Month: March 2004

And Another

KevinLeave a comment

A Call (Or Recall) To Arms

Stan Hall is the Director of the Victim Witness Program for the Gwinnett County District Attorney’s Office. He is also the host of the Gwinnett County Communication Network’s television show “Behind the Badge.”

I have never met a conservative who did not support the constitutional rights that we, as Americans, have to bear arms. In fact, most conservatives will tell you very quickly that the right to bear arms is one of the foundations of our Constitution and it is just as important as any of our guaranteed rights.

This right has proved very beneficial on many documented cases when our forefathers were called to defend themselves from everything from tyranny to carpetbaggers and many other threats that were thwarted by fast moving projectiles from the muzzle of a gun.

Not just our forefathers. We’re still doing it today.

Our country’s history is steeped deeply in the fact that every American has the right to protect themselves, their family, and their homes. This defense has been most often performed by the use of a firearm. I am one of those conservatives that truly believe everything that I have alluded to thus far. If you are waiting for the “however” part; well here it comes!

Personally, I find myself in a position whereby I eschew anything that has to do with the weakening of the rights concerning firearm possession. On the other hand, I have been involved professionally as a law enforcement person who is sworn to do everything possible to protect life and property. An interesting dilemma; don’t you think? Is it possible to stand by the principles of your political beliefs and also believe in something that will be beneficial in your sworn duty at the same time? My Libertarian friends would answer that question with a very loud “no.” My liberal friends (I do actually have some) would answer just as quickly with, “of course.” Libertarians would like to see all waiting periods repealed, as well as, to do away with anything that prohibits an individual to carry a concealed firearm. Liberals think that we should extend the waiting period and that, most often; no one ever needs to carry a concealed weapon.

Hold on, here. What you’re saying is that as a “law enforcement person” you see beneficial aspects in weakening the rights concerning firearm possession? Well, then, I’m right with your Libertarian friends. What you’re advocating is statism – “big brother knows better.” That’s in direct opposition to what you state you believe politically. But to continue…

Personally, I find myself somewhere in the middle of all of them. But professionally, I have come to a conclusion that will probably make segments of both groups, not to mention my conservative friends upset. I cannot imagine a reason where there would be a need for a citizen to possess an assault type weapon.

You can’t? The Founders could. Legal scholars can. Sitting judges can. I feel for your inability to reason, but why should I allow you to affect my rights?

These weapons are not even issued to police officers with the exception of specialized units.

That is incorrect, Mr. Hall. AR-15 rifles are common equipment in many patrol cars, having replaced the ubiquitous riot shotgun in many jurisdictions. Perhaps not in Georgia, but in many municipalities. There is, for example, a minor brouhaha going on in the Calexico, California police department over whether their officers – all of them – should be allowed “assault rifles” that are denied to the general public. Calexico is hardly a major metropolis. New Jersey has an “assault weapon” exemption for police officers – one that recently bit officer Ken Moose, Jr. on the ass. If you’re a law-enforcement officer, you should be aware of this fact.

But, now we have armed robberies, home invasions, and assaults on police officers during the commission of a crime where assault weapons are commonplace.

Another lie. Blatant, unrepentant, out and out lie. The first one I can let go as a mere oversight. This one I cannot.

Long guns – all of them – are used in only about 13% of firearm-involved crime, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and if homicide is any indicator, about half those long-gun crimes are committed with shotguns. Violent crime involving firearms has been declining since 1991, not increasing. Hell, Diane Feinstein claims the “assault weapons ban” caused “assault weapon” usage to decline. You don’t get it both ways, Mr. Hall. The use of “assault weapons” in crime is a rarity – not “commonplace.”

It seems absurd that criminals are showing up better armed than police officers whose job it is to protect the public.

Why? It’s always been that way. It wasn’t that long ago that cops carried “service revolvers” in .38 Special, and people protested their “upgunning” to .357 Magnums. Now they carry “high-capacity” semi-auto pistols and “assault rifles” in their cruisers.

It is no longer uncommon for police officers to find themselves in a scenario where their body armor will not even stop the ammunition that is being fired on them.

If the are being shot at with a rifle, no standard soft vest is going to stop the round. But here you’re – quite intentionally – raising the specter (in the meaning of “phantom”) of the “cop-killer bullet” fantasy. Another deliberate mendacity?

Quite frankly, when someone buys an assault weapon, it should be assumed that it will be used for some type of an assault. Many gun enthusiasts will dispute this by countering that they maybe (sic) for assaults fro (sic) some, for them the weapons are for competitive shooting, collector series, and all of the other reasons that may be legitimate. Despite these legitimate reasons, the majority of these weapons are being used to kill people in a violent act. They are causing law enforcement agencies all over this country to upgrade their arsenals simply to be competitive with the bad guys.

Willful, blatant, inexcuseable LIE

Our good buddies at the Violence Policy Center have provided an accounting of firearms manufactured in the U.S. According to them, Armalite built 32,504 “assault rifles” between 1995 and 2000. Bushmaster built 150,589 during the same period. Colt built 185,693. DPMS: 18,211. Knight’s Manufacturing: 2,611. Olympic Arms: 24,045. Those are just manufacturers of AR-15 clones. That’s 413,653 AR-15 “assault rifles” built and sold after the 1994 “ban.” Note that this does not include manufacturing during the years 2001 to the present. This also does not include AK-47’s, H&K G3 clones, FN-FAL’s, or any other so-called “assault weapons.” If “the majority of these weapons are being used to kill people in a violent act” then at a minimum there would have been 206,827 homicides since 1994 attributable to AR-15 clones alone. According to the CDC there were 105,142 homicides by firearm for the period 1994-2001. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, handguns are used in about 80% of homicides by firearm.

You’re lying to us, Mr. Hall, deliberately and badly. Perhaps you have an agenda?

This problem has led to many law enforcement executives leading the cause to prevent the ownership of assault weapons from being sold across the counter.

I just illustrated that “this problem” doesn’t exist. It’s been blown to hysterical proportions by lies such as this.

It is not a position that they take lightly, but has become a position that they are forced to support based on the past and potential tragedies that have and will be caused by these weapons in the hands of thugs. It may go against constitutional merit, but stands tall in the common sense department.

“Forced to support”? Even you admit it “may go against constitutional merit.”

So how about a constitutional amendment? But you never hear that option bandied about. No, they’d rather strip us of a right because it’s too costly – but I just illustrated that the cost they proclaim is false.

So why is it they want to destroy the right to arms through subterfuge?

Every person in this country should have the right to bear arms. (For now.) Every hunter in this country should have the right to bear arms; as many as they like. (For now.) Every person in this country should have the right to use these weapons in an act of self-defense or protection of their properties.

Tell that to Ronald Dixon. Tell that to Hale DeMar. Tell that to Melvin B. Spaulding. Tell it to Lester Campbell.

I would never argue these premises. (Yet) However, in the atmosphere that we find ourselves in, where one horrific act of violence is topped by the next, we have to do something. Policies that would keep assault type weapons off of the streets and out of the hands of those intent on creating a chaotic (sic) is something that I feel necessary to support. Maybe this is a case where the personal and protective rights of the many have to override the rights of the few. It is not a perfect science or formula but what in this world is anymore?

William Pitt once said, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” Here is but another example.

Are you afraid enough now to put your shackels on?

Or would you rather buy an “assault weapon” and tell them “Molon Labe!”?

Another Long List of Lies, Untruths, and Deliberate Mendacities

KevinLeave a comment

Here we go again.

Talking sense on gun laws

You know with a title like this, the only “sense” will be “non.”

By Dan K. Thomasson

Well, here we are again, in the throes of another election-year battle over how to keep guns out of the hands of all the modern Jesse Jameses while not trampling on the rights of the intrepid Elmer Fudds. Don’t expect Congress to do anything exceptionally courageous.

Well, they tried to pass the lawsuit exemption, but wussed out and allowed the bill to be contaminated, so I’ll give Mr. Thomasson a pass on that comment, but being one of the Elmer Fudds he refers to (those are my rights he’s talking about, after all) I’m offended by his belittling. He obviously doesn’t care about my feelings. I should sue for pain and suffering.

The vast majority of gun owners in the United States are law-abiding citizens who use their weapons in pursuit of honest activities like hunting or skeet shooting or as an inducement for sleeping easier knowing their trusty six-shooter is nearby. They are no threat to anyone except perhaps themselves, especially during hunting season, when the nation’s forests resound with the reports of thousands of rifles all seemingly firing at the same deer.

Largely true, but off by a couple orders of magnitude. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, there are an estimated 19 million active hunters in the U.S. The state of Washington alone issued 13,139 deer permits in 2002, 7,107 elk permits. In West Virginia, over 250,000 deer were taken in 2002. Just deer.

Not thousands of rifles, Mr. Thomasson. Not tens of thousands. Millions. Deer, elk, bear, cougar, bobcat, coyote, prarie dog, wild pig, and more. Trying to belittle us “Elmer Fudds” as being just a few thousand isn’t going to fly here.

Many of these citizens spend hours each weekend at one of the hundreds of gun shows staged for their benefits across the nation. They have every right to do so without being hassled by anti-gun forces, including law-enforcement officers at all levels, who increasingly see these events as a main source of the murder and mayhem that plagues our urban society.

And with his next breath:

While gun shows provide legitimate enterprise and entertainment for thousands of good citizens, they also have become a major marketplace for the trafficking in illegal weapons by criminals who can easily avoid the deterrent of a background check through a loophole in the federal law.

Wait just a damned minute here. Even the Bureau of Justice Statistics admits that gun shows are the source of less than 2% of guns acquired by criminals. Criminals can “easily avoid the deterrent of a background check” by stealing a gun, trading drugs for a gun, having a friend or relative buy a gun for them, or any number of different ways. Going to a gun show would be less convenient for most of these people.

But it gets better!

Very simply, dealers in used weapons are exempt from the statute that requires licensed dealers selling new weapons at these shows to put their customers through a record search. So why should a person intent on using a gun for illegitimate purposes buy from an honest, licensed dealer either in his shop or at one of these shows when the guy selling a used semi-automatic handgun from the next booth has no such restrictions?

Very simply, that’s a blatant lie.

Dealers in used weapons are required to be licensed just like dealers in new weapons are. If you’re a dealer, you’re making a living off of selling firearms for a profit. If you attempt to do so, it’s the BATF’s job to find you, arrest you, and see you’re put in jail. If, however, you’re a poor schmuck like me who simply wants to sell a gun out of your personal collection, that doesn’t require a license. If I want to sell everything in my collection, that doesn’t require a license. But if I try that three times a month, I should be expecting a visit from my friendly Federal agents. And licensed dealers are required to run the background check. I, on the other hand, am legally prohibited from running a background check. I’m not allowed to determine if the guy who wants to buy my .357 snubbie is a felon or not.

That’s the crux of the problem that has made these weekly events the second-largest source of weapons for criminal activity.

Blatant lie #2. Notice there is no attribution for this lie. I’ve given you a link to the Bureau of Justice Statistics that states that less than 2% of criminals get their guns from gun shows – yet Mr. Thomasson claims baldly that gun shows are the #2 source of crime guns. Why shouldn’t you believe him? He’s published in the Washington Times!

The first still is licensed dealers who either ignore the law or unwittingly sell to a straw buyer who can pass the background check.

Note again, no attribution for his claim that bad gun dealers and straw purchases are the #1 source for crime guns. He’s just making this stuff up. The inference is that a criminal buys a gun or has one purchased for him, then goes and commits a crime with it immediately. Undoubtedly that happens occasionally, but it’s the exception, not the rule. The California Department of Justice produced a report on the efficacy of implementing a “ballistic fingerprinting” database on all new handguns sold in California. In that report is this statement:

In the Crime Gun Trace Reports 2000 from the ATF, average TTC (Time to Crime – the time between the selling of a firearm and actually committing a crime with it.) are mentioned per age of the offender and type of firearm [X, p.30-40]. The following results are obtained for semiautomatic pistols (4.5 years), revolvers (12.3 years), rifles (7.0 years), shotguns (7.6 years) and other firearms (7.1 years). The nationwide average TTC for all firearms for all ages of offenders is 6.1 years.

The average time between a gun being sold and it being used in a crime is over six years. But unscrupulous gun dealers and “straw purchases” are the number one source of crime guns?

But he doesn’t stop there:

Congress clearly should deal with the first by closing the gun-show loophole and with the other by vastly improving its prosecution of federal gun-law offenders.

First, there is no “gun show loophole.” I just illustrated that fact. Second, I heartily agree that violators of federal gun laws aren’t being prosecuted enough. I can’t figure out, for example, how Brian Borgelt, the FFL holder who owned Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma Washington managed to hold on to his license for so long after “losing” over 200 firearms. What does it take?

Apparently a high-profile crime committed with one of the “lost” firearms.

Let’s get one thing straight here: I’m an advocate for the right to arms, but I believe that there is some appropriate regulation of arms sales. I also think the BATF has proven to be incompetent to do that job, and passing more gun laws – especially ones that address phantom issues – isn’t going to make them more effective.

At the same time, lawmakers ultimately should extend the ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons, which expires in September, and reject a gun-lobby effort to immunize the nation’s manufacturers of firearms from the legal responsibility for the rising toll of gun crimes – an act law-enforcement officials oppose as relieving the industry of any obligations to make their weapons safer.

Another blatant lie. The bill is dead, but it didn’t relieve the industry of “any obligations to make their weapons safer.” It didn’t address “making weapons safer.” This is bait-and-switch. The immunity bill was designed to protect gun manufacturers and dealers from frivolous lawsuits brought when they did nothing illegal, and a gun one made and the other sold was used criminally. For instance, in the DC Sniper shootings, Bull’s Eye and Bushmaster – the manufacturer of the rifle – are being sued. If it can be proven that Bull’s Eye sold the rifle illegally, then they would not have been protected by the bill, but how the hell can Bushmaster be held liable for criminal misuse of their product?

And, just out of curiosity, how do you make a device designed to hurl a small metal projectile at high velocity “safe?”

More:

While all three prongs of the attack on firearm misuse are important, tougher enforcement of existing laws probably outweighs the others because of the message it would send to casual violators. Federal prosecutors for years have been looking the other way when it comes to gun-law violations. Only 2 percent of federal gun crimes are ever prosecuted, according to the Americans for Gun Safety organization.

For instance, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives cited the Washington state dealer who sold the sniper rifle that killed so many in and around the District with six violations of federal law and recommended prosecution. But so far no charge has been filed, a disappointing contradiction to recent Justice Department pledges to go after gun violators.

Supporters of stronger enforcement also had hoped the Bush administration would give ATF the prosecutorial support when it was moved to the Justice Department. Somehow, that backing has been slow in emerging and anti-gun forces blame it on the fact Attorney General John Ashcroft has been a strong pro-gun advocate.

This predates Ashcroft by quite a bit. Actually, I view it as a two-edged sword. The BATF has proven to be a grand-standing out of control organization that Michigan Democratic Representative John Dingell called “jack booted thugs” in House testimony over BATF abuses which are many and egregious. Moving the Bureau to the Justice Department wasn’t, I think, an improvement.

The ban on assault weapons is regarded as essential in ensuring that the nation’s law officers aren’t outgunned, as they have been in a number of highly publicized instances recently. The gun-safety group, citing Justice Department figures, says that during the 10 years the ban has been in effect the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has dropped by 65.8 percent.

Yet other organizations bitch and complain that the law didn’t stop the manufacture of “assault weapons,” that more “assault weapons” are being sold today than in 1994, and that one in five officers killed with firearms were killed with “assault weapons.” Who do you believe?

Accomplishing anything in the direction of a more responsible national firearms policy during this election year will be difficult, if not impossible, with most politicians from both major parties terrified of the repercussions of supporting such action.

Note that “more responsible national firearms policy” means, well, more laws making it harder for people to acquire and keep firearms. That’s the only way these people measure the effectiveness of “gun control.” No mention of the fact that without any major “gun control” laws passed before or after the 1994 so-called “ban” that violent crime of all types was on the decline, that passage of the AWB didn’t accelerate or retard that decline, and that the level of violent crime now is lower than it’s been since the 1960’s. Yet we need more gun control laws.

The well-heeled National Rifle Association, despite the fact its membership is largely made up of those law-abiding citizens who use guns wisely, has never been supportive of responsible steps to protect the rights of those who don’t hunt, shoot skeet or targets or collect antiques or sleep with a gun under their pillows.

And what rights would those be?

The NRA (more or less) defends one right: the right to arms. And it protects that right even for those who don’t exercise it. The NRA leaves the defense of the other rights to other organizations.

KevinLeave a comment

Den Beste: Drug-resistant Tuberculosis Bacteria to Kerry-as-the-Tofu-Candidate

And he makes it all work in his fascinating, inimitable way, in Partial Cures.

At the end Steven writes:

I’m not completely convinced Kerry stands for anything, except that he’s standing for election.

He stands in favor of gun control. He flew back from campaigning to cast a vote on that topic when he’s missed the overwhelming majority of votes in the House Senate for quite a while. If nothing else did it for me, that was enough to tell me that I never want that man’s hands on the levers of power.

I’m Conflicted on This One

KevinLeave a comment

County may end appeal against ex-cop

The Somerset County(N.J.) Prosecutor’s Office may withdraw its appeal of a decision to drop assault weapons charges against a former Far Hills police officer.

Prosecutor Wayne J. Forrest confirmed Friday he was considering a request from the state Attorney General’s Office to drop the fight against a judge’s ruling that Ken Moose Jr. legally possessed an assault weapon.

“We’re considering this as an option for resolution,” Forrest said.

Moose was charged with possession of an assault weapon in October 2002, two months after he was suspended from the Far Hills Police Department because of questions about his mental fitness for duty. As part of his suspension, he turned over all his weapons — including a World War II-era M-1 carbine assault rifle, which is listed in New Jersey’s assault weapons ban.

Moose and his attorney argued he was allowed to possess the gun under a loophole in the law that allowed municipal or county police officers to have them “at all times while in the state of New Jersey.”

Here is where I’m conflicted. The cops get “special dispensation” in these laws instead of being treated as civilians like the rest of us. And they are civilians like the rest of us, not being under the rules of military justice. I’ve repeated it again and again, but Robert Peel’s Nine Principles spell this out:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Yet in New Jersey and everywhere else they have special rights and privileges denied to those of us who don’t wear a badge and draw a government paycheck.

But this guy followed the rules. When suspended, he turned in the weapon that was denied to him as a regular joe like the rest of us, only to be prosecuted for having it in the first place.

But Matthew Murphy, assistant Somerset County prosecutor, argued in court papers the Legislature never intended for the law to apply to the private possession of those weapons by police officers in their home. He said to rule differently would create a “secret society” of police officers with otherwise illegal weapons that aren’t registered or regulated.

Seems the Prosecutor and I see things similarly, but in this case he’s completely wrong – the law did indeed apply to the private possession of these weapons. That’s what people like me object to. When Silveira v. Lockyer was first argued before the 9th Circus Circuit one argument was that the Roberti-Roos “Assault Weapon Ban” did exactly the same thing – made police officers a “secret society” allowed to have these supposed horrible weapons of destruction without registration or regulation. While the Court (unsurprisingly) upheld the majority of the law – they agreed and struck the police exemption. New Jersey hasn’t had a similar challenge, and the courts there have (in this case) decided that officer Moose was within the law:

But Superior Court Judge Edward M. Coleman disagreed, saying the law clearly exempted municipal police officers. He welcomed review of his ruling by both the appeals court and the Legislature, which this year will consider whether to close the loophole.

There’s always a “next step” in gun control legislation. Another “loophole” to be filled, another restriction to be “tightened.”

Always.

“This confirms that the indictment never should have been brought, and that the appeal would not have been successful if the judges had been allowed to make a decision,” Moose’s attorney Brian Cige said Friday.

Cige said he hoped dropping the appeal would help Moose return to law enforcement.

Moose said he would like nothing better than to find another job as a police officer. But he remained angry at the entire process.

“What do I do to rebuild my life once politics took it away?” he asked.

Welcome to the world of us mere “civilians,” Mr. Moose. Ask that question of Joseph Pelleteri who lost his livelihood and his right to arms over a Marlin Model 60 .22 caliber rifle he had never even shot.

You’ll excuse me if my sympathy for your particular plight is small to non-existant.

KevinLeave a comment

Could Somebody PLEASE Explain this to Me?

Our good, caring, well-intentioned friends over at Jointogether.org parrot a Violence Policy Center report that Illinois has More Assault Weapon Manufacturers than Any Other State:

Although the federal assault weapons ban was passed in 1994, the gun industry has willfully circumvented federal law and created through a process dubbed “sporterization” a new generation of assault weapons and re-named them “post-ban” or “after-ban” assault weapons. The gun industry has evaded the intent of Congress to get military style semi- automatic assault weapons off the streets by making minor cosmetic changes and producing “clones” and “knock-off” versions to continue to sell for profit at the expense of public safety.

Or, by following the letter of the law, the gun manufacturers are making “safe” semi-auto weapons without the “dangerous features” that make “assault weapons” so deadly. Now all they make are soft, warm, and fuzzy “sport utility rifles.” Continuing:

Since 1994, six Illinois gunmakers — ArmaLite, Inc., D.S. Arms, Inc., Eagle Arms, Les Baer Custom, Inc., Rock River Arms, Inc., and Springfield Armory, Inc. — have manufactured post-ban assault weapons. Today, all, except apparently for Springfield Armory, Inc., manufacture post-ban semi-automatic assault weapons.

Only because they couldn’t figure out how to make the pretty wood-stocked M1A out to be an evil “black rifle.” It doesn’t have a pistol grip.

Ok, somebody please explain to me how and why there are six firearms manufacturers in a state as blatantly anti-gun as Illinois? Especially when there are so many gun-friendly states (with better weather)? Illinois certainly isn’t a tax haven.

The rest of the blurb is the typical VPC garbage, especially the part trying to make the AWB extension defeat out as some sort of a victory for gun control.

KevinLeave a comment

More Cluelessness Masquerading as Valid Opinion

Here’s a little editorial by another of the perennially clueless, apparently written before the bill was killed, printed in a University newspaper (but of course! The bastions of academia are so well educated on the topic of firearms and firearm law.)

Bang, Clinton 1994 assault weapons ban

By W. John Tritt, Opinions Editor, The Keystone

The Senate renewed the historic 1994 ban on assault rifles by a thin margin of 52 for to 47 against. In another vote of 53 to 46 the bill past through denying gun shows the ability to sell firearms without doing any form of back round checks. Both bills are a continued step in the right direction concerning gun laws in the United States.

OK, first off, they didn’t renew anything. They passed amendments to a bill under consideration. But this guy is writing like it’s holy writ.

Former President Clinton’s ban on assault weapons made the sale and manufacture of 19 different firearms illegal. Those apposed to the ban, notably the powerful gun lobby group, the National Rifle Association, say they see no difference between those semi-automatic guns banned and the over 670 semi-automatic firearms that are protected by law for hunting and recreation. It seems ironic that an organization that promotes education and safe use of guns cannot see that the banned firearms are different in many areas that can make them significantly more dangerous that a common hunting rifle. Guns banned by the law all contain multiple assault weapons features, it is not just the fact that they simply semi-automatic.

Weapons included on the banned list include Tec DC9, AK-47s of any style, revolving cylinder shotguns and AR-15s. The weapons are designed for easy, rapid, and widespread fire. It’s simple; they are made to kill as many people as quickly and easily as possible. Some of the different components of banned weapons make them significantly more lethal. Those components include, pistol grips on rifles and shotguns, facilitating shooting from the waist, stalks(??) that are foldable for concealment, and threaded barrels designed for silencers. Does anyone else feel a little uncomfortable with the thought of a rack of silencers and other tools of human assignation being sold next to ping-pong tables in Wal-Mart sporting goods?

Jesus Christ. Did the AWB ban silencers? Did it even address silencers? No, it did not. Were silencers ever sold through Wal-Mart? No they were not. Now, how would a silencer make a gun “significantly more lethal”?

Anybody?

Firing from the hip makes a gun “significantly more lethal”? How? That seems to be a Violence Policy Center talking point, but no one has ever convinced me that unaimed fire is somehow more effective than aimed fire, so what is it about the evil pistol grip that makes the gun “significantly more lethal”? And what the hell is a “stalk,” folding or otherwise? Did he mean “stock”?? If so, how does a folding stock make any gun “significantly more lethal”? Hell, you can’t even use a folding stock as a bludgeon like you can the butt of fixed-stock rifles. I’m surprised he didn’t mention the bayonet lug clause. We had so many mass bayonettings before the ban.

Now we get to the meat of this meathead’s argument:

There’s an argument favored by many wishing for the repeal ban, “The criminals have them anyway.” It’s true that it is impossible to get every single gun out of the hands of criminals. Although, that isn’t giving any credit for our legal system or our police. How it works is as follows, a cop searches a house on a warrant for drugs, no drugs are found, but a banned assault weapon is sitting under the suspect’s bed. Bingo. They’re going to jail and the gun is off the street. If these weapons wouldn’t be banned, the officer would be on his way with the Uzi simply returned to the owner. This scenario is played out daily across America. Criminals do posses these weapons, but those weapons are being rounded up by brave police everyday and the “bad guys” are going to jail.

And he believes this. Possession is not banned. If the cops do a search and there are no drugs, then finding an AK-47 is not a violation of the AWB. If the possessor is ineligible to have any firearm, he can be arrested if they find so much as a .22 derringer, and they can take that gun “off the street.” (I’d like to live on the street these people talk about. I’d love to find an Uzi just laying there “on the street.”) Get this straight: If the guy has no record he gets to keep the Uzi. The AWB prohibits manufacture, not possession.

When it comes to the concern of personal safety, conservative pundit G. Gordon Liddy suggests the use of a revolver, not a semi-automatic military rifle. If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night and you fear for your physical safety, a revolver will clearly be able to stop an intruder. The difference is important; if you were to have some kind of hair trigger firearm you could easily unload an entire clip of ammunition, the mistakes could be horrific.

And again, we get the confusion between semi-automatic and fully automatic. Gordo is quite the fan of autoloaders. But then Gordo is a convicted felon who isn’t allowed to possess a firearm. All the guns in his house belong to his wife.

However, anyone who’s shot a revolver can tell you that you’ve mentally committed to shooting because of how much pressure you must apply. Liddy noted this benefit as a measure of safety against mistakes in the home. Logical.

The United States should keep the assault weapons ban on the books.

Not using the arguments this nimrod just put forth. Just one more example of the ignorant idiocy of the gun fearing.

KevinLeave a comment

A Little Less Blatant

The Atlanta Urinal Constipation Journal Constitution in an (unsigned, of course) editorial waxes poetic over the evil NRA:

Pry Congress from cold, deadly clutch of the NRA

Those who say that negotiating with the gun lobby is like making a deal with the devil owe the archfiend an apology.

WELL! Let’s get off on the right foot. Nothing could be as evil as an organization with 4 million dues-paying members, right?

For months, the National Rifle Association has lobbied hard for passage of a bill that would make the gun industry immune to civil lawsuits. The measure — the NRA’s top legislative priority — had already passed the House, and this week was close to passage in the Senate as well, until NRA lobbyists stepped in at the last minute and ordered that the bill be killed.

Why the sudden change of heart? Because Democrats and moderate Republicans had succeeded in attaching two quite sensible, reasonable gun-safety measures to the bill. One amendment extended the 1994 ban on military-style assault weapons that’s set to expire in September; the other closed a loophole that permitted people to buy firearms at gun shows without having to undergo instant background checks.

As opposed to those quite sensible, reasonable Democrat legislators that just want ‘the children’ to be safe, right? There’s only one right way to see this, and it isn’t the NRA’s.

Officially, President Bush backs both measures, although he has done nothing to support them.

Which is what being a politician is all about, I believe. Talk alot, say nothing.

According to a recent survey by the Consumer Federation of America, the assault rifle ban is also supported by a majority of the nation’s gun owners.

Hell, that might even be true. There are, after all, tens of millions of gun owners and only a few million of us own evil black rifles. The Ducks Unlimited crowd doesn’t have much love for us. But the Second Amendment isn’t about duck hunting. It’s not my fault that most gun owners aren’t all that conversant on enumerated Constitutional rights.

The assault weapons ban is particularly important to law enforcement officers, who had pleaded with Congress to renew the ban and also close the gun show loophole.

Um, not quite. It’s particularly important to politically connected law enforcement leadership groups. The rank and file generally know better.

According to the Justice Department, the proportion of banned assault weapons traced to crimes had dropped by 65.8 percent since 1995, most likely as a result of that law.

Really? After the Violence Policy Center claimed that one in five police officers killed with a gun were killed with “assault weapons”? I think we’ve got our messages crossed. The AWB was toothless, so it’s got to be strengthened, but if it can’t be strengthened it must be renewed. It didn’t stop the sale of “assault weapons,” but it kept assault weapons out of the hands of criminals. The gun-control crowd reminds me of John Kerry – they argue both sides of the case, but still want you to vote for them.

Nonetheless, U.S. Sen. Zell Miller was among six Democrats who voted against renewing the ban on military-style assault weapons. “First of all, the term ‘assault’ was dreamed up to give the weapons included a bad name. Who could be for an ‘assault weapon’? The definition is really ‘semi-automatic,’ and about 15 percent of all firearms owned in the U.S. meet the definition,” said Miller.

Simplistic, but relatively accurate, given what they actually want to ban.

Had the gun-immunity bill passed, it would have voided hundreds of pending lawsuits, including those filed by more than 30 cities devastated by gun violence and by dozens of shooting victims and their families. For example, it would have slammed shut the courthouse door to the families of the victims of Beltway snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo. The families are suing Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply, the Washington state gun shop where Malvo either bought or stole the semi-automatic rifle used to slaughter 10 people. Between 2000 and 2002, the gun shop somehow “lost” 230 other guns from its inventory.

Bull’s Eye tried to have the case dismissed, but the courts ruled that the store had some responsibility to ensure its firearms didn’t fall into the hands of criminals. The judge relied on the established legal principle that a person who carelessly furnishes a criminal an open opportunity to commit a crime can be held liable.

Excuse me, but they completely override the critical point here: These people are also suing BUSHMASTER, the manufacturer of the rifle. OK, if you can prove that the gun was sold under the table, then the previous owner of Bull’s Eye might have some liability, but Bushmaster? Note that the AJS doesn’t mention this. It doesn’t fit their agenda. They might have to explain this themselves. Nor does the AJC mention that most of the lawsuits brought by the cities have been thrown out, appealed, and thrown out again on the basis that they are groundless attempts to legislate via the courts when the legislators won’t do what the (minority) gun control groups want. That, too, doesn’t fit their agenda.

And why doesn’t anybody bring up the idea of suing the BATF for allowing Bull’s Eye to keep running after they “lost” over 200 firearms from their inventory over several years. Doesn’t that strike you as odd? Isn’t it the job of the BATF to keep track of things like this? Don’t they bear some responsibility here?

The NRA and its supporters want to give the gun industry an immunity to being sued that no other American industry enjoys.

They certainly do, as the gun industry is suffering an unjust attack through the courts that no other American industry is subject to.

As they have demonstrated, they want that immunity only on their terms, with no compromise and no tolerance for any effort that might reduce the toll in lost and broken lives attributed to guns. And while that absolutist approach is troubling, the docile willingness of so many in Congress to accommodate that extremism is more troubling still.

You don’t like “zero tolerance” when it affects you, do you? We’re done “compromising.” We’ve learned that it means “we only give up half of what you want to take from us.”

Welcome to the new world. We’ve had enough. We’re fighting back.

They Never EVER Stop

KevinLeave a comment

And they have absolutely no shame in lying through their teeth.

Today comes this little op-ed from Newsday:

New round in gun issue

Paul Vitello

Pick up the Yellow Pages and go to “Guns.” Call the first gun store you find. Ask what you’ll need to purchase a semi-automatic military-style sniper rifle like the one used by John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo to kill 10 people during their 2002 Washington, D.C.-area murder spree.

“You have a driver’s license?” said the man at the Long Island store I called yesterday to ask about buying the assault rifle known as the Bushmaster XM-15.

“Sure,” I said, “but what else do I need to bring?”

I was thinking paperwork – perhaps to verify my clean criminal record, my relative sanity, the lack of any documented connections between myself and al-Qaida.

“Nothing else,” said the man. “Just money.”

Whether you find this surprising or not depends on how closely you have followed the gun-control debate of the past 10 years. In the midst of a series of mass murders in workplaces, Congress in 1994 imposed a 10-year ban on the sale of military style weapons under production at that time.

OK so far, except the last part. The “10 year ban” specifically addressed 19 models and features. It did not ban “military style weapons.” Here’s where Mr. Vitello goes off the rails:

The Bushmaster, a version of the military’s standard AK-47 rifle, was the kind of gun they had in mind: highly accurate, extremely deadly from almost a half-mile away.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry here. First, Bushmaster manufactures AR-15 rifles, which are semi-auto versions of the military M-16, not the Soviet AK-47. Second, while Bushmaster does make some “highly accurate” versions, most “military style” rifles are not known for their tack-driving accuracy, and I have yet to see any AK-47 that I’d call “accurate.” Third, “almost a half-mile”??? A half mile is 880 yards. Maximum useful range of an accurized target AR-15 is 600 meters using specially loaded ammunition. Realistically it’s a 300 meter rifle. But why let mere facts get in the way of a good fear-mongering?

But with a few modifications – a change of barrel size, a different bolt – the maker was able to legalize its product and keep selling it, despite the ban.

Say what? “Change of barrel size, a different bolt”? No collapsable stock, no bayonet lug, no flash hider. PER THE LETTER OF THE LAW.

Richard Dyke, chairman of Bushmaster Firearms, the maker of this gun, did so well in fact that he had money left over to contribute to political campaigns. He has long been a big Republican fund-raiser in Maine, his home state. And in the 2000 presidential campaign, he was appointed as George W. Bush’s state finance director.

(Knowing this much helps to understand why, when Malvo and Muhammad were killing people from 500 yards during that summer and fall, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush saw the shootings not as a gun problem so much as a problem of “values.”)

Muhammed and Malvo didn’t take a single shot over 150 yards as I understand it. And had they used the Remington 700 rifle they acquired first, they would actually have been able to hit people from 500 yards out, not just in Mr. Vitello’s fevered imagination.

Now, the so-called assault weapons ban – weak and evadable as it is – is due to expire. This will make it possible for gunmakers to return their products to their full monty of killing power: more bullets per clip, more thrust per squeeze. The National Rifle Association has made the end of the ban one of its top priorities.

What, exactly, does “more bullets per clip, more thrust per squeeze” mean? The number of rounds per magazine hasn’t changed – my “pre-ban” 30-rounders fit my “post-ban” AR-15 perfectly well, and my “post-ban” AR-15 shoots one round “per squeeze” just like a “pre-ban” does. Again, why let facts dilute a good scare?

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-Mineola), who is known among NRA-backers as that woman from Long Island who just won’t shut up – just because her husband was killed and her son was wounded by a madman in 1993 with a legally purchased gun, she blames the NRA – has been working the hallways of Congress this week in an effort to bring to a vote a bill that would make the temporary ban permanent. Her bill would also tighten some of the restrictions on fire power. “The majority of people don’t even know it’s expiring,” she said.

“Tighten some of the restrictions?” This is the first piece of understatement in this entire philippic. By the same token a guillotine would be “just a bit extreme” for curing headaches. “Most people” don’t know it’s expiring because it hasn’t had any effect on anything.

Her opponents include not only Bushmaster’s maker and Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), the majority leader of the House, but the formidable lobbying apparatus of the NRA, which flexed its muscle Tuesday when it pulled its support from a Senate bill that would have attached McCarthy’s ban to another measure.

The other measure, shamelessly named the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, would have protected the gun industry from lawsuits filed by shooting victims or their families. Several such suits have been brought already by families of the 10 D.C.-area sniper victims.

The NRA was so opposed to McCarthy’s weapons ban, it was willing to scuttle the Lawful Commerce bill for now, and wait for another shot.

“The president himself says there are terrorist cells at work in this country,” she said. “Do we want these people to be able to walk into any gun store?”

Non sequitur alert! How would extending the “assault weapon ban” prevent “these people” from walking “into any gun store”? Another example of the complete logical disconnect exhibited by gun banners.

Bush, during his 2000 presidential campaign, said he would support extending the assault weapons ban. But he hasn’t lifted a finger to help bring it to a vote in the House or the Senate.

So, to review just this much: A weak ban on assault weapons is passed in 1994, despite which assault weapons sales flourish.

If you want to be truthful, not despite, but because of.

Bush says he will support the ban’s extension, but doesn’t seem to really mean it. Members of the Republican-controlled House and Senate keep the extension from coming up for a vote; in an election year, no one wants it on record that he or she voted for every American’s right to shoot people’s heads off from 500 yards.

As Marie Antoinette or someone similar once said, let them eat values.

Actually, if I want to shoot someone’s head off from 500 yards, my “assault rifle” or any military-style semi-auto is going to be about my last choice. I’d use my 1914 vintage 1896 Swedish Mauser bolt-action rifle that I’ve configured for steel silhouette shooting.

Or I’d get a Remington 700 PS like Muhammed and Malvo originally were going to use.

The fact of the matter is, only a few safe congresscritters want to be on record as voting for further infringement of the right to arms. Most of them have discovered that voting against the right to arms makes re-election a chancy thing, and that violates the First Rule of Public Service: KEEP GETTING ELECTED.

People like Mr. Vitello were the reason I got active in the fight over the right to arms.

I got very tired of seeing the public blatantly lied to with essentially no way to rebut the liars.

Mr. Vitello, you’re a liar. A willful, blatant, rabble-rousing preacher of fear. You should be ashamed of yourself, but of course you aren’t. You wrap yourself in a mantle of “good intentions,” and deceive yourself that lying in a “good cause” is justified. It isn’t. You are yet another example of the falsity of University of Toronto associate professor of philosophy Benjamin Hellie’s statement:

But left- and right-wing sources are not symmetrical. The goal of the right wing is to perpetuate and worsen a system in which a small number of people control obscene quantities of wealth and power at the expense of the vast majority, whereas the goal of the left wing is to distribute wealth and power more broadly. For short, the goal of the right wing is perpetuating and increasing injustice, whereas the goal of the left wing is increasing justice.

People do not like injustice. The knowledge that injustice is being done to others offends their sense of morality; the knowledge that injustice is being done to them makes them angry and resentful. Both these emotions contribute to a desire to use the political system in order to counter injustice. So it is very helpful for the right wing to achieve its goal if the existence of injustice, and the unjust effects of the policies it endorses, can be concealed.

Providing this concealment is the role of right-wing political writers. Thus, a priori, given that injustice exists and that right-wing policies are unjust, you might expect the ample use of lies, misdirection, and sophistry from these guys. (In fact, my intimate knowledge with right-wing political writing provides ample evidence that what you might expect is exactly what you get.)

By contrast, the role of left-wing political writers is to cause people to believe that there is injustice, and that right-wing policies make it worse. Given, once again, that both these points are true, all that left wing political writers need to do is report the truth.

(Via Francis Porretto)

Polemicists such as Mr. Vitello cannot report “truth.” It isn’t frightening enough. They must lie to achieve their ends. They must mislead, obfuscate, twist, mangle, spindle and mutilate the truth, because otherwise “the people” won’t fear enough to be lead to the safety the Anointed have engineered for them.

Fuck you, Mr. Vitello.

KevinLeave a comment

Hmm…. Looks Like I Need a New Image Server

My old one won’t let me link anymore, apparently. Bummer.

Anybody know of a free image server that allows links?