Thank You.
At 10:24 this evening, a visitor from rr.com became my 40,000th hit, as recorded by Sitemeter, in just over six months of blogging.
Hell, I’m impressed if no one else is.
Author: Kevin
It’s Small of Me, I Know…
But I can’t wait to listen to the Democrats – especially the Deep Space Nine – froth at the mouth about this:
Bush Makes Surprise Visit to Troops in Baghdad
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Turkey with the commander in chief was a surprise Thanksgiving treat for American troops in Baghdad Thursday.
President Bush flew in under the cover of darkness to dine with U.S. forces at a Baghdad International Airport mess hall. It was the first trip ever by an American president to Iraq — a mission tense with concern about his safety.
With the president out of sight, L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. civilian administrator, told the soldiers it was time to read the president’s Thanksgiving proclamation and that it was a task for the most senior official present.
“Is there anybody back there more senior than us?” he asked. That was the cue for Bush, who promptly stepped forward from behind a curtain, setting off pandemonium among the troops.
“I was just looking for a warm meal somewhere,” Bush joked to some 600 soldiers from the 1st Armored Division and the 82nd Airborne Division, who were stunned by the appearance and applauded wildly while giving Bush a standing ovation.
“Thanks for inviting me. I can’t think of finer folks to have Thanksgiving dinner with than you all.”
“We thank you for your service, we’re proud of you, and America stands solidly behind you,” Bush said. And he urged the people of Iraq to “seize the moment and rebuild your great country based on human dignity and freedom.”
Soldiers at the dinner spoke enthusiastically about Bush.
“He’s got to win in ’04. No one else can prosecute this war like he can,” said Army Capt. John Morrison from Butler County, Pa. Said PFC1 Kyle Crittenden of Humboldt County, Calif.: “I’m proud to serve in his Army.”
I imagine that Hillary is a bit peeved about being upstaged.
And they keep calling Bush an idiot.
Blogroll Addition
I’ve added Francis W. Porretto’s Curmudgeon’s Corner to my blogroll. Somehow, Francis manages to crank out an excellent essay on a daily basis, and since I’ve started reading him every day, I thought my six readers might also enjoy his work. Keep it up, Francis.
A Reminder: Please, Don’t Drink and Drive
There are worse things than accidentally killing someone on a holiday weekend. And make sure any teenagers in your house take a good, long look, too.
(Via Feces Flinging Monkey)
Happy Thanksgiving!
Sorry about the lack of posting (and thanks to everybody who linked to the last couple of posts) but I’ve been extremely busy with work (which pays the bills) and haven’t had time. That’s unfortunate, because there’s been a lot I’ve wanted to comment on, but oh well.
I have the next four days off, like most of you, so hopefully I’ll get a few posts in before Monday. Thank you for your patronage.
New Jersey Considers This to be an Assault Weapon
That’s a Marlin Model 60.
It’s a .22 caliber rimfire semi-auto.
It has a fixed tubular magazine.
It sells for in the neighborhood of $100.
That magazine holds 17 .22 Long Rifle cartridges. Or at least older models used to.
And if you possess one in New Jersey, it can get you five years in the slammer on a felony charge.
Commenting on “Two Rounds = “Assault Weapon” below, reader Pete linked to a heartwarming New Jersey Superior Court decision regarding the case of New Jersey v. Pelleteri (broken link updated 1/16/14). I’d never heard of this, even though it occurred in 1996 and I was really getting into the issue of gun rights starting in 1995. Here’s the basis of the case:
On May 30, 1990, our Legislature proscribed the “knowing” possession of “assault firearms.” N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5f. Persons legally in possession of such firearms prior to the effective date of the statute could retain these weapons by obtaining the appropriate registration. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-12. Included in the definition of “assault firearm” is “[a] semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding [fifteen] rounds.” N.J.S.R 2C:39-1w(4). Defendant was convicted of “knowingly” having in his possession an assault firearm, a semi-automatic rifle with a magazine capacity of seventeen cartridges.
—
Defendant, an expert marksman who at one point was employed as a firearms instructor, won a Marlin semi-automatic rifle in the late 1980’s by placing first in a police combat match. An avid gun collector, defendant placed the weapon in his safe. Defendant claimed that he neither inspected nor used the firearm. When the police recovered the gun from defendant’s residence in December 1993, it still had the manufacturer’s tags and the owner’s manual attached to the trigger guard. The owner’s manual indicated that the rifle could hold at least seventeen cartridges. Defendant claimed that he never read the manual. While conceding that he knew the rifle was a semi-automatic weapon, defendant contended that he was unaware that the firearm had a magazine capacity exceeding fifteen rounds.
Here’s the kicker:
When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril. In short, we view the statute as a regulatory measure in the interests of the public safety, premised on the thesis that one would hardly be surprised to learn that possession of such a highly dangerous offensive weapon is proscribed absent the requisite license.
I have not found the sentence Mr. Pelleteri received, but he could have gotten five years. He certainly lost his right to arms, as he was convicted of a felony. He was an expert marksman, a firearms instructor, and a collector. Now he cannot (legally) touch a firearm.
I. Am. Aghast.
A “highly dangerous offensive weapon”? It’s a .22 FOR CHRISSAKES! TWO WHOLE ROUNDS OVER THE LIMIT!
A fourteen round magazine capacity (that Marlin now makes) = perfectly safe, harmless little plinker.
But SIXTEEN rounds makes it “a highly dangerous offensive weapon.”
If it isn’t licensed.
Stick a fork in New Jersey, it’s done.
Will the last gun owner leaving New Jersey please turn off the lights?
I think Claire Wolfe’s admonition that it’s too early to shoot the bastards doesn’t hold for Jersey.
“You’re American if You Think You’re American”
Steven Den Beste writes another excellent essay on the difference between America and Europe. Money quotes:
I’m afraid that one of the reasons there are problems of communication and diplomacy right now across the Atlantic is the incorrect European assumption that “the US is essentially a European country”.
—
Someone pointed out a critical difference: European “nations” are based on ethnicity, language or geography. The American nation is based on an idea, and those who voluntarily came here to join the American experiment were dedicated to that idea.
—
You’re French if you’re born in France, of French parents. You’re English if you’re born to English parents (and Welsh if your parents were Welsh). But you’re American if you think you’re American, and are willing to give up what you used to be in order to be one of us. That’s all it takes. But that’s a lot, because “thinking you’re American” requires you to comprehend that idea we all share. But even the French can do it, and a lot of them have.
—
We are Americans. We are not Europeans living in America. If you don’t understand the difference, then you do not understand us at all, and as long as you persist in thinking of us as Europeans living in America, you’ll continue to be mystified and frustrated by what we do.
And be sure to read the last two paragraphs.
Oooh! Ouch!
I think Steven needs to compile his essays into a book, too.
England Slides Further Toward Bondage
Remember the Tytler quote?
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.
Well, it looks like they’ve taken another step along the path.
Britain OKs Jeopardy Law Reform
The British Parliament on Thursday approved legislation to overturn “double jeopardy” protection for offenses such as murder, rape and armed robbery.
The centuries-old legal rule prevents suspects from being tried twice for a crime, and it is enshrined in the legal codes of many of Britain’s former colonies, including the United States.
Under the Criminal Justice Bill, introduced by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government last year, a person acquitted of certain serious offenses, including rape and murder, would face a second trial if compelling new details, such as DNA evidence, come to light.
The legislation, hailed by the government as the biggest reform of Britain’s criminal justice system in a generation, now needs only royal assent, which is virtually automatic, before it becomes law.
And why are they doing this? Because England has the highest rate of violent crime in the Western world. Because you are far more likely to be a victim of crime in England than anywhere else in Europe. And why is that? Because Britain’s liberal courts don’t see the judicial system as a tool for punishing criminals, but treating them. Because the police are overwhelmed and the citizenry is powerless. Because nobody wants to be a witness. It’s so bad that the police are not reporting crime in an effort to make things look better than they are. Video surveillance cameras, in an eerie 1984 parallel, are going up all over England – to make the subjects safer, you see. Now they’re trying to introduce a national ID card. Individual privacy is becoming a thing of the past – if you’re a law-abiding subject.
Here’s the image of England today:
Make the People powerless. Make them dependent. Pass more and more and more laws, each stripping the law abiding of more of their rights, all in the name of “public safety.” Allow government to acquire more and more power – also in the name of “public safety” – all the while not providing public safety. As Mencken put it:
All government, of course, is against liberty.
and
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Except in this case, the hobgoblins aren’t imaginary, which I think makes it worse.
In my humble opinion, this dates back (at least) to the end of World War I. In 1900 the government of England still trusted the people to be their own guardians. Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury, said in 1900 that he would “laud the day when there is a rifle in every cottage in England.” But in 1903 England passed its first gun control law. A minor one, simply requiring an easily acquired permit to purchase a handgun, and restricting the age of purchasers, but it was the first toe over the slippery slope. In 1919, in fear of anarchists and communists, England passed its first sweeping gun law – as a crime control measure – even though crime involving firearms was rare as hen’s teeth. You could only have a handgun or a rifle if you showed “good reason” to have one. (Sound familiar?) So much for “a rifle in every cottage” being a laudable goal. The descent had begun in earnest.
In 1936 short-barreled shotguns and fully-automatic weapons were outlawed – not regulated as they are here, outlawed. The reasoning? Civilians had no “legitimate reason” for owning them. Another slide down the slope. The reasoning had changed from the government needing to show reason for the restrictions to the people needing to show reason to exercise the right, to government telling them that there was no acceptable reason.
The English Bill of Rights stated “That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.” Sir William Blackstone, commenting on this in his Commentaries on the Laws of England said:
“THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”
Whatever happened to the “natural right of resistance and self-preservation”? Have not the “sanctions of society and laws” been proven “insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression”? And I’m just talking about the criminals, not the government.
In 1936 the British added a “safe storage” requirement for all handguns and rifles. (Sound familiar?)
As a result of the 1920 restrictions, not only didn’t England have “a rifle in every cottage,” they didn’t have many rifles period. In 1940 England was in danger of being invaded and begged America to send it rifles with which to defend its shores. And we, American private citizens, sent them. Rifles, shotguns, and pistols.
But at the end of the war the English didn’t get to keep them, and we didn’t get them back.
In 1946 self-defense was no longer a “good reason” to have a firearm. The slope got steeper.
In 1953, carrying a weapon for self-defense was made illegal. Any kind of weapon.
In 1967 the law was amended to require a license to own a shotgun, and jury trials no longer required a unanimous decision.
In 1982 reloaders and blackpowder enthusiasts were made subject to police inspection without a warrant to ensure “safe storage” of the reloading materials. In other words, agents of the government, without a warrant, could come into ones home at any time, without warning.
In 1988 all semi-auto and pump-action rifles were banned. By this time there weren’t many rifle owners anyway, but that didn’t matter. The personal property of law-abiding subjects was, once again, made illegal. And they were all registered – that is, the ones belonging to the law-abiding.
In 1996 all handguns were banned. And they were all registered… Well, you get the point.
Also in 1996, carrying any kind of knife was made illegal – unless you could prove you had a good reason for having it. The presumption of innocence was gone.
Defending yourself in England has become progressively more and more risky, as you stand a very good chance of being prosecuted for use of excessive force. You cannot carry a weapon when out in public, and you cannot use a firearm in self-defense in your home. The law has made crime safe for the criminals. It’s no wonder that crime in Britain has been on the climb since the 1950’s.
Am I suggesting that this has been some nefarious plan all along to strip the British of their rights and bind them into slavery? No I am not. I’m suggesting that this is a cycle of human behavior – long recognized – that we should be paying attention to and trying to break. We know what government does: it acquires power at the expense of the governed, for good reason or bad. And it does it slowly, almost imperceptibly, because we never believe that each “next step” is leading where we’ve been told it always leads. “Not this time,” we think. “We know better.”
Yeah?
Ask the English.
How long before we follow them?
READ LILEKS
Today’s Bleat is Lileks at his best.
Teasers:
“You’re my best daughter only and ever.”
Big hug. She looked at the TV, at the pictures of the wreckage in Turkey.
“I don wan news. I want Blues Clues.”
Roger that.
—
You know what? Michael Moore is right. There are many Americans who are ignorant of the world around them. And they’re all TV news producers.
—
You already read it around the web – the bombings in Turkey were a response to Britain’s assistance for toppling Saddam; what did we expect? In other words: if we fight back, we get what we deserve. If we do not fight back, and we are attacked again, you can blame it on the crimes for which we have not yet sufficiently atoned. The only proper posture for the West is supine. Curl up and let them kick until they’re spent. Give them Israel and New York and perhaps they’ll go away.
This is either going to end on their terms, or ours. Which would you prefer?
Read it ALL.
I KNEW the 9th Circuit Would Do This!
No other Court is liberal / activist (but I repeat myself) enough.
Eugene Volokh reports that the 9th Circus Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to hear a lawsuit against gun manufacturers on the basis of “Negligent distributing”.
He starts here, so read that one and the next three above it. He concludes:
No trial, no proof, you lose your business — that’s what the law says.
Hey, why not? If the USF&WS can shut down a business on suspicion of selling a protected plant, why shouldn’t you be able to sue a gun manufacturer out of business for not breaking the law?
The circuit decision is here, if you have the stomach for it.