--my point is more about the state of the GOP in Illinois.

Even someone courted by the party as the next tough guy hero ends up being a nanny-stater.

Happy Thanksgiving

No blogging today--just going to enjoy the family time.

Hope everyone has a great one, and that everyone remembers that we still have a great deal for which to be thankful.

Victim of 'gun violence' says to blame the 'stupid person,' not the gun

From KABA, we learn the latest about Seattle Mayor Greg Nickles' plan to (illegally) ban firearms on city owned property.

That's already been pretty well covered on other sites, and after some internet trouble early today, I'm running behind, so I'm just going to take a brief look at one aspect of Nickels' little flirtation with despotism. The push for this executive order (or the excusefor it, to be more accurate) was an incident at the Northwest Folklife Festival, back in May. Basically, some idiot (and drug addict, apparently) started shooting into the crowd, over what had heretofore been, at most, a pushing and shoving kind of confrontation. Thankfully, there were no life-threatening injuries.

What is interesting is that one of the two people shot (and the boyfriend of the other), has shown no inclination to blame the gun for what he has gone through.

Penaluna, for his part, doesn't think a gun ban would have made him any more safe.

"I was hurt by a stupid person who happened to make a stupid decision with a gun," he said.

"There are thousands of people all over Seattle, I know, who walk strapped. And they're not gang-bangers. They're responsible adults who are afraid of gang-bangers," he said.

"I think this ordinance is nothing more than a classic governmental way of trying to put a Band-Aid over a problem instead of finding a solution.

Sshh, Joshua--that's not how victims of "gun violence" are supposed to talk!

The article covers some incidents of senseless violence in Seattle, and quotes Seattle residents who carry defensive firearms to defend themselves.

It's actually a better article than one might expect from the L.A. Times.

'Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?'

Sebastian, at Snowflakes in Hell, has found the Quote of the Day--if not the Quote of the Month.

“Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?” said Councilwoman Tonya Payne. “This is what’s right to do, and if this means that we have to go out and have a court battle, then that’s fine … We have plenty of dead bodies coming up in our streets every single day, and that is unacceptable.”

Councilwoman Tonya Payne was referring to Pittsburgh, PA's adoption of "lost or stolen" reporting requirements for gun owners.

Ignore, for now, the uselessness of such an ordinance.

Ignore, for now, the wrong-headed evil of "blame the victim" legislation.

Ignore, for now, the fact that felons and other people prohibited by law from possessing firearms are the ones who cannot be prosecuted under a law like this, because of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

I assume Ms. Payne was referring not to the U.S. Constitution, and the Second Amendment, but to the Pennsylvania state constitution, and its mandate for state preemption of firearms regulation. [Correction: the Pennsylvania mandate for state preemption of firearm regulation is apparently not part of the state constitution, but was instead a statutory measure. Sorry for my misunderstanding.] In the end, though, that doesn't really matter--her attitude is a classic example of the mindset of the forcible citizen disarmament crowd--the mindset that believes the agenda is more important than protections against a government drunk on power.

It is, in fact, government officials with that kind of mindset who are the reason that the Second Amendment is so necessary.

Obama, executive orders, and the 'Gephardt Doctrine'

I've talked before about the possibility of Obama not even bothering to wait for Congressional approval of his citizen disarmament agenda, and I wasn't the first. Walls of the City also covered the subject well, as undoubtedly did others.

Obama's selection of Eric Holder for Attorney General would indicate to me that he is unlikely to get much advice about the blatant unconstitutionality, on many levels, of citizen disarmament by executive order--I expect Holder will think it's a splendid idea.

Some might argue that "The Lightworker" will not be interested in picking that kind of fight (and looking at the Congress he'll have, he may not need to make an end-run around the legislative process). Some might point out--quite correctly--that executive orders have no legal power to overturn the Supreme Court's rulings on Constitutional questions.

Then again, though, perhaps Obama is a believer in what I'll call the "Gephardt Doctrine."

"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day," Gephardt said.

Gephardt, then a Democratic congressman from Missouri, said that in 2003, back when he hoped to be the Democratic nominee for the 2004 presidential election.

Frankly, I don't believe the majority decision in Heller will prove much of an obstacle to Obama's citizen disarmament agenda. Still, it's pretty clear that he would like Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion even better.

Under the Gephardt Doctrine, Obama could "overcome" the "wrong thing" of the majority decision's statement that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms, unconnected to service in a government sanctioned militia.

Police reaction in New Mexico to spike in sales of so-called 'assault weapons': shrug

Advocates of forcible citizen disarmament never tire of pointing to police support for bans of politically incorrect firearms, as "evidence" that such bans are necessary. Typically, the quoted support comes not from the actual beat cops, but from an "Only One in Chief", who is appointed by, and answerable to, the mayor and/or city council--which tend to have their own citizen disarmament agendas.

Apparently, though, the memo hasn't reached at least part of New Mexico, where the Farmington, NM police chief and San Juan County Sheriff have noted the run on so-called "assault weapons," but are not concerned.

A recent spike in demand for assault weapons is putting hundreds of additional high-powered weapons into San Juan County homes, but law enforcement agencies say that won't cause an increased threat to officers.

"Most of these assault-type weapons that everyone is talking about are being bought by home owners. Those people who are buying those kind of weapons aren't the ones we're usually dealing with on a day-to-day basis," Farmington Police Chief Jim Runnels said.

[ . . . ]

"There isn't a higher threat," San Juan County Sheriff's Lt. Tyler Truby said. "Although there are being more firearms lawfully purchased right now, that doesn't necessarily mean there's going to be an increase in the hands of people who are going to be using them for any unlawful purpose."

What's that you say? More firepower in the hands of people disinclined to use it for evil isn't a problem? Blasphemy! The International Association of Chiefs of Police won't like that.

I should acknowledge that Farmington Police Chief Runnels did parrot one of the statists' talking points:

But with rising numbers of the high-powered weapons in residences and rising numbers of home burglaries in the area, assault rifles might find their way into criminal hands.

"A significant portion of these weapons could turn up as stolen property and then they're on the street," Runnels said.

Then again, "assault rifle" ammo "might find" it's "way into criminal[s']" bodies.

The article does make one interesting point I hadn't considered.

"This has been a concern long before what's going on now, as more and more weapons were made available," Runnels said. "By and large, law enforcement has kept up with the types of weapons, as far as not being outgunned."

But the dramatically increased demand for firearms in recent weeks hasn't left local law enforcement agencies unscathed. Police report ammunition costs have risen by as much as 30 percent.

Although many have attributed the increasing ammunition costs to American wars in the Middle East, Runnels said suppliers have reported a dramatic increase in demand from civilian gun owners.

"The ammunition is still available, there's just been a price increase," Truby said. "It definitely does impact our budget.

Guess you can thank "The Lightworker," his policies, and his ideological allies for that.

Gun rights: safe and sound, now and forever

Yep, you read that right. I am categorically declaring that an Obama/Biden presidency (with the HopeadChange™ Anti-Gun Dream Team cabinet and staff), combined with Democratic hegemony in Congress, is no threat to gun rights--and I'm not being sarcastic.

I have also not taken leave of my senses. Before you dispute that assertion, you need to understand what I am not saying. I don't, for example, deny that the Obammuist and his acolytes want to implement every restrictive gun law they can--they have left no doubt that they do. Nor am I claiming that they'll necessarily be prevented from putting in place the most draconian gun restrictions in our nation's history--I think there's a good chance they'll have the power to do just that.

What I am saying is that, their wishes notwithstanding, our gun rights are beyond their filthy reach. That's why, after all, they're called rights--if they could be taken away at the whim of the government, they would be privileges. Whatever executive orders Obama signs (and are upheld), whatever laws Congress passes, whatever decisions the Supreme Court hands down, whatever U.N. treaties are signed and ratified, our Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms will remain.

Granted, the "Constitutionally guaranteed" part isn't necessarily forever (although I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon)--any Constitutional amendment, even one that is part of the Bill of Rights, can be repealed. As I said, I don't find that very likely, but in terms of what rights we have, even the repeal of the Second Amendment wouldn't matter. As the Supreme Court said in the United States v. Cruikshank decision:

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

Many refer to the right to keep and bear arms as "God given," although those of a less religious persuasion might prefer to call it a "natural" right. In practical terms, the distinction doesn't really matter--the upshot is that the right is not the government's to either grant or rescind.

Obama and his minions can perhaps turn us into "criminals" (or even "homegrown terrorists"), but they cannot take our rights, and if we are to be worthy of those rights, nor can they take our guns--not, at any rate, while our hands are warm and living.

III

Paul Helmke's 'bridge to nowhere'

The Brady Bunch's Paul Helmke advises President-elect Obama to "'Build a Bridge to Nowhere Moderates,' with Common Sense on Guns." Helmke quotes Robert Green as saying (emphasis Helmke's):

These findings suggest that sensible gun legislation provides a unique opportunity for the new Administration to build a bridge to moderate voters in both parties. It is no longer plausible for opponents of gun legislation to assert that gun laws will somehow lead to a total gun ban.

Left unsaid is any acknowledgment of the fact that Helmke and friends are the ones defining both "moderate," and "common sense." That little trick in the collectivists' arsenal has been expertly noted by others.

Mr. Green's mention of "[t]hese findings" is in reference to the Brady Bunch's loudly touted poll, supposedly illustrating widespread support for the Brady Backed "common sense" . . . infringements on that which shall not be infringed. Also left unexamined is the question of the credibility of the poll--a question rather worthy of examination, it would seem.

Then again, perhaps not--after all, even if a majority (or even a large majority) of the public does support more draconian gun laws, our Republic is not supposed to be subject to the tyranny of the majority. In other words, 51% of the populace is not supposed to be able to vote away the rights of the other 49%--nor indeed, is 99% supposed to be able to vote away the rights of the other 1%. Another way to say that is that 97% of the population will not succeed in trampling the rights of the other 3%--and they would be well advised not to try.

Finally, in reference to the "bridge to moderates" claim--I thought that according to the Brady Bunch, Ray Schoenke and the rest of the AHSAholes (I can't claim credit for that term), and His HopeandChangedness™ himself, the position on guns Obama campaigned on (when he dared mention it) was the moderate position.

If that's the case, why would he need to "build a bridge" to moderates--wouldn't that be a "bridge to nowhere"?

In other news--add this link to your bookmarks, and check it at least daily--you'll be glad you did. Mike Vanderboegh is finally blogging.

Alert: Cook County, IL needs help

Almost a year ago, I discussed here and in subsequent posts a campaign on the part of the most rabidly pro-citizen disarmament Cook County Commissioners (which is rather a lot of them) to make Cook County's gun laws even more insanely draconian than they are now (it actually takes some imagination to even come up with ways for that to be possible--but they're creative when it comes to disarming the law abiding).

That endeavor didn't go anywhere, thanks in large part, I have to believe, to the resistance of concerned citizens.

Now, however, the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) reports that they're trying again, but on a different tack:

ISRA Alert: County County Phone Poll For Gun Control Ordinance Is Still Active

Larry Suffredin and his cohorts on the Cook County Board are up to their old tricks again.

In order to justify passage of gun control ordinances designed to close all gun shops and ban and confiscate most guns owned by citizens of the county, the Cook County Board is conducting a telephone poll where callers can vote for or against the gun control ordinances.

Like everything else in Cook County, this poll is probably rigged. So, it’s very important that you do the following:

1. Call 1-312 -603-6400 and select Option #1 when prompted. At the next prompt, select Option #1 again. Then, when prompted to vote on the gun control ordinance, press #2.

2. You should also forward this alert on to all your gun owning friends and have them vote too.

3. You should also post this alert to any and all Internet bulletin boards or blogs to which you belong.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT OF COOK COUNTY TO VOTE!

Let’s beat Suffredin at his own game! And, save your guns.

Your help would be much appreciated.

A caveat

For going on three weeks now, there has been a great deal of talk about the HopeandChange™-inspired spike in sales of firearms (particularly so-called "assault weapons"), ammunition, and standard capacity magazines. I see this as a good thing, on several levels.

For one thing, it's one segment, at least, of the economy that is ticking along nicely--what's not to like about that?

For another, it simply makes sense to stock up on useful items that the people coming into power have made no secret of their plans to make unavailable.

Third, it's always fun to see the citizen disarmament advocates wailing around their cud that people shouldn't be buying these "weapons of war," or alternatively, simply denying that any such sales spike is really happening--forget what the FBI says about a dramatic increase in NICS background checks.

Finally, all these purchases are something of a "show of force" to the citizen disarmament advocates in the government--a message that Americans do still treasure their Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Perhaps most importantly, it reminds them that we're keeping and bearing rather a lot of arms--many of which are effective fighting arms (effective for fighting, as a hypothetical example, the forces of a tyrannical government).

Still, I think it needs to be said that this message could be misinterpreted, perhaps deliberately. Some who see themselves as having been elected our masters might get the idea in their reptilian, predatory brains that because of the "surge" at gun shops across the country, the majority of people who really want so-called "assault weapons,"--those who, in other words, would fight hardest for their continued availability--already have one (or more), thus somewhat blunting the resentment of an impending ban.

That, clearly, is not the message that we need to send. We need to make clear that we're not buying up black rifles just because they look good in the gun safe--we're buying them for a rainy day.

Are those thunderheads on the horizon?

III

Securing the Homeland with HopeandChange™

The HopeandChange™ Anti-Gun Dream Team keeps getting bigger and "better," with the newest addition being Arizona's Governor Janet Napolitano as the next Secretary of Homeland Security. What's her stance on guns?

Well, in 2007, she vetoed Arizona SB 1302, which would have made Arizona's "Stand Your Ground" law retroactive. This could have made the difference for Harold Fish, who is serving a prison sentence for second degree murder, despite the fact that a strong case was made for the argument that he fired in self-defense. Napolitano said that her veto came out of concerns that reopening all the cases that could be affected by the change in law would overburden the court system. That makes sense--we certainly wouldn't want to give innocent people a chance to get out of prison if doing so would be inconvenient.

Early this year, she got the veto pen out again, and killed a bill that would have made carrying a concealed firearm without a permit a petty offense, rather than a Class 3 felony. It would also have prohibited the confiscation of the firearm. While even a "petty offense" for the exercise of one's Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms without first having become "licensed" to do so is offensive, it beats the hell out of a felony and confiscation of one's property.

So, what can the Homeland Security Secretary do to affect gun ownership? We've already had rumblings about some rather . . . startling definitions of what constitutes a "homegrown terrorist," and Napolitano might be tempted to make them more "startling" still. Dare to utter a quote of Jefferson's "tree of liberty" line, and you could find yourself characterized as the next Timothy McVeigh.

If it comes to that, some may decide that if they're going to prison, it won't be for merely talking about refreshing the tree of liberty.

If this be treason . . .

III

Opposition to deer hunting with handguns can't agree on why it's wrong

A change in deer hunting laws in Delaware, providing more opportunities for the use of handguns, has (predictably) drawn some criticism. Amusingly, though, not only does the criticism not agree with facts and logic, it doesn't even agree with itself.

On the one hand, we have Scott Vogel, of the outrageously misnamed "Freedom States Alliance," who argues that handguns used for deer hunting are "too powerful."

The Freedom States Alliance is a national nonprofit organization that is dedicated to reducing gun-related deaths and injuries through public awareness campaigns. According to the FSA Web site, .50 caliber guns have effective ranges up to 2,000 yards, or 20 football fields laid end to end. Deer hunters typically shoot at ranges of 150-200 yards.

.50 caliber rifles can be effective at that range (in the hands of an extremely skilled shooter), but a .50 caliber handgun (like the .500 S&W Magnum) could be fired all day (assuming the shooter's ability to sustain that kind of recoil, and his wallet's ability to sustain the ammo costs, permitted it) without the intended target ever noticing he was being fired at. By the way, Delaware law does not require that deer-hunting handguns be of .50 caliber--and most hunters who choose to take the opportunities offered by this rule change will probably not go out and buy one.

"We don't support this change," said Scott Vogel, communications director of FSA. "A .50-caliber handgun can easily puncture a police officer's vest."

Probably--but no more easily than any deer rifle (and probably less easily than most deer rifle cartridges). Besides, do Delaware police have a habit of disguising themselves as deer during hunting season--why is a hunting gun's ability to defeat body armor even an issue?

On the other hand, we get the argument that handguns are not powerful enough to hunt deer.

The Humane Society of the United States worries not only about the safety of the hunter but of the deer. The group worries that deer shot by handguns would suffer needlessly.

"If the hunters were truly interested in a quick and painless death for the deer, they would not use a handgun," said Casey Pheiffer, campaign manager of the Wildlife Abuse Campaign for the Humane Society.

Granted, the range at which a deer can be humanely taken is probably less, in most cases, with a handgun than with a rifle. Within that range, though, with adequate care on the part of the hunter, a powerful handgun is quite up to the task of ethical deer hunting, and will probably in most cases kill a deer more quickly than can generally be done with bow and arrow. Besides, my guess is that being torn apart by wolves or a mountain lion is probably less than pleasant, too--that's one of the downsides of being helpless prey.

"Helpless prey," by the way, is exactly what citizen disarmament advocacy groups like the Freedom States Alliance would like to make us.

Oh yeah--this is the guy who will rein in the BATFE

Pending passage through the vetting process, our next Attorney General will be Eric Holder. What effect can the Attorney General have on gun rights? Quite a large one.

One of the responsibilities of the Attorney General, of course, is leadership of the Department of Justice, of which the BATFE is now a part. It's also the Attorney General who is empowered to determine whether or not a firearm is suitable for "sporting purposes" (don't even get me started on the perversity of having that as a criterion for which arms are suitable to be kept and borne); and who would, under the abomination of S. 1237/H.R. 2074 have the power to unilaterally deny a person's ability to buy a firearm, on the basis of a suspicion that he's a terrorist.

So what do we know about Eric Holder's stance on the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms? A fair amount, and it's not encouraging.

For example, as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, he was big on closing the mythical "gun show loophole."

Today Individual Members of Congress have a clear-cut choice to make. Either they can cave in to the narrow, special interests that value the cold, hard steel of guns more than the lives of children, neighbors and police officers, or they can fulfill the mandate of the broad majority of the American public by supporting a reasonable, common sense bill that would make all of us safer from armed criminals. The choice for each House Member is just that stark.

He goes on a lot farther, but you get the idea.

Not that our last two Attorneys General, appointed by the "Vote Freedom First" President, have been real coups for the gun rights movement. Alberto Gonzales differed from Holder's former boss, Janet Reno, mainly in being not quite as masculine. Mukasey showed some early potential, but didn't take long to show his true colors.

Still, the choice of Holder would be the continuation of an unbroken trend on the part of the incoming Obama administration of assembling a group of anti-gun jihadists.

Keep your powder dry.

More at War on Guns, Snowflakes in Hell, Say Uncle, and probably others.

.50 caliber rifles still not used by terrorists in the U.S.--New Jersey must act!

Apparently, Bryan Miller has some competition for "Most Hysterically Anti-Gun Rights Writer at NJ.com." I refer here to George Amick, who apparently views the banning of large rifles as a choice of "sanity vs. paranoia." Actually, I suppose I agree with that--I just happen to have different ideas about which is which.

Many years have passed since the New Jersey Legislature last dared to cross the gun lobby by passing a piece of legislation that the lobby didn't like

That statement surprises me, but not being a close follower of New Jersey politics, I suppose it might be true (although New Jersey's "smart gun" law--one that I certainly hope would "cross 'the gun lobby,'" passed in 2002--is six years "many years"?). If so, I submit that the reason is that NJ's gun laws are already so draconian that there simply isn't much room for more restrictions.

It soon may have a chance to redeem itself.

Ah--the redemptive power of tyranny.

A2116, sponsored by Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, D-Princeton Borough, would ban private sale and possession of .50-caliber sniper rifles and ammunition. Here's what you should know about .50-caliber rifles:

They are military firearms . . .

Let's assume for the moment that Scott Bach is wrong, and that A2116 will not ban all kinds of hunting guns and historic black powder arms, or that the amendment passed yesterday adequately addresses that problem--let's assume, in other words, that only modern .50 caliber rifles (and handguns like the .500 S&W) would be affected. That would mean that this is a "military firearm" (I am not conceding, by the way, that there's anything wrong with The People keeping and bearing "military firearm(s)"--that is, after all, the point of the Second Amendment--just pointing out the ridiculousness of Amick's assertions):

Speaking of "military firearms," the Colt Single Action Army, the M1903 Springfield, and a great many other guns owned by large numbers of civilians for a hundred years or more have served the military with distinction--should we ban all those, too (on second thought, don't answer that, George and Bryan)?

. . . designed to fire armor-piercing incendiary or explosive rounds . . .

And also designed to fire the lead and copper rounds generally available to civilians, as opposed to being restricted to governments.

Terrorists armed with these guns and posted more than a mile away could find choice targets in what Ceasefire NJ, an organization that works for sensible gun laws, calls "New Jersey's soft civilian infrastructure": airports and planes, rail cars carrying hazardous materials, and refineries and chemical plants where highly flammable, explosive and toxic items are stored.

Funny that with Ronnie Barrett having begun marketing rifles chambered for the .50 BMG cartridge over 20 years ago, not one such attack has occurred in the U.S. It's almost as if terrorists don't really see these rifles as being all that useful for attacking the U.S.

Amazingly, though, .50-caliber sniper rifles are less strictly regulated than handguns.

Easily fixed--just stop regulating handguns (don't thank me--I'm happy to help).

Bryan Miller, head of Ceasefire NJ, and his organization will use the month's delay to tour the state, displaying .50-caliber rifles and demonstrating their destructive power to the public.

Oohh--the Bryan Miller .50 Caliber Hysteria '08 Tour! As for "demonstrating their destructive power," is Bryan going to fire one (it seemingly being rather difficult to demonstrate a gun's "destructive power" without doing so)? Now that would be something to see.

Modern .50 caliber rifles are used so rarely in crimes that it's national news when they are, and have never, to my knowledge, been used to kill anyone in the U.S. Make it impossible to use them legally, though, and the only thing left to do with them is to use them illegally. Is that what you want, New Jersey?

Days of Our Trailers has more on the latest goings-on with A2116.

What Bill Schneider has learned from Gun Nuts

Bill Schneider claims to have "learned" something from "gun nuts." Schneider has been no friend to the those of us who are utterly unwilling to give an inch in defending our Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, once referring to those whose outrage led to the demise of Jim Zumbo's career as the "black rifle Gestapo."

Still, learning is a good thing, and if he has learned that uncompromising defense of gun rights is in no way akin to Nazism, I suppose I would have to consider that progress. Let's see what he has learned.

I consider my right to bear arms one of my basic freedoms, but not the only one, so buckle up, gun nuts.

Apparently one thing he has not yet learned is that we agree on the "not the only" basic freedom thing.

Shoot, I wonder if the gun nuts have asked themselves this question. Would the Second Amendment even pass today?

At this point, I'm not sure any of the Bill of Rights would pass today. How does that relate to my rights?

They’re terrified about our new president sending out a flock of black helicopters to confiscate their guns--or at least make it harder to buy them.

The black helicopters and confiscations thing does seem rather far-fetched, which might explain why few of us seriously argue that's in the works. As to "harder to buy them"--well the HopeandChange™ "Urban Policy" agenda is back up, and still says (excerpt):

They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

If banning private sales, requiring guns to be sold with technology that doesn't even exist, and banning the most effective militia-capable firearms doesn't qualify as "mak[ing] it harder to buy them," I'm not sure what would qualify.

But perhaps Schneider is counting on Obama not having the votes for gun bans. With the large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, perhaps a look at the Democratic Party's 2008 platform would be instructive.

We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals.

Seems as if the President-elect and much of the Congress we'll have for at least the next two years are in agreement about the need to "make it harder to buy them."

I could go on, but the point is. Losing some of my gun rights doesn’t make my top twenty concerns.

It seems another thing Schneider hasn't learned--perhaps a trip to Canada, Great Britain, or Australia would help--is that the "slippery slope" is real, and The Enemy works tirelessly to add more grease and increase the incline.

They’ve closed their minds to compromise.

He says that as if compromising one's rights (one, specifically, that shall not be infringed) is a good thing.

To them, there’s no such thing as a common sense gun law.

Good for you, Bill--I guess you really did learn something.

He goes on some more, but this post is already getting pretty long. The gist of it seems to be that hard, grassroots work and a refusal to compromise are effective, but somehow morally dubious.

Somehow, my conscience is clear.

Brady Campaign's Peter Hamm: using illegal gun is 'correct'

In yet another article documenting the HopeandChange™ brought to gun dealers by the election of Barack Obama (just a sales ploy--right, Bryan?), the authors take a look at some of Obama's voting history, in order to weigh the plausibility of fears that U.S. gun laws will become still more draconian than they already are.

Specifically, the article mentioned (then Illinois State Senator) Obama's repeated votes against the "Wilmette Bill," which came up after a resident of Wilmette, IL (which had a city ordinance banning handguns) used a handgun to successfully defend himself, his home, and his children from a burglar home invader and career criminal (thanks, Sheepdoggy). Under the terms of the bill, which eventually passed over Governor Blagojevich's veto (and Obama's repeated votes), self-defense is an affirmative defense to violations of municipal firearms ordinances.

Newsweek dismissively points out that even without the law Obama tried to defeat, the violation would be no more than a "petty offense."

What Obama voted for was not any general repeal of the right of self-defense, but to uphold enforcement of the local gun ban, a "petty offense" that carried a maximum penalty of a $750 fine.

At risk of exposing my low-class, peasant, white trashiness, I have to say that $750 is a not insignificant sum for me, particularly when one considers the court costs, etc. that would probably be tacked on--not to mention the likelihood that the gun would be confiscated and never returned.

Going back to the article from the first link above, the Brady Campaign's Peter "Don't call me Petey" Hamm makes an interesting statement about what he thinks of breaking laws such as Wilmette's (now repealed) handgun ban.

“If you have an illegal gun in a community that bans them and use it in self defense and all you have to do is to pay a fine — I would pay the fine and believe what I did was correct,” Hamm said.

So breaking the kind of gun law that your organization has fought so hard to preserve is "correct"? Alright--I agree with that much--breaking an evil law is indeed correct (as Petey and I are far from the first to have noticed). The problem is, if breaking the law is "correct," then the law itself must be "incorrect."

Pick a side, Petey.

Are you going to tell them, John, or should I?

Rabid advocate of citizen disarmament John Rosenthal--founder of Stop Handgun Violence, and one-time founding member of the supposedly "pro-gun" (Ha!) American Hunters and Shooters Association (which Paul Helmke himself has said the Brady Bunch sees as an ally)--has some advice to the "Lightworker" for reducing "gun violence."

None of the seven ideas are new--they're the kinds of things the citizen disarmament zealots have been pushing for years. I did notice, however, something interesting about the last one (emphasis mine):

#7 Create incentives for the gun industry to make "personalized guns"

According to gun maker Smith and Wesson, guns could be made with personal recognition technology such that only the intended user could fire the gun. This practical technological solution would save the lives of countless victims of gun violence, accidents and suicides each year. It could also help save the lives of the 17% of police officers killed in the line of duty by a criminal accessing the officer's gun. In fact, in an agreement with the Clinton administration, Smith and Wesson promised to invest a portion of net profits into "personalized gun technology".

Funny you should bring that up, John. Funny, because the one state (to my knowledge) that has passed such a law, pending availability of the technology, is New Jersey--and guess who will be exempt from the requirement to use the "smart guns." Yep--New Jersey's finest will be the "Only Ones" exempt from being required to use the technology that Rosenthal touts as being desirable because it will make police work safer.

Why is that, do you suppose? I don't follow New Jersey politics very closely (I have enough headaches here at home in Illinois, thank you very much), but my guess is that to ensure passage of the legislation, those pushing it sought the endorsement of police groups, and said groups would only provide that endorsement on the condition of the exemption. Well, why is that, one might ask?

Because police officers are unwilling to needlessly trust their lives to complex, failure-prone technology (not to mention the added failure point of batteries). The folks in charge of police department budgets might also have been less than enthusiastic about the certainty of dramatically more expensive service firearms.

Rather than point out that those of us who are not "Only Ones" have exactly the same concerns, I'm curious about whether or not Rosenthal has run this idea past the usual police allies of the citizen disarmament movement--the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), for example.

Normally, whenever The Enemy perceives a need to illustrate how they're "on the side of the police," while "the gun lobby" (that would be you and me) isn't, they drag out groups like the two mentioned above, who dutifully chirp their agreement. My guess is that this time, it might be a harder sell.

Maybe those groups should become the "Only Ones" switching sides enough.

Actually, we're protecting ourselves from the Reds

Yesterday, I put up a rather angry post responding to Sociology Professor Ben Agger's assertion that the recent spike in sales of so-called "assault weapons" is rooted in racism. Here it is again:

One expert sees a darker motive driving some post-election gun purchasers.

"Why are white people buying assault weapons?" said Ben Agger, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Arlington who wrote a book about the Virginia Tech slayings. "I almost hate to say it, but there is a deep-seated fear of the armed black man, because Obama now commands the military and other instruments of the justice system. They are afraid Obama will exact retribution for the very deep-seated legacy of slavery."

By the way, I missed this line in the article yesterday.

A few say they are preparing to protect themselves in the event of a race war.

"A few" are saying that? So few, apparently, that the author of the article and his source, Professor Agger (oh--and Lewis Farrakhan--but charges of racism from him are a classic case of the pot calling the kettle . . . er, racist), seem to have a virtual monopoly on the claim.

There are very few classes of people I despise more than bigots. Question my sexual alignment, my ancestry, or my mother's and sisters' virtue, and I'll just laugh you off as a puerile blowhard. Refer to me (with my middle name of "John-Martin," after John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.) as a bigot, though, and we're going to have problems.

There's also the little issue of the fact that citizen disarmament policies are themselves rooted in racial oppression.


David Codrea took a rather calmer (and more productive) approach than my blind anger, and did a bit of research into Prof. Agger's background, and was kind enough to email me with some of his findings. Consider, for example, this little gem:

This is not to suggest that socialism is, or should be, dropped as a political aim, to be hoped for and fought for.

Socialism is to be "fought for"? I imagine that if the bourgeois have no access to effective militia arms, that fight for socialism will go a lot more easily, won't it? That wouldn't have anything to do with your position, would it, Professor?

As the title of this post says, color has something to do with the reasoning behind arming oneself, but the color that concerns us isn't black.

By the way, I'm sure Professor Agger and "Authorized Journalist" Witt would love to hear what folks think:

Professor Ben Agger: agger@uta.edu
Howard Witt: hwitt@tribune.com

One more thing--I learned of Witt's Chicago Tribune article through "Chicagoist: Gun Nuts Stock Up After Obama Win." A look at the comments should provide a good idea of the kind of "post-partisan reconciliation" we can expect from the Obammunists.

War on Guns has much more.

'Why are white people buying "assault weapons"?'

I rarely post twice in a day, so this will be a short one. I just spotted this, which contains a statement too disgusting to leave unchallenged. Most of the article is about the Obama/Biden-inspired spike in firearm (particularly so-called "assault weapons") and ammunition sales. That's been covered (and is still being covered) to death, and isn't what I'm focused on. For that, go to the last paragraph.

One expert sees a darker motive driving some post-election gun purchasers.

"Why are white people buying assault weapons?" said Ben Agger, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Arlington who wrote a book about the Virginia Tech slayings. "I almost hate to say it, but there is a deep-seated fear of the armed black man, because Obama now commands the military and other instruments of the justice system. They are afraid Obama will exact retribution for the very deep-seated legacy of slavery."

So now it's racist to buy an AR-15. I suppose if Senators Chucky Schumer or Diane Feinstein had been elected, spurring exactly the same kind of spike in sales, it would be a manifestation of antisemitism among gun owners (JPFO notwithstanding)

I wonder what the explanation would have been had the presidency gone to Paul Helmke, or Carolyn "What's a Barrel Shroud" McCarthy.

Another point I'd like to bring up relates to this:

. . . Obama now commands the military and other instruments of the justice system.

What does he mean by "military and other instruments of the justice system"? When did the military become part of the justice system? Have we been put under marital martial (thanks, Timmeehh) law, with no one having told me?

I'll have more tomorrow, and Snowflakes in Hell, Days of Our Trailers, and The Iron Whirlygig have more now.

That sounds familiar

The Tyler Morning Telegraph (Tyler, Texas) has been seeking reader reactions to the spike in firearms sales spurred by the the impending HopeandChange™. One respondent didn't seem to think it was a good idea.

"I think people are completely overreacting," Chad King wrote in a reader comment he submitted. "It's funny to me that people are buying guns that they fear are going to be taken away from them. That makes absolutely no sense. ... Republican or Democrat, we all have to agree somewhere in the middle that certain guns only belong on the battlefield and serve no purpose in the hands of children and criminals."

"Only belong on the battlefield," eh? That sounds an awful lot like the (now vanished) urban policy we've been promised:

They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that there's no guarantee that the only battlefields over the next few years will be "foreign battlefields," and that the "Only Ones" are presumably not being equipped with "patrol rifles" for use on foreign battlefields, the assumption here seems to be that making something illegal will make it go away. By such "logic," that "War on Drugs" must be just about won by now, eh? I suppose it might bother some if I point out that a ban on militia-capable firearms is rather difficult to reconcile with shall not be infringed--I guess they'll just have to deal with being bothered.

Another aspect of what Chad King says (in reference to so-called "assault weapons") comes at the end of the sentence. To repeat:

. . . serve no purpose in the hands of children and criminals.

That also sounds quite a lot like something straight from the mouth of the Obamessiah (this time his Democratic Convention speech).

. . . but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.

And that takes me to what I see as the main point of this post (yeah, I know--it takes me a while to get there). I'm assuming that by "AK-47s," he refers not to real AK-47s, which are already extremely tightly controlled, but to the semi-automatic copies commonly available to private citizens in most states.

I have a problem with the ambiguity of that position. Presumably, the "Lightworker" is well aware of the fact that criminals are already barred by law from possessing any firearms. That would seem to mean that by "keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals," he means keeping them out of our hands--the hands of peaceable armed citizens.

Obviously, keeping such firearms out of the hands of such citizens will do nothing, in and of itself, to prevent violence--the idea is that to keep them out of the hands of criminals, you have to keep them out of everyone's hands (never mind that that is impossible, also). Once you acknowledge that, it seems to me that you acknowledge that the laws against criminals possessing firearms don't work--if they did, you wouldn't need another law, keeping AK-47s out of their hands.

In other words, the response to the ineffectiveness of gun laws is . . . to pass more gun laws. That oughta work.

Taking back the Second Amendment? From whom? 'Great' Britain?

I need to thank Keep and Bear Arms for finding this "progressive" strategy (pdf) for "taking back the Second Amendment." The strategy was put together by Third Way, who seem to want to present themselves as "moderately progressive" (or maybe "progressively moderate") Democrats.

The Policy: Supporting Second Amendment rights, closing gun law loopholes that terrorists and criminals can exploit, fixing the broken background check system, and reversing the Bush gun crime policy by vigorously enforcing the major federal gun laws on the books.

Hmm--I'm not finding much difference (hell--any difference) between that policy, and what the Brady Bunch advocates.

A major part of the gist of the strategy seems to be a single word substitution:

Step 3: Redefine the Issue from Gun Control to Gun Safety

Gun control has become a loaded term that leads voters to believe that the candidate supports the most restrictive laws, including a ban on handguns. Voters don’t define enforcement of existing gun laws or closing the gun show loophole as gun control — neither should candidates.

“By a margin of 70-20% (77-13% among gun owners), voters prefer a Democratic candidate who supports gun safety over a candidate who supports gun control.”

Don't get me wrong--I'm 100% in favor of "gun safety," myself. The problem is that there is exactly ZERO difference between mandating "gun safety" legislatively, and imposing "gun control" (which I prefer to call by its much more accurate description: citizen disarmament).

There's more, such as "enforce existing gun laws" (hey, where else have I heard that?), but you get the idea. I don't suppose I should be surprised by "Third Way's" positions--they refer to Obama as--get this--"a moderate in moderate's clothing" ("Obamism?").

The strategy's last point is "Implement Your Gun Plan and Watch the Gun Votes Roll In."

I'd like to be able to say that I know that gun owners aren't nearly that gullible.

I'd like to.

HopeandChange™, express style

Even with a stacked Congress to help him ramrod his agenda, it seems the "Lightworker" may not want to wait for that pesky legislative process to work.

President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.

Anything else? Maybe some kind of policy that might be hard to get through even an increasingly statist Congress? Something like . . . oh, I don't know--a federal ban on concealed carry; a ban on the importation, manufacture, and possession of semi-automatic firearms and all handguns; a five mile gun shop exclusion zone around schools, parks, churches (and maybe car washes, just to be safe); a ban on almost all centerfire rifle ammunition--that kind of HopeandChange™? The kind of HopeandChange™ that someone has apparently decided that we're not supposed to know about yet?

Back to the article:

Podesta also said Obama is working to build a diverse Cabinet.

Oh, good. A cabinet full of the same kind of statist toadies would be boring--it'll be nice to have two or three flavors.

Obama was elected on a promise of change, but the nature of the job makes it difficult for presidents to do much that has an immediate impact on the lives of average people.

That darned, antiquated separation of powers--that's what makes executive orders so cool!

"Obama's advantage of course is he'll have the House and the Senate working with him, and that makes it easier," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. "But even then, having an immediate impact is very difficult to do because the machinery of government doesn't move that quickly."

I want my HopeandChange™, and I want it now!

Here comes the money line (emphasis mine):

Executive orders "have the power of law and they can cover just about anything," Tobias said in a telephone interview.

"[J]ust about anything," eh? That would seem to cover quite a lot of HopeandChange™.

I have to point out that the article gives the impression that the Obama administration will not be shy about pointing out "The Decider's" . . . enthusiastic use of executive orders, to justify his own use of them.

That's a pretty good demonstration of why abuses of power, even by "our" side, in pursuit of an agenda some of us might approve of, aren't such a good thing.

Note: I'm not the first to have speculated about this.