Category Archives: Politics

Been there, done that

Posted on by

Via the encyclopedic gun law brain of Joe Waldron on the Washington CCW email list last Monday:

From 1968 to 1986, all purchasers of handgun ammunition nationwide had to sign a book and provide identification data. It was discontinued because it proved useless as a crime fighting tool.

Not that anyone in the California legislature cares.

Again, the anti-gun bigots not being able to answer Just One Question is no impediment to them infringing on the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

NIH studying gun control issues again

Posted on by

After getting their hands slapped for shoddy research with predetermined anti-gun outcomes 13 years ago the NIH is again doing research on gun control topics:

More than a decade after Congress cut funding for firearms research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), another federal health agency has been spending millions of dollars to study such topics as whether teenagers who carry firearms run a different risk of getting shot compared with suffering other sorts of injuries.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) also has been financing research to investigate whether having many liquor stores in a neighborhood puts people at greater risk of getting shot.

Such studies are coming under sharp scrutiny by Republican lawmakers who question whether the money could be better spent on biomedical research at a time of increasing competition for NIH funding. They’re also leery of NIH research relating to firearms in general, recalling how 13 years ago the House voted to cut CDC funding when critics complained that the agency was trying to win public support for gun control.

“It’s almost as if someone’s been looking for a way to get this study done ever since the Centers for Disease Control was banned from doing it 10 years ago,” Rep. Joe L. Barton, Texas Republican, said of one of the NIH studies. “But it doesn’t make any more sense now than it did then.”

“Gun related violence is a public health problem – it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH,” Don Ralbovsky, NIH spokesman, wrote in an e-mail responding to questions about the grants.

“These particular grants do not address gun control; rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances involved in many violent crimes, especially how alcohol policy may reduce the public health burden from gun-related injury and death,” he said.

It’s not guaranteed to be a bad thing. But it should be watched just as closely as if they were studying violence initiated by Jews/blacks/homosexuals with an eye to create public policy which restricts those groups more than others.

Why aren’t they screaming about this illegal act?

Posted on by

So even though I don’t pay much attention to them it was hard to avoid hearing about “the criminals in the White house” and all the “criminal acts” and the charges of treason against the Bush administration. But what I don’t get is why I don’t hear anything about Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels when he does stuff like this:

A new city of Seattle gun ban takes effect this week – prohibiting firearms in places like city parks and community centers.

But the law is already generating controversy with many asking is this new rule truly enforceable? Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna and some community gun advocates say, no.

“What this does is put Seattle on a collision course with state law,” says Dan Sytman, the Attorney General’s office spokesperson.

The questionable deeds that Bush administration did at least had prior approval from the U.S. Attorney General’s office. Nickels is doing something that all legal advisers, except the city lawyer who found a contorted rational, say is illegal.

So where is the outcry from the left?

Apparently they don’t really care about politicians engaged in illegal acts. They just wanted to remove their political opponents by whatever means possible. Having their own politicians commit illegal acts on their behalf is just fine.

See also what Ry has to say on the topic.

Quote of the day–Michael Beard

Posted on by

I often find that true wisdom comes from simple stories, and one of the great story tellers was the one called Jesus of Nazareth.

According to the writer known as Luke, Jesus was traveling through the borderlands of Samaria and Galilee on a journey to Jerusalem. He stopped in a village and told his listeners a story about a widow and an unjust judge.

He said that in a certain town there was once a judge who cared nothing for God or man. There was a widow in that same town who constantly came before the judge demanding justice against her opponent.

For a long time the judge refused to grant the widow justice. But in the end he said to himself, “True, I don’t fear God or care about men, but this widow is so great a nuisance that I will see her righted before she wears me out with her persistence.”

In this simple story there is a great political lesson that is often easy to overlook. The persistent widow is a reminder to those who seek justice that we should never lose heart. We must continue to press on, and will be rewarded if we do so.

Michael Beard
October 12, 2009
Wear Them Out
[Good advice. The anti-gun bigots have nothing but hate and fear to sustain them. That is very draining. It saps their energy. It is depressing. It is lonely. It is a very anti-social mindset. They are very unhappy people.

Freedom loving people have a myriad of social outlets and rejoice in competitions. They acquire new skills. They learn about the mechanics and physics of simple but incredibly clever and precise machines that can propel small pieces of metal at Mach 3+ across distances that take you 10 minutes to walk and hit objects that are impossible to see at that distance with the naked eye. They hunt and bring food home to their families. Guns are part of the Olympics. What do the anti-gun people have to show to compete with the thousands of competitive events each year and the Gold, Silver, and Bronze metals that are recorded in the permanent history of mankind? Nothing but news releases that dance in the blood of innocents killed and maimed by criminals.

The People of the Gun know history is made with guns and love to learn that history. They know it is guns in the hands of everyday people that keep the would be tyrant from attempting to gain power and brutalize them, their family, and their neighbors because they happen to have the wrong skin color, the wrong religious beliefs, wear glasses, or own property. They know the gun is civilization and although it can and has been used for evil it is far more often used for the protection of innocent life and property against those that do not respect life or the property of others.

Because gun ownership is a positive thing it makes it easier for us to be persistent over the long haul. The Million Mom March was founded in August 1999, reached their peak in May of 2000 with, according to their own (probably inflated) numbers consisted of nearly one million people. Now they don’t even have a website of their own — http://www.millionmommarch.org/ redirects to the Brady Campaign. They were a flash in the pan because it’s hard to hold onto hate for very long. The Brady Campaign is 35 years old but even after merging with the MMM have so few adherents they don’t even bother to have a way to join their organization. They have nothing to offer prospective members except hate and fear. The NRA is 138 years old and has thousand of instructors, millions of members, a history of competitions, they helped blacks protect their communities in the darkest days of the KKK, they teach hunter safety, and helped Great Britain prepare for the expected invasion from Germany in WW II.

Make the most of that persistence. The other side frequently has an unfair advantage with the assistance of a duplicitous press and their own willingness to twist the truth and ignore the facts but our numbers, our love of people and freedom, and our righteousness give us the long term advantage. They made a big play for the win during the Clinton years and many or even most gun owner rights activists thought the bigots had won. But they ran out of steam and we are now winning.

Let’s keep doing what we do best. For some people that will be a great gun blog, mocking those that hate freedom, playing the political game, teaching new shooters, teaching experienced shooters to be better than they ever thought was humanly possible, getting good press for gun owners, or it might be just being a proud and responsible gun owner who takes a new shooter to the range every once in a while.

Michael Beard is right that persistent is important and that characteristic will enable our eventual win. But I suspect it was some sort of Freudian slip that resulted in that recognition of his. Michael Beard is on the losing side of this epic struggle for freedom. He recognized the persistence of his opposition and envies it.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Lew Daly

Posted on by

We’d like to retire that word [redistribute] from the political vocabulary because you can’t redistribute something that is already highly socialized, and wealth and income in the “era of knowledge-based growth” (whoever ends up “owning” it) is indeed highly socialized. Most importantly (and more to the point), individual productivity is increasingly dependent on what can only be described as a collective good, a common inheritance of knowledge. No one deserves to benefit from this common inheritance more than anyone else, by moral definition, because it’s not created by any individual. So, to the extent that inherited knowledge (“technical progress in the broadest sense,” as Solow termed it) is increasingly driving economic growth, the fruits of knowledge—the wealth being generated by knowledge—should be more equally shared. Wealth that is commonly created should be equally, or at least more equally, shared.

Lew Daly
Via AmericanMercenary in the post What the hell is “Social Justice”?
[This is very scary stuff. Strip away just a little bit of the fluff and it’s, From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Just reading the praise for the book you realize these people not only have zero respect for the right to own property but they don’t believe you even have a right to your own thoughts. This is what inspires thoughts of Atlas Shrugged. In this book the people of the mind went on strike. Those that contributed through the power of their creative minds declared those that demanded the product of their minds through the force of government had received their last handout. You can force someone to work but you can’t force them to think.

After reading of people like Daly I don’t just long for a John Galt but a Ragnar Danneskjöld as well.–Joe]

Quote of the Day–Ayn Rand

Posted on by

Just so we’re all clear;

Such is the state of today’s most critical issues: political rights versus “economic rights”.  It’s either or.  One destroys the other.  But there are, in fact, no “economic rights,” no “collective rights,” no “public-interest rights”.  The term “individual rights” is a redundancy: there is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them.

Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man’s rights.

Ayn Rand – from the appendix “Man’s Rights” in her book “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”

If you don’t have a copy, get one.  The first copy I saw had every other sentence or paragraph highlighted by the owner.  It’s that kind of book.  It was written back in the 1960s, though it seems to be directly addressing our current crop of idiots, moonbats, loons, thugs, bounders, cads, hucksters and charlatans in Washington (to say nothing of the Democrats).

Ethical blogging

Posted on by

The FTC has declared they are the ethics police for bloggers:

Certainly, it seems like this is an update that’s time has come. While most well-run social media programs already include appropriate disclosure, there’s still no shortage of unscrupulous marketers using deceptive practices to sell products. Now, with the threat of serious fines, those who look to push the boundaries of ethical blogging will be doing so at their own risk.

I wonder if those advocating more government regulation are required to disclose their voting history, tax filings, and political donations.

Quote of the day–Joe Waldron

Posted on by

The Supreme Court prefers to work in “baby steps,” changing the law slowly. The Heller case was a very carefully and cautiously crafted to open the door to further Second Amendment jurisprudence. Had they attempted to overturn 20,000 gun laws all at once, all nine Justices would have run out of the courtroom with their robes pulled up over their heads, screaming. Step one was Heller, to get the SCOTUS to acknowledge that the Second Amendment was written to reaffirm and protect the right of the INDIVIDUAL citizen to keep (not necessarily bear) arms for personal defense, inside the federal enclave known as the District of Columbia, where there is no state constitution, just the US Constitution..

Step two (McDonald) is to extend that acknowledgment to the states. Why McDonald?” Because the Chicago handgun ban is a duplicate of the DC ban. If the DC ban is unconstitutional, so must the Chicago ban be. But Chicago is part of a state, not a federal enclave.

Once that occurs, we start knocking down the “house” of gun control laws, one brick at a time.

Heller is the alpha. not the omega. We’re decades away from that. But we’re working on it. We didn’t get to the point of 20,000 gun control laws all at once, and we’re not going to get free of them all at once. It ain’t a “once and for all” system, much as we might like to see it that way.

Joe Waldron
October 1, 2009
Re: Supreme Court to hear Second Amendment Foundation challenge to Chicago gun ban
wa-ccw: Washington State Concealed Weapons Discussion
[People who are pessimistic (see also here) about the status our gun laws have forgotten or weren’t of an age to be aware of how things were in the mid 1990s (see here, here, here, and here for some clues). Those were very, very dark days. The turning point may have been the 1994 congressional elections with the anger over the 1994 “assault weapon ban” playing a big role (I find it very interesting that the Wikipedia articles on this and Tom Foley don’t mention this) or perhaps here.–Joe]

Montana fires it’s guns

Posted on by

In an email alert today the Second Amendment Foundation announced:

GUN GROUPS FILE LAWSUIT TO VALIDATE MONTANA FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today joined with the Montana Shooting Sports Association in a federal lawsuit filed in Missoula to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), which takes effect today, Oct. 1, 2009.

Lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ litigation team is Quentin Rhoades of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The MFFA litigation team also includes other attorneys located in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

“We’re happy to join this lawsuit,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.”

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” added MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal authority under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate “commerce … among the several states.” It relies on the Tenth Amendment and other principles to exempt Montana-made and retained firearms, accessories and ammunition from federal regulation. Marbut’s group advises Montana citizens not to manufacture an MFFA-covered item until MSSA is upheld in court.

Earlier this year, Tennessee passed similar legislation and lawmakers in 20 other states have indicated that they will introduce MSSA clone legislation, Marbut said. Information about the Firearms Freedom Act movement is being accumulated and made publicly available at firearmsfreedomact.com.

MSSA is the primary political advocate for Montana gun owners. It can be found at mtssa.org.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

See also the article in the Missoulian.

I wish them well and figure it will be at least worth buying some popcorn and cold drinks for watching the comedy.

The press has it wrong again

Posted on by

Dave Workman explains:

That the local press has once again erroneously given the impression that the store has lost its FFL, when in actuality it is Borgelt’s license revocation that has been upheld, is one more reason for gun owners, and one frustrated firearms retailer, not to trust the news media.

This is one time the press has it coming.

The basic story is the previous owner of the Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply (the store from which Beltway Snipers stole the rifle they used) had his FFL revoked but the new owner is up and running just fine. The press is reporting the store lost it’s FFL and implies it has been shut down.

Half-truth, full-truth, who cares? Not the mainstream media with their “professional” journalists.

Quote of the day–Danville Editorial Board

Posted on by

While the president hasn’t proposed any specific gun control legislation, it’s also true that if every statement he’s ever made, every bill he’s ever supported and every position he’s ever taken during his entire political career were taken as a whole and proposed as legislation — which is not being done — then the gun owners would have something to fear.

But that’s not happening, for a couple of reasons. The Democrats have focused their attention on the economy. Also, Obama has moderated his views on these issues over the years. As a lawyer by training, he appears to understand the Second Amendment’s place in law, not as something to pay lip service to, but as one of the fundamental rights all Americans enjoy.

Danville Editorial Board
September 28, 2009
Worst kind of economic stimulus
[I agree President Obama has not been on the offense against gun owners since he took office. But before believing he has moderated his views on these issues I’m going to need some proof. Directing the DOJ to arrest and prosecute Federal, State, and local officials for violation of 18 USC 242 in regards to infringement of the 2nd Amendment would be a good start. Instead his cabinet is filled with people opposed to allowing citizens to exercise a specific enumerated right. I keep expecting him to “turn the dogs loose” on us.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Lyle @ UltiMAK

Posted on by

Every part. Every last little bit of it, from its inception, from the thinking behind its inception, to all of its variants, to every attempt to implement it in any form, any time and anywhere it’s been foisted upon anyone. I consider socialism to be more offensive, more disgusting, more sickening, more dangerous, more deadly and more virulent than any disease– more destructive than any force known on Earth. Sold to the unwary as the warm-hearted answer to the suffering and problems we all face in life, it is the poison pill, cleverly slipped into all our forms of sustenance: our very food and drink, our homes, our schools and our institutions by the sick, the envious, the jealous and the hateful, who would be our masters and we their playthings.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
September 2, 2009
In response to the question, “What part of socialism do you disagree with?”
[One friend was a bit more succinct but only for those that understood the fundamentals, when he told me it was like a sugar pill that caused cancer twenty years later. “Here, try it! It’s sweet. Just a little bit…”–Joe]

Quote of the day–Thomas Jefferson

Posted on by

A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt…If the game runs sometime against us at home, we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake.

Thomas Jefferson
[President Obama and supporters, please meet my hero, Thomas Jefferson.–Joe]

Only one move ahead

Posted on by

Sometimes it boggles my mind just how stupid some people can be and still be able to write complete sentences and breathe–and apparently at the same time. Case in point:

Free marketers don’t care much for bank bailouts so long as they’ve gotten their money out the bank before it fails.

But when it’s health care? I think you will find that teabaggers everywhere will have a very different perspective when they find themselves out there alone with no way to pay for their family’s medical costs.

Who will need the save the day when this happens? The government will – and that means a single-payer system.

Whether the result fits your ideology or not, the numbers would seem to make clear that it is only a matter of time before private health insurance prices itself out of the market, leaving only the government with the capability to insure the nation’s health.

“Leaving only the government with the capability”? And just where does he think the government will get the money that private health insurance companies and individuals couldn’t?

When I used to play chess a lot (high school and college) it was very rare that someone couldn’t see pretty clearly two and usually three moves in advance. And the better players would have a pretty fair view out six or seven moves on some critical branches. But this guy apparently can’t see even one move in advance. What would you call someone like this? In my chess playing days we would call those people losers.

Update: He makes an “interesting” comment in response to another commenter to his article:

I rarely watch CNBC and, anyone who reads this post knows I wouldn’t be caught dead watching Fox.

He admits he studiously ignores data considered to be fair and accurate by millions of people? This isn’t someone concerned with knowing the truth. This is someone who has a deep and profound commitment to some sort of cult.

Quote of the day–Ronald Reagan

Posted on by

You know, I turn back to your ancient prophets, in the Old Testament and the signs foretelling Armageddon, and I find myself wondering if we’re the generation that is going to see it come about.

Ronald Reagan
[I’m reminded of this by the articled titled Iran reportedly able to make nuclear bomb and the fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he wants Israel wiped off the map.–Joe]

A change in tactics?

Posted on by

The Brady Campaign Blog has a post up about a gun rights activist and concealed carry permit holder. Basically it outlines what a slimy guy he is.

This is new territory for the Brady Campaign.

With so many of us and so few of them simply by the sheer number of people in the “tails of the bell curve” that we don’t to be our “poster children” this could be somewhat painful for us. It turns out they have a few “skeletons in the closet” as well but there isn’t going to be nearly as many of them.

I don’t think that is an appropriate way to play the game. The political battle should be fought over ideas and data rather than the criminal convictions and/or drinking problems of the messengers. But politics is almost never a clean fight.

For us the lesson to be learned is to make sure people that are going to be getting the attention of the press and/or police are people that can stand up to public scrutiny because the Brady people may now have a policy of making sure our activists get more attention than they expected in manner that is less than endearing to the public.

I love the headline

Posted on by

The headline reads, “Sen. Murray`s Anti-Gun Bigotry Shows in Amtrak Debate, Says CCRKBA.” The news release goes on to say:

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) is once again demonstrating her disdain for gun
owners and their rights by opposing an amendment to her Amtrak funding
legislation that would allow firearms to be carried in baggage aboard trains,
the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“Patty Murray evidently has a short memory span,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan
Gottlieb. “Has she already forgotten what happened to her friend, Seattle Mayor
Greg Nickels, in the primary because of his extremist anti-gun philosophy?
Surely she knows about Tuesday`s primary election results in New York City,
where anti-gunner Richard Aborn came in last in a three-way race for Manhattan
prosecutor by running on his gun control record.”

Murray is opposing an amendment, added to her Amtrak bill by Sen. Roger Wicker
(R-MS), that would allow train travelers to transport firearms in their luggage,
provided the guns are declared at check-in and they are locked up for transport.
This is no different than flying with firearms, Gottlieb noted, “and people do
that every day.”

“The amendment passed 68-30,” Gottlieb noted, “and Murray`s opposition shows she
is way out of the mainstream on this issue. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid supports the measure. People used to take firearms on trains all the time.
Someone should tell the senator that constitutional rights don`t end at the
Amtrak boarding platform.”

Murray argues that the amendment would be too costly and time-consuming, because
Amtrak would have to create a process for checking and tracking guns.

“That`s a bogus argument,” Gottlieb countered, “and she knows it. The
Transportation Security Administration already has that process down pat. There
is no need to reinvent the wheel. That option has apparently not occurred to
her, or maybe it has and she just can`t get beyond her narrow gun prohibitionist
viewpoint.

“Amtrak has been losing money for years,” Gottlieb concluded. “Maybe it`s
because American gun owners won`t travel with a carrier that treats them like
outcasts. Maybe gun owners will return that sentiment when Murray runs for
re-election next year.”

Although she is considered the one of the “dullest knives in the drawer” (see also here for possible euphemisms) she hasn’t had much trouble getting relected and this vote against gun owners probably won’t be all that detrimental either. But it’s nice to remind her and others that we are not happy with her and if someone else were to be a little more tolerant of diversity we would probably give them our support.

There is a simple solution

Posted on by

It appears the FBI and the ATF can’t seem to play well together:

Agents of the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives are feuding over bomb investigations — racing each other to crime scenes, failing to share information and refusing to train together, according to a draft report obtained by The Associated Press.

The report says Justice Department bosses have repeatedly failed to fix the problem.

The Justice Department’s Inspector General, Glenn Fine, has drafted a preliminary report on the two agencies’ repeated squabbles to claim jurisdiction in investigations of explosives incidents across the country — from Times Square in New York City to Arizona and the West Coast.

The most recent documented spat came last December when the FBI protested a local prosecutor’s request to use the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to investigate a blast that killed a local bomb technician in Woodburn, Ore.

FBI and ATF supervisors “tend to deploy their employees to the larger, more sensational explosives incidents, sometimes racing each other to be the first federal agency on the scene and disputing upon arrival which agency should lead the investigation,” according to a draft version of the report.

It seems to me the Justice Department bosses are overlooking the obvious simple solution to the problem. If they would just look in the Constitution they would find they don’t have the authority for either the FBI or the ATF. If they would just disband both organizations and let the state law enforcement organizations handle the issues there wouldn’t be these squabbles between the two illegitimate siblings.

But the Justice Department is just like any other welfare mother and the more children it can bring into the world the more money it can justify taking from the tax payers. It’s time to kick the bums out and demand they make an honest living.

Saying the Right Things

Posted on by

I like listening to Michael Medved’s radio program whenever I get the chance.  For one thing, he’s good at getting leftists to call in, and then toying with them like a cat playing with a captured mouse.  Once in a while though, I have a major beef.  Discussing Obama’s address to Congress last week, Medved commended Obama for saying all the right things (the speech could have been delivered by Ronald Reagan).  Medved was being critical of conservatives who were in turn being critical of Obama’s speech.

Sure; Obama said all the right things, in much the same way that Ted Bundy said the right things as he was coaxing his victims into his van.  I’m not going to commend him for it though.

Quote of the day–Thomas Paine

Posted on by

The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.

Thomas Paine
The Rights of Man
[I recently finished “reading” (listening to it) this book. I was familiar with most of the material in it but what struck me was the debate between him and Edward Burke. Burke was defending a monarchical type of government and Paine argued people had “natural rights” that no government had authority to infringe. It was then that I realized just how revolutionary Paine’s ideas were and how important to Western society many of them are.

As the product description on Amazon says:

The Rights of Man written by legendary author Thomas Paine is widely considered to be one of the top 100 greatest books of all time. This great classic will surely attract a whole new generation of readers. For many, The Rights of Man is required reading for various courses and curriculums. And for others who simply enjoy reading timeless pieces of classic literature, this gem by Thomas Paine is highly recommended. Published by Classic House Books and beautifully produced, The Rights of Man would make an ideal gift and it should be a part of everyone’s personal library.

It’s not a particularly long book but it is a very important book.–Joe]