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, December 14, 2003 The Hoplophobic Mindset Via Say Uncle comes the link to fellow blogger Michael Williams' disgusted response to being denied a CCW permit by his betters in California. While I'm not surprised by the denial, I was a bit shocked to see the comment by Barry, another blogger who runs The Inn of the Last Home from Tennessee. It is the quintessential gun-phobe: I just...I just blink my eyes in amazement everytime this crops up - actually watching people feel the need to carry a concealed weapon in public...Note the change: "If I were to take a live, armed weapon and carry it on my person, in public, it would eat away at my sanity just as if it were emitting lethal radiation." Followed below by: "The radiation would rot my brain...." That is fear of an inanimate object. He actually believes that the presence of a firearm will warp his sanity. Barry, I applaud your decision to remain unarmed. I hope, however, that you will get some psychiatric or psychological treatment for your crippling fear of your own lack of control. And I sincerely hope that neither you nor anyone you know becomes the victim of a violent crime. But please, don't project your mental disturbance on others. | More Guns in Church! Via The Volokh Conspiracy, comes this story of one Rev. Arthur Ford who used a handgun to defend himself and his son-in-law from a nut who was beating them with a fireplace poker. This guy attacked six people in total, with the Reverend and his son-in-law being the last. One of the victims was critically injured and is hospitalized. I suspect that if Rev. Ford had not owned a handgun, they would not have been the last. So much for turning the other cheek. Good for the Reverend. | We Got Him Like you haven't heard it everywhere by now. Wring him out, give him a fair trial, then hang him. | Saturday, December 13, 2003
Truer Words... From Donald Sensing: I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free. | No Law Abridging That's the title of this piece by Curmudgeon Emeritus Francis Porretto. Money quote: So long as speech was protected, Americans could claim with some justice that we were in some sense free. If Tuesday's Supreme Court decision prevails, we will not be able to call ourselves even partly free. We will be a people in chains. Chains forged to protect incumbents from having their records in office publicized in the press as they stand for election. Chains forged to increase the power of the Old Media, granting their journalists and editors the last word on political campaigns. Chains forged by (and for) men to whom "the people" are not only not sovereign, but are a force to be fastened down and made to do as they're told by those who know better.Read the whole thing, including the comments. And think about that reset button some more. Labels: Reset Button | Friday, December 12, 2003 Pressing the "RESET" Button Last week, Jay Solo asked an important question. I was the first to respond. His question was whether or not the American populace would use the "reset button" guaranteed by the Second Amendment. In his words: Do you expect the "reset button" to need to be used in our lifetimes?It's a good question. I recommend you read all the responses, and add your own if you feel like it. Here was my response: Do I expect it to be used? Yes. Will it be effective? I doubt it.There were several good responses, but I'd like to elaborate a little bit on the topic. I don't think you're going to see a widespread armed uprising. What you're going to see is individuals and small groups who've simply had enough arming and striking - and probably dying in the process. If you've read John Ross's Unintended Consequences you'll get the idea, but I don't expect anything like the level of response he writes of. Not enough people are pissed off enough to do that. Of course the media will spin it as "lone deranged gun-nuts" or "anti-government militias," but if you pay attention you'll note an increase in the numbers over time. Someone once wrote; "If you're not boiling mad, you've not been paying attention." Mencken wrote: "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." Note this post by Dodd Harris: Say Goodbye To Your Right To Free SpeechYou'll recall, I was a bit perturbed about SCOTUS dodging the Silveira case last week, too. I'd like to remind you of the recent Klamath Valley incidents in which the government denied water to farmers in order to protect an "endangered" fish. This drew a lot of media attention, because instead of affecting one person or one family, it affected everyone in the valley. But a lot of other incidents in which the rights of individuals are trampled on by government bureaucrats occur that fly under the media radar. Generally, government is treated by the media as a vast benevolent force (unless, of course, that same government is defeating an enemy totalitarian government or unseating a murderous tyrant - then it's eeeeeevil.) Whatever actions that government takes for the benefit of an endangered species, or "for society" is more important than what it does to the people who are directly affected by these actions. Oh, occasionally something really egregious will pique some reporter, and we'll get a "human interest" story that pisses off the few of us who are paying attention. Sometimes our ire will get the government to back off, claiming it was all a big misunderstanding or worse, the government doesn't back off at all. The recent incidents of Melvin Spaulding in Florida, George Norris in Texas, Dennis Pryslak in New Jersey, Stratford High School in South Carolina, and many others come to mind. Scroll through the archives of this site. There's probably at least one a week that will raise your blood pressure. I've quoted Jefferson's letter to William Smith several times recently, but this part is the one I find most interesting: Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.It seems, in the main, that we aren't informed at all, much less well. Lethargy? For the overwhelming majority, yes indeed. Until it happens to you. Then you get pissed right quick, and wonder why nobody hears your side of the story. I think a lot of people are getting fed up with ever-increasing government intrusion into our lives. With our ever-shrinking individual rights. More than one of Jay's respondents noted the apathy of the majority, though, and I agree. Government interferes lightly on a wholesale basis, but it does its really offensive intrusions strictly retail. So long as the majority gets its bread and circuses, it will remain content. But not everyone. I think one example of this is illustrated by this story from Greenwood, S.C. (hat tip to Ravenwood for the link): Suspect in standoff claims self-defenseRead the whole story. Yes, these people were extreme. Killing two officers and then engaging in a gunfight with many more over 20 feet of property certainly is excessive. But I don't think this is going to be an exceptional case as time goes on. I think more and more individuals will be pressing the "RESET" button in the future. With about the same effect. UPDATE: I note that this piece has been linked from Wikipedia's "Gun Politics in the United States" entry with the notation: An analogous popular saying of less eloquent modern day gun rights advocates is that the amendment is "the government's reset button"."Less eloquent"? Whoever made that entry is cordially invited to bite my left buttcheek. Check the sidebar. I've got eloquence in abundance. Labels: Reset Button | I'm Baaaack! For a couple of days, anyway. Thanks to everybody who kept checking the site. I still averaged over 200 hits a day, even after I told you I'd be gone! (I'm not sure what that says about you guys, though...) I'll try to post some crunchy goodness before I leave for a couple more days. (The project is running long, though they didn't want us to work over the weekend.) | Monday, December 08, 2003 Oh Sweet Freaking Jeebus! (Still on hiatus, but my trip has been slightly delayed.) L.A. police chief William Bratton gives some remarkable advice to UK police: 'Avoid Slippery Slope of Armed Police' - U.S. ChiefGuess what, Chief? Machine guns aren't all that legal here, either. And the legally owned ones have never been a problem in the hands of the average citizen. You're giving credit where none's due. “If anything, don’t go down that slippery slope.”No? They've gone down the slope to the point where the only people with firearms are the government and the criminals, and the result? Now the cops there need to be armed. For that matter, so do the You're advising them to just give up? Mr Bratton, who was police commissioner of New York from 1994 until last year, made the comments after delivering a speech hosted by think-tank Civitas and a new London civic movement Mind the Gap.Don't you just love the way that police officers are now special? Apparently the Chief isn't aware that the first metropolitan police force was established by Sir Robert Peel in 1822. His nine principles of policing were as follows: The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.Apparently every police force extant has forgotten this. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.I think, had the people retained these ideas, the police wouldn't be having near the problems that they are. But you know what we're constantly advised: Let the police handle it. You're not qualified. “The first time anyone uses a gun against a police officer that needs to be treated seriously, having violated that contract.”I don't have time right now to pull up the stories, but police have been threatened - and shot - at the station in England. How effective are the police? Well, I've reported in this blog numerous accounts of the problems of violent crime in the UK. Just today Ravenwood reports that the police in London are advising women not to jog alone because some wacko is stabbing women joggers just for the fun of it. But God forbid that women have some weapon with which to defend themselves. Much less the police. | Sunday, December 07, 2003 I Think it I Fixed It About two years ago I had an 1896 Swedish Mauser "sporterized." I know some of you purists just winced at the thought, but this was a $100 rifle, no bluing, surface pitting on the barrel, considerable wear and tear - certainly not a collector piece. I had the action rebarreled with a medium-weight chromoly Shilen tube, 1-in-8" twist, cut to 24". I had the 'smith turn down the bolt handle, narrow the trigger guard, then polish and blue the barreled action and install a two-piece scope base. I then installed a Timney trigger and glass bedded the action into a Fajen thumbhole stock, making sure the barrel was free-floated. I then proceeded over the next two years to try just about every combination of 140-grain bullet and powder to see what it would shoot well. The answer? Nothing. I tried 155 grain bullets. No good. I tried 120 grain bullets. A bit better, but still no great shakes. The gun simply would not group better than 2.5 to 3 MOA, and that only if I was lucky. Since I had built the rifle in order to shoot Metallic Silhouette, which requires you to shoot offhand up to 500 meters, that wasn't going to be good enough. Finally, I decided I'd try preloading the barrel. I took an old expired credit card and cut it into strips, then stacked the strips in the barrel channel of the stock, and reinstalled the action. The plastic strips, located about 1/3rd of the way down the barrel channel from the forend, put an upward pressure on the barrel and change its natural vibration frequency. I loaded up some test ammo last night - 139 grain Lapua boattail hollowpoints over Reloder 19. Here's my best group of the day, but not by much:
I think I fixed it. | Saturday, December 06, 2003 Spoke too Soon Publicola has a post up I think everyone ought to read. I mean everyone. He doesn't title his posts, but if he did, I'd recommend Patriots & Tyrants, because it reminded me of something Thomas Jefferson wrote to his friend William Smith after Shay's Rebellion in 1787. The first time I read it, I thought to myself "What a radical SOB Jefferson was." Now I read it, and I understand his fear. He feared apathy, and believed it could be the downfall of the nation. This is what he said: The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.Death-by-a-thousand-cuts. Frog in a pot. Use whatever analogy you want, we the people have been lethargic since 1865, and it has cost us - dearly. And the worst thing is, we haven't misconceived, we've ignored obvious wrongs. And not so obvious ones. Lethargy indeed. Tytler was right. The cycle is: bondage, faith, courage, liberty, abundance, selfishness, complacency, apathy, dependence, and then back into bondage. How far into dependence are we? Read the post below it, too. And the link. And wonder what happened to our liberty. (Edited to add:) In light of Jefferson's advice, I think Claire Wolfe is wrong. It's not too early to shoot the bastards, it's too late. They're too entrenched to respond as Jefferson advises they should. Which brings to mind Churchill's quote... | Blog Hiatus My apologies, but I'm going to be out of town for about a week, with no internet access. Therefore I will be unable to update this blog until Friday evening 12/12 at the earliest. I might get something in tomorrow, Sunday 12/7 - Pearl Harbor Day, but I might not. I've got a lot of things to do, not the least of which is prepare for this trip. See you next week. Thanks for tuning in. | Friday, December 05, 2003 Another Story You Won't Be Reading in the English Papers (Via Acidman) The Atlanta Would-be robber slain by intended victimGotta wonder what the father and daughter were doing in the park at 11:00 PM, but this is America - they're allowed. Being in a park at night does not give someone the right to rob you. "The victim pulled his own firearm and fired some rounds at the suspect," Woodall said.Hmm..."late teens or 20s." That means that to the Brady Bunch, the And when they say "automatic rifle," they mean "machine gun." This means we've got a guy with a machine gun and body armor out running around. Marvelous. Remember also, the federal government reported "losing" several hundred guns just last year. And there's this charming story of how a police officer managed to leave an AR-15 laying by the side of the road. Anyway:Federal agents in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, were looking for guns stolen from an agent's car. A stolen vehicle that police believe was the suspect's getaway car was also found in the park.Stolen Glock, stolen car, attempted armed robbery, in his 20's. How long was his record, and why wasn't his ass in jail? Police say the father acted in self-defense and will not face charges in connection with the shooting. The names of the two men have not been released.Nice of them not to arrest and jail the man like the cops in Florida did to Mr. Spaulding. I wonder if he got to keep his pistol? | Thursday, December 04, 2003 OUTRAGE! (continued) Publicola updates us on the status of 71 year-old Melvin B. Spaulding, who was arrested and jailed without bond for the audacity of defending his friend against three young attackers rather than dialing 9-1-1 and waiting to be rescued by the AUTHORITAHS! Seems Mr. Spaulding, who has since been released, and has not yet been charged with anything has been told that, even though he has a concealed-carry permit, he's not allowed to have a firearm. The story is here. Bastards. | We've Got RSS! I think. Via Blogstreet, I think this provides an RSS feed for The Smallest Minority (about a day late, but better than nothing?) http://www.blogstreet.com/rss/13828.rss Pardon my ignorance on the subject. | This is NEAT Being a South Park Republican type, I found this little tool pretty entertaining. (Via the Everlasting Phelps) The South Park Create a Character. Here's my interpretation of me on the average weekend:
This, however, is NOT neat: Read Phelps' post on the abuse of eminent domain in Norfolk, Virginia. Now do you understand why my character is holding a | I Thought the Idea was to PUNISH Criminals Oh sweet bleeding Jebus. Kim linked to this story about an Austrailian police officer: He faces one charge of wounding with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm.Why? Because he shot at a man trying to run him over. But that's not the best story! From a link on that page, we get this: Prison punishment concernPoor babies! They should file suit because they're not being tucked in at night! First the police can't do their jobs, and second the prisons can't either! And they wonder why violent crime is on the rise in Australia! | Read This and then Tell Me that Gun Control "Works" Read this excellent editorial from the British paper The Guardian: Gun crime spreads 'like a cancer' across Britain Money quote: Handgun crime has soared past levels last seen before the Dunblane massacre of 1996 and the ban on ownership of handguns introduced the year after Thomas Hamilton, an amateur shooting enthusiast, shot dead 16 schoolchildren, their teacher and himself in the Perthshire town.That's about $350.00 - about the retail cost of a decent pistol here in the U.S. Sure, gun control works. It disarms the victims just about perfectly. You'll note that there aren't any stories like these in the British press. | Privacy? Peons Don't Need Privacy! Remember the airport scanner story from back in January that caused such a ruckus because it could see through your clothes? Yes, it would help detect concealed weapons, but it also let operators essentially see you naked. That raised some questions about privacy, but the argument at the time was that if you wanted to fly on a commercial airliner, you already gave up quite a bit of your right to privacy. Well, now England is looking at invading your privacy when you're walking on the street. Seems that they're developing a unit that will fit into the back of a van and allow police officers to scan anybody. Police are developing a mobile scanner that can detect weapons being carried on the streets as part of the fight against the rising tide of gun crime.The justification? The scheme was initiated by Sir John Stevens, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, earlier this year as he launched a crackdown on the tide of gun crime sweeping across Britain.But I thought that gun control was supposed to make everybody safe. Now they're telling us that invasion of privacy will make everyone safe? Before the scanner takes to the streets the police may find they have to fight civil liberties groups concerned that the scanner - which reveals intimate body details - is an infringement of privacy.Well I certainly hope so. However, I don't think the government is all that interested in what the civil liberties groups think: The spokesman refused to comment on reports in The Times that a version of the scanner has already been tested on the streets of London from the back of a converted van. | Another Expensive Exercise in Futility Last week it was reported in several places that Canada's attempt at registering all long guns and all gun owners - originally sold to Parliament and the people of Canada as having a net cost to taxpayers of $2 million - would reach a cost of $1 billion a full year earlier than the Auditor General predicted after she reviewed the fiscal debacle last year. Now in that gun-control Utopia of England - where all legal guns and gun owners are registered and licensed, and all machine-guns, "assault weapons," and handguns are banned - they're going to spend £1.1 million (about $1.9 million) to build a "National Firearms Forensic Intelligence Database" so that the police can "speed up the way officers can link gun crimes." At least that's the initial estimate. | Wednesday, December 03, 2003 He Shoulda Used a .45 I expect that anybody who reads The Smallest Minority also reads Kim du Toit (and probably Kim first), but since he posted this link without comment, I'll comment. Wimpy 9mm Europellet! An XBox requires at least a .40 S&W, and I'd recommend a .45ACP. | OUTRAGE! Ravenwood begins his piece with this warning: "If you have blood pressure problems, you probably don't want to read this". He's right. A 63 year-old man is being beaten by three young men. His 71 year-old friend intervenes with a .22 pistol, wounding one, and stopping the fight. The 71 year-old was arrested and held without bond. Read Ravenwood's post. I need to reduce my blood pressure. | Monday, December 01, 2003 Sore Losers
Do you think Jeff Danziger is a little peeved? I didn't see a single picture of the coverage of Bush's Baghdad visit in which the soldiers weren't smiling ear to ear. Did you? | Well, I Won't Be Buying Anything Taurus Makes According to this report, Taurus International is helping in New Jersey's effort to make a "smart gun." In an earlier piece I discussed New Jersey's law that mandates that all new handguns be equipped with "smart gun" technology once such technology becomes available, in an effort to reduce the number of accidental gunshot deaths. New Jersey had eleven accidental gunshot deaths in 2001. ONE was a child. How many of those accidental deaths were hunting accidents? You know, gun in the possession of the authorized user? | They Can't Keep Dodging FOREVER The Supreme Court has sidestepped the Second Amendment AGAIN, denying cert. on Silveira v. Lockyer. Gun control groups will doubtlessly tout this as "proof" that there's no individual right to arms, neglecting the fact that that same reasoning would "prove" that there is one, based on SCOTUS's denial of cert. on U.S. v. Emerson. Excuse me, but I'm PISSED! UPDATE: Clayton Cramer comments. He thinks gun owners dodged a bullet, but I disagree. He says: It wasn't the perfect case, because it involved several different questions:Perhaps he's right, but he also says: There's a sequence for winning constitutional issues: win the simplest and least offensive case first; then use then(sic) as a wedge to win the less popular situations.We've been fighting this fight since 1939. How long are you willing to wait, Clayton? Silveira asked those three critical questions. Had SCOTUS heard the case and decided those three questions, then we gun owners would know where we stand, wouldn't we? Those are questions I'm losing patience over. The Justices may not be "required to be honest or consistent," but it's our job as citizens to hold them to that standard, isn't it? Just throwing up our hands and saying "Oh, well..." doesn't cut it. That kind of crap gives us courts like the 9th Circus - the epitome of dishonesty and inconsistency. Another UPDATE: Say Uncle comments too, and apparently Eugene Volokh had the original scoop. UPDATE 12/3/03: Publicola comments as well, in conjunction with SCOTUS's recent decision overturning the 9th Circus's ruling that 20 seconds was not enough time to wait before I seriously doubt either will have any positive effect on the going on in congress &/or the courts. I don't think we're gonna see anything close to freedom unless there's another revolution. The government has too much of a hold on power & it will not let it go easily.Can I get an "AMEN!"? | Somebody has too Much Time on Their Hands But what a cool idea! Politburo Diktat has created a map of the Commonwealth of Blogosphere States. Den Beste is represented by a sea, Instapundit is an entire COUNTRY. I'm not on the map, though. | Saturday, November 29, 2003 The War on...Bologna? This is too weird not to comment on: Cops seize 756 pounds of smuggled bolognaMarijuana I can understand. But lunchmeat? U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers seized 81 rolls of Mexican bologna Friday at the Paso Del Norte bridge as the pickup entered the United States.Proper handling? Somebody sculpted them into the shape of a car seat! Children were sitting on top of the illegal load before it was discovered, Maier said. The rear seat had been removed from the extended-cab pickup and the bologna was put in its place.Eeewww! Anybody know where those kids had been? Think about it: 500 cases of Hepatitis from green onions... He said the agency plans to pursue civil penalties against the Mexican man driving the truck. Maier said the agency won't release the man's name until the case goes to trial.Just wait until cigarette taxes go just a bit too high.... Oh, right. | "That Sumbitch ain't been BORN" Early last week I received two comments from a reader in Brazil who goes by the handle "tupiniquim." One was in response to "You're American if you Think You're American," and the other was to the piece "They Keep Making Better Fools." In "Better Fools" I wrote: 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.Tupiniquim responded: You believe that your form of government is superior to all others because you, i'm sure, did never take a look at everything that's happening out of USA. Take a look at Latin America, or Africa. Read Noam Chomsky. Read Allen Ginsberg. A lot of people out of your country is suffering with this "superior form of government". Believe me, I really know what I'm talking about."You're American..." was a response to this Steven Den Beste piece where Steven made some sweeping generalizations that I generally agree with. In response to this, Tupiniquim was a bit more verbose: Well, despite the fact that I am a Brazilian and a Latin American, I don't hate North Americans. I really think there are great people in USA, alive and dead, like Noam Chomsky, John Steinbeck or Allen Ginsberg. But, in USA, there are George Bush or McCarthy too. Great people live together with some tirans. What would Martin Luther King think about George Bush, the father and the son? Or about Collin Powell? Why do the country where was born the jazz, rock'n roll, beat generation, the "flower power", the hip hop, is the same country where was born McCarthism, Ku Klux Klan and the crusade of "War against terrorism"? Excuse me, I don't want to look offense, but I just can't comprehend what's the idea you all share. Steven Den Beste needs to write a book, but not compiling his essays. He needs to write a book explaining what is this one idea that all North Americans share.I promised him a response. This is it. First I'd like to say that, like most Americans, I'm not a student of our government's actions in South America. What has gone on between our government and the various governments to our South hasn't interested me a great deal, and is not in the forefront of the news up here. Perhaps it should be, but one of the failings we Americans are often accused of is that we're uninterested in what goes on outside our borders. Guilty as charged, for the most part. I'm aware, however, that the U.S. government has supported some pretty vile regimes around the world in the Kissingerian "but they're our bastards" foreign policy plan. I attribute this to our Cold War policy of "anything's better than Communism." Well, perhaps for us, but certainly not for the people under the governments receiving our support. Criticism of our behavior both in South America and around the rest of the world is valid - to a point. But the job of our government is to keep us safe, and the people we elect do that as they think best. I was both greatly heartened and somewhat troubled by President Bush's recent speech to the British people when he said: As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own back yard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found.Heartened, because this statement repudiates the "our bastards" policy, troubled because a real commitment to this policy will require the U.S. to intervene, and America has not been really interested in becoming the policemen of the world. It is not something we've done well, because, by and large, we really are uninterested in what goes on outside our borders, and we've been unwilling to spend the lives of our soldiers in efforts not perceived as directly related to our own safety and security. That may be changing. It remains to be seen. In response to Tupiniquim's comment about reading Chomsky and Ginsberg, let me say this: Some criticism of the behavior of America is warranted. Chomsky goes way, way over the line. (I'll admit right up front that I've never read Ginsberg, and have no plans to.) Cox & Forkum recently did a political cartoon (about another professor) that illustrates precisely what I think of Chomsky:
This brings us to the thing Tupiniquim doesn't understand: What is the idea that all Americans share? (Well, he said "North Americans" but we know what he meant.) So, what is "it"? "It" doesn't fit on a bumpersticker. The idea we share won't fit on a protest poster. It doesn't fit on a T-shirt, and it isn't a single thing. Let's see if I can distill the idea down. Let me start by saying that everybody who holds American citizenship doesn't share the idea. We're far too diverse for that. Many people born here never do understand it. Den Beste was making a generalization, and generalizations don't hold up under a microscope. I'd also like to say that, while I believe the majority of Americans do understand it to a greater or lesser degree, there is a large and growing contingent in this country that not only doesn't understand it, but rejects the idea outright. Go read Democraticunderground.com if you want to see some prime examples of this. Our Declaration of Independence says: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.The first line of the Declaration is one strongly definitive of an American ideal - equality of birth. There is a story, a joke in some ways, an allegory in others, that dates way back. In it, a British Lord travels to the Frontier West, America in the 1800's. His horse throws a shoe on the trail, so at the first little frontier town he comes to, he finds a blacksmith's shop to have the shoe replaced. As he rides up, he sees a large, sweaty, filthy man hammering on a piece of red-hot iron. The Lord sits on his horse, waiting to be served, but the blacksmith doesn't pay him any attention and continues to work his iron. Finally, the Lord, outraged to have been ignored this way by an obvious servant, dismounts, approaches the 'smith, and taps the man on the shoulder with his riding crop. "You, man!" he barks, "Who is your Master! I wish to have a word with him!" The blacksmith turns, looks at the Englishman, spits a stream of tobacco juice on the point of the Lord's boot and says, "That sumbitch ain't been born." That's one idea Americans share.Another is that government should work for us, not us for it. (But Americans are not one monopolitical block. Just how government should work is something we've been fighting about since before the end of the Revolutionary War, so being an American is more than believing that we are not the servants of our government.) That, too, goes back to "That sumbitch ain't been born" - just because someone draws a government paycheck does not make them our masters. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." That's another thing Americans believe in, and that's what draws people to this country - the liberty required to pursue happiness. In very much of the world, for a very long time, what you were allowed to do was constrained by your birth, and in many places today that's still true. America is that place you could go where what you could do was constrained only by your own capabilities. The ideal is that we are born equal, but that we succeed on our individual merits - equality of opportunity, not outcome. And note, our Founders didn't promise happiness, only the opportunity to pursue it. That's also an opportunity to fail - the risk is ours to take. And we've been risk takers the likes of which the world has never seen before. Bill Whittle wrote: Next time you look at the moon, challenge yourself to think of something: there are footprints up there. Footprints, and tire tracks. Also three used cars, and one golf ball.That was liberty risking life in the pursuit of happiness. Trust me on this, I grew up during the race to the moon. My father was an engineer for IBM working on the Saturn V Instrument Unit. I know whereof I speak. America is the place where you can dare to dream, and Americans all over the world, regardless of their legal citizenship, understand this too. Is America perfect in this regard? No, but no place is. However, where else but in America can a first-generation immigrant be elected Governor? Where else but in America can a college drop-out become the wealthiest man in the world? Where else but in America can you come get the finest education available? We're not perfect, but I believe we're the best that's available. And yes, we make mistakes, and those mistakes cause misery and death to some. But America is not the "Great Satan" - our mistakes are simply that, not deliberate efforts. No, we're not perfect, but ask the people who lived in the former Soviet Union how they would grade their governments. Ask the victims of Nicolae Ceausecsu. Ask the Czechs after the Russian armor rolled in in 1968, and there are uncounted other examples. Ours is a difference in kind not just degree. Sometimes we make an error, and instead of admitting it, we compound it. We're human too. That's something else Americans understand. One more thing Americans understand (though fewer of us than I'd like) - government is not a panacea, it's a necessary evil. It is seldom the answer to our problems, and it is often the cause of them. Americans have a love/hate relationship with government. We're schizophrenic about it. We want it to do what we want, not what we ask it to do. We want it to take care of us, and we want it to leave us alone. We want it to do extravagant things, and we want to not pay for it. And we forget, constantly, that a government that can give us everything we want can also take everything we have. I said in "Better Fools" that I believed that "our form of government is superior to all others ever practiced." I really do. But I also believe this rather sad comment made by someone: I truly believe that our Constitutional Republic, as established by the Founders, was the best form of government ever conceived. It resulted in the greatest nation this world has yet seen. Not perfect, but unmatched in potential or performance when it comes to the individual and to the society. Its only failing is human nature. How do you make people want to stay free? How do you make them do the work necessary to ensure their freedom, when they can be so easily convinced to give it up in exchange for some promise of security? I don't know the answer to that, and neither did the Founders. At least I'm in good company. One last thing I'll discuss here that Americans understand: "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." We believe that, even though we've propped up some despots and overthrown some others. Those of us who really believe it are often those who have the least say in what our government does. We're the ones who want to be left alone by government instead of taken care of by it, and we're the least likely to be elected officials or employees of the government. We also believe "that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed." If your government is "destructive of these ends" it's your job to alter or abolish it - even if it's our government supporting the bastards. Yes, we're schizophrenic that way, too. It's another reason Europeans don't understand us, and it goes right back to "that sumbitch ain't been born" - our people often don't do what our government tells us. Hell, our government often doesn't bother to tell us because even they know it won't do any good. When enough of us are pissed off, it listens. As a result we can and do things as a nation that our government has no control over, as the French economy experienced just recently. In conclusion, let me address the questions of good & bad, King & McCarthy, jazz and the KKK et al. America hasn't seen any real "tyrants" since we threw the Redcoats off our shores. McCarthy? Arguably crazy, but he wasn't wrong about the infiltration of communists. Any parallel you draw between Bush (father or son) and McCarthy is one strained to incredulity. What, pray tell, is your problem with Colin Powell? The KKK is a small bunch of losers who feel that somebody has to be inferior to them, and their teeth have been pulled (no pun intended.) But this is America - like Chomsky, they have a constitutionally protected right to spew their venom, and we have a constitutionally protected right to ridicule them. America is a great country because it provides a marketplace where all ideas can be expressed to survive or fail on their merits. The KKK and Chomsky have small followings because their ideas fail in that marketplace. Repressing them would give them legitimacy they don't deserve. That's also why we don't ban Mein Kampf. It deserves to be read, to remind us of what those ideas lead to. America is hardly the only place where bad ideas originate. America is still the beacon of freedom to the rest of the world. The Land of Opportunity. As such, we are held to a high standard - one we occasionally fail. When we do, those who hate us, those who fear us, and those who simply don't understand us point to those failures and declare that our leadership is illegitimate, our freedom is false and our promise of opportunity is a trick. They say we are evil. And we ignore them, and go on. We're not perfect, but is there a nation superior to America in this world? That sumbitch ain't been born. Labels: miscellaneous | Friday, November 28, 2003 Thank You. At 10:24 this evening, a visitor from rr.com became my 40,000th hit, as recorded by Sitemeter, in just over six months of blogging. Hell, I'm impressed if no one else is. | Thursday, November 27, 2003 It's Small of Me, I Know... But I can't wait to listen to the Democrats - especially the Deep Space Nine - froth at the mouth about this:
Bush Makes Surprise Visit to Troops in BaghdadI imagine that Hillary is a bit peeved about being upstaged. And they keep calling Bush an idiot. | Blogroll Addition I've added Francis W. Porretto's Curmudgeon's Corner to my blogroll. Somehow, Francis manages to crank out an excellent essay on a daily basis, and since I've started reading him every day, I thought my six readers might also enjoy his work. Keep it up, Francis. | Wednesday, November 26, 2003 A Reminder: Please, Don't Drink and Drive There are worse things than accidentally killing someone on a holiday weekend. And make sure any teenagers in your house take a good, long look, too. (Via Feces Flinging Monkey) | Happy Thanksgiving! Sorry about the lack of posting (and thanks to everybody who linked to the last couple of posts) but I've been extremely busy with work (which pays the bills) and haven't had time. That's unfortunate, because there's been a lot I've wanted to comment on, but oh well. I have the next four days off, like most of you, so hopefully I'll get a few posts in before Monday. Thank you for your patronage. | 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. | | |
