Tag Archives: government

What is Gun Control?

27 Monday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on What is Gun Control?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Gun control…

For some it’s about taking advantage of tragedy and belittling those they hate. I almost didn’t include this first story due to the inherently bigotry and low-brow “journalism” behind it. Still, here it is. A woman in Texas, a self-described Second Amendment proponent and gun owner, committed an atrocious crime (the facts of which I don’t have and don’t want) – she apparently murdered her own daughters after an argument. The woman was also shot and killed by the police. Three women dead for no good reason – terrible.

Enter Helen Thompson writing on American News X. Thompson offered up an assessment of the crime in terms both racist and anti-Christian.

Too bad for Christian Christy Byrd Sheats two daughter’s, 17 and 22, Sheats had a gun with which to “protect her family.” That gun was used to gun down both girls in the street after a family argument.

Sheats was then killed by police after refusing to drop her weapon, literally bringing home the insanity of the famed phrase “from my cold, dead, hands.”

Note the immediate description of the shooter as a Christian. Would Thompson dare describe a Muslim terrorist as a Muslim terrorist? I think not. I did a quick Googling of “Helen Thompson” and “Muslim” and the first thing I saw was Thompson berating Donald Trump for trying to “initiate a Muslim witch hunt”. I guess witch hunts aren’t even for witches anymore – just Christians.

Thompson continues:

This woman appears to be the poster child of white, GOP America. She praised her religion, loved veterans and country music, praised Ronnie Reagan and George W., and loved her guns. She was a Texas resident, originally from Alabama. This woman literally reeked of right wing Americana — of normal, gun-loving life. She loved her grandmother, had been bitten by a black widow, and basically, seemed to love life and her children.

The white America. Would Thompson ever write about one of the thousands of murders committed by blacks each year (47% of total murders vs. 10% of the population)? No. It’s just a white, Christian, all-American kind of thing. Y’all wouldn’t understand.

Thompson didn’t even call for more gun control beyond her ridicule. “No good guy with a gun stopped this senseless murder by a ‘good guy’ with a gun,” she ranted – what a tired, worn, anecdotal, and worthless “argument”. If not even true in this case – the police officer “good guy” used a gun to stop the white, Christian bad gal.

Maybe some of the problems the left has with guns in America comes more from a hatred of America and its people than from a hatred of guns. These cretins, seething in their hatred, want the government to disarm all the white Christians – and everyone else of decent persuasion.

I have no use for the government at all. Some people on “my side” do. Droves of my friends boast about obtaining their concealed carry permits. Actress Kelly McGillis just joined the ranks of the permitted carriers following an attack at her North Carolina home.

I like that they have armed themselves in a world seemingly gone mad but I do not like the way they have done it. Why a permit from the state? I know it’s the law in most places. I understand that. Most people who get the permits are law-abiding. It’s a law that shouldn’t be abided by – or exist. Why should there be permits for the exercise of the right to carry anyway? Rights do not require permission slips.

I sympathize with and applaud Mrs. McGillis’s decision to arm and defend herself. I found it odd though that she took the measure following a home invasion. North Carolina does not require a permit of any kind to defend oneself at one’s home. I realize she obviously wants protection outside her house too. Thus the permit. And, thus, my problem.

Running to the government for permission to protect one’s life is little different in my mind to running to the government to prohibit others from protecting themselves. Either way, the government is not the answer. Usually, it’s the problem.

In a sense everyone wants reasonable “gun control”. Some, like Thompson, would have the state “control” guns by banning them from white, Christian hands at least. Gun owners generally favor the responsible, personal “control” of the individual firearm. If, to them, that means acquiescing to a state law, then they do it. Either way it’s the state, the state, the state. How about some gun control for the state itself?

In addition to regulating firearms, the government has a long history of widely distributing them, usually with terrible consequences. Most of government works like that – they find a small problem and come up with a solution that creates a bigger problem. I suppose it justifies their existence. I don’t see the need.

A few years ago the ATF was caught red-handed selling and then giving guns to Mexican drug cartels and to criminals. Some of those guns came back, fast and furious, and were used to kill Americans. The ATF isn’t alone. They are novices compared to the CIA. The “intelligence” agency has taken to giving arms to Syrian “rebels”. Many of those weapons were stolen and ended up on the black market – gun show of choice for terrorists. And, you guessed it, some of those arms have killed Americans. By arming one side (maybe more) of this conflict which does not concern the U.S. the government helps generate more angry “refugees” who then migrate to the West for various purposes – some for aid and reflief, others for revenge and crime. Little problem, “solution”, bigger problems.

Government agent Joe Biden oversees “gun control” while exploiting “loopholes” at a Jordanian gun show. NYT.

The left tries to scare people with stories of white, Christian Americans wielding automatic assault rifles and rocket launchers. They want the government to do something about it despite the fact it isn’t a problem. The government does do something! It supplies “Kalashnikov assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades” to rebels and then to the black market and to terrorists. Nice, huh?

Another of the left’s arguments for more government control is that the firearms available when the Second Amendment was ratified were flintlocks and thus those are the only ones the people are entitled to keep and bear. By that logic, shouldn’t the CIA be running muskets and not rocket launchers? Maybe people like Thompson should limit their writing to quill pens. All beside the point.

How about less government for a change? How about limiting or banning the state’s use of firearms (and rockets and grenades)? Might that make for a safer society? As is, they give us freedom control, crime, war, mindless intervention, black markets, and terrorism; all that in addition to rules, regulations, taxes, inflation, oppression, etc. More government, more crime. Why have it or its controls?

False Information: Ours and Theirs

26 Sunday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on False Information: Ours and Theirs

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Nowhere are double standards more noticeable than in the political realm. Two stark examples came out last week and are still developing.

In Idaho three juvenile “refugees” kidnapped and raped a five-year-old girl in a laundry room of an apartment complex. “Refugees” and rape go together so well they’re often conjoined – “rapefugees”. Just part of the enrichment process say the elite. The cowboys in Idaho ain’t having it. They’re mad as hell but are behaving rather tamely. 100 years ago the suspects would already be swinging in the wind.

In Germany last week an armed man took hostages at a movie theater. According to police he was armed with fake weapons but they shot him down anyway – a reasonable response to a hostage situation.

Here’s the rub:

The German incident happened four days ago and still we know nothing of the identity of the suspect nor his motives. In most cases like this (Paris, Orlando, etc.) the police release this information even as the attacks unfold. Why the silence here? What are they hiding? This case is beyond strange. The police must at least know the suspect’s identity. The only conclusion I can draw is that they are hiding something – withholding information. Are not the people entitled to know what is happening?

In Idaho the facts are there for all to see and all (almost all) are mad as hell about what happened. Enter the federal government. The U.S. Attorney for Idaho has stepped into what is a purely local, state-law case. She’s not in this to help with the prosecution of the criminals – she’s just threatening the good people of Idaho into silence.

“The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law. We have seen time and again that the spread of falsehoods about refugees divides our communities. I urge all citizens and residents to allow Mr. Loebs and Chief Kingsbury and their teams to do their jobs.”

Why threaten victims and their supporters into silence? What is the Department of Justice [SIC] trying to hide here? This threat comes from the same criminal government that simply can’t import criminal “refugees” fast enough. The answer is obvious.

“The spread of false information … may violate federal law.” I thought that was a federal standard operating procedure. Mr. Powell told the U.N. Saddam was building WMDs. False information. They say a small office fire that burned itself out collapsed a 40-story skyscraper. False information. The VC attacked the Maddox. False information. Israel did not attack the Liberty. False information. Income tax withholding is temporary, to defeat Hitler only. False information. The Viernheim shooting was not terrorism. Your children are safe around rapefugees. And on and on and on…

How anyone can possibly trust this gang of murders, thieves, and liars is beyond me. The government needs, in any case, to either come clean or shut up and go away. In fact, they should just please go away.

buelahman.wordpress.com

Ronald Reagan and FOPA: Myth vs. Reality

25 Saturday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Conservatives tend to lionize anyone associated with their ideology. Fewer politicians have been more ingrained in conservative mythology than Ronald Wilson Reagan. Rush Limbaugh explained:

He was optimistic and happy. He was infectious. He dared to embrace big ideas. He dared to do big things to overcome huge obstacles in the midst of all kinds of experts telling him it couldn’t be done, in the midst of all kinds of criticism, in the midst of all kinds of personal insults.

…

He rejected Washington elitism and connected directly with the American people who adored him. He didn’t need the press. He didn’t need the press to spin what he was or what he said. He had the ability to connect individually with each American who saw him. That is an incredible — I don’t even want to say “talent.” It’s a characteristic that so few Americans have, so few people have, but he was able to do it. He brought confidence; he brought vigor, and he brought humility to the presidency, which had been missing for years, and this profoundly upset his political and media adversaries to no end, and Reagan enjoyed that. Ronald Reagan rejected socialism; he rejected big government. He insisted on returning as much government back to the people as was possible.

Some of this is certainly true. On the surface Reagan seemed like a true American President in the most realistic and patriotic ways. Compared to his two immediate predecessors he seemed like one of the Founders returned to save the day. Compared to the last two occupiers of the Whitehouse it would almost seem that Reagan came down from Olympus. It is understandable why so many cite him their favorite president of all time or call him the greatest conservative. However, as sometimes happens, the facts get in the way.

Reagan cut tax rates but he also increased taxes – 11 times during his Presidency. On his watch the federal debt tripled. Bush (43) was only able to double the debt, Obama being on a similar trajectory. Amateurs. Reagan grew the government, both in terms of spending and in overall scope. Reagan, while opposing Soviet intervention throughout the world, engaged in extreme levels of foreign meddling, some (like the Taliban) with lasting consequences.

Reagan also gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens. His law was sold to the public as a crackdown on immigration but only deepened the problem for future generations. He also successfully sold gun control under the guise of firearms protection. Reagan was a gun grabber.

I was reminded of this when I saw a pro-Reagan/pro-gun, “conservative ” meme posted on Facebook:

Conservatives Today

On March 30, 1981 John Hinkley Jr. shot Reagan outside the Washington Hilton with a .22LR revolver. The President made a full recovery. Press Secretary James Brady was not as lucky, being paralyzed by a head shot. Brady and his wife Sarah founded the Brady Campaign against guns. As Reagan did not immediately react by joining with the Bradys many believe him a full proponent of gun rights – thus, the above meme.

Conservative forget that after leaving office Reagan supported the Brady Bill: “Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special — a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol — purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance. This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now — the Brady bill — had been law back in 1981.” Ronald Reagan, Why I’m For the Brady Bill, New York Times, March 29, 1991.

The now-expired/obsolete Bill did little to nothing to stop violent crime. Had it been law in 1981 it might have saved Brady and Reagan and two others from being shot. It was law in 1999 and did nothing to prevent the Columbine tragedy.

Reagan never had a chance to support or sign the Bill while in office. He did, however, sign the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act (FOPA) into law in 1986. Like Reagan’s immigration “crackdown”, the Act’s name is a misnomer. FOPA, 100 Stat. 499, amended 18 U.S.C. § 921, et seq. (and related laws) in an overhaul of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 82 Stat. 1213-2.

Had Reagan been a friend of the Second Amendment he would have attempted to repeal the GCA and the National Firearms Act (NFA). He did not; he added more controls. FOPA had two effects. One, it shuffled around ATF regulations and procedures in response to complaints of arbitrary and redundant policies. However, the “loosening” of some regulations came with a steep price. The second part of FOPA essentially banned the sale to and possession of machine guns by civilians.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—

(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

The machine gun “ban” was not actually a total bar. In reality did two things: it created onerous requirements for ownership, and; it limited the supply of available guns. Current estimates of the number of fully automatic weapons available to the public are somewhere around 180,000 units. This limitation caused the price of the guns (not including the taxes and procedural costs of ownership) to skyrocket.

The military or a police agency can purchase a new Heckler and Koch MP5 9mm sub-machine gun for somewhere south of $3,000 (well equipped). A citizen can buy the same thing for north of $30,000 before taxes. And, the citizen gets a reconditioned pre-1986 model. It’s like the government’s stupid “cash for clunkers” program that dried up the supply of used cars and forced more people into buying more expensive newer cars; except, here, the people are left with only a supply of outrageously overpriced used vehicles.

Now, many folks do not like the idea of any automatic weapons in the hands of the commoners. Liberals use “machine guns” as a rallying cry to describe just about any gun – from a Daisy BB rifle to a single-shot 12 gauge. Even people on the right are often opposed to the concept. I’ve been at several NRA functions and similar events where gun lovers would tell me, when prompted or on their own, that “no one needs a machine gun”.

Really? Then just how did the nation survive from the invention of the machine gun (call it Maxim in 1883) until 1986 without total calamity? It’s the same reason “assault rifles” pose no danger – criminals don’t use them. Criminals prefer handguns like Hinkley’s .22 plinker. Of the 8,124 murders committed in 2014 with firearms, only 248 were committed with any kind of rifle. In the same year 435 people were murdered by baseball bats and hammers while 660 were killed by punches and kicks. Automatic weapons appear nowhere in the statistics even though there are about 180,000 of them out there.

This is the way it’s always been. In years past and in a freer America anyone could purchase any type of weapon with no government interference at all. This included machine guns. Then, as now, there was no problem or epidemic associated with these dread devices. That’s because they are really only good for engaging large numbers of hostiles at once. Even combat soldiers rarely resort to fully automatic firing. In war machine guns are usually used in concentration against hardened positions, armor, or against massed enemy troops. Before 1898 and the Spanish-American War the American military had almost no machine guns at all. The Rough Riders had to rely on civilian-donated guns to attack San Juan Hill. That means for about 15 years machine guns were only in private hands – with no reported problems.

Well, we had it…. izquotes.com

Now, you might be thinking, “if machine guns are only useful in extreme circumstances in war, why bother having them?” The truth is most people would not own them even if they were completely unregulated. It’s the freedom, the option to have them that matters. Given that we have a government which raises taxes, increases the debt and burden on the people, stirs up terrorists, and imports aliens (including terrorists) – often while lying about it all – perhaps this is an option the people need.

Like them or not, these weapons are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment and by the Natural Law theory of self-preservation. These are part of the citizen gun rights in need of protection. Ronald Reagan didn’t do it regardless of what the Facebook conservatives think.

Wands and Guns: Fallout From BREXIT

25 Saturday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Wands and Guns: Fallout From BREXIT

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Fifty-two percent of the British people favored leaving the EU on Thursday. That leaves forty-eight percent on the losing end – and more than a few are vocalizing their dismay.

One of the “remain” losers left furious by the will of the people is J.K. Rowling of Harry Potter fame. Mrs. Rowling has earned over $1 Billion dollars from her popular series about adolescent wizards. I’ve never read any of the books though my daughter is a big fan, she attended a pre-release party last night for the next Potter tome. I generally don’t like or read fantasy beyond Tolkien though I am considering A Throne of Bones by Vox Day. Anywho…

Rowling lashed out at voters with the worst she could muster – calling them “a bunch of mini-Trumps”. I fail to see how a sovereign and independent England will affect her book sales. She is likely more concerned about her portfolio at present – British billionaires lost a combined $5 Billion on Friday. They bet big but wrong.

Some have seen the young wizard Potter as an opponent of gun control or, at least, wand control, due to a self-defense incident he encountered in one of the books. “Rowling thus appears to embrace the most extreme argument for an individual right to possess weapons- that those weapons may be required in defense against one’s own government.” Again, I have not read any of the books and know nothing about Rowling’s personal stance on such issues. If the above quote is accurate, then it is a wonderful thing, BREXIT views aside.

BREXIT has unleashed other pro-gun sentiments within the UK. Nigel Farage, naturally, is one:

Nigel Farage has called for firearm laws to be relaxed, calling the current ban on handguns “ludicrous”.

The Ukip leader criticised the “kneejerk” restrictions on handguns imposed after the 1996 Dunblane massacre in which Thomas Hamilton killed 16 schoolchildren and a teacher before shooting himself.

The laws were brought in by Sir John Major, the then Tory prime minister, and extended to a total ban by Tony Blair’s Labour government in 1997.

Asked about gun controls, Farage said: “I think proper gun licensing is something we’ve done in this country responsibly and well for a long time, and I think the kneejerk legislation that Blair brought in that meant that the British Olympic pistol team have to go to France to even practise was just crackers.

“If you criminalise handguns then only the criminals carry the guns. It’s really interesting that since Blair brought that piece of law in, gun crime doubled in the next five years in this country.”

If BREXIT does nothing more than weaken gun control, it is worth the effort. Farage is dead on with his assessment of crime rising in the absence of firearms – a universally documented experience. Britain and other EU countries have the kind of gun laws American liberals salivate over. Those countries also import a high number of non-Western types who, as a group, have a higher penchant for criminal activity than the natives. This is not a good combination. It echoes the thoughts of Scott Adams on Why Gun Control Can’t Work:

On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

…

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

Still, gun grabbers in America are hard at work to disarm the would-be victims of crime, personal or governmental. Hawaii is now the first state to place it’s registered gun owners into an FBI database for the monitoring of criminal activity – the first step towards confiscation. That’s the only reason for such a program. The kind of people who would register and submit to such a system are the types Farage and Adams describe – those who would defend themselves against criminals. Criminals don’t care and won’t comply – something about being a criminal.

Currently the FBI program “Rap Back”is only used to monitor people under criminal investigation, like Hillary Clinton, or those in sensitive positions of trust, like Hillary Clinton. Now, the innocent people in Hawaii who are not criminal suspects will be treated like they are. The grabbers would love to expand this program nationwide.

I say Hawaii should use BREXIT as a model and rap themselves back to being an independent island kingdom. Then, they could have all the gun control they can handle. They’ll experience an increase in violent crime but that’s their business. Leave the rest of us alone.

Dirty Harry. Google/Youtube.

My Name is I Pledge of Allegiance…

21 Tuesday Jun 2016

Posted by in News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

After jerking the people around with BS about not wanting to inflame hatred or inspire copycats (or whatever) the Department of Justice [SIC] and the FBI released the FULL, UNREDACTED transcript of Omar Mateen’s 911 call. Here’s the whole thing:

nimbus-image-1466508241864

That’s it. All of it. Thirteen lines and only six of them are Omar’s. There are more recorded conversations between Omar and the police – almost half an hour’s worth. Those transcripts and the recordings themselves are being held back. They will be ultimately released but, given the insane way this 30-second call was danced around, who knows if we will ever get an accurate and complete picture of the whole series? I have suspicions.

A little is known about the other calls between Omar and negotiators. Omar told them, told us, why he committed his hideous crime: because the U.S. is bombing his [Muslim] countries. I’m surprised they let that out. Wouldn’t have been better to blame the crimes on the easy availability of guns? Or on hating our freedoms? Or hating gays? Or income inequality? Something to better suit the narrative?

I, personally, wonder if Omar mentioned any government contacts in those recordings. Those mentions, if they happened, will certainly not be released – not for a long time, if ever. Time will tell. When the truth counts, the government doesn’t.

New Hampshire Nullification

20 Monday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

They are serious about “Live Free or Die”in the Granite State. A buddy of mine just bought a house there and I’m sure he will appreciate the following “leave me alone” news.

The New Hampshire House passed a bill that would make it the first state in the nation to require courts to inform juries of their right to vote not guilty when the verdict would produce an unjust result. This right, which all juries possess but may not be aware of, is called jury nullification. The bill is now awaiting approval in the Senate.

Yes, all juries in the United States possess the right and authority to nullify a law as it affects a particular defendant via a not guilty vote. Think of it as a vote of conscious. Here’s an example from a case that really happened. An underaged, teenage girl took some naughty selfies and sent them to a friend. Kids do stupid things like that. Governments do worse. The state where she lived (actually happened in multiple places) charged her with manufacturing and distributing child pornography – pictures of herself. The government even acknowledged her as both the suspect and the victim. This is near the absolute height of stupidity. A conviction would put such an innocent (if silly) girl on the sex offender registry, which is supposed to protect innocent (even silly) people from real predators. Supposed to. Really, it’s just another state scheme for power.

If such a stupid case ever made it to a jury, the jury could (regardless of the technicalities of the law) return a verdict of “not guilty” as a guilt verdict (even if correct under the law and by the facts) would be an injustice to the young girl – the victim also, remember.

The Free Thought story goes on:

Even if government has proved that someone is guilty under its law, a jury can let the person go free if it disagrees with the law and the punishment. This is one of the few ways in which citizens have power within the system to counter the irrational tendencies of centralized bureaucracy.

New Hampshire currently allows the defense “to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.” However, the House bill would have judges explain this right to juries which, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, makes it “more likely that a juror will consider this option.”

Judges would be required to make the following statement:

“Even if you find the state has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find that based upon the facts of this case, a guilty verdict will yield an unjust result, and you may find the defendant not guilty.”

…

If the New Hampshire bill makes it through the Senate and past the governor, it will be an historic moment in the American justice system. The current legal system is hostile to the idea of jury nullification, with judges threatening “secret juries” and police defying injunctions by removing activists.

However, in past times, jury nullification was viewed as a primary and necessary function of juries. As the Cato Institute points out:

“You can’t find references to “jury nullification” around the time of the American Revolution. That’s because it was considered to be part and parcel of what a jury trial was all about. If jurors thought the government was treating someone unjustly, they could acquit and restore that person’s liberty. Jury trials were celebrated–and explicit provisions were put into the Constitution so that the government could not take them away.”

Perhaps New Hampshire can remind the nation that we are not bound by the dictates of government, and we still have the power to protect our fellow citizens from state-sanctioned injustice.

Openly hostile is putting it mildly. A few states indirectly dance around the issue. For instance, the Georgia Constitution expressly says juries are the judges of the facts and the law. However, in reality in the Peach State – as in most jurisdictions, the judge declares himself the arbiter of what the law is and how the law applies to a given case. Judges give “charges” on the law to a jury at the conclusion of evidence and arguments. Some, most charges are “pattern” and are given preemptively by the judge right out of a handbook (complied by other judges in conference). The parties can make special suggestions. But, in no case, will it be permitted to tell the jury they can find a defendant not guilty because they disagree with the law.

Judges put people in jail for contempt and even jury tampering for even trying to get the word out about nullification. That’s hostility in an attempt to preserve power. As CATO points out, this is part of the traditional system for juries. Not just in America and England but all the way back to Athens and Rome. The violent prevention of nullification knowledge is just another part of the near-terminal decline of the trial by jury.

republicbroadcasting.org.

New Hampshire is often in the vanguard of freedom fighting in the U.S.A. Let’s hope the Senate and Governor feel as strongly about decent legal tradition as the House did.

…well…

I did a little follow-up research and discovered that the Senate did not follow through. Instead, on or around May 5th they let the Bill (HB 1270) die a procedural death. Very noble of them. Perhaps more than a few members will suffer a similar electoral fate come November. Anyway, there’s always next session. Live free or nullify.

Straw News: Breaking Gun Control Laws for More Gun Control Laws

19 Sunday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Straw News: Breaking Gun Control Laws for More Gun Control Laws

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

CBS News did a video story which, I assume, is similar to the pitiful New York Daily News piece on the horrors of the AR-15. CBS News’ Paula Reid bought an AR-15 at a gun store in Virginia to show how easy it is to buy a AR-15 in America. The intention, again as I imagine it, was to frighten the people into accepting gun control. There’s just one problem for CBS News – gun control.

It seems Ms. Reid may have run afoul of the federal government’s laws against “straw purchases” of firearms.

The gun store where a CBS News employee purchased a gun for a segment that aired Thursday on “CBS This Morning” has filed a report with the Virginia State Police and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives over concerns the purchase was unlawful.

The store, SpecDive Tactical in Alexandria, Virginia, said that when CBS News’ Paula Reid purchased the rifle she told the store’s general manager the gun was for her own use. However, when CBS reported on the story they revealed the gun was purchased for the story and transferred to a third party a few hours later. “The rifle we purchased was legally transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer and weapons instructor in Virginia, just hours after we bought it,” the report said.

The store said they contacted the ATF after viewing the report because they feared the misdirection used by the CBS reporter constituted a straw purchase, which would be a federal crime.

And, I warned about this three years ago. CBS should have heeded my warning. Then, I said:

A straw purchase is where a convicted felon or some other person prohibited by law from buying a gun (an ever-expanding group) pays a “normal” person to buy a gun and then give it to the prohibited person. The website above has all the horrible statistics about this practice. For the average person such a crime can carry severe penalties. [I then told how the ATF, which regulates the law, breaks it all the time with impunity.]

…

Imagine you’re one of the lucky Americans who still lives in a free state or city (I pray you are).  One evening after work you are walking home enjoying the night air.  You duck down a dark alley to take a shortcut.  Suddenly a scruffy, greasy, shiftless-looking bum of a politician in a trenchcoat comes slithering out of the shadows towards you.  He’s of the desperate variety from New York or D.C. or somewhere.  Instinctively, you assume a fighting stance and drop the safety on your pistol.  But, for once, you are baffled to discover this is a politician who wants to give you money rather than steal it from you.  He offers forth from beneath his smelly, stained coat a paper sack stuffed full of $100 bills.  With all the charm of a diseased wharf rat he tries to entice you to purchase some AR-15s on behalf of his storm-trooper corps.

Once the shock of the situation wears off you may, for a moment, be sorely tempted to take his money, shoot him, and say he was trying to mug you.  Don’t do it!  For one thing, leave evil to the evil.  And, for God’s sake, do not lie for this slimy degenerate!  Have nothing else to do with him!  Rodent-like beings such as our hypothetical politician are often under investigation for corruption by some larger criminal organization.  Loudly and clearly tell the creep you are not interested in breaking the law on his behalf.  Say it several times in different directions so the FBI’s cameras and microphones record definitively that you are not a participant in his conspiracy.  Then tell the rat where to go and continue on your way.  You may have to take a long shower and burn your clothes as a result of the encounter, but at least you won’t end up in prison like the dude in the above picture.

Don’t Lie For The Political Guy!

The shop owner in Virginia didn’t rely on the surveillance state but he did file complaints with the ATF and the VA state police. Hilarius.

I think CBS need not worry about the straw purchase law for two reasons. One, who runs the ATF right now? People sympathetic to terrorizing people into more gun control. Second, given that the AR was to be transferred to an FFL – likely not a “prohibited person”, there’s no technical violation.

However, there is a law concerning the ATF form CBS had to fill out to buy the AR. If they misrepresented information on that form they could be in trouble (but probably not). That’s part of what is wrong with our laws. They allow for selective prosecution – well, maybe that’s an enforcement issue. The main problem is that they are Unconstitutional. I see nowhere in the Old Parchment where Congress has the authority to regulate arms beyond regulating the Militia (that, they have ceded to the states).

All these lovely little laws, 18 U.S.C. § 921, et seq., ad nauseam, can be found in the ATF’s concise little (242-page) Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide (2005). It’s incomplete, yes, and there’s disagreement even within the ATF as to how some of the laws apply, but hey, that’s the government you voted for.

nimbus-image-1466386837558

If there’s a moral to this story, in general, it is to beware of laws, those spider’s webs of injustice. Specifically, here, beware of gun control laws when you’re trying to push more gun control laws.

Most Wolves Run in Packs

18 Saturday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Most Wolves Run in Packs

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Hussein Obama and the American government are saying over and over that Omar Marteen was a “lone wolf” and a home-grown menace. Their blind narrative helps deflect suspicion of a false flag, lessens scrutiny on their wars and mad immigration policies, and give them a shot (pun) at gun control for the masses. The narrative is dead wrong. It is a myth.

President Obama says don’t worry, the Orlando terrorist was just another “lone actor” operating in isolation, unconnected to any larger group of supporters. In fact, these so-called “lone wolves” are running in packs, and suggesting otherwise gives the public a false sense of security.

Yet Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson echoed Obama, saying Omar Mateen was “self-radicalized” without any religious, ideological or operational support from friends, family or others in the Muslim community.

“What we do know at this point is it appears this was a case of self-radicalization,” Johnson said. “He does not appear to have been part of any group.”

A more accurate picture is that Mateen, an Afghan-American, was part of a disturbingly large Muslim family of sympathizers, supporters and even co-conspirators.

This doesn’t even begin to cover the possibility of government conspirators or sympathizers but it is a great refutation of the simplistic stupidity coming from the Department of Homeland Theater and 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. They’re plan is to keep importing radicals. They all must be stopped.

Facts Vs. Panic: More Guns, Less Crime

18 Saturday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I’ve dedicated (sadly) most of my blogging week to the aftermath of the Battle of Orlando. Every time there is a mass shooting, terrorist or false flag, or not) the knives come out for our guns. By “our” I mean “us” – the good guys and gals, the law-abiding, decent, civilized people.

Here’s how the hysterical “thinking” about gun control goes:

Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Binghampton, Newtown, Pulse/Orlando – mass murder, mass murder, mass murder! The news reports usually start the same way: “IT has happened again!” For a good week after each mass shooting, until the fluff takes back over, all the talking heads can babble about is how dangerous America has become and how much of a gun problem we have. They especially concentrate on the “scary” looking guns like the 50+ year-old AR platform.

There is some truth in this mania. Guns are tools for killing (though they don’t act on their own – they are not inherently dangerous, in lawyer speak). There are more guns around than ever and Americans have for guns than anyone else in the history of the world. And, innocent people do die in large numbers in mass shootings – thus the “mass” label. Given all of this truth, why wouldn’t we benefit from more gun control?

Because, in spite of the shootings and the vast number of firearms out there, America is safer than ever. Actually, it’s not in spite of, but because of the guns we are safer.

If one puts aside the panicked view of the gun-grabbers and looks at the real, hard facts – the numbers – one sees a correlation between increased firearms ownership and lower crime rates. According to the government’s own figures, the U.S. homicide rate is the lower in over half a century. We are safer now than we have been since 1963. Here’s the chart:

ZeroHedge/FBI

The dramatic drop has come since around 1990. What’s doubly amazing and overlooked entirely by the grabbers is that since 1963 the U.S. population has essentially doubled as has the number of firearms in private hands. By there crazed “logic” you should be in a shooting right now. But you’re not. You are as safe right now, with all these guns, than you have been in modern history.

According to the CDC homicide doesn’t even rank in the top ten causes of death – it’s not even close. The leading causes are:

– Heart disease: 614,348
• Cancer: 591,699
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 147,101
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 136,053
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 133,103
• Alzheimer’s disease: 93,541
• Diabetes: 76,488
• Influenza and pneumonia: 55,227
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,146
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 42,773

CDC

Most of those leading causes are attributable to Americans’ horrible state of physical fitness. Even diabetes, cancer, the flu, and types of nephrosis can be eased through healthier lifestyles. Yes, Influenza means the flu – despite all those flu shots people get at the local drugstore. Eating less and exercising more will do more than any shot to boost the immune system and combat most pathogen-based ailments. Accidents and suicides (especially suicides) need attention. Paying attention will help prevent accidents. Caring more about each other will cut down on the suicides. But, all that, like healthy eating, requires personal action. That sounds like responsibility and work – neither of which are all that popular today. It’s so much easier to demand the government do something. Government needs to ban guns, for instance.

But we haven’t gotten to guns yet. Yes, guns factor into some of the accidents and suicides but, for mass shooting purposes, we’re talking about homicides here. Where do homicides fall in the rankings? One has to dig pretty deep.

Homicides don’t even make the top 15. They account for fewer deaths than medical malpractice or automobile deaths. You never hear a clamor to ban doctors or cars though. At its broadest measure, for the last year numbers were available – 2014 – there were about 16,000 homicides in America. Narrowly construing the numbers to account only for murder, the number drops even lower – 11,961. It drops into the range of Mexico’s 10,000-12,000 annual murders. Guns, all types, were used in 8,124 U.S. murders in 2014. The U.S. has about twice as many people as Mexico, giving Mexico a rate of murder twice that of the U.S.

Here’s a direct pictorial comparison of homicides in the U.S./Mexican border counties:

Center for Global Development.

Yes, the Mexican side is more dangerous. And, Mexico has the same “common sense” gun bans the left says will make America safer!

Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. They don’t obey guns laws (or laws against murder) in Mexico and they don’t obey the same laws in places like Orlando. More laws just means more opportunity for criminals to act criminal.

Most of the mass shootings in the U.S. and elsewhere happen in “gun-free” zones. The Pulse nightclub in Orlando was gun free per Florida’s prohibition on firearms in places that serve alcohol. The patrons obeyed, the shooter did not. Columbine, Virginia, and Newtown were school shootings – in gun-free schools. Even the Fort Hood shooting happened this way. Despite being a military installation Fort Hood is a no-go zone for carrying most guns – even by soldiers, excepting MPs. The terrorist shooter did not observe the law.

We are safer today because most places are not gun-free. More people carrying more guns means more shoots fired back at criminals. Criminals do not like prey that shoots back. It’s almost simple. People just need educating.

As Pew has reported in recent years, in fact, the American public is “unaware” that the homicide rate in the United States has fallen by 49 percent over the past twenty years. And while Pew doesn’t report on it, it’s also a safe bet that the public is also unaware that homicide rates have collapsed as total gun ownership in the United States has increased significantly.

Over a recent 20 year period, the number of new guns in the US that were either manufactured in the US or imported into the US increased 141 percent from 6.6 million new guns in 1994 to 16 million in 2013. That means a gross total of 132 million new guns were added into the US population over that time period.

…

Naturally, these facts are steadfastly ignored by people who can’t do basic arithmetic, like the constitutional law Professor David S. Cohen who wrote Monday at Rolling Stone that the second Amendment must be repealed because it is “a threat to liberty” and a “suicide pact.”

Cohen’s argument rests largely on the idea that gun violence it out of control and that guns are different now than they were in the 18th century. One cannot argue with the former part. But are guns significantly different today from what they were twenty years ago? Clearly, the answer to that is no, and given that homicide rates have plummeted since then, Cohen needs to explain why repealing the second Amendment is advisable when increases in gun ownership have coincided with declines in homicides.

Moreover, we must ask ourselves if the US was engaged in a “suicide pact” in the 1940s and 1950s when homicide rates where at historic lows, when the Second Amendment existed, and when gun control measures were very weak by modern standards.

  • ZeroHedge

The observation of these trends and numbers is nothing new. John Lott wrote More Guns, Less Crime in 1998. I suggest you buy a copy if you haven’t read it already. Lott also concentrated on how many lives guns save every year – more than a million. The lefties always overlook that statistic though some are openly hostile to it. Some do not want people defending themselves under any circumstances.

Read this book.

By the way, the dreaded AR-15, other “assault-style” rifles, and all other rifles accounted for 248 murders in 2014 – less than knives (1,567), hammers (435), and fists and feet (660). Where’ the hysteria for banning feet and hammers?

The same people who incite hysteria over guns and gun control are generally the same folks who want more government. Do not give in to their irrational fear-mongering. Arm yourself with the facts.

Gun Control: The Great Divide (Over Nothing)

17 Friday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Gun Control: The Great Divide (Over Nothing)

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mass shootings, terror attacks, and assassinations always prompt a heated national “discussion” on the matter of firearms and firearms control (the private ones, mind you). As with any important issue there are many competing ideas and angles though there are two predominant groups that get attention – pro-gun control and anti-gun control. While I am solidly in favor of the private ownership and use of firearms, my anarchist disposition gives me a unique, almost outside view.

As I see the current debate one side, the gun controllers, really want a complete ban on all private firearms though they present their ideology in terms of “responsible”, incremental measures designed only to ensure safety. The other side, the NRA side, nominally defends the Second Amendment while agreeing to many of the same incremental controls sought by the other side. I see both groups ultimately seeking to use the power of government to advance their own agendas and the agenda and existence of the government itself. They are both allied with the state. I have no use for any of them.

Some of the gun grabbers are blatant about their ultimate aim – Rolling Stone called for the repeal of the Second Amendment. Other grabbers pretend to agree that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms while insisting that those arms never be used for defensive purposes.

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights. In addition, one’s mental capacity is a major factor in deciding whether a man or woman has the right to have a firearm.

The author of this insane Huffington Post statement wants to alter, rather than abolish, the 2A in order to nullify it. The author takes into account only those relatively few crimes committed and lives lost to the illegal use of guns. Considered in totality, privately owned guns save far more lives every day and every year than they take. Then again, by this man’s standards, each such lawful defensive usage constitutes a deprivation of the original aggressor’s right.

The only thing I can think of to attempt to justify this kind of logic is that this fellow obviously worships the government as a god and regards laws as a religion. Like a Natural Law theorist, he seeks to conform all positive law to the designs of and the adoration of his god. He would happily place the primacy of the state over the lives of human beings. He is a statist’s statist. Some on the other side do a good job of refuting this nonsense:

We have a government here that is heedless of its obligation to protect our freedoms. We have a government that, in its lust to have us reliant upon it, has created areas in the U.S. where innocent folks living their lives in freedom are made defenseless prey to monsters—as vulnerable as fish in a barrel. And we have mass killings of defenseless innocents—over and over and over again.

How dumb are these politicians who want to remove the right to self-defense? There are thousands of crazies in the U.S. who are filled with hate—whether motivated by politics, self-loathing, religion, or fear. If they want to kill, they will find a way to do so. The only way to stop them is by superior firepower. Disarming their law-abiding victims not only violates the natural law and the Constitution but also is contrary to all reason.

All these mass killings have the same ending: The killer stops only when he is killed. But that requires someone else with a gun to be there. Shouldn’t that be sooner rather than later?

The NRA is the poster child of the pro-Second Amendment movement. They are vilified by the New York Times:

What makes the legislative inaction all the more maddening is that there is general public agreement in favor of attempts like these to reduce the bloodshed. An overwhelming majority of Americans — including gun owners and even N.R.A. members — support universal background checks, while strong majorities want to block sales to suspected terrorists and ban high-capacity magazines.

And yet the N.R.A. rejects these steps, even though it says that terrorists shouldn’t be able to get guns. Instead, it clings to the absurd fantasy that a heavily-armed populace is the best way to keep Americans safe. That failed in Orlando, where an armed security guard was on the scene but could not stop the slaughter.

There is no truth to any of this dribble from the fallen Gray Lady. The worst of the lies is that the NRA is complicit with terrorism and that it blocks those “common sense” gun control measures. It does not. The NRA seems more than happy with the bulk of the existing gun control measure – all of them unconstitutional. While the NRA backs lawsuits to overturn various local measures, they roundly accept the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act. Both of these laws treat all Americans like criminals and bar the easy or economical possession of the type of weapons actually protected by the Second Amendment.

The NRA also agrees with the opposition regarding the expansion of watch lists – to exclude terrorists from the gun pool of course, and no more… Their own words on the matter:

Fairfax, Va.— The executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement regarding terror watchlists:

We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.

This statement places the NRA (and Donald Trump by association) in the same position regarding gun control as Senate Democrats and the Obama administration – though the Executive seems a little at odds with itself as to how the proposed list measures would be (will be) implemented. Proposals to expand the “no-fly” list to cover firearms purchases has even drawn the ire of the ACLU as the list procedures (as they exists and as proposed) violate fundamental due process.

The NRA, Donald Trump, Hussein Obama, and their friends are all wrong. There is no due process at all concerning these controls. The new Senate proposal, S.551, mentions due process protection and then negates it in the same paragraph.

The government really has no dog in this fight as it is the primary creator and enabler of terrorism today. If not for the unceasing meddling and misadventure of the state there wouldn’t be any terrorists in our nation to worry about and no need for any lists nor for gun control.

A former CIA agent admits the government and the elites are the problem:

A former CIA counterterrorism agent has said it is time to talk about why terrorism really happens, and to address the “misguided narratives” that lead to oversimplification of the situation and continued war.

Amaryllis Fox worked on counterterrorism and intelligence in the CIA’s clandestine service for ten years. She told AJ+ that the beliefs surrounding terrorism are “stories manufactured by a really small number of people on both sides, who amass a great deal of power and wealth by convincing the rest of use to keep killing each other.”

Fox says the current conversation about Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in the US “is more oversimplified than ever.”

“Ask most Americans whether ISIS poses an existential threat to this country and they’ll say yes. That’s where the conversation stops,” she said.

Her observation echo what H.L. Mencken said about the government’s imaginary hobgoblins a century ago. Hitler concurred that terrorism (real or manufactured) is the best way to keep people panicked and, therefore, controlled. Gun control is about people control. Terrorism, war, and government in general are about creating and maintaining power for a few. It’s that simple. That’s what they’re working towards.

And, they are working hard. After Washington stirs up an already volatile region in begins to import the angered locals into America. Some really are hapless refugees. Others are terrorists – as the CIA admits. Oddly … or not, many of the recent notable terror suspects in America have had some ties to the CIA. This should raise serious questions and red flags about the state’s motives and how those motives negatively affect the rest of us – but it doesn’t. The bulk of the discussion put forward by either side of the political divide or by the government itself is: what else can the government do?

What they are doing is just more of the same. The people keep seeing their freedoms chipped away. The elites keep amassing power. The useless laws grow. The attacks, foreign and domestic, continue. They unvetted “refugees” keep pouring in – over 400 from Syria alone – since the Battle of Orlando this past weekend.

The horror and the comedy of the divide is how pointless it all is. Until the ridiculous, blasphemous, and hellish cult of government is dealt with, none of it matters.

Google.