Author: Kevin

The Philosophy CANNOT Be Wrong! Do it AGAIN, Only HARDER!

KevinLeave a comment

Ravenwood links to this news report under the heading of “UK still doesn’t get it“

Blunkett orders overhaul of outdated firearm laws

The Government will attempt to tackle Britain’s gun culture with plans to be unveiled this week for an overhaul of outdated firearms laws.

Really? Outdated?

Let’s see:

1920 saw the introduction of registration of all handguns and rifles.

1936 saw the banning of all privately possessed fully-auto weapons and short-barreled shotguns.

As of 1946, “self-defense” was no longer an acceptable reason for issuance of a firearm license.

In 1953 the Prevention of Crime Act made carrying any “offensive weapon” in public a crime.

The Criminal Justice Act 1967 added shotguns to the registry. And jury trials no longer required a unanimous decision. (If they still did, Tony Martin, the farmer who shot two burglars – in the back – would never have gone to jail. His was a 10-2 decision.)

In 1982 reloaders and blackpowder shooters were made subject to warrantless inspection by police to “ensure safe storage.” Yup, the cops can come into the house without a warrant and inspect the premises.

In 1987 most semi-auto and pump-action shotguns and all rifles of these types were banned and (the legally-owned ones) confiscated.

In 1997 all handguns were banned and (the legally-owned ones) confiscated.

In 2004 a certain type of airgun has been banned. Possession of one without a license will now bring up to a 5-year sentence.

But England’s gun laws are outdated and in need of an overhaul.

Right.

David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, will publish a consultation document which is expected to lead to tougher restrictions on the sale and manufacture of replica firearms as well as new age limits on gun ownership, especially for airguns, starter pistols and shotguns.

What, no new restrictions on the few rifles still in circulation?

The consultation follows lobbying by the police and anti-gun campaigners who say Britain’s gun laws are confused, out of date and in desperate need of reform.

Meaning “It’s still legal for some citizens to own projectile weaponry! THIS MUST END!“

Of particular concern are replica firearms which are popular with gun collectors and can be bought legally but are being converted by criminals into lethal weapons to fire live ammunition.

Next up: Zip guns!

Economics 101: Supply will always rise to meet demand.

Police say that the greatest increase in gun crime is linked to a rise in the use of imitation weapons and converted airguns. In London alone, at least 70 per cent of weapons now seized by officers are converted replicas.

Only because they’re the easiest to get – right now.

Last November, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Gun Crime published a report calling for a complete ban on the import, sale and manufacture of replica firearms.

Remove the word “replica” from that sentence, replace it with “anything even resembling a” and you’d have the gist of the entire gun control movement.

There has also been a rise in attacks on people involving airguns. Last week, a firefighter was shot in the face by an airgun pellet as he drove a 24-ton fire truck along a street in Dumfries, Scotland.

And the airgun is obviously at fault, right? If the hooligan hadn’t had the gun, he wouldn’t have been tempted in the first place. It’s those evil brain-altering mindwaves that guns give off that cause these acts, after all.

Ministers have already brought in some measures to curb gun crime in Britain.

You don’t say! You mean, like that list I gave above that didn’t reduce gun crime a damned bit?

Last month, new anti-social behaviour laws came into effect which included a new imprisonable offence of carrying a replica gun in public.

I love that. Anti-social. What a lovely expression.

The legal age for owning an airgun has also been raised from 14 to 17 and it is now an offence to buy a weapon for someone under 17. But the ban on underage ownership only applies to Brocock-style airguns, which operate using a gas cartridge, and not to all types of airguns.

“Which must be amended, because we cannot have our youth corrupted by actually learning to shoot!”

A Home Office source confirmed that the consultation document would cover all aspects of gun-control legislation. “We will be seeking people’s views on all aspects of firearm legislation. We are looking at the whole issue, although replica and imitation firearms are of particular concern,” the source added.

Left unstated, however, is that people who legally own guns – that tiny minority – need not give their views. Their opinions are not needed or wanted.

Anti-gun groups have welcomed the planned reforms, which are the first major overhaul of firearms laws since 1997, when the Government introduced a ban on handguns after 16 schoolchildren and their teacher were killed at Dunblane primary school in Scotland.

I bet they have. Especially since the conclusion of the inquiry into the Dunblane massacre specifically recommended against the handgun ban that resulted. Note, please, that all the laws enumerated above did not prevent Thomas Hamilton from legally having the handguns he used at Dunblane.

Once again, it’s the gun that is at fault. Remove the guns and the problem will vanish, goes the philosophy.

The Gun Control Network, which campaigns for tighter arms control, said Britain lagged behind other countries because it did not have a universal age limit on people buying guns. “In our increasingly violent world we need to … tighten up on our gun laws,” said Gill Marshall-Andrews, chairwoman of the GCN. “The world-wide pressures are for … an increase in global gun violence.”

“Tighten up?” They’re so tight now you squeek when you walk. And now the push – lead by the UN – is for global gun confiscation control.

And the U.S. remains the evil poster-boy for it. Here we still give more than mere lip-service to the idea of a right to arms.

Barbarians.

But any restrictions on gun ownership are expected to face fierce opposition from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which represents gun enthusiasts.

Oh, right. They’ve been so effective in the past.

The cognitive dissonance here is really incredible to me. They’ve tried and tried and tried to reduce violent crime – specifically violent crime involving firearms, for over eighty years – and failed miserably. One definintion of “insanity” is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. But the philosophy cannot be wrong! Do it again ONLY HARDER!

KevinLeave a comment

People You Won’t See on 60 Minutes

Blackfive has one of the finest examples of the merits of blogging available.

Someone You Should Know

Go spend some time there getting to know the people (and puppies) that the media won’t introduce you to. It’s well worth your time.

KevinLeave a comment

More on the Torricelling of Kerry

In today’s Tucson Citizen was an interesting op-ed by Hartford Courant writer Jim Shea. I couldn’t find it on-line, so I’ve transcribed it here. It’s written as a letter to Democrats by Howard Beale – the character from the movie Network. I don’t know Mr. Shea’s political leanings. I scanned a few of his columns and can detect from that quick overview nothing patently obvious, so I present to you now, interspersed with my commentary, his latest column:

Democrats find Kerry is Dull and Void

By Jim Shea May 10, 2004

Dear Fellow Kerry Supporter:

We may have made a horrible mistake.

We may have backed the wrong guy.

Granted, it was difficult to stick with Howard after it became apparent he wasn’t wrapped all that tight, but perhaps we were a bit hasty in jumping on the Kerry bandwagon.

I gather from this that Shea isn’t a member of the moonbat hordes, so this bodes well – but limits the overall impact of the piece.

So far, the Kerry campaign, has all the forward momentum of a Dukakis tank ride.

I rest my case on the moonbat question.

Since sewing up the nomination, the two most memorable things John Kerry has done are go on vacation and have surgery.

A week ago, he went for a bike ride in Boston – and fell off. You tie that mishap together with the shoulder injury he sustained – riding a bus – and Kerry’s just a staircase header away from wrenching the Slapstick in Chief title away from Gerald Ford.

A pithy and accurate observation. This man is no average Democrat.

Besides the walking-and-chewing-gum problem, Kerry is also turning out to be quite the gasbag. He’s one of those people who if you say nice night to him, he wants to explain the cosmos.

I mean, two minutes of listening to Kerry these days and you’re longing for the excitement of a Joe Lieberman foreign-policy speech.

And he has a sense of humor. I’m beginning to smell Republican…

The thing is, we Democrats didn’t endorse Kerry because of his intellect; we got behind him because we thought he would go nose to nose with President Bush.

Now we’re not so sure. Since securing the nomination, Kerry has been whacked around more than Larry, Curly and Moe put together.

What happened to the “I’m a fighter” thing? What happened to “bring it on?”

It’s so bad that Kerry has even let the Republicans get away with criticizing his war record.

It was left to House minority leader Nancy Pelosi to point out that while Kerry was getting three purple hearts, Bush was getting a dental exam.

It was left to Senator Frank Lautenberg to deep-fry Vice President Dick Cheney and the chickenhawks, saying: “They talk tough … but when it was their turn to serve, they were AWOL from courage.”

What Kerry is failing to recognize is that everybody is already Toung Fu fighting and their ads are fast as lightning. And if he doesn’t “bring it on” now, it’s going to be hasta la vista, baby.

There are certainly ample targets of opportunity: Iraq, jobs, taxes, prescription drugs, the possibility Bush may be married to his national security adviser!

Say WHAT?

The bottom line, fellow Democrats, is this. If Kerry doesn’t show some spunk soon, we should start thinking about nominating someone at the convention who will.

Dean – with the right medication – remains a viable option

Sincerely,

Howard Beale

(Still mad as hell.)

I’ve said it before. Kerry is NOT going to be the nominee.

It might not be Hillary, but it ain’t going to be Kerry.

The writing is on the wall. The Democrat cry will be “Anybody but Bush.”

Except Kerry.

But What If Your Loyalty is to the Constitution?

KevinLeave a comment

Steven Den Beste (soon to be married and fathering little Den Bestes if Connie du Toit has anything to say about it) has a piece on “What prevents another Civil War?”

Steven has two answers: The first, sort of flippantly, the U.S. Army. The second, the fact that we as citizens no longer see our loyalty as being primarily toward our State but toward our Nation (unless you’re a fringe leftist, in which case your loyalties are towards some nebulous “world government” currently represented by the corrupt UN.)

There’s more to it than that, though. With the advent of easy high-speed travel, the State borders have no real meaning to us beyond what the tax rates look like, and the climate and scenery. State borders aren’t just unimportant, they are largely meaningless (unless you’re a Texan) to us in terms of loyalty.

But what happens when a large (but minority) portion of the population becomes convinced that the Federal government has abandonded the founding legal structure it supposedly “protects and defends?”

Professor Randy Barnett’s recent book Restoring the Lost Constitution makes the point that, for all intents and purposes the Constitution is, if not dead, on final life support. Justice Antonin Scalia protests that the Supreme Court no longer feels bound to follow the Constitution – “five hands is all it takes,” he says. Senator Zell Miller protests that ours is a Republic no longer.

Our Constitutionally enumerated and protected individual rights are under constant legal assault under the aegis of the War on Crime, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror, and all three branches of the government are complicit. The media – the unacknowledged Fourth Branch – largely is too.

What prevents another Civil War?

Thomas Jefferson predicted it long, long ago in his letter to William Smith concerning Shay’s Rebellion of 1787:

And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

And Jefferson was right, as we have seen. Jefferson continued, though:

We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

Seems that Jefferson counciled a bit of revolution from time to time.

Libertarian pundit Claire Wolfe wrote a while back, “America’s at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” Claire had it wrong. The time to shoot the bastards is early on. Now it’s too late.

What prevents another Civil War here isn’t the Army or the fact that we hold a higher loyalty to our Nation than to our State of residence, it’s ignorance and apathy.

EDIT: Another link from Steven in less than a week! I must be doing something right.

Anyway, this piece is merely an update of an older one, Pressing the “Reset” Button from last December, which I also suggest you read. Professor Barnett’s book, Scalia’s quote, and Zell Miller’s complaint just add to my convictions on the topic. The first part of the 21st Century promises to be an ugly one.

KevinLeave a comment

Need Some New Wall Art?

Cancer poster draws lots of fire

Critics say fundraising message lost

Guelph chief says nothing suggestive or provocative

A controversial fundraising poster featuring eight provocatively clad, gun-slinging female police officers is drawing fire.

The poster, with the caption “Girls with Guns Target Breast Cancer,” is a fundraiser for breast cancer research but that message is lost, detractors say, in images of sexy, heavily armed officers.

“There they are sporting guns as if it’s a fun thing to do,” said Dawn Reynolds, a family therapist in Guelph who is offended by the poster.

Well, it IS – that’s something that gun-phobes don’t get and never have.

But wait! There’s better!

“Guns are what kill women. They are not a good thing. I regret hugely that this was done, especially for such a worthy cause as breast cancer.”

No, guns are sometimes used to kill women, but they are not the cause. And guns are an inanimate object, neither intrinsically good or bad.

But this is the mentality we’ve got to combat, daily.

Two officers in the Guelph police sex and child abuse unit, Constables Cate Welsh and Lisa Lakatos, are selling the posters so they can take part in the Princess Margaret Hospital’s Weekend to End Breast Cancer, a 60-kilometre walk through Toronto this fall. Each participant must raise a $2,000 entry fee.

With approval from the police services board, they persuaded six other female officers to pose with them in the photo. Posters went on sale last week and despite some backlash, sales have been brisk, said Guelph police Chief Rob Davis.

“I didn’t see anything that was suggestive of anything sexual or provocative,” said Davis. “Police officers are targeting breast cancer. That’s very admirable.”

Sue Richards, a Guelph entrepreneur who launched the Breast of Canada calendar in 2001 to raise awareness of breast cancer, said she was taken aback when she first saw it.

“It’s a very unusual image. It’s not obvious these are police officers for starters, and they are not showing breasts — they’re showing guns,” she said.

“I do see a sexual tone to it. To me it is provocative. Personally, I would have preferred to see them in police uniforms. Then the guns are in context.”

Why? Should only police be allowed to have guns, then?

Dianna Schreuer, president of the network, was not upset when she saw the police poster.

“This is what they are,” said Schreuer, referring to the gun-toting officers. “If they were holding bananas, that would be silly.

“To me it implies a fight and that’s exactly what breast cancer survivors do — we fight it.”

Matt Greenfield, spokesperson for the Princess Margaret Weekend to End Breast Cancer event, said his organization will not take a position on the poster.

“We don’t want to polarize ourselves,” Greenfield said. “We are proud of everyone who has made the decision to do something bold in the fight against breast cancer by registering for the event.”

He added, however, that the title, Girls with Guns Target Breast Cancer, “did not originate in our organization.”

Christine Koserski, spokesperson for the Canadian Cancer Society, wouldn’t comment except to say, “These will certainly get a lot of attention. It will probably be a successful fundraiser. Obviously they feel strongly about breast cancer.”

Koserski said the disease kills about 5,200 Canadian women annually.

According to this page, firearms are not exactly what’s “killing women” in Canada. Here’s the chart from 1992. The proportions haven’t changed much, I don’t believe:

Sly Castaldi, acting executive director of Guelph-Wellington Women in Crisis, said she was confused by the poster.

On one hand, she said, they are powerful professional women supporting a really important cause. On the other, “that’s not how they dress for work. I think the evening wear adds to the confusion of the poster.”

“Plus, using the word `girls’ takes it down a notch or two. These are women, not girls,” Castaldi said.

Still, Castaldi is pleased about the debate the poster has sparked.

“Twenty years ago we were the only agency speaking out about domestic violence and women’s rights. Now people are making those connections on their own.

“It’s good when the community can do critical thinking on issues like this.”

Sometimes critical thinking – especially when it comes to the topics of feminism and guns – is a very rare commodity.

Anyway, here’s a thumbnail of the poster:

The number to call to order yours is:

(519) 824-1212

The price is a paltry $10 Canadian (what is that, $7.25 American?)

Hat tip to Gunner of No Quarters.

KevinLeave a comment

More on Airguns

This time from THIS side of the pond.

That ever fruitful well of material, Jointogether.org, reports that the recent Daisy Settlement Shows Political Influence of Gun Industry. Let us fisk:

Before the leadership of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) changed political parties late last year, the federal agency had filed a lawsuit against Daisy Manufacturing Co., a maker of air-powered BB guns, after complaints of misfirings.

“Complaints of misfirings? No, the complaint wasn’t that the guns misfired but that they actually fired when their users thought they were empty.

The fact that their users deliberately pumped up the rifles, intentionally cocked the rifles, intentionally pointed the rifles at another person and then intentionally pulled the trigger seems immaterial.

THE SHOOTER THOUGHT IT WAS EMPTY!

That’s all that matters.

To the lawyers. And the anti-gun groups.

But now, instead of a recall, the federal agency has agreed to a settlement with the company that only involves promoting safe BB-gun usage, the Wall Street Journal reported April 29.

Well, GEE. YA THINK?!?!?

RULE #1: Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.

RULE #2: Never put your finger on the trigger until you’re ready to fire

AND ALWAYS TREAT A GUN AS IF IT WERE LOADED.

Follow those three rules, nobody gets hurt.

But noooooo. It must be the eeeevil gun manufacturer at fault.

In 2001, the CPSC filed a lawsuit against Daisy Manufacturing, claiming that its PowerLine Models 856 and 880 were responsible for at least 15 deaths and 171 injuries, the majority involving children. Testimony by a Daisy Manufacturing engineer confirmed that BBs could get temporarily jammed in the corners of the magazine, making it appear that the gun is empty.

The guns were responsible, not the person on the trigger.

The cult of no accountability is obviously still strong.

Obviously mommy and daddy didn’t teach gun safety. Why aren’t they responsible? It’s not like it’s difficult

Treat it as though it is always loaded, no problem.

It’s stunning how many “accidental shootings” come from unloaded guns, isn’t it?

At the time, Ann Brown, who was appointed by President Clinton in 1993, served as chairman of the agency. In 2001, President Bush (Boo! Hiss!) replaced Brown with Republican Harold Stratton Jr. Prior to the appointment, the National Rifle Association (NRA) had e-mailed a “special alert” to members warning that the government’s recall could be used in future lawsuit against all gun makers.

And were they wrong?

Under Stratton’s leadership, the agency dropped the lawsuit late last year. (The heartless BASTARD!) Instead, the government accepted an offer from Daisy Manufacturing for a $1.5 million publicity and labeling campaign to promote safer use of its products.

(If it weren’t for that meddling NRA!!!)

Administrative Law Judge William Moran strongly criticized the offer, calling it “empty.” But Stratton said the lawsuit was “burdensome and inefficient” and would have led to “years of costly litigation.”

And it wouldn’t??

Understand this: The CPSC wanted Daisy to recall 7.5 million rifles because 15 people (Children™) had been killed and some 171 people (Children™) had been injured because of the deliberate misuse of their product.

But it’s the “influence of the (cue scary music)GUN INDUSTRY” that foiled this legal assault humanitarian act.

Oh, and of course the (cue music) EEEEEVIL Republicans who WANT CHILDREN™ TO DIE!

I certainly hope they were responsible. It tells me that my dollars an my vote still count for something.

For further reading, let me recommend this piece, The ‘Daisy Airgun Case’—not CPSC’s finest hour. Money quote:

(CPSC Commissioner Mary Gall) stated:

“In my nearly twelve years of service with this Commission, and indeed, in my over thirty years of government service, I have never seen a more outrageous miscarriage of justice and abuse of the processes of public policy than this case … Some of the deposition testimony given by Commission employees show clearly that the previous Chairman ordered that the case be removed from the ordinary processes of Commission staff review because she did not like the conclusions that the career staff were reaching about the hazards associated with the Model 856 and 880 air rifles.

“… The record shows that this is a case that should not have been brought in the first place, and which has now been settled on terms substantially similar to those that Daisy proposed over fourteen months ago. Students of government who wish to see how the regulatory enforcement process can be used to harass a small company to no good purpose need look no further than this action for a splendid case study …”

KevinLeave a comment

A Parliament of Whores

GREAT book by P.J. O’Rourke, from which comes his classic quote:

Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us.

Or Henry Louis Mencken’s take on it that I’ve posted here before:

A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker.

James Rummel has a bit different take on it. They’re all whores, and we’re stuck with them, because that’s how our political system works. Our only choice is to look at the “partners” they are and have been sleeping with, and the ones they want to sleep with. Because we’ll be sleeping with them too.

He says it much more eloquently than that, but quoting it here would not be fair to the quality of the piece.

Read the whole thing.