The SciFi Channel Weighs in on the Recall
With an Arnie double-feature: Terminator II: Judgement Day, and Total Recall
They were advertising this last night. I literally laughed out loud.
Author: Kevin
And Another One
Ravenwood illustrates again that the power to regulate is the power to prohibit.
I don’t have a problem with requiring a permit for concealed-carry* – I think that the legal history indicates that the contemporaries of the Founders (original intent) would not have found this Constitutionally objectionable (a majority of them, anyway.) BUT – it does raise the specter of government denying the right to self-defense through denial of due process, which is what Ravenwood’s piece illustrates.
* Open carry on the other hand should not be legally restricted. All the early court cases were quite clear on this.
More Linkage
Once again Steven Den Beste whips out the million-candlepower spotlight in his peice on media influence entitled Demonstration of Power. Excerpts:
(M)any in the media think they are, or should actually be, our true leaders. They see their job not merely to serve as the eyes and ears of the public, but also as its brain. This isn’t new, of course, and when it’s managed well it’s valuable. When news reporting is isolated from editorializing then it works quite well.
But when the two are no longer segregated, and when there’s a concerted attempt to deceive the public through deliberate selection of what to report and by deliberate distortion in how it’s reported, then it actually threatens our system.
Many in the press deny that anything like this happens. Some are naive, others are disingenuous. But it’s beyond dispute that it happens.
When it happens in peace, it’s a problem. But when it happens in war, it can threaten the existence of the nation.
—
In yesterday’s election the people of this state voiced their opinion about how their government was being run. And from Kuntzman’s point of view, they said the wrong thing. It appears that he thinks this is much too important an issue to be left to the people to decide. He feels that the press failed because it didn’t work hard enough on supporting Davis by trying to prevent recall, or in trying to defeat Schwarzenegger.
As always, RTWT.
Publicola On a Rant
Fellow blogger Publicola has a lot to say, and does it well in this piece. Excerpts:
Republicans. Not worth a damn. Not the individuals who call themselves republicans, but The Republican Party. Only thing worse is the Democrat Party. But not by much.
—
In D.C. we have a republican in the White House who lowered taxes. That’s it. That’s all he’s done that the Republican Party is supposed to stand for.
Not that he’s not done anything else; he just hasn’t done anything else that’s supposed to be ‘republican’.
—
He (& the Republican Party in general) is too devoted to the idea of government fixing all our problems. They have totally abandoned the political philosophy that set them apart from the Democrat Party. Bush may not have caused this situation himself, but he is in a position to affect a positive change. He won’t.
Much more – mostly about illegal immigration. Go read. It’s worth your time.
Damn, but That Man Can WRITE
Thursday’s Bleat. Excerpts:
South of the WTC site is the Deutsche Bank building, now wrapped in black fabric, abandoned. There was no one here, and there were no sounds. I’ve never ever been anywhere in Manhattan where it was this quiet. No horns, no voices, no car alarms, nothing. Absolute silence. The wind had picked up, and was rippling the shroud over the DB tower. All the ripples went up. It looked as if the building was still shedding souls, and they were running beneath the thin dark blanket, looking for the way out.
—
I walked around and saw the other giants of lower Manhattan – 40 Wall, Cities Service. The Woolworth building. One after the other – giant monoliths old and new, gargantuan towers assembled in the sky by human hands, each one just another piston stroke in the motor of American commerce.
—
The men who brought down the towers did nothing more than take a hammer to the tooth of a sleeping lion. Oh, you can do that.
But you can only do it once.
—
I think this was the New York trip I wanted all those years I was a dorkboy in Fargo, reading ancient New Yorkers and wishing I could be a bitter alcoholic at the Algonquin.
Just tell us when the book comes out, James. I’ll be buying it.
Five Reasons Why it ISN’T
The Consumer Federation of America (which, as far as I can tell is a bunch of trial lawyers interested in suing anyone that can make them rich) has this nifty little two-page handout on why you should support the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act. Let me fisk:
The Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act would give the Department of Justice consumer protection authority to regulate the design, manufacture, and distribution of guns and ammunition.
Right. Regulate them right out of existence.
Here are the top five reasons why this bill is good for America’s gun consumers:
1) This bill would protect gun consumers from being ripped off or injured.
Many gun consumers and bystanders have been injured or killed by defective or hazardously-designed guns. For example:
• One gun consumer took his .22 Ruger revolver with him on a fishing trip. He was sitting on a rock when the gun fell from his holster, struck a rock, and discharged. The bullet lodged in his bladder, damaging vital nerves and rendering him impotent.
The user’s manual specifically recommends leaving the chamber under the hammer empty – precisely for this reason. I’d imagine that was an old-model Single-six. Gun enthusiasts know it, the instruction manual is pretty clear about it. And the manufacturer has since changed the design – voluntarily – and converted all of the older models that customers have sent in for conversion – for free. It’s not the gun’s fault, it’s user error.
• Mike Lewy was unloading his Remington Model 700 rifle in his basement apartment. As he moved the safety to the fire position in order to lift the bolt handle to eject a chambered cartridge, the gun discharged. The bullet went through the ceiling and struck his mother, who was shot in the upper left leg and required hospitalization for more than a month.
User error again. Mike’s an idiot. Rule #1 – always keep a firearm pointed in a safe direction. He didn’t. Rule #5 – don’t trust mechanical safeties – they can fail. He should have cleared the weapon outdoors, safely and not tried to do it where it wasn’t safe.
• Carlton Norrell was changing a tire when a close friend, William Kerr, accidentally dropped his .41 Magnum Old Model revolver. The bullet struck Mr. Norrell in the temple and drilled in a straight line across the front of his skull. Mr. Norrell died eight days later.
A .41? I’m amazed he wasn’t dead on the spot. These guys really have it in for Ruger single-actions, don’t they? (And what’s with the dropsies?) It’s a design characteristic of old revolvers. ALL old revolvers. Ruger has since changed the design voluntarily (much to the disgust of purists, many of whom did not have theirs converted.) The modern copies of the Colt Single Action Army will do the same thing if you have a live round under the hammer. The transfer-bar ignition system and the hammer block are relative newcomers to gun design. Frame or hammer-mounted firing pins are found on all older revolvers (single or double-action), and there are a huge number of revolvers out there without either. It’s not a design flaw, and you cannot convince me that a Federal bureaucracy would have accelerated the implementation of the design change. But this legislation could force, for example, Smith & Wesson to retrofit literally millions of old guns at their own expense, thus bankrupting the company. But we’re not supposed to understand that.
This bill would give the Department of Justice authority to set safety standards; require gun manufacturers to repair, replace, recall, or refund the purchase price of defective guns; and to mandate warnings.
And the Department of Justice is qualified to set those standards, why? The gun industry already repairs, replaces, and recalls defective guns voluntarily. Read some of the gun magazines sometime. The recall notices are not common, but they are there. For example this recall of the Vektor pistol. Now THAT’s a defective gun, and why the CFA didn’t use it as an example is beyond me (unless, of course, no one was actually SHOT with one accidentally.) Now, why is it necessary for the Justice Department to get involved again?
This bill would also require that all guns be labeled to ensure that defective guns could be identified and traced.
They are already. By federal law all firearms are marked with a serial number that is recorded with the BATFE. But you’re not supposed to know that.
Currently, the only protection gun consumers are afforded against manufacturers of defective guns is to file a lawsuit after the victim has been injured or killed.
Excuse me, but isn’t that “the only protection” consumers have for defective products now? You’re not changing anything except adding another layer of bureaucracy on top. But that’s the point, isn’t it?
2) This bill would provide gun consumers with much-needed information.
Currently there exists no coordinated data collection on gun injuries and deaths that includes vital information such as the specific type of gun, caliber and source. This legislation would create a Firearms Violence Information and Research Clearinghouse to collect and analyze data regarding gun-related death and injury. This kind of data is essential to identify guns that are exceptionally likely to be involved in gun-related injury or death, and to notify gun consumers of the risks associated with such guns.
Yes, I’m sure that would be it’s only purpose. Let’s spend a few hundred million to find out that most gun deaths are attributable to old Smith & Wesson .38’s and inexpensive 9mm automatics (homicide and suicide), and that most accidental gun deaths are hunting related. That’ll be swell.
3) This bill would give gun consumers a voice in the regulatory process.
Currently, gun consumers have no say in the few voluntary standards developed by the industry. This legislation gives gun consumers a voice in the regulatory process by allowing them to petition the Attorney General of the Justice Department to amend or enforce specific regulations.
Um, I’m a “gun consumer” and the last thing I want is a bill allowing the general public “a voice in the regulatory process.” We’re outnumbered by the general population and this is an open door to regulating firearms out of existence. Maryland, for example, is doing exactly that with its performance requirements that restrict what guns can be sold there. The requirements have cause Beretta, for example, to stop selling there. You know – Beretta. The company that makes the sidearm carried by US military forces worldwide. Not safe enough for Maryland.
4) This bill would shield gun consumers from unreasonably unsafe products.
Currently, no federal agency has the authority to ban firearms technology that poses an unreasonable threat to gun consumers and the public. The bill authorizes the Department of Justice to ban the manufacture and transfer of specific guns and related products only if the agency determines that no other remedy would prevent unreasonable risk of injury.
(Deep breath:)THEY’RE FIREARMS! THEY ARE DEVICES DESIGNED TO HURL SMALL METAL PROJECTILES AT HIGH VELOCITY IN THE GENERAL DIRECTION THE BARREL IS POINTED! Now, define “unreasonably unsafe.” I’d imagine that, for the Department of Justice, that would eventually end up meaning “going BANG! when the trigger is pulled.”
Currently, gun manufacturers get around federal limits by cosmetically altering restricted guns to pass a basic “sporting purposes” test. This bill authorizes the Department of Justice to set uniform standards for guns with legitimate sporting purposes to distinguish them from guns prone for criminal use, such as modified assault weapons.
THERE we go! Let me translate that for you: “The legislature wasn’t able to pass a bill that really outlawed those eeeeevil assault weapons, so we need to set up a bureaucracy that can, without legislative oversight, ban any gun they decide looks too eeeeeevil. ” For instance, the recently introduced Smith & Wesson X-frame .500 S&W Magnum revolver that got so many gun-grabbers panties in a wad would be fodder for this kind of “uniform standards” restriction.
5) This bill would safeguard access to guns with legitimate sporting purposes.
And last I checked, the Second Amendment doesn’t say a damned thing about “sporting purposes.”
Just say “NO” to the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act. It’s not about safety, and it’s not about protecting firearm consumers. It’s about restricting the right to arms some more.
That Reminds Me of a Joke
The Darwin Award post below reminds me of a joke I heard a while back. Seems that the Yellowstone Park Service made up a handout for hikers in the park that went a little something like this:
Advisory to Hikers
Yellowstone National Park is home to a wide variety of wildlife, some of which can be dangerous to hikers. Yellowstone has a significant population of two species of bear: the American Black Bear (Ursus americanus) and the Grizzly (Ursus arctos horribilis). Normally these bears will avoid people, but there are several practices the Park Service recommends to hikers to reduce the chance and the severity of an encounter.
STAY ON THE TRAILS – Bears tend to avoid the marked trail areas.
SCENT Bears are attracted to scent, so:
1) Dispose of all foodstuffs and wrappings in airtight containers, and preferably dispose of them in the Park provided bear-proof trash recepticles. If in primitive camping areas, burn or bury the materials rather than carry them on your person.
2) Refrain from wearing perfume or cologne when on the trail, and don’t chew gum.
An encounter with a bear may result in an attack if the bear is startled or if young cubs are present. To reduce the possibility of surprising a bear, the park recommends attaching small bells to your boot laces. The unnatural noise of the bells may alert bears (which have an acute sense of hearing) that you are in the area, and they should avoid you.
DEFENSE IN CASE OF ATTACK
The National Park Service prohibits visitors from carrying firearms for self-protection. If attack seems imminent, the use of oleoresin capsicum sprays (pepper sprays) can be effective.
Do not run. Bears are much faster than humans and they can run you down.
Do not attempt to climb a tree. Bears climb better than humans as well, and can be quite tall when standing upright.
DROP TO THE GROUND AND PLAY DEAD – it is your best chance to avoid serious injury or death. If you do not appear to be a threat, the bear may leave you alone.
BEAR SIGN
If, while hiking, you come across bear spoor it may be helpful if you can identify what type of bear is in your vicinity. Using a stick or similar instrument, break up the spoor and identify the contents. Black bear spoor may contain partially digested berries, insect parts, and vegitation. Grizzly bear spoor may contain small bells and smell like pepper.
This Week’s Darwin Award Nominees
Wasted Electrons comments on the recent deaths of two Malibu, California men who were advocates of grizzly bear protection. They were slain in Alaska.
By a bear.
I’d seen the reports of the mauling deaths, and I was willing to bet that these guys:
A) weren’t armed, and
B) were probably environmental activists of some kind or other.
Now both of my assumptions are proven correct:
Killed were Timothy Treadwell, 46, and Amie Huguenard, 37, both of Malibu, California, said the National Park Service and the Alaska State Troopers.Treadwell was the founder of Grizzly People, an organization devoted to the protection of grizzly bears and their habitat. According to the group’s Web site, Treadwell’s practice was to travel to bear country without weapons.
And in the effort to recover the bodies, Park personnel had to kill two aggressive bears.
So much for protecting bears.
Why do so many “animal activists” behave as though they believe wild animals are Disney audioanimatronics?
File this one under “Cosmic Justice.”
Ayup
Mike Ramirez of the LA Times reminds us not to relax:
Given the Democratic hair-tearing over the recall, their simmering outrage over the Florida debacle of 2000, their bilious hatred of Dubya, and the overwhelming mediocrity of the current version of the Deep Space 9, I fully expect the 2004 campaign to be an unprecedented example of negative campaigning. Mud-slinging? You ain’t seen mud-slinging yet.
It’s going to be UGLY.