Monday, May 28, 2007

Banning Guns and Gun Owners

The anti-gun forces in this country have seen their grandiose plans for complete civil disarmament dashed enough times that they have had to devise a new strategy. With citizen groups like Gun Owners of America (GOA) and National Rifle Association (NRA) standing in their way, the gun-ban crowd have had to develop a strategy of gradual incrementalism, nibbling away at the edges of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms until someday, they hope, there will be no substance left to it. Some of the current crop of anti-gun legislation now percolating through the Democrat Congress are great examples of this strategy. Ban a few guns here, such as with HR 1022 (the ban on so-called “Assault Weapons”) and ban a few gun owners there, with HR 297 (the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] Improvement Act).

The NICS computer system was part of the original Brady Bill and requires that anyone purchasing a firearm from a gun dealer must submit to an “instant” check against an FBI file of people with criminal histories. Despite being unconstitutional, (firstly as an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment, secondly in Near v. Minnesota the Supreme Court ruled that the government should only punish the abuse of a right not place prior restraints on that right, thirdly as a violation of the 10th Amendment since the Constitution gives Congress no such authority anyway) and being backdoor gun registration (the law states that the name of the gun buyer must be destroyed “immediately” after passing the background check, the FBI originally interpreted that as permission to keep the list of gun buyers for 18 months [they had to settle for 6 months]) the NRA approved of the NICS as a political compromise instead of a 3 day waiting period for background checks.

The proposed “improvement” of NICS would force states to send the Feds all records that the Attorney General believes may help the FBI determine who is and who is not a prohibited person. The bill does not specify what records that may or may not include. To keep guns out of the hands of illegal aliens and others who are prohibited those records could include medical, tax, court, employment, traffic, psychological, or education records, anything and everything.

All these records on gun owners and non-gun owners alike would be sent to the FBI without a warrant and without judicial or Congressional oversight, an open invitation for a corrupt administration to gather reams of information on its political enemies. And since all of your most personal information would be stored in one system, it would also be an open invitation for hackers or governmental carelessness to release that information. Those of you who, like me, received a letter from the Veteran’s Administration last year saying that our personal records may have been compromised when a VA employee misplaced his laptop computer understand what a problem that could create.

Another problem with the whole thing is that along with violent felons, the background checks prohibit a lot of people that you might not suspect. Soldiers returning from Iraq or anyone else daring to seek help for stress or depression may be denied. How many existing or potential gun owners will not seek the medical help that they may need, for fear of losing their Constitutional rights?

People who have had a misdemeanor domestic violence charge or restraining order would be denied. While that may conjure up visions of violent ex-husbands and psychotic stalkers, that isn’t always the case. I know of a girl who, while attending college, got into a shouting match with one of her female roommates outside their building. During the exchange she grabbed the other girl’s shirt. That was all it took. Someone watching from the building called the cops. Since the girls in the argument both had the same address it was an instant “domestic violence” charge. And some courts issue restraining orders as a preventive measure during divorce proceedings, even though there have been no violence or real threats of it. People in such situations may well find themselves stripped of their Constitutional rights for no good reason.

Since NRA signed off on the original NICS, they are supporting this “improvement” of it. Gun Owners of America now stands alone against this infringement on the people’s rights. All gun owners (GOA members or not) as well as anyone who values privacy rights needs to help GOA bar the door against HR 297, a massive expansion of the federal surveillance state.

Saturday, May 19, 2007


It certainly looks like our buddy Ron Paul is gaining momentum as his word gets out. After the PMSNBC Republikrat Debate, when Paul smoked the competition in the poll afterwards, PMSNBC quickly squelched it and Paul's name wasn't even on the first page of the candidates. Of course, the PMSNBC "debate" was more of a full-length commercial for Chris Matthews and Hardball, the important questions crucial to our time about as stupid as the old Clinton query "Boxers of Briefs?"

Dr. Paul also did very well on the latest Faux News debate, coming in a close second on their poll, which also quickly disappeared. The neo-cons, the Drive-By Media, and the old-line Blueblood GOP faithful are all scared spitless of this guy. They all want a large, bloated, ever-present, all-powerful money-sponge of a Federal behemoth. Ron Paul wants to shove the Federal system back into Pandora's Box and replace the limits the U.S. Constitution (which all elected officials have sworn before God to uphold and defend) puts upon the function and scope of government.

As an aside, I found the Faux news interviewers a heckuva lot tougher on the candidates than Chris Matthews and Company ever were. They actually asked some tough, hard-hitting questions. The Big Three, or Rudy McRomney as they referred to them, were challenged hard and point-blank about what makes them think they are "conservative" after all the liberal stances, waffling, and flip-flopping of the past. They all, of course, gave smooth non-answers that wandered around everywhere but on topic. My favorite was Romnney, who "Supports the Second Amendment" except for that pesky part about not taking our guns away from us, as in his Taxachusetts Assault Rifle Ban which he supported and signed. It was rather hilarious watching McCain squirm and spew forth platitudes when questioned on illegal immigration, trying to make his and Teddy (urp) Kennedy's bill sound like it wasn't really just an amnesty. McCain's stance is kind of like, "Well, we can't catch and deport all of the illegals, so why even try?" By that line of reasoning, we can't catch all drunk drivers or serial rapists or murderers, so why even try? Just let 'em have free reign. I had to hand it to Rudy for sticking to his guns on his abortion stance, even though he knows it is unpopular in most GOP circles. At least he wasn't doing the Romney dance of, "I thought it was bad before I thought it was good before I thought it was bad, after much deep reflection."

The low point was the last interviewer who wandered all over on his hypothetical terrorism question...mall bombing in the U.S....captured terrorists in Guantanamo...they have information of future just crossed the International Date Line...and the third moon of Jupiter is in its fourth phase...and a train is leaving Chicago at 8;00 AM at an average speed of 62 mph...and the stock market is down in heavy trading...and THEN some aliens land in Brazil....Ron Paul got the last word there, too. They kept talking about "enhanced interogation techniques." Ron asked if that was Newspeak for "Torture", illustrating the Orwellianess of the whole thing.

The "Big News" all the Drive-By Media got out of the whole thing was the disagreement between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani over the causes of 9-11. The head of the RNC wanted to kick Paul out of all future debates over it. Just imagine, a disagreement at a DEBATE! Oh, the horror! Notorious Chickenhawk (I never served myself, but....) Yawn Hannity was having a hissy fit and attacking Ron Paul over the whole thing. How dare he say that U.S. intervention, political heavy-handedness, covert operations, military action, and occupation in foreign countries for decades gives them cause to hate us?!?!? I caught some of Hannity's Friday show on the radio in my work truck. He was still cussing Paul and hanging up on any caller that even mentioned him and sniveling that Paul's supporters were a bunch of mindless drones given their marching orders via "Left-wing Blogs". Left-wing Blogs? Yeah, apparently that's where all the Constitutionalists and Libertarians hang out. At the same time, Hannity was absolutely livid about the Illegal Amnesty Bill on the Hill and what a sell-out it was, blaming Teddy (braaaap) Kennedy over and over again for the whole thing and never once mentioning his pet RINO John McStain's role in co-authoring the whole thing. Hmmmm.

Methinks the drones and hacks are running mighty scared of Dr. Paul getting his Constitutional message out to the American Public. Now why would that be?

Friday, May 04, 2007


Sooooo, my wife and I did watch the Republikrats debate from The People's Republik of Kalifornia and there were only a few surprises.

Chris Matthews acted like a smarmy, arrogant buffoon, which wasn't surprising as he is a smarmy arrogant buffoon. And the Big Three were in fine typical politician form. John, Rudy and Mit were right there with their waffling, tap-dancing, and eloquent well-rehearsed non-answers, saying nothing but saying it with style. Plus, their hair looked really good, except for Rudy. The camera spent as much time as possible on the Big Three and the press gladly tossed them the majority of the questions.

For us, Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo really shone. I believe Dr. Paul was the only one to even mention that pesky ol' US Constitution and how it limits and restricts the role of government. The fact that he openly says he wants to get rid of the IRS and this did not catapult him straight to the nomination goes to show that (A) the solidly-entrenched GOP drones and hacks love government $$$ and power just as much as the competition and that (B) a vast number of the American Sheeple citizens have already been indoctrinated to believe they really do need government intervention in every single aspect of their lives.

Tancredo's stand on illegal immigration was totally refreshing and delightful. This is something that desperately needs to be addressed before the American Southwest is turned into a Third World country. John McStain, after co-authoring the amnesty bill with Teddy (hiccup) Kennedy shouldn't have said anything on the subject. The Big Three were all for National ID, too, of course as it gives the government (surprise!) more power and control over us. And that after they won't enforce the laws already on the books in regards to illegal immigrants who don't have ANY valid ID.

Brownback and Huckabee got in some impressive answers as well. I was actually pretty amazed to find so many real live Conservatives up on the platform running for Republikrat presidential nominee. I'm sure Ronnie Reagan was looking down with a big smile.

The over-all effect I got was that the debate lowered the status of the Big Three and elevated the status of the Black Sheep Conservatives. We could actually pull another Regeanesque Conservative candidate out of this can of worms. Good choices are sitting right there waiting.

It will be interesting, or rather disheartening, to see how the GOP faithful and the mainstream "Drive-By" media spin this debate. I haven't watched any of the talking heads this morning, but I'm sure they will be swooning over Mit and trying their best to totally ignore the contributions of Paul, Tancredo, Brownback and Huckabee. They will be swooning over "important issues" like who looked the best on camera, who had the sharpest wardrode, who seemed "smoothest" delivering his non-answers, who had the best haricut. The issues will be downplayed as much as possible.

To paraphrase Billy Crystal as Fernando: "It's not what you stand for, it's how you look. And you looked maahvelous Mit and John."

Thursday, May 03, 2007

New Ban on Semi-Autos?

In February, U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced a bill (H.R. 1022) that would reinstate the, now expired, Clinton-era ban on certain semi-automatic firearms (referred to by gun-prohibitionists as "assault weapons," a deliberately nebulous term). With the recent shootings at Virginia Tech we can expect a full court press to pass this new legislation. H.R. 1022 actually goes further than the original 1994 ban, casting even more weapons into the role of despicable "assault weapons."

(As you might remember, Carolyn McCarthy ran for Congress with her sole qualification being that her spouse was famously shot by some scumbag. If that's all it takes, we need to start working to get Randy Weaver on the ballot in '08.)

Some of the more common rifles affected by McCarthy's gun-grab include the AR-15 and AK-47 families, any SKS with detachable mags, FN/FAL's, and HK-91 derivatives. Weapons that weren't affected by the original ban but that now find themselves on the naughty list include the affordable Hi-Point Carbine, the ubiquitous Ruger Mini-14 and the venerable M1 Carbine. (By the way, if "assault weapon" is a clear-cut, unambiguous term, why wasn't the M1 Carbine an "assault weapon" before? It's basic design hasn't changed since 1941, so what has changed in the past 13 years, besides the definition of "assault weapon?")

Other rifles specifically banned by name include: AR-10, AR-70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD and SVU, FN/LAR or FNC, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle, Saiga, SAR8, SAR-4800, SLG 95, SLR 95 or 96, Steyr AUG, Tavor, Thompson1927 (and its derivitives), Uzi and Galil. Pistols banned by H.R. 1022 include the MAC-10 (and derivitives), Olympic Arms OA, Tec-9 (and its clones) and the Uzi pistol. Shotguns affected would include: Armscor 30 BG, SPAS 12 or LAW 12, Striker 12 and the much maligned Streetsweeper.

In case McCarthy forgot any weapons, H.R. 1022 imposes a blanket ban on any "semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine" and has any ONE of the following features (the old ban required TWO): a folding or telescoping stock, a threaded barrel, a pistol grip, a forward grip, or a barrel shroud. Also, H.R. 1022 would ban most semi-autos with FIXED magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and allow future attorneys general to ban weapons that he or she felt wasn't "particularly suitable for sporting purposes."

Besides banning hordes of guns, H.R. 1022 would require that all transfers or sales of "assault weapons" between law-abiding gun owners must go through a federally licensed gun dealer. That means two things: fees to do it (since gun dealers must cover their costs) and paper trails. (Transfers and sales between criminals, as always, will remain unaffected by the new law.) It would also permanently ban the importation of ammunition magazines.

Lastly, in the "Carolyn McCarthy Is Batshit Crazy" category, the bill has a provision that would require a minor child to have a written permission slip from their parent if they are engaged in target practice with ANY SEMI-AUTO (even one not covered by the ban itself). That's right, even if you were standing right beside your child, offering instruction while he or she shoots, you would both be federal criminals if your child didn't have a note from you in his or her pocket at the time. If that isn't arbitrary harassment of law-abiding gun owners, I don't know what is. And exactly what part of the Constitution authorizes that?

Gun Owners of America has more information and a pre-written email that you can send your congress-critter at Let's not let this arbitrary, onerous nightmare become a reality (again).