Tuesday, January 31, 2012
She's been documenting the process for the Washington Times.
Needless to say it's been Kafkaesque. Here's her testifying before the DC city council on the byzantine, expensive and time consuming process.
Now how does the CSGV (last seen trying to extort money from Starbucks) react to Miller's complaints?
Complaints like: To get a handgun in DC I have to drive to another state to a strange man who I know is armed and knows I am not armed.
Why with mockery of course. Sebastian and Weer'd look at this Brady retread's lashing out.
This isn't exactly a winning strategy. Look at the vid, does that seem like a reasonable or sane system? Does that sound like people who are upholding the Constitution?
About people who can't accept that others may believe differently than them, that they may act in a way seen as unwise or even immoral by others, and those that can't even wonder if the plans they want to foist on everyone just might be wrong.
They are so right that of course the coercive power of the state -- with its machinery of stripping away the property and liberty of those who run afoul of it -- should be deployed to wipe out mendicants and heretics.
One of the most cherished rights, never expressed anywhere but truly central to any truly free society, is the right to be Wrong. By which I mean, you should not just be free to do the things which the hegemonic culture deems to be "right." No one ever tries to outlaw that which they themselves believe to be right.
What they attempt to do, of course, is outlaw that which they believe to be wrong.
If you do not respect a citizen's right to be wrong -- if your first impulse is to use the frightening machinery of state coercion to compel him to be "right," as you see "right" -- then you do not respect him at all.
This is the chief character flaw of the leftist movement -- their inability to respect anyone at all but their own. A very provincial and solipisitically childish way to view the world, of course, which leads to a vicious arrogance in attempting to pound, pound, pound square pegs into the round holes the state has cut for them.
Go to the link and you'll see Catholics and Abortion are just a smokescreen. The real issue is organizations not doing what those controlling the State demand of them.
Now fit that in with the same people that want a more "militarized" and stronger State.
And fit that with another group that dreams of using the state to disarm all that disagree with their worldview.
That's true enough, just look at my Kimber blogging.
But that got me thinking on things that are good.
Seeing that I did not have a work space and was using my computer desk or dining room table, my father decided to order a work bench as a Christmas present for me.
It was custom made by a small company in South Carolina and thus only arrived last week. However, there was a problem as the holes on the two front legs were ground too far and the Lag Bolts could not engage. I contacted the owner by email with the problem and within ten minutes he called back and discussed the issue.
The next morning he shipped out a full set of replacement legs by second day air. They arrived and I've assembled it and am quite satisfied with the product and the customer service.
The company is American Workbench and if you want a very sturdy, high quality, extremely customization work bench I'll recommend them. And they do make excellent and appreciated gifts.
Monday, January 30, 2012
"And when I say "eventually", I mean it sat in the safe in a large plastic bag for three years before the scars - both physical and emotional - healed sufficiently to try a second time..."
You had what it known in the industry as "a box of gun".
I cannot tell you how many times over the years I've booked in a big sack or box of parts... :D
Heh. Great term.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Remember this the next time someone tries to tell you that government spending or entitlements aren't a problem or that we can fix it all with higher tax rates or cutting the military or even just by cutting the Department of Education or Foreign Aide.
Or that the Government works 90% of the time... yeah, yeah it sure does.
The old joke that we're becoming a less and less a country and more and more a pension plan with a military is becoming too optimistic.
The government secretly wants to take your guns away:
• Any sane gun law will lead to the government being able to take your guns away.
Linoge tears into a juicy treat the new gun control organization the "National Gun Victims Action Council" has dropped into his lap, with ngvac set gun control up the bomb
After showing the massively incestuous organizational relationships of the antis he goes into a bit of manna that the ngvac dropped.
And look at the phrasing of the sentence – note how they simply say "take your guns"; not "take criminals’ guns", not "take convicted persons’ guns", not "take some people’s guns". Nope, take your guns – as in every single firearm-owning person who happened upon their webpage and happened to read that sentence. Nevermind the "why" of the situation (especially because it boils down to nothing more complicated than their deep-seated, pathological, uncontrollable fear of an inanimate object) – these people want to empower the government to whimsically and capriciously confiscate your private property… ironically, at the point of a gun.
Is it any wonder we're suspicious about governmental action and giving them more power? Just look at what the RMCP can do up in Canada.
Like my previous post, I'll point to the amazing sense of trust and awe in governmental power. They're perfectly fine with giving the government the ability to remove property without any due process and to abridge the Bill of Rights. The First in the previous post, the Second in this.
And another points is the implicit assertion that if you're a part of the "right crowd" you'll get to keep your guns. Heck you might even be allowed to carry a handgun, just like in New Jersey, New York City, Boston, or San Francisco.
Again and again we see that these people are not against guns, free speech, or wealth in general, they're just against the "wrong" people having said things.
Obama, an unfettered executive wielding a swollen state, began and ended his address by celebrating the armed forces. They are not “consumed with personal ambition,” they “work together” and “focus on the mission at hand” and do not “obsess over their differences.” Americans should emulate troops “marching into battle,” who “rise or fall as one unit.”
Well. The armed services’ ethos, although noble, is not a template for civilian society, unless the aspiration is to extinguish politics.
Yeah... anyone else creeped out by the head of the military wishing the rest of the country acted like the military? Including his political rivals?
Progressive presidents use martial language as a way of encouraging Americans to confuse civilian politics with military exertions, thereby circumventing an impediment to progressive aspirations — the Constitution and the patience it demands. As a young professor, Woodrow Wilson had lamented that America’s political parties “are like armies without officers.” The most theoretically inclined of progressive politicians, Wilson was the first president to criticize America’s founding. This he did thoroughly, rejecting the Madisonian system of checks and balances — the separation of powers, a crucial component of limited government — because it makes a government that cannot be wielded efficiently by a strong executive.
Franklin Roosevelt agreed. He complained about “the three-horse team of the American system”: “If one horse lies down in the traces or plunges off in another direction, the field will not be plowed.” And progressive plowing takes precedence over constitutional equipoise among the three branches of government. Hence FDR’s attempt to break the Supreme Court to his will by enlarging it.
Limited government and checks and balances? Can't do that if it gets in the way of progress!
That section is followed by "Roosevelt [saying] it was “a mistake to assume that the virtues of war differ essentially from the virtues of peace.” In such a time, dissent is disloyalty." And contemporary examples of the Media gleefully cheering dictatorship.
Obama, aspiring to command civilian life, has said that in reforming health care, he would have preferred an “elegant, academically approved” plan without “legislative fingerprints on it” but “unfortunately” he had to conduct “negotiations with a lot of different people.” His campaign mantra “We can’t wait!” expresses progressivism’s impatience with our constitutional system of concurrent majorities. To enact and execute federal laws under Madison’s institutional architecture requires three, and sometimes more, such majorities. There must be majorities in the House and Senate, each body having distinctive constituencies and electoral rhythms. The law must be affirmed by the president, who has a distinctive electoral base and election schedule. Supermajorities in both houses of Congress are required to override presidential vetoes. And a Supreme Court majority is required to sustain laws against constitutional challenges.
“We can’t wait!” exclaims Obama, who makes recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess, multiplies “czars” to further nullify the Senate’s constitutional prerogative to advise and consent, and creates agencies (e.g., Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board and Dodd-Frank’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) untethered from legislative accountability.
Like other progressive presidents fond of military metaphors, he rejects the patience of politics required by the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.
Again, we see the idea of more state power and removing dissident as all being a virtue. Provided that "the right" people are in charge. Which is of a part with yesterday's post.
And here's another example of waxing poetic about militarization of the federal goverment.
And by pure coincidence the very people that point to the Military as a shining example of all that is right with the government, and that say the goverment is already too small, find the military as the one and only area that can be cut.
George Will's article via Andy at Ace of Spades
Whether they're fetishizing China, attempting to reorder society to combat fictitious global warming or taking over the healthcare system, rest assured that when you cut through their high-minded bullshit, the heart of a petty tyrant beats in every "progressive".
By pure coincidence Mr. A demands socializing Healthcare by saying we have a Socialized Military (among other services) and that the military and the government can "get things done" and be trusted to do that instead of dick around with profits.
He has also gone on long triads listing all the industries he does not want to have the government take over in a single payer system, but given things like the above those assurances ring a bit hollow.
Especially as this is a man who twice has wished for amendments to the First Amendment. All to remove free speech from political rivals. (Once to make First Amendment exception for entities deemed to not be telling "the truth" and another to ban corporate influence of elections. Unions, approved news outlets, and other cleared advocacy outlets excepted of course).
Such wishing was spurned by complaints that the government has "too many checks and not enough balance." Why yes, he is saying that a powerful executive should take more power and act in spite of congressional resistance in order to serve a greater good.
And that complaints against said power grabs are defacto untruthful and thus should be banned... if only that pesky constitution weren't in the way.
So it seems perfectly natural that his solution to media outlets of a disagreeable political bent is to amend the constitution so that the state can ban them.
The scary part is how uncomprehending he is to how creepy and extreme such ideas are. The sad part is that he is completely uncomprehending of such governmental powers ever being used against him.
As much as he complains about Republicans and their evil, fascistic, racist, hateful ways, he seems perfectly fine with creating a Bureau of Truth (that can strip people and organizations of their fist amendment rights if they are deemed untruthful), and then handing the keys of the BoT to any potential Republican president.
Does he think that the republicans will never regain governmental control?
That they would not use the powers of the BoT to ban free speech (note Mr. A wants the Dems to use it and by his rhetoric should be deathly afraid of the Republicans having it)?
That the BoT's internal bureaucracy will only ban "the right" kinds of free speech in spite of who their nominal boss is?
None of those options are particularly heartening, but are to be expected of someone tho is infatuated with the power of the state.
A lot of the pitfalls of trying to use your body without enough training, the limitations of said training, and the importance of having the right mentality.
Or you can just click on this picture by Oleg Volk
Friday, January 27, 2012
That way crime and self defense are accounted for. And one can see the immediate dangers of a monopolistic collective that can legally beat you up, take your stuff, and toss you in the gaol.
Here's a little bit on the difference between American and German traditions on that idea. And instead of legitimate I went with legal as the legitimacy is derived from being legal.
Here's a bit on how the President just doesn't get America.
I don’t mean that Obama is crazy. What is so evident, however, is that he is so detached from reality. Even assuming Obama’s political goals, how he goes about expressing and implementing them proves that point. The issues and the America Obama described in the speech have nothing to do with current issues and problems. The ridiculous bit with Warren Buffett’s secretary—income tax and capital gains tax are two different things—the talk about “fairness” and “teamwork,” simply don’t address what’s going on: things like the economic recovery just not happening, costs of production being too high, investor’s confidence shaken, government spending wasted to an extent far beyond what’s been seen before, and the nation’s resources misapplied in a ruinous manner.
Obama’s major speech in Kansas, an echo of one given by Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, also indicates what’s wrong with this president. It’s as if he’s half in the past—populism against the big monopolistic corporations running roughshod over a feeble government and defenseless workers—and half in the future, pushing a green utopia.
Second, Obama doesn’t have a very good understanding of America, its history, its system or its institutions. We see this constantly in his attitude toward the basic governmental structures. He simply doesn’t seem, for example, to comprehend the role of Congress. Obama really thinks that Congress has no right to thwart him, and he isn’t quite sure that the Supreme Court, not him, determines what is Constitutional. He has no real idea how the economic system works, including the function of the bankruptcy laws or of the private enterprise system generally . What could be more ironic than the fact that the man who is supposed to be the smartest guy around is, in functional terms, the dumbest guy around?
Consider how a functional liberal Democratic president would be behaving. He or Hillary would not have thrown trillions of dollars down the toilet for absolutely nothing in return. That kind of president would not sincerely believe that the economy is doing okay. That kind of president would be a political survivor—think of Bill Clinton—who would understand that he had to change course and truly move toward the center if only in order to be reelected
Such a president would understand that even if he got all the rich-bashing tax increases he wanted that would have no effect on an avalanching deficit. So he would acknowledge and take action on the government being too big, spending too high, and regulation too complex. And he would implement such a program out of political advantage, his own reputation, and some concern for the well-being of the country. Of course, there would be a sharp disagreement with Republicans about what and how much to change.
Which shows the real hackery of many of Obama's supporters. It's not just that they keep defending Obama as the smartest guy around, its that they're forced to pretend the stimulus saved the US (and it should have been larger damnit!), that there isn't a spending problem, that high tax rates and military cuts alone will satisfy the budget problems, that the president really can twart congress and the courts if he really really wants to, that people complaining about greater police powers (TSA, speech limitations, war on Terror, war on drugs) are just paranoid and unpatriotic.
That's not to say that if Obama wins the dance won't reverse, but it is important to note it. And to note the reversal from the previous "Party Line."
And the media is doing it's best to pretend that the massive debt crisis just isn't going to happen.
The whole core of their behavior really is "We're smarter and more compassionate than you therefore we deserve to run things and if you deny us our power or money then you must be stupid or evil."
As Ace explains.
Democrats are just a collection of rent-seekers, beak-dippers, and vig-skimmers, who have convinced themselves that it is not only acceptable that they should collect rents, dip their beaks, and collect a vig on everyone else's transactions, but that to deny them such rents, dippings, and vigs constitutes the most hateful, vicious, and fundamentally un-American behavior they can conceive.
If a guy comes over to your business and begins demanding that you do x and pay y tithe to group z, and is all up in your grill about it, you'd probably either call the cops or spare them the trouble by getting out your gun and telling the miscreant to remove himself from your site or be removed from the earth.
But these cats get a degree in Public Policy and worm themselves up the Media-Distributionist Complex, and suddenly that behavior isn't merely legal -- now they've got the coercive force of the government on their side.
And that's why they don't see a problem with the coercive power of the government. Like a prohibitionist waxing about how banning the "devil rum" or the "devil weed" can't ever see the law going after the vices he likes, people that plan to abuse the coercive power of the state hardly ever consider such vast power being used against them.
And they also just don't get that --
1. Even if they were smart, you weren't looking for a new boss.
2. You don't accept that they're that smart. In fact, you think they're kind of douchey faegelas who don't know shit about shat.
3. You also reject the weird premise that a certain type of ability, like intelligence, naturally makes one party a master and a complete stranger a slave. Why shouldn't we just say that physical might creates such a relationship, as was true for the first 10,000 years of human existence?
If your idea or charity comes via the barrel of a gun, then you're a thief and a thug, if it comes from the barrel of someone else's gun then you're a mobster, but if that gun is in the hands of a policeman well... then you're a politician.
Just consider that "Anti-Gun" people are perfectly satisfied by using armed agents of the state enact their confiscatory dreams. And then you realize their problem is not that arms exist, but who has them. That's a similar situation the "Anti-rich" Democrats have with the wealthy. Really they don't mind the rich, just as long as they're the "right kind."
Here's some more on the handouts, payouts, and bailouts.
When President Obama promised "no more bailouts, no more handouts" in his State of the Union address, and declared "it's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom," he was either prescribing a total reversal of his current industrial policy, or he was once again using words to mean something they've never meant before.
Get ready for the whiplash...
When liberals speak of "fairness," conservatives tend to hear "redistribution" and "welfare," but Obama's fairness talk is not just code for liberal class warfare. He's also trying to tap into a broad sense that right now, the game is rigged -- that the insiders get special treatment and regular folks get short shrift. This is a real problem, and it's prudent to tap into this dissatisfaction. It's too bad all his policies just rig the game even more.
Obama opened his discussion on industrial policy Tuesday night by bragging about how the taxpayer bailouts of Detroit had helped put General Motors "back on top as the world's number one automaker." In other words, if the government stacks the deck sufficiently in favor of one huge, politically connected corporation, that corporation can beat other, huge, less politically connected corporations.
Then Obama promised, "What's happening in Detroit can happen in other industries." The meaning was clear: With enough handouts, enough bailouts, enough mandates, government can prop up all sorts of manufacturing corporations.
Remember, might makes right if it's coming via a authorized monopoly in coercive violence, and since its for the greater good why not whet the beaks of those making sure things role along smoothly. The people's work is thirsty work.
Via Glenn Reynolds ho says "He’s only against handouts to the wrong people."
Rich or poor, play along and you'll get prizes, don't and you'll pay for them
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Now some content that sure the registry ran massively over budget but at least it tracked if a gun used in a crime came from a registered owner, except... it didn't:
Please note,” Statistics Canada wrote in response to an access to information request filed by the National Firearms Association, “that the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) survey does not collect information on licensing of either guns or gun owners related to the incidents of violent crime reported by police.” Nor does StatsCan’s annual homicide survey “collect information on the registration status of the firearm used to commit a homicide.
This raises the question: Why did it take so long for the government to begin ridding Canada of the horribly expensive, unjustifiably intrusive federal gun registry? If no one in Ottawa had any systematic way of tracking whether or not Canadians suspected of committing a violent gun crime were licensed to own a gun and had registered the gun being used, then they had no way of knowing whether registration and licensing were having a positive impact on crime.
So instead of verifying that the registration scheme was even serving it's indented purpose... they just ran on "faith", as Joe Huffman puts it.
So if the Canadian government is not even tracking if their registration scheme reduces crime what are they doing with it?
Banning 22's that look like AK-47's.
Yeah... kind of sounds like the registration scheme didn't work as advertised and is now being used to well... confiscate weapons.
Say it again: Registration leads to confiscation.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Well, at least the Greens can sleep soundly knowing they helped line Warren Buffet's pockets and increased Obama's power. Then again... they seem pretty okay with wealth and power as long as it's in the "right" hands.
Meh, here have some good news.
Edit: Well, well. Disheartening articles, certain staffers with sitting in the First Lady's box seat for the SOTU. Looks like this story has some bite to it.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
So you have someone doing class based agitation, about how the rich get preferential treatment in this nation and how it needs to be fixed.
Now you can always ask them how much they make and followup with why they're not already doing their fair share.
Well, here's another thing, ask them about Conceal Carry. Do they support May Issue or Shall Issue? What to they think of "sensible gun control" laws?
If they're all for it, point to places like New York City, Boston, San Francisco, Baltimore, New Jersey or anywhere that has discretionary issue, explain how in those places the only people that can legally carry are the politically connected, and those wealthy enough to buy political connections.
Ask them if they're still okay with an organized governmental plan to keep the poor from being armed. If they're an NYC or Boston or NJ resident tell them to just try to get a carry permit.
Then it's pretty simple to ask: How can someone so sensitive to wealth inequality be okay to a system so fundamentally unfair and biased towards the powerful?
There's two options. 1) This equality is all a scam on their part to ensure that the proletariat is satisfied with bread and circuses while solidifying their own position in a type of new aristocracy.
Or 2) They honestly think the poor are due equality by the force of the state in everything but self defense and firearms rights. Because, well, the poor can't handle or don't need to be armed. Which betrays a paternalistic superior mentality of an enlightened class that oversees the poor as some sort of benevolent caretaker.
This is also why I'm not persuaded by the argument of "Every other civilized nation does X, but the US. The US should do it too!"
Again I wouldn't want to take egalitarian advice from country that bans firearms save for toys for the rich (UK) or that reduces carry to those that are politically connected, celebrities, or the wealthy (Germany, Italy).
Again if you think Canada is morally superior because they have Socialized Healthcare I'm free do thing they're morally inferior because of how corrupt and elitist their Authorization to Carry system is. For example the ATC has provisions to be authorized to a woman who is fearful of reprisals by her ex husband. But no ATC has ever been issued for that reason. Classy.
You'll note that many of the same people that complain about the police throwing around terms like "pigs" are just fine and dandy with the police having the arbitrary power to decide who can and cannot have guns, or failing that being the only people allowed to have them.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Did make it so it came up off the driveway in clumps.
Though having lived in Buffalo for 6 years I can't complain about the snows here.
Still, I'm glad I didn't have anywhere to go today, and that I have a garage.
Stay warm, mulled cider with a splash of rum can do wonders.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Sunday, January 15, 2012
(I didn't have any pressing gunnie needs and it seemed a bit crowed this time around)
I did however go to the Blogmeet today at the BrewPub. Food was so good it managed to serve as late lunch and early dinner.
Good times was had, talking about old time technical books, radios, guns, and the like.
Here's Brigid's report and Roberta's
Can add a new blog to the "blogger's I've met" list: Mr. Engineering Johnson at his first attendance.
I also managed to snag Tam's old 4th ed Mauser Military Rifles of the World. And got an impromptu lesson in volley-fire.
CargoSquid looks at the claim that the pro-gun "candle and gun" vigils were mocking victims.
And he does it via evidence. Going over a dozen posts and more comments he finds... nothing.
Wow. All that posting. Not a single attack against victims or gun control activists. Not even a harsh word. Or snark. Which, if you are familiar with gun bloggers is a freaking miracle.
Let's see.....Maybe its hidden in Weer'd comments...
Nope. Just more links to more memorials. And links to the CSGV on Facebook to show the reactions of the gun control fanatics. THE OVERWHELMING CONSISTENT THREAD IS THE TOTAL LACK OF ANY MENTION OF YOU. You appear to be upset because we ignored you, mostly, and joined "your" vigil, and did it our way.
Joan Peterson...without proof, without evidence, you slander good people. And yet you call us shameless? You have the outright, shameless, unmitigated, GALL to insult people that actually JOINED you in honoring victims of violence BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DO IT IN YOUR APPROVED MANNER?
There you have it. Joan was angry that people had the gall to take her idea, do it their way, and then not mention her. It would make sense that she would decry people honoring victims in the wrong way. She certainly decrys the wrong type of victim.
Lingore also looks on another difference.
Joan (gun controler): No comments will be published from pro gun activists on this post.
Jenniver (gun rights activist): I know you won’t publish this. That’s fine. It’s your space. But I give you my word that I won’t censor you on my blog. And I do plan to publish my comment on my blog. Probably repeatedly.
What I find interesting is how much the candle and gun thing touched a nerve. And it didn't come from high in the "Gun Lobby", it was something that Weerd thought would be neat to do.
Meanwhile high up people in the Gun Control lobby have decided to make this one of their key fights.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
One of the most compelling reason to buy a gun myself was when I realized that guns save far more lives than they take. I’m Glad Joan is not only linking me, but quoting me on her blog which previously would never acknowledge such events. Defensive gun uses are generally the elephant in the room for the Anti-Rights types, as in an argument where pro-gun people can only frame their gun ownership in terms of sport and collecting, that argument will ALWAYS lose, as no matter what as the negatives will be the abuses of guns in society, and the positives will be fun-and-games. No rational person will chose the gun. But if you frame guns as a tool to protect innocent lives and resist tyranny, and cite the number of lives SAVED by personal firearms EVERYDAY, and compare that with the innocent lives harmed by them, well there is no contest.
Thank you Weerd. On Thursday I was trying to explain how important self defense was for Gun Rights. But you've said it much better and much more succinctly.
Go read the rest of Weerd's post and see what we're up against. And how they lie and want to render people helpless, tell them it's for their own good, and then profit politically when the people they've disarmed are subsequently victimized.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Or to be more accurate, it removes a huge hurdle in talking about and justifying RKBA. Take a country with extremely restrictive carry issue like Canada or pre-97 England or so forth.
In those countries (at the time) handguns were/are legal. But the common person could not carry them for self defense. Thus a primary use was eliminated. Hell Canada has a limitation on how short a handgun's barrel can be. Can't have something that someone might try to conceal.
And when the anti's reared their heads, and took advantage of blood in the streets they went "Well why do you need X? X is dangerous! It's only purpose is to murder!"
And answers like sport, hunting, collectiability, and "Because I damn well want to you intrusive harpy," are all valid. Though the Anti's will retort with "But it's designed to kill! It's a
And if the State has banned carry and self defense, then well, the subject cannot reply with: "So what? Damn straight X is designed to kill(while also be carried on a person's body). Not all killing is wrong or even illegal."
Removing self defense turns firearms from a right to just a hobby. Yes, most of us gunnies consider them both. However, it's far far easier to regulate out of existence (or regulate down to just the "right people") a hobby than it is a right.
Especially if the hobby can be demonized as dangerous and fringe, instead of being a constitutional right.
This is why the Anti's used to say they supported "Hunters and Sportsmen" but not those Assault Weapons and High Capacity Clips. But now to now where they're forced to give lip service to self defense. It shows how far we've gone that the anti's have to say things like that.
Then again they used to say a lot of things. Miguel documents a bit of the history of the Brady Campaign or as they used to be called the National Council to Ban Handguns.
The goal's never changed though. As Miguel quotes their three step plan: 1 hamper sales of new handguns as much as possible, 2 get a national registry, 3 "make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition totally illegal".
And they know that expanding gun ownership is death to their organization, because the more people that are exposed to firearms the more their lies are exposed.
But a registry won't ever be abused! Read the rest of Miguel's post to get a reminder of ow the Anti's work.
It also helps that there's very plain text in the Constitution backing up our stance.
And some more info on the Second Amendment via Linoge.
The US is standing as a country where nearly 3/4 of the population is able to purchase and carry a handgun for no other reason than they want to.
And the State (assuming fees, training and non felon which is a whole other ball of wax) is forced to oblige them. And in many locations this has been going on for decades. And more and more states are becoming Shall Issue. Oh and there was no blood in the streets, no spike in crime.
I'm not sure the Anti's are able to comprehend the magnitude of what that means for their cause.
In most of the US the common citizen can go about their day armed, if they so wish, and use said arm to defend themselves. No being part of the "special class" or needing to "know a guy". Any law-abiding citizen. 41 States, 70% of the population.
That also underscores how fundamentally unfair May Issue regimes are. Because their whole reason for existence is to prohibit rights to otherwise qualified petitioners. If New York or New Jersey or Massachusetts or California or Canada or Italy really cared about equality before the law you'd think they'd treat all applicants for conceal carry equally, no?
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
And going after those eeeevilll "AK-Variants". And by Variants I mean 22 caliber long rifle plinkers styled after an AK47.
A gun registry being abused by petty bureaucrats to enact confiscation? Say it ain't so!
By changing classifications now, the RCMP will retain records of these owners even after the long-gun-registry data is destroyed.
Friedman says activist bureaucrats at the Canadian Firearms Program are using what little time remains to move more firearms into the restricted and prohibited categories.
"Remember, once the gun registry is eliminated, the RCMP will lose their ability to identify, target and harass law-abiding owners on non-restricted firearms," he said. "They only took notice of (the AP80) when the gun registry is in its death throes."
Spite. If you give agents of the state a power they WILL abuse it.
And showing how dumb such regs are. The VZ 58 is not Restricted.
Yeah it's not considered an AK variant! Yes, that is true. As the VZ58 has a different action mechanism and is made in a different country.
But functionally it fires a 7.62 by 39. Same caliber as the AK47, which puts it a lot closer to the Ak47 than the 22lr AP80 which the RCMP has seen fit to ban.
Oh and for some irony look at this on Armi Jager (the AM80's mfg) wiki page
The gun manufacturer was active since the early 1960s, manufacturing semi-automatic rimfire sporting rifles and replica "Western" revolvers. Later it evolved to rimfire and small-caliber centerfire (.32 ACP) firearms patterned after the look of military rifles which at the time were difficult or illegal to own for civilians in Italy.
Of course the Canadian government said nuts to that and decided to ban 'em anyway.
And Bloomberg shows that anti's never saw a prohibition they didn't want to foist on the rest of us.
Bloomberg has a dream, a dream of a New York City with less booze.
One of the goals listed in the “request for proposal” document to community groups is “reducing alcohol retail outlet (e.g. bar, corner store) density and illegal alcohol,” the document states.
And how will he accomplish that dream?
The city Health Department’s far-reaching Partnership for a Healthier New York City initiatives proposes to slash the number of establishments in the city that sell booze.
Community “transformation” grants provided under President Obama’s health-care law would help bankroll the effort.
This is my shocked face.
So much for my body my choice eh? Well we know the anti's don't believe it's your choice on how you can defend yourself or what chemicals you put in your body or what you eat (yes I'm pointing to both of the Paternalist Statist Parties).
And speaking of nannying bans, here's a ban for smoking within your own apartment (regardless of what your landlord says), or even out on the balcony.
But only if you're smoking tobacco.
These kinds of prohibitions are a bizarre form of redlining, one that bans poor people (who, in Marin, are more likely to be renters) from an activity in which richer people can freely engage. More than that, this kind of policing strikes me as hypocritical when it comes from the very same people who routinely lambast conservatives for trying to impose control over people’s private lives.
It's for their own good you see. Like how Bloomberg's alcohol crusade won't affect the well to do in New York. Just like how the well to do in NYC can get handgun permits.
The net result is that Marin’s poor people are barred from engaging in Dangerous Behavior “A” because it’s associated with capitalism (i.e., Big Tobacco) while they’re free, under Marin ordinances, if not under criminal law, to engage in equally Dangerous Behavior “B”, because it comes under the pop culture/counter culture rubric. Likewise, third parties in Marin will now be relieved from the burden of inhaling politically incorrect second-hand tobacco smoke, but must still suffer the hardship of inhaling hip, politically approved second-hand marijuana smoke.
Stories such as this one remind me that one of the best things about leaving liberalism behind is the fact that I no longer have to grapple daily with the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy that is an integral part of the “liberal” mindset.
It is hard to tell what is and what is not in the Party's favor.
I'll fix that.
VDH talks about how power and knowledge has indeed trickled down in ways that are frankly amazing.
In short,we live in an unacknowledged age in which a poor man with a laptop who taps into a free signal at Starbucks has more information at his fingertips than did the Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford just forty years ago.
Or a world where obesity is the number one health ailment of the poor as he mentions in the intimidatingly subsequent section as he comes to his conclusion.
Read it all, especially the end.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Just read it all. I also realized the double meaning in Robb's line. Not only does it talk of the mechanism as to why the gunnie community wins, but it's also the reason why the gunnie community wants to win.
This is why it's so important to remember that as a gunnie you are an ambassador, and the benefits of helping those that want in on the community.
What can you offer? What can the anti's offer?
Take someone to the range, teach someone about firearms safety, explain why you carry. This is how we win. This is why we win.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Light a candle and well...
So on January 8th I ask everybody to post a picture of a lit candle and you carry gun. Because lit candles don’t do a whole lot but cast a meager amount of light…but a loaded gun in the hands of lawful citizens can do wonders to protect innocent lives from harm.
This is a really good idea. There's just something about the composition, that's the source of it's resonance.
Both a gun and a candle are tools. Some tools are designed to kill things others are designed to burn things. That does not make them evil; they are inanimate objects. The morality lies in the user. And sometimes you need to burn something, and sometimes the moral choice is to kill.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Given how things are going looking to the Browncoats and their story gives some melancholic solace.
As Mr. A shows, it's never, ever enough. No matter who goes up against the(ir) party, they will always be a counter revolutionary extremist. Always.
And here's the quote Green mentions at the end:
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.
Friday, January 6, 2012
And he was boastful about Obamacare being a stepping stone to his dream, right aver dismissing "Faux News" as giving paranoid talking points... such as that one. When I pointed out to him that food and housing are also required to live and are also publicly and privately funded, he dismissed that by saying healthcare was special. And the question of why public housing is so much poorer than private housing fell on deaf ears.
Instead, he gave the example of prisons and how privatizing prisons is an immoral act. Of course, the act of legal incarceration has to be done through governmental bodies. When it's done via private motivation it's kidnapping. Where it is still legal in the US to pick a doctor of your own choosing and pay them for their time. But I'll let his equating of medical care and incarceration speak for itself.
A friend of his also spoke up against "privatized" food production by noting the poor quality of fast food and the obesity epidemic. He's got me there. If there's anything socialized, commune, farming is known for it's a lack of obesity.
Mr. A also presented an argument of cost, where soup kitchens, restaurants, and farms have a far lower entry cost than medical fields, and thus the medical field has to be taken over by the government. I'll let you consider a pharma giant like Merc versus an agra-giant like ADM. Or a large industrialized stockyard versus a hospital. Or a local chiropractor and a convenience store. But there's too big to fail right here.
And don't you love a defense of reducing market barriers and increasing competition that depends on um... closing the market via a compulsory monopoly with no competition and no choice.
Why yes, he did screech about health care companies cheating people out of every nickle and dime to reduce costs and how they hurt the little guy by being giant monopolistic institutions that people had no power against. His solution? A bigger total monopoly with the full punitive power of the state to force compliance, one that will be more efficient and reduce costs to the taxpayer.
But don't worry if healthcare becomes single payer where all medical equipment, drugs, and consumables are paid for by the government and can only be sold to the government. If that happens the medical industry will become as streamlined and cost effecient as other single payer industries such as military procurement.
Defense contractors can only sell their wares to the US government and just look at how slim and trim our defense spending is.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
I think that in order to understand them, you need to look at things from their perspective. They believe that criminals are just like the rest of us, but have simply been pushed into making a rash decision. If guns are removed from the equation, then the person will not have the opportunity to act before they come to their senses.
This is where the nonsense about waiting periods, victim disarmament zones, and virtually every other law comes from- even why they are so soft on convicted criminals. In their eyes, everyone is a potential criminal, all we need is a moment of lost self control.
Underscoring that mentality of everyone is a criminal, everyone is a child, the masses can't rule themselves... Illinois has just started a drain cleaner registry. You see, stores now have to keep a log of who buys these "dangerous chemicals" and demand that purchases provide valid ID. Because that will somehow reduce "cleaner-crime".
Once again we're seeing that government ID is required do to everything but vote.
RobertaX also points out that this idea of being a nation of children/serfs is antithetical to American culture in Americans: An Armed Rabble
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Basically about the demise of the "Fudd" and the rise of defensive carry culture. Americans are putting the Bear back in "Right to Keep and Bear Arms."
Couple that with RobertaX who shows that this has been a long running "experiment" in some places.
It is funny, and sad, to see hand-wringing over "blood in the streets" especially as Roberta points out when it's in a jurisdiction that has been Shall issue since before either the perp or the defensive shooter were borne.
We already know the outcome: there aren't any "shoot-outs in canned goods" and 99.99999% of the time, the only red on the floor is from a dropped jar of tomato-based product (or hot sauce). Your worst fears have not come true -- because most people, yes, even those of us who had a State Police background check, got fingerprinted and paid for a License To Carry Handgun, most people are good and decent; most people are reluctant to take human life.
I was up in Buffalo for the New Year and went shooting with my friends, one of which was trying out her very first gun. Even in New York State we're making inroads.
Also speaking of results from the "cultural experiment" I was in a chat talking about 3D printing and other such future tech and I pointed out how that stuff was making Gun Control a dead letter.
It promoted this rather candid response: "giving Dutch people firearms would help the overpopulation problem rather quickly". And yes, these quotes are all from a Dutchman.
I pointed out that us violent Americans can handle having more guns and more people carrying them without more murder.
He agree with the stats but went to a cultural defense. Somehow his people were different: "I think the problem mainly would be with arming them now. I mean The Netherlands has been a country without widespread firearms ownership since 1918."
To be fair he also wondered if the average Dutch citizen can handle driving a car and voting: "I am not sure anyone here can handle a car if I see them drive at times. But no, I don't trust most of the population here, if they vote for those idiots." So there's at least a uniform sense of elitism.
Here's the interesting part. He says he's not against "the ownership in general" but thinks that liberalization would require a "slow introduction" to manage the "problem of reintroducing them".
Consider where this has placed a European Anti. They're reduced to going Well sure you violent and uncouth Americans can handle having and carrying guns, but our peaceful and gentile
Well, it's that or plug their hands in their ears and completely ignore reality.
Monday, January 2, 2012
No return address, no note inside, but there was a replacement for the the broken part.
It's the same MIM cast stuff, but they've been doing that a while. Even my old safeties that had been working for years were of that.
Maybe the broken one was of a bad batch. No quality control is perfect, but there does seem to be a disturbing pattern and trend with Kimber. I'll run some ammunition though my alternate 1911 with the new safety and see if it breaks.
At least testing to the previous part's longevity won't be hard as it was only around 300 rounds.
Though it will take more than that to have me trust the part in a carry piece.