(no subject)
This one just deserves a special post all to itself.
One last thing:
Alan Korwin (Virginia Gun Owners Guide author) sends us this reminder
in his "Uninvited Ombudsman" newsletter:
--
The lamestream media told you:
Guns were not much of an issue in the midterm elections, few
politicians brought up the subject, Democrats know it's a loser for
them, and the new Congress will have other fish to fry.
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The Brady campaign released their gun agenda for the next Congress by
direct mail on Nov. 22, absolutely giddy about changes the elections
made in Congress. "We won more than 95% of the races where we
endorsed a candidate," they gushed, and now propose to:
--Re-enact the assault weapon ban
--Federalize all private gun sales
--Criminalize gun-show activity
--Strengthen the Brady law*
--Curb illegal gun sales*
--Pass life-saving gun laws*
--Repeal the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act (the frivolous lawsuit ban)
--Limit the number of guns people can buy
*No details provided on what these goals might actually mean.
In addition, they plan to continue to fight for their "successes"
while Republicans were in power:
--Block national concealed carry
--Maintain the gun-ban for Wash., D.C.
--Ban gun sales across state lines
--Continue gun-lock sales requirements
--Fight anything the "sleazy" (their word) NRA proposes
--Limit available "military-style firearms"
--Restrict "faster-firing, bigger clip" guns
After Katrina: "This will be a gun-free zone. We are going to
confiscate every gun... Is that unreasonable?" --Illinois Democrat
Senator Dick Durbin on the floor of Congress, July 13, 2006.
The Uninvited Ombudsman asks: should politicians who violate their
oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution be removed from
office or imprisoned?
Let's see...
Re-enact the assault weapons ban: most people involved with the Brady campaign don't know their assault rifles from a hole in the ground--they prefer to classify "assault weapons" as guns that look scary and military-ish.
Federalize all private firearms sales: don't even get me started on this. Suffice to say that the federal government getting that involved in my personal life really, REALLY makes every hair on the back of my neck stand up. How many people remember that Britain tried to do exactly that in...oh...1774. We saw how that one turned out. And of course, the gun ban in Britain has really cut down on crime there. Right, and I can flap my ears and fly around the world while eating a sandwich.
Criminalize gun show activity: this is a tie-in with the federalization of gun sales; again, no no no, a thousand times "NO!"
Strengthen the Brady Law: no details given.
Curb illegal gun sales: ditto; I'm guessing cameras on every street corner, or 1984-style spy-TV things. And the Republicans are being accused of being too overbearing.
Pass life-saving gun laws: again no details, and I can't help but shake my head at what I know is going to be a contradiction in terms..."We're going to save lives by taking the guns out of everybody's hands. Please ignore the fact that only people who pay attention to the law will be disarmed; the criminally-inclined will have easy pickings. In other news, I'm a corporate sack of bullshit being paid to brainlessly push this agenda."
Block national concealed-carry: right, because we don't have enough confusing laws on the books, so when we try to do away with the mish-mash of inter-state laws, and which ones have reciprocity with others, you decide to try to block it, in hopes of putting another few armed citizens in jail when they shoot someone who tries to rob them.
Maintain the gun ban in D.C.: good idea, I don't think the crime rate is high enough either! Let's go for a record! *sigh* That's one reason why there's less crime in VA than in DC and MD: criminals know they're more likely to get confronted by an armed victim than they are in DC or MD.
Ban gun sales across state lines: I'll be honest: I'm not sure where you're going with this one. Does this mean no internet sales or something? Because the current procedure for those is for someone to get it approved by a legal dealer in his or her area, and the gun must be shipped TO THE DEALER for final registration/transaction. So there are no guns sent directly to private residences.
Continue gun lock sales requirements: well if I have to buy a gun lock with the gun itself, whatever--but it's coming off and staying off when it gets home. Getting those things off is a royal pain, and trying to do it in a hurry (like if someone's trying to break into your house at night and you don't know where the key is) would not be a good thing. Get a safe with a good lock on it (combination dial or punch pad or fingerprint, whatever). Someone can steal a gun with a lock on it and get the lock off later. They're less likely to walk out with a half-ton safe.
Fight anything the "sleazy" (that's Brady campaign's word) NRA proposes: mudslinging and name-calling are you? I won't even give that the dignity of a response.
Limit "military-style firearms": so we're back to the big, bad, scary-looking gun thing. Is it time to change your diapers already?
Restrict faster-firing, bigger clip guns": if any of these Brady people knew their terminology, they might be able to make a coherent argument. "Faster firing" guns? Well, a perfectly legal semi-automatic (full-autos are already severely restricted, though still legal) goes bang every time the trigger is pulled--maybe we should break everybody's index finger so they can't pull it as fast. And a gun will accept any clip that fits into the receiver; few are designed to take a maximum number of rounds (the integral box mag ones like the 1903 Springfield por ejemplo), so it's the high-capacity magazines you're talking about, and you've already taken care of those.
Senator Durbin's comment (after Katrina): "This will be a gun-free zone. We are going to confiscate every gun... Is that unreasonable?": um...yes.
Honestly, I don't have much love for big government in general, and these proposed intrusions are making me trust what we have less and less.
One last thing:
Alan Korwin (Virginia Gun Owners Guide author) sends us this reminder
in his "Uninvited Ombudsman" newsletter:
--
The lamestream media told you:
Guns were not much of an issue in the midterm elections, few
politicians brought up the subject, Democrats know it's a loser for
them, and the new Congress will have other fish to fry.
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The Brady campaign released their gun agenda for the next Congress by
direct mail on Nov. 22, absolutely giddy about changes the elections
made in Congress. "We won more than 95% of the races where we
endorsed a candidate," they gushed, and now propose to:
--Re-enact the assault weapon ban
--Federalize all private gun sales
--Criminalize gun-show activity
--Strengthen the Brady law*
--Curb illegal gun sales*
--Pass life-saving gun laws*
--Repeal the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act (the frivolous lawsuit ban)
--Limit the number of guns people can buy
*No details provided on what these goals might actually mean.
In addition, they plan to continue to fight for their "successes"
while Republicans were in power:
--Block national concealed carry
--Maintain the gun-ban for Wash., D.C.
--Ban gun sales across state lines
--Continue gun-lock sales requirements
--Fight anything the "sleazy" (their word) NRA proposes
--Limit available "military-style firearms"
--Restrict "faster-firing, bigger clip" guns
After Katrina: "This will be a gun-free zone. We are going to
confiscate every gun... Is that unreasonable?" --Illinois Democrat
Senator Dick Durbin on the floor of Congress, July 13, 2006.
The Uninvited Ombudsman asks: should politicians who violate their
oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution be removed from
office or imprisoned?
Let's see...
Re-enact the assault weapons ban: most people involved with the Brady campaign don't know their assault rifles from a hole in the ground--they prefer to classify "assault weapons" as guns that look scary and military-ish.
Federalize all private firearms sales: don't even get me started on this. Suffice to say that the federal government getting that involved in my personal life really, REALLY makes every hair on the back of my neck stand up. How many people remember that Britain tried to do exactly that in...oh...1774. We saw how that one turned out. And of course, the gun ban in Britain has really cut down on crime there. Right, and I can flap my ears and fly around the world while eating a sandwich.
Criminalize gun show activity: this is a tie-in with the federalization of gun sales; again, no no no, a thousand times "NO!"
Strengthen the Brady Law: no details given.
Curb illegal gun sales: ditto; I'm guessing cameras on every street corner, or 1984-style spy-TV things. And the Republicans are being accused of being too overbearing.
Pass life-saving gun laws: again no details, and I can't help but shake my head at what I know is going to be a contradiction in terms..."We're going to save lives by taking the guns out of everybody's hands. Please ignore the fact that only people who pay attention to the law will be disarmed; the criminally-inclined will have easy pickings. In other news, I'm a corporate sack of bullshit being paid to brainlessly push this agenda."
Block national concealed-carry: right, because we don't have enough confusing laws on the books, so when we try to do away with the mish-mash of inter-state laws, and which ones have reciprocity with others, you decide to try to block it, in hopes of putting another few armed citizens in jail when they shoot someone who tries to rob them.
Maintain the gun ban in D.C.: good idea, I don't think the crime rate is high enough either! Let's go for a record! *sigh* That's one reason why there's less crime in VA than in DC and MD: criminals know they're more likely to get confronted by an armed victim than they are in DC or MD.
Ban gun sales across state lines: I'll be honest: I'm not sure where you're going with this one. Does this mean no internet sales or something? Because the current procedure for those is for someone to get it approved by a legal dealer in his or her area, and the gun must be shipped TO THE DEALER for final registration/transaction. So there are no guns sent directly to private residences.
Continue gun lock sales requirements: well if I have to buy a gun lock with the gun itself, whatever--but it's coming off and staying off when it gets home. Getting those things off is a royal pain, and trying to do it in a hurry (like if someone's trying to break into your house at night and you don't know where the key is) would not be a good thing. Get a safe with a good lock on it (combination dial or punch pad or fingerprint, whatever). Someone can steal a gun with a lock on it and get the lock off later. They're less likely to walk out with a half-ton safe.
Fight anything the "sleazy" (that's Brady campaign's word) NRA proposes: mudslinging and name-calling are you? I won't even give that the dignity of a response.
Limit "military-style firearms": so we're back to the big, bad, scary-looking gun thing. Is it time to change your diapers already?
Restrict faster-firing, bigger clip guns": if any of these Brady people knew their terminology, they might be able to make a coherent argument. "Faster firing" guns? Well, a perfectly legal semi-automatic (full-autos are already severely restricted, though still legal) goes bang every time the trigger is pulled--maybe we should break everybody's index finger so they can't pull it as fast. And a gun will accept any clip that fits into the receiver; few are designed to take a maximum number of rounds (the integral box mag ones like the 1903 Springfield por ejemplo), so it's the high-capacity magazines you're talking about, and you've already taken care of those.
Senator Durbin's comment (after Katrina): "This will be a gun-free zone. We are going to confiscate every gun... Is that unreasonable?": um...yes.
Honestly, I don't have much love for big government in general, and these proposed intrusions are making me trust what we have less and less.