The Smallest Minority |
|||
|
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. That psychic discomfort is the price we pay for basic civic peace. It's worth it. It's a pragmatic principle. Defend everyone else's rights, because if you don't there is no one to defend yours. - MaxedOutMama I don't just want gun rights... I want individual liberty, a culture of self-reliance....I want the whole bloody thing. Kim du Toit
|
. . . and so are you Wahabism Delenda Est      Hey, FEC!  BITE ME! I'm a Member of the McCain-Feingold INSURRECTION!    "Jeez, Kevin... calling you an asshole would be a huge understatement, wouldn't it?" -Jack Cluth, The People's Republic of Seabrook (Coming from you, Jack, it's an honor.)  email: gunrightsAT comcastDOTnet INVITATION: If you have never shot a firearm, regardless of your position on the right to arms, and if you live near or visit the Tucson, AZ metropolitan area, I invite you to go shooting for a day. I will provide the arms, ammunition, targets, safety equipment, range fees and instruction. All you have to do is show up. 6 Takers To Date DO YOU LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE and want to try shooting? Click HERE  Proud Gun-blogging member of the Pajamahadeen since May, 2003!
Debates: "The Commentary" A OLD discussion on gun control between me and an Irishman living in London Start here. UPDATED! Now with archive! Post #1 by Alex, a Guest A multi-post discussion hosted here at TSM My short exchange with Professor Saul Cornell of the Second Amendment Research Center Best Posts: The "Rights" Discussion: What is a "Right?" What is a "Right"? Revisited, Part I Part II Rights, Morality, Idealism & Pragmatism, Part I Part II Part III Part IV The United Federation of Planets Is the Government Responsible for Your Protection? Part I & Part II 1975 in Washington, D.C. vs. 2004 in Canton, Ohio Go Ahead, Rely on the Government for Your Protection The Other Side Liberal vs. Conservative: Both are Necessary The Mystery of Government The Blog that Ate Poughkeepsie Updated and restated as: Of Laws and Sausages Militias A Mistake a Free People Get to Make Only Once The George Orwell Daycare Center This is NOT What I Wanted to Read TRUST The Lying "News" Media, Pt. II Say WHAT? Bias? What Bias? Agenda? What Agenda? The Church of the MSM and the New Reformation Let's See if I Can "Germinate an Intelligent Thought" Here The ACLU Hasn't Changed its Tune They Never EVER Stop It is Not the Business of Government Five Reasons Why It ISN'T They Keep Making Better Fools Five Month Investigation, 10 Tracer Rounds, Two Felony Convictions That Sumbitch Ain't been BORN! On Guillotines and Gibbets England Slides Further Towards Bondage Pressing the "RESET" Button Freedom's Just Another Word for Nothin' Left To Lose A Terrible Resolve The Courts Will Not Save Us Trilogy: The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions "Game Over, Man. Game Over." An Important Question And the denouement: Hudson Was Wrong The Dangerous Victims Trilogy: "(I)t's most important that all potential victims be as dangerous as they can" Violence and the Social Contract Governments, Criminals, and Dangerous Victims In the same vein: Those Without Swords Can Still Die Upon Them The True Believers Trilogy: True Believers March of the Lemmings Reasonable People Also in the same vein: Tough History Coming The Culture Trilogy Culture Hubris Weltanschauung And its follow-on: In Re: Culture Technical Dissertations Why Ballistic Fingerprinting Doesn't (And Won't) Work Spin, Spin, Spin Speaking of Teddy Kennedy... This is the Kind of Thing That REALLY IRRITATES ME Questions from the Audience?
BLOGROLL:
PROTESTWARRIOR Some people who are taking the fight to the Left. And some GREAT T-shirts, too. DAILY READS I need a longer day! Day by Day InstaPundit Lileks' The Bleat Mostly Cajun View from the Porch Of Arms and the Law TFS Magnum Ravenwood's Universe Irons in the Fire Say Uncle The Adventures of Roberta X TRUE EXCELLENCE American Digest The Belmont Club Boobs, Injuries, and Dr. Pepper The Volokh Conspiracy Michael Yon Varifrank Eject!Eject!Eject! Eternity Road Oleg Volk ON INDEFINITE HIATUS USS Clueless The Safety Valve Ipse Dixit The Lopsided Poopdeck Acidman (RIP) Skywritings Publicola D.C. Thorton Kim du Toit Personal Effects Smoke on the Water OTHER GUN/RIGHTS BLOGS Airborne Combat Engineer AlphaPatriot Alphecca American Dinosaur A Day in the Life of an Ambulance Driver The Anarchangel Mrs. Anarchangel The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler Argghhh! The Bitch Girls Boots and Sabers The Breda Fallacy Gun Nuts Media Carnaby Fudge Clayton Cramer Cogito Ergo Geek Countertop Chronicles Cowboy Blob Critical Mastiff Cryptic Subterranean Found: One Troll FreedomSight From the Heartland Fun Turns to Tragedy!!! The Geek with a .45 Gunwatch Heartless Libertarian Hecate's Crossroad Hell in a Handbasket Individ Justin Buist's Blog The LawDog Files Lead and Gold Les Jones Live from the (upper) Texas Gulf Coast Mad Ogre The Michael Bane Blog Moral Flexibility Mr. Completely Murdoc Online The Munchkin Wrangler Ninth Stage No Looking Backwards No Quarters Oscar Poppa Outrageous Malfunction Pass the ammo Posse Incitatus Random Nuclear Strikes Reasonablenut Resistance is Futile! Sandcastles and Cubicles SlagleRock's Slaughterhouse Snowflakes in Hell Surly Curmudgeon Texican Tattler The Ten Ring South Park Pundit Triggerfinger The View From North Central Idaho Vox The War on Guns Weck Up To Thees! Wince and Nod Xavier Thoughts .45 Caliber Justice BLOGGERS I'VE MET A Keyboard and a .45  
|
Sunday, November 23, 2003 New Jersey Considers This to be an Assault Weapon
It's a .22 caliber rimfire semi-auto. It has a fixed tubular magazine. It sells for in the neighborhood of $100. That magazine holds 17 .22 Long Rifle cartridges. Or at least older models used to. And if you possess one in New Jersey, it can get you five years in the slammer on a felony charge. Commenting on "Two Rounds = "Assault Weapon" below, reader Pete linked to a heartwarming New Jersey Superior Court decision regarding the case of New Jersey v. Pelleteri. I'd never heard of this, even though it occurred in 1996 and I was really getting into the issue of gun rights starting in 1995. Here's the basis of the case: On May 30, 1990, our Legislature proscribed the "knowing" possession of "assault firearms." N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5f. Persons legally in possession of such firearms prior to the effective date of the statute could retain these weapons by obtaining the appropriate registration. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-12. Included in the definition of "assault firearm" is "[a] semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding [fifteen] rounds." N.J.S.R 2C:39-1w(4). Defendant was convicted of "knowingly" having in his possession an assault firearm, a semi-automatic rifle with a magazine capacity of seventeen cartridges.Here's the kicker: When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril. In short, we view the statute as a regulatory measure in the interests of the public safety, premised on the thesis that one would hardly be surprised to learn that possession of such a highly dangerous offensive weapon is proscribed absent the requisite license.I have not found the sentence Mr. Pelleteri received, but he could have gotten five years. He certainly lost his right to arms, as he was convicted of a felony. He was an expert marksman, a firearms instructor, and a collector. Now he cannot (legally) touch a firearm. I. Am. Aghast. A "highly dangerous offensive weapon"? It's a .22 FOR CHRISSAKES! TWO WHOLE ROUNDS OVER THE LIMIT! A fourteen round magazine capacity (that Marlin now makes) = perfectly safe, harmless little plinker. But SIXTEEN rounds makes it "a highly dangerous offensive weapon." If it isn't licensed. Stick a fork in New Jersey, it's done. Will the last gun owner leaving New Jersey please turn off the lights? I think Claire Wolfe's admonition that it's too early to shoot the bastards doesn't hold for Jersey. | Saturday, November 22, 2003 "You're American if You Think You're American" Steven Den Beste writes another excellent essay on the difference between America and Europe. Money quotes: I'm afraid that one of the reasons there are problems of communication and diplomacy right now across the Atlantic is the incorrect European assumption that "the US is essentially a European country".And be sure to read the last two paragraphs. Oooh! Ouch! I think Steven needs to compile his essays into a book, too. | Friday, November 21, 2003 England Slides Further Toward Bondage Remember the Tytler quote? A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.Well, it looks like they've taken another step along the path. Britain OKs Jeopardy Law ReformAnd why are they doing this? Because England has the highest rate of violent crime in the Western world. Because you are far more likely to be a victim of crime in England than anywhere else in Europe. And why is that? Because Britain's liberal courts don't see the judicial system as a tool for punishing criminals, but treating them. Because the police are overwhelmed and the citizenry is powerless. Because nobody wants to be a witness. It's so bad that the police are not reporting crime in an effort to make things look better than they are. Video surveillance cameras, in an eerie 1984 parallel, are going up all over England - to make the subjects safer, you see. Now they're trying to introduce a national ID card. Individual privacy is becoming a thing of the past - if you're a law-abiding subject. Here's the image of England today:
All government, of course, is against liberty.and The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.Except in this case, the hobgoblins aren't imaginary, which I think makes it worse. In my humble opinion, this dates back (at least) to the end of World War I. In 1900 the government of England still trusted the people to be their own guardians. Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury, said in 1900 that he would "laud the day when there is a rifle in every cottage in England." But in 1903 England passed its first gun control law. A minor one, simply requiring an easily acquired permit to purchase a handgun, and restricting the age of purchasers, but it was the first toe over the slippery slope. In 1919, in fear of anarchists and communists, England passed its first sweeping gun law - as a crime control measure - even though crime involving firearms was rare as hen's teeth. You could only have a handgun or a rifle if you showed "good reason" to have one. (Sound familiar?) So much for "a rifle in every cottage" being a laudable goal. The descent had begun in earnest. In 1936 short-barreled shotguns and fully-automatic weapons were outlawed - not regulated as they are here, outlawed. The reasoning? Civilians had no "legitimate reason" for owning them. Another slide down the slope. The reasoning had changed from the government needing to show reason for the restrictions to the people needing to show reason to exercise the right, to government telling them that there was no acceptable reason. The English Bill of Rights stated "That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law." Sir William Blackstone, commenting on this in his Commentaries on the Laws of England said: "THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."Whatever happened to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation"? Have not the "sanctions of society and laws" been proven "insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression"? And I'm just talking about the criminals, not the government. In 1936 the British added a "safe storage" requirement for all handguns and rifles. (Sound familiar?) As a result of the 1920 restrictions, not only didn't England have "a rifle in every cottage," they didn't have many rifles period. In 1940 England was in danger of being invaded and begged America to send it rifles with which to defend its shores. And we, American private citizens, sent them. Rifles, shotguns, and pistols. But at the end of the war the English didn't get to keep them, and we didn't get them back. In 1946 self-defense was no longer a "good reason" to have a firearm. The slope got steeper. In 1953, carrying a weapon for self-defense was made illegal. Any kind of weapon. In 1967 the law was amended to require a license to own a shotgun, and jury trials no longer required a unanimous decision. In 1982 reloaders and blackpowder enthusiasts were made subject to police inspection without a warrant to ensure "safe storage" of the reloading materials. In other words, agents of the government, without a warrant, could come into ones home at any time, without warning. In 1988 all semi-auto and pump-action rifles were banned. By this time there weren't many rifle owners anyway, but that didn't matter. The personal property of law-abiding subjects was, once again, made illegal. And they were all registered - that is, the ones belonging to the law-abiding. In 1996 all handguns were banned. And they were all registered... Well, you get the point. Also in 1996, carrying any kind of knife was made illegal - unless you could prove you had a good reason for having it. The presumption of innocence was gone. Defending yourself in England has become progressively more and more risky, as you stand a very good chance of being prosecuted for use of excessive force. You cannot carry a weapon when out in public, and you cannot use a firearm in self-defense in your home. The law has made crime safe for the criminals. It's no wonder that crime in Britain has been on the climb since the 1950's. Am I suggesting that this has been some nefarious plan all along to strip the British of their rights and bind them into slavery? No I am not. I'm suggesting that this is a cycle of human behavior - long recognized - that we should be paying attention to and trying to break. We know what government does: it acquires power at the expense of the governed, for good reason or bad. And it does it slowly, almost imperceptibly, because we never believe that each "next step" is leading where we've been told it always leads. "Not this time," we think. "We know better." Yeah? Ask the English. How long before we follow them? | READ LILEKS Today's Bleat is Lileks at his best. Teasers: “You’re my best daughter only and ever.”Read it ALL. | Thursday, November 20, 2003 I KNEW the 9th Circuit Would Do This! No other Court is liberal / activist (but I repeat myself) enough. Eugene Volokh reports that the 9th He starts here, so read that one and the next three above it. He concludes: No trial, no proof, you lose your business -- that's what the law says.Hey, why not? If the USF&WS can shut down a business on suspicion of selling a protected plant, why shouldn't you be able to sue a gun manufacturer out of business for not breaking the law? The circuit decision is here, if you have the stomach for it. | "There's No Way to Rule Innocent Men" The whole quote, from Rand's Atlas Shrugged goes: There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking the law. Create a nation of lawbreakers and then you can cash in on the guilt. Now that’s the system!Well, here's another example, and a reference to Carnivore - the program that sifts through e-mail for incriminating evidence: Spring man raided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServicesSelling a flower is a felony? The agents proceeded to rummage the entire house and greenhouse for nearly four hours, he said.Of course it was in vain. This is the U.S. GOVERNMENT you're talking to. They know everything! Two types of classifications, Appendix One and Appendix Two, exist for some orchids, Norris said.BUT HIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN CONFISCATED. Norris said he will ask Judge Milloy to rescind the search warrant order and to instruct the FSW to return all the material they confiscated.So, again we have the heavy hand of government coming down on someone over what appears to be a misunderstanding on the .gov's part. Now, was it really necessary for USF&WS officers to be armed over a flower raid? I guess they haven't taken kitten-stomping lessons from the BATF. Yet. | Assigning Blame In another of my semi-regular looks at the political cartoons, here's a series on blame: Jack Ohman of the Portland Oregonian blames fast food for making people fat:
So does Jeff Koterba of the Omaha World Herald:
Mike Smith of the Las Vegas Sun points a finger, too:
Then Henry Payne of the Detroit Press takes it to the next logical level:
David Horsey of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer also blames the wrong people, but on a different subject:
Don Wright of the Palm Beach Post blames the RIGHT people here, though:
And finally, blame is assigned where it's due. Now the question becomes what punishment is appropriate? Chuck Asay of the Colorado Springs Gazette weighs in:
| Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Well, Looks Like New Jersey Will Be Disarmed Soon According to Jointogether.org, New Jersey passed a "Personalized Handgun" law last year: After a 90-minute debate, the New Jersey State Assembly passed the Childproof Handgun Bill, which calls for stricter controls on firearms, the Montclair Times reported Nov. 21. (2002)In related news, Jointogether also reports: Smart-Gun Deal CutWell, there you go! No more new handguns in New Jersey! Now, the question is does the law really call for "ALL guns" to be so equipped, or merely all new guns? And are the police exempt from having to use this incredible technology that will keep them from being shot with their own weapons? | Gun In a bit of possibly poetic irony, a police organization is holding a raffle fundraiser for a law-enforcement memorial. The prize? A Rock River Arms CAR UTE Elite, a .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle (article doesn't say whether the stock is the Law-enforcement-only collapsible or the Needless to say, the GFW's are frothing over it: Tom Mannard, executive director of the Chicago-based Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said guns like the CAR UTE Elite may not be on the banned list, but they basically are cloned replicas of assault rifles that are, like the Colt AR-15."...used, more often than not..."??? Ah, hyperbole. But they keep stating it as fact! The officers have a pretty effective response, though: That's highly unlikely, said Det. Karzin.But since when have actual facts bothered gun controllers? Tell a lie often enough and people believe it. John Johnson, executive director of Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence, said he was surprised to learn of the raffle one day after visiting the Quad-Cities to lobby for tighter assault-weapon restrictions.Mr. Jones? I want a cite for that "fact." Original source, not a "Brady Bunch" report. Detective Karzin puts up a good defense, though: "It's not what they're portraying it as,'' he said. "It's a legal weapon you can buy at any gun store in the Quad-Cities. It is not fully automatic. We couldn't raffle off a banned weapon, or I'd have to put myself in jail.''Give 'em a little more time, Detective. Just ask New Jersey farmer Dennis Pryslak. | TWO ROUNDS = "ASSAULT WEAPON" Only in New Jersey (for now)... New Jersey farmer Dennis Pryslak was convicted of possessing an "assault weapon" after an incident at his farm store in which Pryslak pulled his firearm when one of his employees was arguing with a customer. The article is quite lacking in detail, but it does say this: State police investigating the incident discovered that the gun is considered a prohibited assault weapon in New Jersey, authorities said.Anyone want to bet what it was? Now, explain to me please how a 15 round magazine in this pistol makes it not an "assault weapon," but a 17 round magazine in it does. | Another One I Wish I'd Written But I know I couldn't have done this one justice. The Rev. Donald Sensing writes most eloquently about Why compassion cannot be a basis for public policy. Money quote: Individuals exercise compassion, defined by the Oxford dictionary as "sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings and misfortunes of others." Governments and social arrangements exercise justice. Justice is only accidentally compassionate because justice, to be justice, must balance the valid, competing needs of persons and groups within society. Justice attempts to answer, "What is right, what is fair?" Justice is enforced against the will of at least one of the contending parties. Hence, justice is at its foundation coercive.The Merriam-Webster definition of the verb coerce: 1 : to restrain or dominate by forceAs George Washington supposedly said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!" And Rev. Sensing makes a very cogent argument why government should not be used as a source of compassion. As always, RTWT. | I Think the AP Missed Something Here While the Yahoo caption to this photo says: US Army soldiers take rest during patrol in Baghdad suburb, Monday Nov. 17, 2003. U.S. forces have reacted to the increasing attacks in which dozens of Americans and their allies have died by mounting a massive show of force in central and northern IraqI think they missed the (*cough*) "editorial comment" of the soldier in the foreground:
UPDATE: Unbeknownst to me, LGF covered this yesterday. I feel so behind the curve... | Damn, I Wish I'd Written That Dave at Pervasive Light links to this piece by Jonathan David Morris concerning the link between the recent Lester Campbell and Stratford High School incidents. Money quotes: Stories like those of Mr. Campbell and Stratford High don't happen in a vacuum. There's a very real pattern here. There are forces at work in this country trying to "protect" us from things. If it's not guns, it's drugs. If it's not drugs, it's bad choices. But whatever it is, it always ends up costing us a fortune.Read the whole thing. I wish I'd written it. | Monday, November 17, 2003 Another New Cartridge There have been a number of new cartridges introduced recently, some say in an effort to boost lagging firearms sales because the new cartridges don't do anything all that much better than the old ones. Maybe, maybe not, but one thing I believe is that cartridge development by the manufacturers generally follows the work of successful wildcatters - people who develop new rounds just for the fun of it. I've been seriously considering getting a Thompson/Center Contender rifle barrel in the wildcat Tactical Twenty caliber, which is a .223 Remington cartridge necked down to .204". There are (or at least there were) no commercial firearms barreled for a .204" projectile, but there are several bullet makers producing bullets of this size - which means there's a market for them. There are bullets available ranging in weight from 30 to 50 grains. The wildcat Twenties include the .20 Squirrel, the .20 Ackley Hornet, the .20 Ackley Bee, the .20 Vartag, the .20 Vartag Turbo, the .20 Slammer, the .20 TNT, the Tactical Twenty, the .20 Terminator, the .20 PPC and the .20 BR. The wildcatters have been having a field day. At least one manufacturer has taken notice. As I said, the Tactical Twenty is based on the .223 Remington case, and it pushes a 33-grain Hornady V-Max bullet out of a 26" barrel at over 4200fps with reportedly excellent accuracy. This piqued my interest, but custom barrels and custom dies and all the other toys that go along with them tend to be on the expensive side, and I don't have a lot of spare change laying around. Well, Ruger has now introduced another new cartridge: The 204 Ruger. This is a .20 caliber based on the obsolescent .222 Remington Magnum case. According to Ruger: When compared directly with either the 22-250 Remington or the 220 Swift, the 204 RUGER offers higher muzzle velocity and flatter trajectory. Because the 204 RUGER cartridge achieves a higher velocity with less propellant than either the 22-250 Remington or the 220 Swift, this new cartridge does not compromise barrel life. The 204 RUGER also offers lower recoil and muzzle report than comparable high-velocity, sub-caliber ammunition. Its conventional case shape avoids feeding problems and increased rearward bolt thrust associated with short and super short magnum cartridges.You know, I've always wanted a Ruger #1. Something like this:
Gotta start saving my pennies. | Sunday, November 16, 2003 FINALLY! I've been running this blog for about six months now, and finally I've attracted the attention of First, in response to One More Example it left this comment: Keep arming yourselves against murderers and rapists it still won't help you.What we can gather from this is that "flamebait" is not an American, so not understanding the American attitude is understandable. We can also assume that "flamebait" is Second, in response to Yup, He's a Thorougly Dangerous Man! it writes: Let's see... He had a gun and it still didn't stop him from getting robbed. Even after he pulled it out the assailant still went for the cash and got away with it.Note the last line is formed as a statement, not a question. Yes, "flamebait"'s mind is all made up - guns never help people defend themselves - ever. And if they do, it's an aberration. Finally, in response to Aren't Sawed-Off Shotguns Illegal? "flamebait" pulls out all the stops. Yes, this one encouraged me to sit down and generate a response before I go to bed. The As far as I can tell, the only reason the intended victim isn't dead is pure luck. How would your opinions change if the intended victim was shot as well?Luck, it is said, is often largely a matter of being prepared. How would my opinions change? Not at all. That was a risk that the intended victim took upon himself. It is his choice as to whether a forcible response was correct - not the State's. He made his choice, and regardless of whether he'd been injured or killed I believe he made the right one. Or the victims children if they were present? or someone on the street walking by?He was the man on the scene at the time. The choice was his to make. As a result, one perpetrator won't (apparently) ever perpetrate again, and the other may very well be wounded. I will be the first to say that things might not have gone as well, but resisting crime is never immoral. Not resisting crime encourages more. That is, I believe, why England and Wales has the highest rate of violent crime in the developed world - self-defense there has been made, for all intents and purposes, illegal, and the mindset required has to a large extent apparently been bred out. Defending self and family is risky. So is submitting meekly. But institutionalized submission to it is destructive to society. The choice belongs and should belong to the individual. (Yes, we kill each other far more, but we mug, assault, and rob each other far less. But we've always killed each other at a much higher rate than Europeans. It's apparently an American cultural trait. Only after English law made defending oneself legally risky did their violent crime rates begin to climb, and now they're far higher than our own with the singular exception of murder - which is apparently not an English cultural trait, but one they're learning.) You can bet that the sawed off shotgun that was used was probably stolen from some "law abiding citizen's" home and is now being used in home invasions; or it was until he was shot.Possibly. And your point? Oh, wait, that comes later... How many home invasions do you think he successfully pulled off because of the shotgun before his luck ran out?Um, this appears as though you're suggesting that the shotgun caused other home invasions? Or are you just suggesting that the shotgun ensured that other home invasions were successful? How so? You need to be more clear. The fact is that I don't know how many other home invasions this pair (or the individual with the sawed-off) have attempted, but "home invasions" are far more common in England, per capita, than they are here. Criminals there don't need to fear that they might be met with lethal force. A sawed-off shotgun isn't a magic talisman, it's merely a weapon - as this incident illustrates. I reiterate: Not resisting crime tends to encourage more crime. Even you seem to understand that. You joke about Mr Reid having a laoded(sic) gun next to his bed, "Unsafe Storage" you laugh, are you not far more likely to get killed in the United States by your own gun than you are by an unknown assailant?Depends on how you If "Safe Storage" laws were in effect, the only people they'd affect would be the victims. What "Safe Storage" laws say to the citizen is: "You're not responsible enough to decide whether keeping a gun available for self-defense is a good idea or not. The All-Powerful, All-Knowing State knows that it's not, so don't do it or you will be criminally prosecuted. Depend on the State for your defense. You're not qualified. Problem is, it's not the legal responsibility of the State, and it's not logistically possible anyway. I've got quite a bit to say about that here. How many American children die due to unsafely stored guns in their homes? Is it still a joke to you?You miss the point. The death of children is never a joke. It's too many, but I believe it's far fewer than you'd imagine. I cover that topic also in this post. The number of children who die by accidental gunshot (in a country with possibly 250,000,000 guns, where possibly 40% of households contain at least one gun) is about 160 per year, and that's for "children" up through 18 years of age. Just for comparison, more than that die in bicycle accidents, and almost seven times as many drown. Unsecured guns are apparently not that dangerous, since the gun control groups indicate that twenty percent of gun owning parents surveyed kept a loaded firearm unsecured in the home. That's a lot of guns. Now, I have a question: How intrusive must the government become in order to prevent or even significantly affect less than 200 accidental deaths a year? "Safe Storage" is the joke. And finally, the kicker: Don't get me wrong, I don't like crime or criminals anymore than you do. Where our opinions differ is that I believe that all guns should be outlawed.Of course you do. And from that statement, you also apparently think that, by outlawing them, you'll make them go away. I recommend that you study the success of that tactic. It doesn't work. In fact, by all the evidence, it doesn't help. Guns are a technology - and not a particularly difficult technology either. You can't stuff that genie back in the bottle. They aren't going to go away no matter how much you wish, meditate, chant, pray, or legislate. First, you cannot disarm governments - they aren't going to do it. And governments have historically, by far been the largest killers of their own people than criminals have been. So, as long as my government is going to be armed, I think I'll be too. Second, laws that ban things only keep those things out of the hands of law-abiding people. See (again) England, where the only people with handguns these days are A) the criminals and B) the government. Third, because firearms are merely a technology, then eliminating that technology doesn't fix the underlying problem, which is people willing to use violence to get what they want. There was a time when there were no guns. The world of that time was run exclusively by large men with swords. It wasn't a particularly safe, nor free, nor democratic world. Firearms aren't a panacea, but neither are they a pestilence. They come with a significant cost, but what they have provided is greater personal freedom of the individual - for good and for bad - than at any time in the history of man. The most governments can do is disarm the good people. We forget that at our own risk. | Not Slacking I see by SiteMeter that, although I haven't posted since Tuesday, I'm still getting about 200 hits a day. Thank you. Sorry about the lack of posting, but work has intruded severely. Up early, back late, and for the last three days - out of town. I got home last night at 11 PM and I leave for a job site tomorrow morning at 5 AM. I'm spending today with my wife, who hasn't seen me much either. (You can guess, dear readers, who is more important to me - you or her. No offense.) Hopefully I'll have some time next week for new posts, but I'm not holding my breath at this point. | Tuesday, November 11, 2003 One More Example: Gun Control Only Disarms the Victims AlphaPatriot has the story from Papua New Guinea of a horrible home invasion. A horrific attack on a family in Port Moresby has prompted calls for Papua New Guineans to be granted the right to arm themselves against murderers and rapists."...to be granted the right to arm themselves...." In 1857 the Supreme Court of the U.S. said that, among the "privileges and immunities" of American citizens was the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went." But that decision said that blacks therefore couldn't be citizens. The right to be armed for "lawful purpose" was, as the Supreme Court said in its U.S. v Cruikshank decision of 1875: "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." But that decision made it perfectly legal for the states to strip certain American citizens of that right, because it left: "the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes....". Our fellow citizens didn't protect that right, and neither did our Federal courts. That right was never protected in Australia or any of its possessions, and now the people there are seeing the result of having that right legally stripped. As AlphaPatriot remarks, the attackers didn't need a gun. They had overwhelming force on their side even without one. BUT THEY HAD A GUN, AND THEIR VICTIMS DIDN'T. The law-abiding have a snowball's chance of getting "the right to arm themselves against murderers and rapists" back if they're going to wait on the State to give it to them. | They Keep Making Better Fools I am an unabashed supporter of America. I truly believe that it's the best of all possible places to live, and that our form of government is superior to all others ever practiced. But it's far from perfect. It's a good distance from ideal. To be honest, it's got some significant flaws. When our Founders sat down and constructed our tripartite system of government with its checks and balances among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, they made certain assumptions (how could they not?) about the behavior of their descendants. First, after much wrangling, the Bill of Rights was attached. With that addendum, they recognized the risk of government infringment - even via popular, democratic government - and hoped that the Bill of Rights would remind the generations to come that some things should remain inviolate, even if it appeared to be a good idea at the time. With that change, I think, they hoped the Constitution represented the blueprint of a truly foolproof system of fair, representative government. I believe they felt that our system of a free press would act as an additional check on government corruption, and the idea of an armed populace would serve as the final one, given failure of all the other safeguards. But they knew, I think, deep in their souls, that nature keeps making better fools. In a recent post from Samizdata, Perry de Havilland notes that "Woodcutters cut wood. Politicians make laws." These simple truisms go a long way to explaining MP & blogger Tom Watson's support for passing laws regarding the use of fireworks. On his blog, and on this blog in our comments section, the Honourable Member of Parliament for West Bromwich East calls for more regulation and makes it clear that fireworks will simply be banned if that does not produce the desired effects. And yet when talking about an incident in which a woman was injured by some idiot throwing a firework he himself notes:This is something I've noted as well. The Frank & Ernest cartoon showing the two bums standing in a law library, staring at the stacks, where one says "It's frightening when you think that it all started with just ten commandments" is bang on the money.Granted the little thug that conducted this assault was breaking existing laws…and then proceeds to ignore that fact from then on. I do not know Tom Watson personally but I heard him speak in Houses of Parliament and he seems both affable and reasonable for a politician. But as Brian Micklethwait's article today says regarding the 'problem' of obesity, it is only to be expected that a person whose salary depends on passing more laws to, well, always insist on passing more laws. I can identify the flaw in the Constitution: The key to understanding the American system is to imagine that you have the power to make nearly any law you want. But your worst enemy will be the one to enforce it. - Rick Cookbut I don't see what we can do about it now. I think the flaw is that the Founders never thought that we'd forget that basic reality. It's not like we weren't warned: Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, (1776), Chap. 1.Aside from the Bill of Rights, they made no provisions for that eventuality. They warned us in their writings, but didn't codify it in the Constitution itself. I guess they hoped we'd live up to their expectations, rather than down to their fears. We've had 214 years since the ratification of the Constitution with politicians endlessly making laws - some good, some necessary, but the overwhelming majority at best useless, at worst malignant. As I pointed out below (along with a highly appropriate political cartoon), Henry Louis Mencken in the 1930's described politics with deadly accuracy: The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.That's the flaw - when the only tool you have is a hammer, sooner or later every problem begins to look like a nail. If you have a body of people whose only power is to pass laws, then they'll pass laws. About anything and everything, but in large part to: A) enrich themselves and B) ensure that they keep getting re-elected by enriching the people who get them elected. As the cartoon says, "The power to take his money and give it to you." Not, of course, before taking his percentage off the top, though. And they'll pass law to make it easier to get re-elected, and harder to be unseated. And they'll pass laws to gather more and more power so that they can "Do something!" when the populace demands it. As Perry notes: And therein lays the problem at the heart of modern democratic states: so much of society has been made amenable to literal force (i.e. political action) that it makes little difference in the long run who is in control of the democratic means of coercion, the end result for civil liberties and several ownership (including self-ownership) will be the same. Face it, in Britain there is little to choose between Tory Michael Howard and NuLabour David Blunkett when it comes to which of them has abridged more civil liberties whilst serving as Home Secretary. Likewise, Janet Reno may have presided over the mass murder of a bunch of wackos in Waco, Texas, but is anyone really going to claim John Ashcroft is not continuing the process of shredding the much vaunted Bill of Rights?"Until enough people are willing to look to the moral basis of a law and simply refuse to accept the legitimacy of laws just because they are laws...." THAT is the basis behind Jury Nullification. That is the basis behind civil disobedience. But look, for example, at this comment left in response to the recent self-defense incident in NYC involving an 80 year-old man using a .38 revolver to defend himself against a mugger (Via Pervasive Light): The law is the law.Another poster, blogger Amy Alkon says: Regarding the charges against this guy, the law is the law. Guns must be registered.What we were protesting was the fact that Mr. Campbell had both of his firearms confiscated by The State, and was charged with not having them registered. But "Follow the Law" doesn't see a problem with that. In fact, he disavows Jury Nullification in a later response: And if you honestly think the law is just what the jury says then I guess all white juries letting off fellow whites for lynchings was ok, too. After all, the jury is never wrong and they decide the law in a vaccum.He's got a point. Jury Nullification is an evil thing when it condones evil. But that is a failure of The People, not The Law. "Follow the Law" is one of those who Perry protests against. One of the masses who is "amenable to literal force". He (or she) accepts the legitimacy of laws because they are laws - and so does Amy. Is there no point for people like this at which a law should rejected? How about when the punishment is ridiculously excessive? Like, say, ten years without parole for an 18 year-old because he had consensual sex with a minor? Confiscation of your very expensive personal property because you didn't get a $200 tax stamp? Having your land sold out from under you because - while the state conformed to the letter of the law - you didn't manage to pay your taxes on time? Having your school raided by the cops - and guns stuck in your face - because somebody was selling drugs in your school? And, of course, having your only means of self-protection confiscated because you couldn't afford the time and money required to even apply to the State for their permission. And those are only this week's examples. And what about the chilling of our freedoms by these innumerous laws? What about those of us unwilling to "do it happily and take our punishment?" As the "Geek with a .45" put it recently: The fact that things have gone so far south in some places that people actually feel compelled to move the fuck out should frighten the almighty piss out of you.And what other laws has Big Brother passed that you can think of that were done merely to protect us from ourselves? And we're supposed to "do it happily" and take our punishment "if we think" we are just. I don't fucking think so. Claire Wolfe was right - "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." The real problem with the Constitution? The Founders never imagined we'd become sheep. Postscript: Dave at Pervasive Light raised $1265 for Lester Campbell. I hope Mr. Campbell buys another .38 with some of it. | Monday, November 10, 2003 Blogosphere to Albert Gore Jr.: - We Remember Via Feces Flinging Monkey, Jay Caruso bitch-slaps Algore's assertion that Dubya has "taken us much farther down the road toward an intrusive, 'big brother'-style government — toward the dangers prophesied by George Orwell in his book '1984' — than anyone ever thought would be possible in the United States of America." Go read. And be pissed. | Sunday, November 09, 2003 Just ONE Reason to Read Ipse Dixit This week's Caption This Picture contest winner:
THAT's a classic! | Saturday, November 08, 2003 Aren't Sawed-Off Shotguns Illegal? Police: Man shoots intruderQuadriplegic, eh. I bet he now wishes he hadn't done the home invasion. According to police reports, Neal and another man knocked on the door of the home sometime before 10:30 Wednesday night.Think he had the NFA paperwork for that scattergun? Nah. Me either. What big-ticket item do you think they can confiscate from him? Inside the bedroom, police said Neal threatened the two occupants who were in bed. According to police, Neal threatened to shoot or beat them with a pistol if they did not give him money.Let's see: A loaded gun kept in a dresser drawer next to the bed. That's unsafe storage, isn't it? Are there any children in the home? Does he have a permit for that firearm? Oh, wait, this is a suburb of Philadelphia, not New York City. With Neal down on the ground at the foot of the bed, police said Reid left the bedroom and walked into the living room, where he encountered the second man.He has a sawed-off, they shoot at each other across the distance of a living room (couldn't be more than seven or eight yards, tops) and he misses! Neal, who was found by police still laying in the bedroom, was flown to Crozer-Chester Medical Center for his injuries.And probably has stained underwear. It would be poetic justice if Mr. Reid hit his second target. Police said Reid’s actions are being considered self-defense.I should hope so! <bradycenter>But these people should have done what the criminals wanted! Then maybe no one would have gotten hurt! There's a poor victim in the hospital who's now a quadriplegic!</bradycenter> Good. | He was THIS Close! It must make serving time a lot less dull... Women's jail prisoner admits he's a manI bet there are some red faces in the Corrections department, and it isn't Mary Kay blush. | One More Dividend from the War on (some) Drugs™ Yup. The police raided a high-school, weapons drawn, and searched everybody in a hallway (that, of course, had Big Brother cameras installed.) "They would go put a gun up to them, push them against the wall, take their book bags and search them," Aaron Sims, 14, told CNN affiliate WCSC. "They just came up and got my friend, not even saying anything or what was going to happen. ... I was scared."I'd be fucking outraged. Necessary my ass. The decades-long "War on Drugs" has brought us to this? Police monitored video from school surveillance cameras for several days and "observed consistent, organized drug activity," he said. "Students were posing as lookouts and concealing themselves from the cameras."Great. Then arrest those students. Instead we get Gestapo tactics. Anytime narcotics and money are involved he said there is "the reasonable assumption that weapons will be involved. ... Our primary concern was the safety of the students (and) everyone else involved."<sarcasm>But, but guns are not allowed in school! How could any of the students be armed?</sarcasm> Jared Weeks, 14, told WCSC that police were aggressive.I have news for you, Jared: The State often doesn't care whether you have anything to hide or not. One more time: If there's any way you can swing it - HOME SCHOOL UPDATE: This incident reminded me of something. Back in May, shortly after I started this blog, I came across this video clip of a Las Vegas PD officer negligently discharging her sidearm, very nearly shooting either a suspect being restrained, the officer restraining him, or both. I checked. The link is still good. Watch that and tell me that the kids in that school hall were in no danger. | Here's Another Via Acidman comes this story of someone apparently being railroaded by an overzealous prosecutor: The news of Dixon's arrest for rape, statutory rape, aggravated assault, false imprisonment and sexual battery seemed to take those who knew him by surprise. It seemed totally out of character for this near-4.0 student, who scored greater than 1,200 on his SAT and planned to major in education at Vandy. In the end, the jury found no basis for any of the "forcible crimes" charges, and found him not guilty on all of them. They also concluded that, as was Dixon's claim all along, the sex was completely consensual.And, in what by the evidence seems another indication that we haven't yet ended our problem with institutionalized racism, comes this bit: The conviction — in legalese, for "statutory rape and aggravated child molestation" — at the time received little attention outside of the local media. However, an attorney in Atlanta — David Balser, of McKenna Long and Aldridge — just happened to read a small newspaper report in the Rome News-Tribune on the decision, and it piqued his interest. The deeper Balser dug, the more troubled he became with the case.Georgia. Makes me wonder how much starch District Attorney McClellan likes when he has his pointy hood drycleaned and pressed. And I await breathlessly the appearance of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et. al. I hate those self-aggrandizing rabble-rousing fuckers, but sometimes the rabble needs rousing. And they will point a spotlight at the cockroaches responsible for this travesty. I just hope they don't grandstand in the spotlight so much that the cockroaches end up hiding in their shadows. | More Benign Government Action This has been making the rounds since Drudge posted it, but it goes along well with my recent theme. Seems 89 year-old Helen Shue managed to miss one (1) tax payment on her 41 acre farm - appraised at a value of $800,000 - and it wasn't because she didn't try to pay, but because she didn't pay with a certified check or money order. (Coincidentally, that's the way you have to pay when you apply for a gun permit in NYC, too.) So they sold her farm at auction to cover the tax liability. Eight-hundred thousand dollar appraised value. It went for $15,000. To a developer. The payed but not accepted tax? $572.00 Only through the actions of an anonymous informant was anyone in her family notified before the Sheriff came to evict her. Yup, government for the benefit of the governed. As long as the governed keep a gimlet eye on them. We appear to have fallen down on the job. Isn't it past time to pick ourselves up and go back to it? | Friday, November 07, 2003 OK, I Can't Resist Some people have far too much time on their hands. Thus, the Church Sign Generator. Here's mine (and I've lived in the Baptist South, so I know whereof I speak!)
| Nothing Like a Little Wretched Excess I finally got around to downloading the (few) pictures I took at last week's AR15.com shoot at the Casa Grande public range. Here's the guns I took:
XP-100, Kimber Classic, AR-15, Enfield No. 5 Mk I Jungle Carbine, Mossberg 590, and my 1917 Enfield. This is what was on the bench next to me:
With a suppressor. Thank Jebus. It's actually pretty damned quiet for what it is. It's maybe as loud as my .45. But it kicks like a freaking mule. If he'd removed the can and put the muzzle brake on it, all my stuff would have been blown off my bench. Here's a shot looking downrange.
This shot is from about 100 yards downrange back towards the shooting positions.
Maybe at the next shoot... Edited to add: This is a picture taken by another attendee of someone shooting the P90:
| Shouldn't That be a Crow on the Plate?
Here's Larry Wright's (Detroit News) take on it:
The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.That's going to be it 'till much later. Way too much to do, and not enough time to do it in. | But, But, Ballistic Fingerprinting Saves Lives! Also via Keepandbeararms.com, State police speak against expanding gun databaseNo, really? After finding substantial problems with the state's ballistic fingerprinting database, Maryland State Police have recommended that it not be expanded."Not reliable" how, exactly? Yet Johns Hopkins thinks ballistic fingerprinting is the best thing since sliced bread. In direct opposition to the findings of a California Dept. of Justice study that predicted precisely what the Maryland report confirms: The RBID “beta” sites in New York and Maryland currently contain only handgun information. In 2002, there were approximately 12,400 handguns sold in Maryland that were subject to the ballistics imaging requirements. New York ballistically imaged 20,973 handguns in 2002. To date, New York and Maryland have made no matches, or “hits,” with these programs.Attachment A of this report states: Automated computer matching systems do not provide conclusive results. Rather, a list of potential candidates are presented that must be manually reviewed. When applying this technology to the concept of mass sampling of manufactured firearms, a huge inventory of potential candidates will be generated for manual review. This study indicates that this number of candidate cases will be so large as to be impractical and will likely create complications so great that they cannot be effectively addressed.If you're interested, read the whole report and all the appendices. So, Maryland has spent $2,100,000 on their automated system, and it's identified four (4) cases - for guns they already had on hand. It hasn't identified a single firearm they didn't have to immediately compare to. Wow. That's effective use of taxpayer money, isn't it? How many police officer salaries does that represent? Oh well, I guess they can confiscate some more boats and cash and property to cover the costs. | Depends on Just Where You're Talking About, Doesn't It? Via Keepandbeararms.com: Lectures analyze America’s gun culture"Widespread and growing"? In England, maybe. Well, it is widespread here, but it's been shrinking since 1991. Unless you believe the newspapers who have devoted more and more coverage to it. It's not widespread in England, but it's absolutely growing there - in the home of the most restrictive firearms laws in the free world, and a place that didn't have a "gun culture" until after they started banning stuff. | Thursday, November 06, 2003 I HATE Registration And I HATE government confiscation of property. See this story about a man who just received a Presidential pardon. You can bet your ass he didn't get his boat or his rifle back. Dentist Convicted Of Transporting Automatic WeaponAnd lose everything he had, and probably go to jail. That's the big stick the government hangs over the heads of nominally law-abiding citizens who just didn't know the law or failed to cross some "t" or dot some "i". Ayn Rand got it dead to rights: There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one “makes” them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on the guilt. Bartos said he was unaware at the time that his AR-15 - the civilian version of the M-16 military assault rifle - was illegal without a permit. He used the rifle, along with a handgun and other weapons, for protection from drug dealers and pirates when boating between South Florida and the Bahamas, he said."CIVILIAN VERSION" That means SEMI-AUTOMATIC. It's a big distinction. Just ask the Violence Policy Center. Now I cannot imagine a more appropriate firearm for defense against piracy - and piracy does occur in those waters. All he had it for was self-defense, but like Mr. Campbell in the post below, he's the one victimized by the government. Read on. Bartos agreed to plead guilty and forfeit his boat in return for two years' probation.What did the government need with his boat? We're talking about a paperwork omission. Do they take your house if you fail to register your car? I'd say the government "cashed in" on Mr. Bartos's "guilt." I wonder if a government employee now owns a 45' fishing boat he got at a really good price. "I pleaded guilty and lost my boat over a stupid $200 or $300 dollar gun," he said. "And for $200 I could have had a permit."THEY STOLE HIS BOAT OVER A $200 TAX. And that, my friends, is what registration is good for - aside from confiscation of guns, which I'm sure they also did. I doubt he got to keep any of his guns. Bartos later began to challenge his conviction by filing clemency requests and having character references sent to the Department of Justice on his behalf. He hired a Washington lawyer, and hoped to be among those pardoned before President Bill Clinton left office.Sorry Mr. Bartos, but you weren't a big Clinton campaign contributor (or big enough criminal) were you? When he found out about the pardon Wednesday he became "breathless, speechless."I'm a little surprised myself. I expect the Deep Space Nine to make hay over Bush pardoning an "assault weapon smuggler" or some such quite soon. "Someone in the Justice Department read my file and basically felt that I had really received a raw deal, and that it should never have been handled this way," Bartos said.You just got reamed by the government of this country, and they had the courtesy to kiss you afterward. That is all. A U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman in Miami did not have any comment on the pardon.No, I bet they didn't. Does this restore all his rights? Was it a felony conviction? Could it have resulted in a sentence of more than one year (or was there a sentencing guidline at all?) Did the pardon come with the keys to his boat? Enquiring minds want to know. UPDATE: According to this story: Bartos said his boat was stopped and searched when he returned from a family trip to Bimini in 1986. On board he had an AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 military assault rifle, which Bartos said he carried for protection.Illegal without the $200 "tax". I should have recognized that just by the reference to the $200 requirement. (Then again, his assertion that it was a $200-300 rifle is in error. Even in 1986 a full-auto AR-15 would have been worth over a thousand dollars. A semi-auto version would be worth more than $500.) I assume that Mr. Bartos's AR-15 had M-16 parts installed in it, which is a no-no. But I stand by my objection: Taking someone's hundred-thousand dollar boat over a $200 tax omission is excessive punishment. | Some are More Equal Ran across this story this evening, and found this part to be fascinating: Kenneth Moose, 39, a longtime twin borough resident who now lives in Bridgewater Township, is a former Far Hills police sergeant who, earlier this year, was cleared of charges that he illegally possessed an assault firearm.Which makes me wonder what happened to the "local resident" who violated the law by possessing the M1 Carbine four months after the ban was enacted. He was indicted by a Somerset County grand jury on the weapons charge last December, then cleared of charges in May. At that time, Superior Court Judge Edward Coleman, sitting in Somerville, said state statutes did not bar local police officers from privately owning banned weapons.Question: Did the law specifically exempt police officers? Did it specifically exempt private ownership? If so, WHY? On what grounds? And if not, didn't the judge just make law from the bench? What makes local police officers a protected class? Can they privately own banned machineguns? Sawed-off shotguns? Suppressed handguns? Because the charge was the first of its kind to be brought against a police officer under the assault weapons ban, the state Policemen's Benevolent Association (PBA) sided with Moose in a friend of the court brief.I'd be more than a little interested in the outcome of that hearing. | Much Crunchy Goodness Say Uncle has several posts up that are just excellent. Start at the top and work down, but this one really pissed me off. It refers to this Fox News story about civil rights abuses: Citizens Mugged by the State. Of particular interest to me (though they all pissed me off) were the two due to the War on (some) Drugs™: Tax consultant Judith Roderick, 55, of Lacey, Wash., had prepared a land trust for a client who was later charged with growing marijuana. The Thurston County Narcotics Task Force seized Roderick's home, her bank accounts and her business records during their investigation into whether she knew the client had used drug money to buy the land. Left destitute by the seizures, Roderick had to represent herself in court. It took over a year for prosecutors to decide they had no case.So the Fourth and Fifth Amendments have been gutted. No wonder they want to strip us of the Second. Read the whole thing. And stop thinking that government is a benign thing. | Yup, He's a Thorougly Dangerous Man! THIS is why I abhor gun control laws. As the man said: "In one sentence, I believe that gun control creates needless victims." Pistol-packing Senior Chases Off Mugger, Gets Charged for Unlicensed GunBut of course. He had the audacity to try and defend himself rather than depend on The State. Marcus Solis is in the Mott Haven section of the Bronx where he talked with the man.Seems reasonable to me. Except in New York, where you have to have government permission to own a gun, and you have to "show need" in order to carry one for self-defense. "Show need" and spend a lot of money and time. Sounds like Mr. Campbell had the time, but not the $329 it costs merely to apply. Doesn't matter anyway, as Mr. Campbell doesn't have a business, and individual citizens (unless you're a celebrity or politically connected) can't get a license to carry. Campbell had just cashed his Social Security check and gone to the supermarket near his house, when the mugger followed him into the elevator of his building. What the mugger didn't realize was that the octogenarian was packing heat.Why should he? The City has ensured that the victims of muggers are disarmed. Campbell was a fluke - a man who held his right to defend himself was more important than the written law. There seem to be fewer and fewer people like this. And after Campbell pulled out his gun, a fierce struggle ensued.But contrary to the received wisdom of the gun controllers, Mr. Campbell didn't "have his gun taken away" from him. At least not by the mugger. And the mugger might think again before he mugs his next victim. But probably not. After all, Mr. Campbell is an aberration in NYC. Police however arrested Campbell and charged him with misdemeanor criminal possesion of a weapon. While he admits he knew the gun was unlicensed, Campbell insists he did nothing wrong.This is where Mr. Campbell gets to learn the difference between "wrong" and "illegal." And it underscores the need for Jury Nullification. Because he's right. Lester Campbell: "He had no business doing that. I was minding my business. I don't bother nobody."Right. Have you seen the hoops you have to jump through to get a license in NY? Police confiscated the gun, along with another one in the apartment. So Campbell was cited for two counts of misdemeanor criminal possession of a weapon, and was given a desk appearance ticket. He'll have a court appearance next month.So, after being robbed by a mugger, he's been robbed (and rendered defensless) by The State, and will probably be further robbed (fined) by the City that denies him the ability to protect himself, and that has no responsibility to protect him. 
UPDATE: Dave at Pervasive Light has taken up a collection for Mr. Campbell's defense. And he's gotten an Instalanche through Jeff Soyer's blog, Alphecca. (That's what you get for being on Glenn's blogroll, grumble, grumble, grumble....) | Ok, Here's My 2¢ Ever since Kim du Toit wrote his piece "The Pussification Of The Western Male" (link is temporary) there has been a lot of comment on it all over the blogosphere. Most positive, some negative, some downright hilarious. It is, as Donald Sensing put it, "over the top" in places, but that's just Kim. But let me put in my 2¢ on the subject. Kim is not an isolated male. He's married. And Connie is no shrinking violet. And on her webpage is her manifesto: Men create and defend societies. Women civilize them.Remember that when you read Kim's rant. Civilized does not equal pussified. Edited to add this appropriate quote: UPDATE: Like I actually need to link it, the Blogfather has a link-filled post on the controversy. | Wednesday, November 05, 2003 I Wouldn't Do It Unarmed Keepandbeararms.com has this excellent post by a pizza delivery driver on why he goes armed, and what has happened to drivers who have, and haven't. As the man says, "In one sentence, I believe that gun control creates needless victims." | The War on (some) Drugs™ Claims Another Victim One Clayton Helriggle, age 23, this time. Read the entire story. Then read this follow-up. Due to a "lack of cooperation" from individuals involved in the September 2002 law enforcement action in which Clayton Helriggle was shot and killed, an administrative investigation by Montgomery County Sheriff's officials ended without "any conclusions of fact in the matter."Why am I not surprised? | The Brits Remain Clueless About the Failure of Gun Control At least according to this BBC report. They blame the internet and the postal system as a source of guns (which it very well may be, but how big a source?). There are lots of interesting links on that page too. Like this one about the recently ended "gun amnesty" where some 43,908 guns and 1,039,358 rounds of ammunition were handed in. Now, understand that all legally owned firearms and ammunition are registered. All handguns are banned. And 43,908 firearms (no information, but you can bet very, very few were registered) were turned in. And we're supposed to believe that they were turned in by violent or potentially violent criminals. But according to this story, it didn't affect the inner cities - which is where the violence is occurring. So this tells me a couple of things: One, there are a lot of people in England who have (or did have) illegal guns and ammunition, so there is or was a significant amount of civil disobedience regarding these laws. Two, these people aren't the ones the government needed to worry about. The people the government needs to worry about didn't hand their guns in. There were also some interesting bits of data provided in an internal link. I will present them below without comment:
UPDATE: Ravenwood notes that the Brits are also blaming Ebay. | I'd Have Held Out for Catherine A good joke off of AR15.com: One day, while a woodcutter was cutting a branch of a tree above a river, his axe fell into the river.Can I get an "AMEN!"? | Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Hit 'Em Again, Dipnut! Dipnut over at Isn'tapundit has an excellent disassembly of Bezerkly professor George Lakoff's assertion that conservative think tanks "use language to dominate politics." Excerpt: No, don't tell me, I think I can guess:Go read the whole thing. It's great for a laugh. When you're done with that one, go read this outstanding City Journal piece (link courtesy of Bill Hobbs) on "Why We're Not Losing the Culture Wars Anymore." When you're done with that, go read Hobbs. It's all outstanding. (And I'm not saying that just because he linked to me long, long ago, either.) UPDATE: Swen of Coyote at the Dog Show comments on the original piece, and makes some telling points. | Remember the Political Compass Test? I took it back in June, but now Tim Lambert has done something interesting, he's set up a page where you can enter your scores and see graphically how you compare to others in the blogosphere. Interesting. I took the test again just to see if there'd been any change. Nope. | What was Old is New Again Via The Volokh Conspiracy, comes this story of the renewal of the Burma-Shave roadside sign idea. Outstanding! | Hell-Bent for the Cliff? Eric Raymond of Armed and Dangerous posts about the apparent direction of the Democrat party - oblivion. Like most all of his posts, it's well thought-out. Excerpts: The Democrats certainly seem to be trying pretty hard to self-destruct. But this is not a new story; it's been going on ever since the New Left captured the party apparat in the early 1970s. My first experience of political activism was standing athwart that particular tide of history, yelling "stop!", as a campaign worker for centrist Democrat Scoop Jackson in 1975. I think I already half-understood that he was doomed. What I didn't foresee was the completeness with which the Democrats would abandon their southern and rural wings to become a party run exclusively by Brie-nibbling urban elites. Call it the NPRization of the party.All very true. But I don't think The Anointed are going go over the cliff without dragging as many with them as they can. Read the whole thing. | More Crushing of Dissent Apparently CBS stands for "Caught Being Shitty." Drudge is reporting a CBS statement that they will not be showing the controversial mini-series "The Reagans" starring James "Mr. Streisand" Brolin. The reason? This decision is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script.So now they claim to be "balanced?" Or were they just afraid of a libel lawsuit? I can hear the howls of "CENSORSHIP!!" now. Tim Robbins might never work again. Oh, wait.... | Perhaps Remington Should Look into Manufacturing "Assault Weapons" In a bit of bad economic news (and in direct opposition to the good economic news in the post abut Knight's Armaments) Remington Arms will be shutting its Ilion Illinois plant for the entire month of December, according to this story: Arms shutdown reaction: concern, cautious optimismAnd many fear this will adversely affect the local economy: There are some concerns that the shut-down could have an adverse effect on local retail sales, particularly because it comes during the important holiday shopping season. Like other municipalities in the area, Ilion relies heavily on sales tax revenue distributed through the county.And look at some of the other beneficiaries of the Remington plant aside from local government and local businesses: Currently in the middle of its fall fundraising campaign, the Valley United Way has always received a great deal of support from Remington Arms employees. Director Steve Canipe said he believes that even though this is a difficult time for workers, they will recognize the good work done by the organization and continue that support.But I thought gun manufacturers were multi-billion corporations that could hire people to fix juries? | Word of Advice: Don't Rob This Woman's Bar! She's an ex-cop, so that might get her special consideration, but this is Wayne County (Detroit) Michigan, so maybe not. Anyway: Police: Bar Owner Kills Two Robbers With Single ShotHelluva shot, but the "prosecutor to review" bit isn't encouraging. Two suspected robbers are dead after a former police officer and owner of a Detroit bar fired a single shot, Local 4 reported.Well, that would be defense of another, and justification for use of lethal force. Being that she's an ex-cop, the presumption would be that she knew the law (though given the example of ex-chief Jerry Oliver in the post below, maybe not) and was aware when lethal force was justified. "We've had some robberies in that area. We have some evidence now that may indicate that someone was robbed there and assaulted there. There attempted to be another assault against one of the employees, before the owner of this establishment fired one shot in an attempt to stop a fleeing felon," said Detroit police Inspector Marilyn Hall-Beard.Open container. Isn't that illegal? Oh well, I suppose if you're going to go, do it with some sense of style. Lawbreaker all the way. Regular Butch & Sundance. Family members of Gordillo and Becera were initially confused over their deaths, Local 4 reported."No! Our (brother, son, cousin, nephew, uncle, fill-in-the-blank) would never do something like that!" (Even though he probably has a rap sheet several pages long.) Officers who had responded to the incident at the bar wrote down the description of the car that left the scene and later made a match with the vehicle in which Gordillo and Becera were found dead, Local 4 reported.And that is, of course, his job. However, I find it fascinating that so few people are charged in the rural South and so many in the urban North. Question: Was the gun the proprietoress of Adela's used registered? | Or Was It Because He Thought Cops Didn't Have to Obey the Law? Ex Detroit police Chief Jerry Oliver recently attempted to take a flight from Detroit to Philadelphia - with a pistol in his checked luggage. Problem was, he didn't follow the required procedures to do so. According to this story: You can check a weapon, but paperwork needs to be filled out and the ammunition separated from the pistol. Oliver claimed to be unaware of the procedures for checking a gun in luggage he says, “it was just an oversight.”And since he's a member of the special, priviledged class... It makes me wonder, however, how many times Chief Oliver had done this in the past, and gotten away with it? Back on October 20 when the story broke, Chief Oliver faced: Suspension is unlikely at this point. But, according to TSA officials in Detroit, he could be fined up to a $1,000.Not to be. (I cannot help but wonder what the penalty for a Joe Average would have been, though?) Instead, Chief Oliver was fined and has resigned his position as Chief. Further, he has been charged with possession of an unregistered handgun - a major oopsie for a police officer. According to this report: Wayne County Prosecutor Michael Duggan at a Monday morning news conference announced his decision to charge Oliver with the 90-day misdemeanor.He's a police chief and doesn't know the gun laws. But we citizens are supposed to. UPDATE: According to this story: Former Detroit Police Chief Jerry Oliver entered a no contest plea to a misdemeanor charge of possessing an unlicensed handgun on Thursday in a Romulus courtroom.Typical, eh? Perhaps for law-enforcement officers. | Monday, November 03, 2003 Excellent Response I missed this until just now, but if you don't regularly read Clayton Cramer's blog, so did you. Clayton responds to a gun control supporter's e-mail with calm, reason, and fact. Excellent read. Excerpt: My experience is that most gun control advocates (as I used to be, 20+ years ago) don't fully understand the issues involved, for the same reason that I didn't: they haven't researched the subject, but have relied on the impressions gathered from reading newspapers and popular magazines. At first glance, a lot of the measures that you talk about seem to make perfect sense--but that's because you are applying very middle class values to a problem that is largely not middle class.And there's a lot more. | It's a Small World I came across this story that details the relocation and expansion of Knight's Armaments manufacturing facilities from Vero Beach, FL to my old hometown of Titusville. Weapons maker to stir up lackluster economy in N. BrevardInteresting. An "assault weapon" manufacturer bringing jobs to a community. Imagine that. C. Reed Knight Jr. realizes there's a dark side to his business.Oh, please. Spare me the PC apologies. Currently, Knight has about 110 employees at the plant, but plans to increase that up to as many as 250 in January and to 450 "as soon as possible" after production begins. The reopening of the plant is expected to provide a boost to the Titusville area's lackluster economy.I assume this means that Knight's believes the AW ban will sunset? Knight indicated federal officials took an interest in his company's move and expansion to support the U.S. "war on terror" in the Persian Gulf region triggered by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.Horrors! Tax breaks to manufacturers of "bullet hoses!" Within the gun-manufacturing industry, Knight's company is known for its superior firearms, said Gary Mehalik, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for gun manufacturers.Tidyville was pretty much wiped out in 1974 after the Apollo/Saturn V program came to an end, too. That's when I was living there. Once they launched Skylab, that was pretty much it, and the major aerospace contractors pulled out. But it was a nice place to grow up. "We consider them a big part of the community," Titusville City Manager Tom Harmer said about Knight's company.I cannot help but wonder if the plant will draw a protest rally from gun control groups. Nah, probably not. Also, the more than 400 jobs at the plant will have economic "ripple effects" -- from local spending by those who work at the plant to related businesses that may see opportunity, he said.And the AW ban sunsets... Meanwhile, Knight has about 125 people working for him in Vero Beach. That number will drop to 20 to 25 when the Titusville plant opens.Remember when "gun manufacturer" didn't have overtones of "evil baby-killer?" Here's Knight's homepage: http://www.knightsarmament.com/ Knight's makes .223, .308, and .50 BMG gas-operated semi-auto rifles. According to the VPC's compilation of manufacturing data, Knight's hasn't made many rifles: a high of 2,500 in 1993 and a low of 150 in 1996. Only 996 in 1999. I must assume that those numbers don't reflect military-contract weapons, as those kinds of sales won't support 100+ employees unless they were all the SR-25 Mark 11 Mod 0 Navy contract sniper rifle at $8,000 a pop. | Friday, October 31, 2003 Who Says the Economy is Bad? Sorry about the lack of posting, but I've been putting in long hours and a lot of windshield time (note that I'm posting this about 5:20AM). Today I'll be on the road again, and probably won't get home until after 6:00 (again), and tomorrow is the AR15.com shoot in Casa Grande (which I haven't finished loading ammo for, either.) So, no more posts today, and probably not until tomorrow afternoon at the earliest. Sorry about that, but sometimes life intrudes. Anyway, if you're new to the site, please peruse the archives or just click on the "Best of" links on the lefthand column. Thank you for your patronage. | Tuesday, October 28, 2003 More Guns in Church! (Concluded) I commented on the incident of Rev. Phillip Mielke of Big Lake Alaska here, when he was charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide for the killing of two men who were burglarizing his church. Well, his trial is over, and he's been acquitted of all charges. Of course, there's the obligatory reference to "taking the law into their own hands" in the story, and the obligatory call to depend on the State for the protection of yourself and your property. Nice to see that an Alaskan jury still can reason. Sometimes the justice system does get it right. UPDATE: Ravenwood comments, and does a better job than I did. | THAT'S IT!!!
That's precisely the reaction that appears to be occurring. | Monday, October 27, 2003 Not In My Back Yard - or Anybody Else's Either! Arizona recently suffered through a gas shortage because a pipeline that runs gasoline from Texas to Phoenix through Tucson ruptured. Aside from the problem of tens of thousands of gallons of spilled gasoline, the pipeline was down for a considerable period of time. This affected prices not only in Arizona, but in California as well as gasoline was shipped by truck from there to Arizona to help cover the loss. So, why am I not surprised to find that a proposed refinery in Arizona is being fought by environmentalists? John Moore of Useful Fools has done a bang-up job of investigative journalism on the subject. Seems that the site of this proposed refinery violates the doctrine of "environmental racism." Yes, the 33 people living within four miles of the site include five blacks and five Indians. As John points out, this would be the first refinery built in the U.S. for 25 years, and would cost $2.5 billion to construct. You can bet your ass that Mobile, AZ wouldn't be just a wide spot in the road anymore. If you're an "environmentalist" you can't have that. Go read the whole thing. You won't be seeing it in the major media. | Sunday, October 26, 2003 "Democrats give up gun control issue" - For Now... MSNBC.com carries a Washington Post article on the Democrat abandonment of gun control as a policy topic. Money quotes: Democratic presidential candidates are distancing themselves from tough gun control, reversing a decade of rhetoric and advocacy by the Democratic Party in favor of federal regulation of firearms.No, REALLY? Color me shocked. Remember, kiddies: Gun Safety = Gun Elimination, just like Gun CONTROL used to. | I Have Only One There's been a running thread of posts over at the Volokh Conspiracy and other sites concerning bumper stickers recently. I have only one (aside from my NRA, GOA, Tucson Rifle Club and IHMSA membership stickers): This Bumper Isn't BIG ENOUGH
| It is Not the Business of Government It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve. Prohibition was introduced as a fraud; it has been nursed as a fraud.Sorry Roger, sorry Henry. Nobody listened. This post was inspired by a piece written by Clayton Cramer on his blog a few days ago. I've read a lot that Clayton's written (I highly recommend his book For Defense of Themselves and the State if you're interested in the judicial history of the right to arms) and I find his work on the right to arms exemplary, but he and I differ on some other topics. In this piece he discussed Rush Limbaugh's addiction and talks about his support of the criminalization of drugs. The quote that got my attention was this one: I still don't think that prohibition of drugs is the most effective way to deal with the problem. It does have one positive effect, however: it encourages parents whose lives are built entirely around intoxication to move to places where those values predominate, like Sonoma County, leaving other parts of America relatively civilized.That's not the problem, though, in my opinion. Roger Mills foresaw the real problems, and he was right. The Harrison Narcotic Act was passed in December of 1914: To provide for the registration of, with collectors of internal revenue, and to impose a special tax on all persons who produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, distribute, or give away opium or coca leaves, their salts, derivatives, or preparations, and for other purposes.It was passed in response to an international treaty on the opium trade, and in response to the fact that the United States had just taken possession of the Phillipines where there was an established trade in opiates. On its face, the Act is not a prohibition, but part of the wording having to do with who can legally provide opiates was interpreted to mean that physicians could not legally prescribe drugs to addicts to support their habits. A drug addiction wasn't a disease, so giving an addict a prescription for his fix was a perversion of a doctor's practice. Shortly after passage, Roger Mills's predictions began to become realities. Doctors were arrested and jailed for giving out prescriptions. Addicts, unable to get their drugs through legal channels, found illegal ones. A market to feed their needs (and build a market of new users) was established. The cost of drugs went up - and crime increased to supply money to fill the need. Users were arrested for possession of illegal narcotics. People who, while addicted, were able to provide an income for their families through honest work, instead went to jail and left their families destitute. Addicts relocated to major cities where access to (now illicit) drugs was easier, and crime came with them. New drugs hit the market, and were in short order added to the Act. Heroin was banned in 1924. Boy, that was effective, wasn't it? According to this site, in 1926 the Illinois Medical Journal carried an op-ed that said: The Harrison Narcotic law should never have been placed upon the Statute books of the United States. It is to be granted that the well-meaning blunderers who put it there had in mind only the idea of making it impossible for addicts to secure their supply of "dope" and to prevent unprincipled people from making fortunes, and fattening upon the infirmities of their fellow men.Not enough people, and not the people who had just cracked a Pandora's box of enormous powers - powers "...to confiscate by legislative decree the property of many of our fellow citizens. ...to send spies, detectives, and informers into our homes; to have us arrested and carried before courts and condemned to fines and imprisonments." Not those people. In between passage of the Narcotic Act and subsequent "tightening of the loopholes," America in another fit of Puritanism ratified the Eighteenth Amendment - Prohibition - and then went home and had a stiff martini in celebration. What followed paralleled the results of the other attempt "to regulate by law our appetites and our daily lives," - abject failure. Increased crime. Increased misery. Increased prison populations. Increased poverty. Death. Mayhem. And ever-increasing, ever more intrusive government power at the expense of the rights of the individual. I am not an advocate of "If it feels good, do it." I'll tell you right up front that I have never been intoxicated in my life. I don't drink, I don't smoke, the only drugs I take are over-the-counter medications when I'm ill, or prescriptions as prescribed. I've never wanted to take a mind-altering substance. But I know a lot of people who have and some who still do. I understand that, for some people, drugs lead to addiction and death. They fuck up families. They destroy lives. They're best left alone, in my opinion. But it shouldn't be the job of government to protect us from ourselves. Because it can't. All it can do is oppress us. And in its effort to protect us, it doesn't just oppress the people who abuse drugs, it oppresses us all. The "cure" is worse than the disease - except there is no cure - just a new (and in many ways worse) problem on top of the one it's supposed to cure. The Illinois Medical Journal saw it in 1926. The American public saw it well enough to repeal Prohibition in 1933. But drug users (other than of alcohol Here are some of the results of the War on (some) Drugs© as we know them: So what does that tell us? For one thing, all the drug laws on the books haven't affected availability. For another, it's possible to be a drug user and still hold down a job, be a productive citizen, and pay taxes. For a third, all that money we're shelling out to interdict drugs is wasted. Fourth, we're incarcerating only a tiny fraction of drug users. The laws aren't preventing drug use. Here's some more: Fundamental rights of individuals that were supposed to be protected against infringement by the Bill of Rights have been chipped at under the guise of "Drug Control." A little bit here, a little bit there. Just in this special circumstance. Until they decide they need to widen that window. Just a bit, you understand. To make us all safer. Alcohol prohibition created many problems not foreseen: Organized crime, gang wars, bathtub gin, just to name a few. But when Prohibition ended, beer truck drivers no longer shot at each other for infringing on their territories. The incidents of people being blinded by drinking poisonous homebrew dropped dramatically. And tax revenues went up. Yes, alcohol remains one of the most devastating drugs out there - responsible for violence, broken homes, ruined lives, and horrendous numbers of dead on the nations highways - but it was better than the alternative - which was all those things and government in everybody's lives. Legalizing drugs wouldn't be a panacea. It wouldn't make everything peachy-keen. Much damage is already done that cannot be undone, but you cannot honestly argue that it will make drugs easier to get. It might reduce the number of overdoses and unintentional poisonings due to inconsistent quality and cutting with who knows what. It would put a major dent in the illicit trade, and hopefully the violence associated with it. It should reduce the crime associated with supporting addiction. It might make drug abusers more employable - though that should remain a choice that businesses make for themselves. But it would end an ever-increasing intrusion on our lives and our rights by government. And hey! It might be a new source of revenue, so long as they don't try to regulate useage (as they are now with tobacco) via onerous "sin taxes" that just lead back to a black market. And it should save a considerable amount of tax dollars. But of course it wouldn't. After just a few years of Prohibition the Federal agents tasked with that job weren't let go when it was repealed, they were just given a different job - enforcing the new Federal firearms law. You can bet all those DEA agents would be put on something. How about anti-terrorism? *Henry George was, for want of a better term, a "social philosopher," and a contemporary of Mark Twain and Thomas Edison. He wrote Progress and Poverty in his spare time and self-published it in 1879. It was picked up by a publishing house in 1880 and became an international best seller. It's a book on economics. I've not read the book, and I have no other knowledge of the author, but the quotation that begins this piece is as concise an expression of the purpose of government as any I've ever seen. **Roger Mills was a Democrat and (after fighting on the side of the South during the Civil War) served as a representative for Texas in the House from 1873 to 1892, and the Senate from 1892 to 1899. He died in 1911, so he never saw the 1914 Harrison Narcotic Act pass, and he missed the passage of Prohibition, but his warning was prescient, and I've often wondered why more people do not understand what he put so eloquently 116 years ago. Update: Francis Porretto takes the basic premise and runs with it. Update, 10/27: In a related issue, Ravenwood reports that we obviously haven't learned anything yet. | | |
