Saturday, November 12, 2011

The Second Amendment is as statist as you can get.

The Americans inherited the concept of Civic republicanism from seventeenth century English "Commonwealthmen". This concept was a primary ideological value driving the American Revolution and the framing of the Constitution. Historian Gordon Wood writes that "[r]epublicanism meant more for Americans than simply the elimination of a king and the institution of an elective system. This concept added a moral dimension and utopian aspect to the political separation from England--an aspect that involved the very character of their society."

The classical liberal tradition gave the independence movement its values and concepts with which we have grown familiar. The most important of which was a civic and patriot ideal in which the personality was founded in property, perfected in citizenship but perpetually threatened by corruption; government figuring paradoxically as the principle source of corruption and operating through such means as patronage,faction, standing armies (as opposed to the ideal of the militia), established churches (opposed to the Puritan and deist modes of American religion) and the promotion of a monied interest .

The founders believed in the Republic and that was how they wanted the newly formed United States to function. Republicanism made high moral demands on its citizens, in addition to entrusting them with the defense of their communities. For example, a citizen of a republic was expected to subordinate self-interest to the overarching good of the community.

The public good was, in fact, the lodestar for a republican government. Citizen participation in civic affairs was absolutely essential to a republican government. It was understood that there was a moral obligation obligation for citizen participation in government. This moral obligation was described in the literature of the times as public or civic virtue.

One of the extreme dislikes of civic republican theorists was the professional standing army. A professional standing army was seen as another instrument that could be used by a tyrannical government to subjugate its citizens. The institution of the militia served to eliminate the possibility of a coup by ambitious military leaders (e.g., Julius Caesar). The presence of an armed citizenry also served as a visible reminder to the executive of the ability of the people to remove the magistrate by force if necessary.

Most importantly, the militia served as an organ through which republican virtues could be transmitted to generations of new citizens. Because its membership was universal, there was little danger the militia itself could be employed in the service of tyranny, since its interests were considered identical to those of the community from which the militia drew its members. Furthermore, the local nature of the militia assured that its uses would be defensive. A professional army, on the other hand, tied geographically to no one place, might constantly agitate for a policy of expansion and military adventurism.

The North American colonists relied on the militia to provide essential policing and defensive functions, and most colonies required its free citizens to be enrolled in county militias and to assemble and drill regularly. Don Higginbotham noted that the "very nature [of] the militia system reinforced the provincialism that was a salient characteristic of the colonial period."However, the militia's relative lack of social stratification, especially when compared with the rather severe class demarcations existing at that time in Europe, inspired spirited rhetoric among both Americans and European intellectuals. Even then, it seems, the militia system was seen as an important civic institution, serving political, and not just military, ends.

The problem was that the Militia system was not adequate for a proper long term national defence. Given that Adam Smith had written that the militia was not a proper defence force for a developed economy in Wealth of Nations in addition to Washington's (Von Steuben's?) turning the Continental Forces into a standing army, one could argue that the militia system was outdated at the time of the Revolution, let alone the drafting of the Constitution. On the other hand, republican values admired the militia system not just for defence, but the instilling of civic virtues.

The Constitution tried to compromise between the two systems. There was the fear that the Federal Standing Army would eventually replace the militia system--this is what led to the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a well regulated militia. Unfortunately, the importance of the militia to the interpretation of the Second Amendment has been subjected to revisionist history which tries to remove the citizen's military duty, but that is a highly important aspect to understanding the concept of what a well regulated militia implied to the founders.

  • Tom W. Bell, The Third Amendment: Forgotten but Not Gone, 2 William & Mary Bill of Rights J. 117 (1993).
  • Willaim S. Fields and David T. Hardy, The Third Amendment and the Issue of the Maintenance of Standing Armies: A Legal History, 35 Am. J. Legal Hist. 393 (1991).
  • Western, J.R.: English Militia in the Eighteenth Century: The Story of a Political Issue, 1660-1802 (ISBN: 978-0751201406)
  • Beckett, Ian: Britain's Part-Time Soldiers: The Amateur Military Tradition 1558-1945 (ISBN: 978-1848843950)
  • Cress, Lawrence Delbert Cress. Citizens in Arms: The Army and the Militia in American Society to the War of 1812
  • Cunliffe, Marcus, Soldiers and Civilians: The Martial Spirit in America, 1775-1865
  • Denning, Brannon P., Palladium of Liberty? Causes and Consequences of the Federalization of State Militias in the Twentieth Century, 21 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 191-245 (1996)
  • Mahon, John K, The History of the Militia and the National Guard
  • Millett, Allan R. & Maslowski, Peter, For The Common Defense: A Military History of the United States of America: Revised Edition
  • Riker, William H, Soldiers of the States
  • One of the few Law Review articles discussing the historical militia is "The Militia Clause of the Constitution" by Frederick Wiener 54 Harvard Law Review 181(1940).
  • See also Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter I (Of the Expences of the Sovereign or Commonwealth), PART I: 16-27 (Of the Expence of Defence) for a critique of the miltia system from 1775.
  • Also, David Chandler & Ian Beckett, The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army (ISBN: 978-0198691785) has a section on the Amateur Military Tradition (I.E., the Militia).
  • Weatherup, Roy, Standing Armies And Armed Citizens: An Historical Analysis of The Second Amendment, 2 Hastings Const. L.Q. 961-1001 (1975)
  • Schwoerer, Lois G. "No Standing Armies!" The Antiarmy Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England
  • Whisker, James Biser The Citizen-Soldier under Federal and State Law, 94 W. Va. L. Rev. 947 (1991-1992)
  • Cooper, Jerry The Rise of the National Guard: The Evolution of the American Militia, 1865-1920, ISBN: 978-0803264281
  • Bogus, Carl T. THE HISTORY AND POLITICS OF SECOND AMENDMENT SCHOLARSHIP: A PRIMER, Chicago-Kent Law Review, Symposium on the Second Amendment, vol. 76, 2000: 3S
  • Spitzer, Robert J. LOST AND FOUND: RESEARCHING THE SECOND AMENDMENT, Chicago-Kent Law Review,Symposium on the Second Amendment vol. 76, 2000: 349

Rick Perry Meets the Spanish Inquisition

OK, Rick Perry's latest gaff in Detroit reminded me of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch:

I was curious if anyone else had the same reaction and came up with this:

Of course, life imitates art, but there could be a better script than the one in the above video:
NOBODY expects Rick Perry! The chief Agency I will dismantle is Commerce...Commerce and Education...Commerce and Education.... The two Agencies I will dismantle are Commerce and Education...and The EPA.... .The three Agencies I will dismantle are Commerce, Education, and The EPA ...and The Department of Energy.... The Amongst the Agencies I will dismantle.... Amongst Agencies I will dismantle...are Commerce, Education.... I'll come in again.

NOBODY expects expects Rick Perry! Amongst the Agencies I will dismantle are such diverse ones as: Commerce, Education, The EPA, and The Department of Energy, and Housing and Urban Development - Oh damn!
Dominic Dezzutti also had the same observation.

Barbara Sheehan gets 5 Years for Gun Charge

The Times Union reports on the sentencing and her reaction.

I'm not sure if we came to a consensus last time we talked about this one, so just in case I didn't make myself clear that time, here's my take on it. She's going to jail for the wrong reason. The District Attorney said it right.
"Barbara was not the victim in this case," Assistant District Attorney Debra Pomodore said. "Raymond, her husband, was the victim."
I'm all for women's rights. I'm the one who keeps linking to my "guns are bad news for women" post. But in this case, what she did is no different than all the other cases we read about in which someone snaps and uses a gun.

Temporary insanity might have worked, but not the battered wife defense. That's my take on it. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

Road Rage in Gun Friendly Arizona

Appleton told police another vehicle had been tailgating him, so he pulled into the drugstore parking lot. He said the vehicle followed him into the parking lot and Pearson exited the car and approached Appleton’s vehicle, police said.

Appleton said Pearson reached through his open car window and tried to choke him. That’s when Appleton took out his revolver and told Pearson to let go. He told police he shot him because he would not.

Appleton was arrested around 1:30 a.m. Friday, after police found inconsistencies in Appleton’s story based on physical evidence and witness accounts, police said.
You see what he did? He tried to claim it was a legitimate DGU, just like a lot of people do in that situation. Sometimes it's just too outlandish for even the gun-loving authorities in Arizona to accept.

What's your opinion? Do the lenient attitudes in Arizona regarding guns contribute to situations like this? Any lawful gun owner can carry a concealed weapon. The problem is too many of these lawful gun owners are unfit, especially in Arizona where the requirements for ownership are minimal.

Wouldn't it be better if people had to be highly trained and thoroughly screened in order to own guns and even more so to carry them outside the home? Wouldn't that prevent some of these incidents?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Friday, November 11, 2011

Jon Stewart Nails the Republican Debate... and So Does Stephen Colbert

Cross posted from

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart
Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - Mercy Rule Edition
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook

followed on Comedy Central by this:

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Indecision 2012 - Sorry, Oops
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogVideo Archive

Just an observation, but I don't think Rick Perry can afford to get rid of the Department of Education just yet; he clearly still needs some serious education himself.

I don't find 'oops' to be presidential, but then most of what he proposes lacks merit or depth of thought or a legitimate factual basis.  All he represents is right wing ignorance.

A Little Taxation Education, Courtesy of the Weekly Update

This is a common right wing lie which always annoys me. Along with the bullshit about not taxing the wealthy because they are 'job creators' (they aren't, in fact they are routinely job exporters and job destroyers) is the oft-repeated lie about small business and taxation.  I would only add to the concluding statements at the end of this article from, that there are also other ways of structuring their businesses which would allow small business owners to handle their business taxation separately from their personal tax returns, and that the conserns claimed by the right are easily remedied by a good tax accountant or tax attorney.  Further, many if not most of those who qualify as 'small business' are not small in the sense that most of us use the word; some of those entities that qualify as 'small business' by definition, are in fact HUGE operations, in terms of money, commercial activity, and number of locations and employees, and not what most of us think of as 'small businesses' at all.  It is how the right disadvantages the 99% of us, while pandering to their 1% donor base among the ultra-wealthy.

Without further ado, from
House Speaker John Boehner claimed that “small-business people” make up more than half of those who would be hit by a tax increase on “millionaires.” Not really. Only 13 percent of those making over $1 million get even as much as one-fourth of that income from small business, according to government tax experts.
Old Exaggerations
Republicans have for years greatly exaggerated the extent to which higher taxes on upper-income individuals would fall on owners of small businesses. And we have repeatedly pointed out the inflated figures they’ve used in the past.
This time, Boehner was responding specifically to a question about a “millionaires” tax. The exchange was on ABC’s “This Week” on Nov. 6.
Christiane Amanpour: Some 75 percent of Americans agree with an increase in tax on millionaires as a way to pay for these jobs provisions. Do you not feel that by opposing it you’re basically out of step with the American people on this issue?
Boehner: Well, over half of the people who would be taxed under this plan are, in fact, small-business people. And as a result, you’re going to basically increase taxes on the very people that we’re hoping will reinvest in our economy and create jobs. That’s the real crux of the problem.
Boehner’s spokesman, Michael Steel, quickly admitted that the speaker was mistaken. When we emailed him asking for backup, he said: “He could have worded it better.”
But Steel then went on to repeat an older exaggeration — about a different tax proposal. He said that “a tax increase on over $200/$250k hits 50 percent of small-business income.” That’s not the tax proposal Boehner was asked about. Furthermore, that old claim refers to half of small-business income, not the number of “people,” the term Boehner used. And even more important, a lot of that supposedly “small”-business income is really from giant firms bringing in over $50 million a year.
Steel was referring to a July, 14, 2010, report from the Joint Committee on Taxation that  analyzed the effects of President Barack Obama’s proposed 2011 budget, which, among other things, called for allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making over $200,000 (or for couples making over $250,000). And as we’ve pointed out over and over, the JCT study doesn’t back up the claim Steel and other Republicans constantly repeat, as the JCT itself made very clear:
Joint Committee on Taxation: These figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered ‘small.’ For example, in 2005, 12,862 S corporations and 6,658 partnerships had receipts on more than $50 million.
‘Millionaire’ Small-Business Owners
But what about the “millionaires” tax? Are half of the people making over $1 million actually small-business owners? It so happens there was an in-depth report that speaks to this very point, issued in August by experts at the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Analysis. It is a “technical paper” by career employees, not a policy document, and the most sophisticated look at the issue that we’ve seen thus far.
This report notes that the definition of small-business owners that Republicans have often used in the past is “overly broad,” which puts it mildly. That definition counts as a small-business owner anyone who reported any “flow-through” business income on his or her personal tax return. So it takes in owners of large firms as well as small, and also people whose business income is negligible and who earn their living primarily from other means.
For example, a partner in a Wall Street hedge fund would be classified as a “small”-business owner even if he or she raked in $100 million from trading securities. And a corporate executive making $1 million in salary and bonuses would be counted as a “small-business owner” if he or she also received a few dollars from the incidental rental of a ski condo or beach house.
That old, sweeping calculation was often the best government agencies could do, but new data sources allowed the Treasury to take a more precise and nuanced measure of small-business owners. The new Treasury analysis improves on earlier efforts in two major ways:
  • It eliminates millions of “businesses” that don’t really have any business activity (such as passive investment vehicles, or the occasional rental of a vacation house).
  • It distinguishes businesses that aren’t really “small.” Only businesses with less than $10 million in gross income or deductions are counted as “small” in this analysis.
And what does that tell us about Boehner’s claim? He would be correct only if we count as “small-business people” all those who get any income at all from a business making less than $10 million. Under that definition — which the Treasury paper calls “broad” — about 273,000 of these “millionaires” were classified as small-business owners. That comes to about 70 percent of all “millionaire” returns. By that measure, Boehner’s “over half” estimation would be correct with plenty of room to spare. But for most of those taxpayers,  the small-business income is incidental.
The Treasury paper also supplied an alternative “narrow definition” of small-business owners, counting “only individuals with active net income from small businesses that equals at least 25 percent of the taxpayers AGI [adjusted gross income].” That still includes a lot of people who get the majority of their income from sources other than their small-business income. But it gets us a lot closer to the mom-and-pop small-business owner many of us envision when politicians speak of “small-business people.”
And under this more precise measure, the millionaires’ picture changes dramatically. Only 51,000 of the 392,000 millionaires were small-business owners under this not-so-narrow definition. That comes to about 13 percent. Nowhere close to half.
“We note that our revised methodology is but one reasonable approach that could be used to identify small businesses and their owners,” the report qualifies. “However, we believe it represents a significant improvement over previous methodologies that were constrained by data limitations.”
Job Creators?
Since Boehner argued the tax would hurt those who create jobs, here are two pieces of additional perspective from the report:
  • Small-business owners in general are often lauded as job creators. But “millionaires” make up only a tiny fraction of the small-business owners. How tiny a fraction? According to the Treasury experts’ “broad” definition, 1.4 percent, and according to the narrow definition, 0.5 percent.
  • And contrary to the “job creator” image, being a small-business owner doesn’t mean you actually employ anyone. In fact, most don’t. According to the Treasury report, “We also find that slightly more than one-fifth of small businesses conform to our definition of an employer.”
As we’ve always said, Republicans do have a point when they say raising individual tax rates results in raising taxes on business owners whose business income flows through to their personal returns. And standard economic theory holds that raising business taxes tends to dampen employment to some degree. But rather than stick to the facts, Boehner and other Republicans exaggerate greatly the number of employers who would be affected by raising taxes on upper-income individuals.
– Robert Farley

Are you really a Libertarian?

While I am the first to say I dislike libertarianism, I have to agree with Bryan Caplan that the Libertarian Purity Test is both better and more honest than the "World's Shortest Political Quiz". The states the questions with any intent to show the test taker has libertarian tendencies--although I did get a 14 on Mr. Caplan's test which means "You are starting to have libertarian leanings. Explore them."

I have no libertarian leanings whatsoever with an 8% score (14/160) on this test! In fact, I dislike the libertarian ideology intensively, which Mr.Caplan's test actually highlights.

There is a much more accurate test at the political compass. Although, I still question that one's accuracy.

The major problem is the nebulous political philosophy called Libertarianism tries to lure everyone into believing they are libertarian. Mr.Caplan's test is far more honest in that it makes it clear what Libertarianism believes.

Once one knows that libertarianism works to destroy the institutions that allow society to function, it becomes clear that Libertarianism is antithetical to most social systems.

Robert Farago Makes His Points in JS Online

Apparently they had a phone conversation and Eugene let Robert make all his points without challenging anything. For example, when Farago said concealed carry is in the Constitution, there should have been a huge guffaw from Kane and at least an attempt to question that logic.

Robert Farago and his friends are continually pushing the unacceptable leap in logic that works something like this:

1. Right to life
2. Right to self-defense
3. Right to carry a handgun

The distance between points 2 and 3 is too much for me, but Robert slips it into every discussion as if it's just fine.

In response to the law in Wisconsin having been changed to eliminate any requirement of training before receiving the CCW permit, Robert had this to say and Eugene let him get away with it.
"Actually, it's a pretty simple thing to pull out a gun, aim and shoot it," he insisted.
Admittedly, shooting a gun is easy, and granted, most folks who apply for the concealed carry permit do far more training and preparation than any law would require, yet there are those who don't. Web sites like The Truth about Guns, which are wildly popular, continually browbeat their readers with the fear-driven message that their lives are in constant danger and guns are the answer. Privately, as in this telephone interview, Farago admits this is not true, but the Armed Intelligentsia commenting on his site all seem to agree carrying a gun is the only way to go.

Some folks are influenced by this who are not trained or equipped with the basic coordination skills and/or mental wherewithal to handle a gun safely. They can get a concealed carry permit in places like Wisconsin with no training whatsoever.

Eugene Kane closed out the piece with this.
I can agree with much of what Farago said about the right to bear arms, but I would also hope most concealed gun owners get proper training and attempt to be at least a little intelligent with their decisions.
I can't help but think that would be a good thing for all of us.
Please, Eugene, hopin' ain't gonna get it, man. Gun owners need to be screened carefully, CCW permit applicants even more so. We're past hoping that they get training and are intelligent enough to act responsibly.  Some don't and some aren't.  Here's my goal. And the way we're going to get there is this.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Vigilante Justice is Condoned in New York

The New York Times reports on the latest incident of vigilante justice condoned by the authorities.

It was 10:15 p.m. on Tuesday on a Bronx street. The shots erupted as Mr. Baltazar struggled fiercely over a gun with one of the three men, identified as Mauricio Acosta, who, armed with a.357-caliber pistol, strode toward him and his son, the authorities said. 
As the gun fell to the ground and the three assailants fled, Mr. Baltazar picked it up and chased them, first a half-block south on Grand Avenue and then west along Evelyn Place, in University Heights.
After chasing the 17-year-old would-be robber for a couple blocks, Baltazar shot him in the back of the neck, leaving him in critical condition.

So much do they love vigilante/cowboy justice in New York City, that even a convicted drug dealer on parole, like Baltazar is, and even after he hides the gun in an attempt to cover up his crime, only later confessing everything to the detectives, like Baltazar did, no charges are filed.

What's your opinion? Isn't it odd or ironic that New York which is so despised by gun-rights advocates for its laws, allows this kind of thing? Shouldn't the pro-gun crowd be opposed to this? Isn't shooting someone only permitted when an active threat exists?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

The Global Arms Business

It is troubling because we have been at it for so long—the United States has been easily the largest arms exporter in the post-Cold War era—and still can’t seem to learn the ABCs of the arms trade: (A) the weapons we produce and sell or give away very often fall into the hands of people who want to use them to shoot at us; (B) the networks of arms merchants are also attracted to other forms of illicit commerce, like nuclear materials, drugs and human trafficking; and (C) the purported benefits of sustaining the “defense industrial base” by exporting weapons are grossly exaggerated. Yet none of these sturdy facts deters policymakers of all political persuasions from pushing lethal technologies onto petty tyrants and intermittent allies in Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia and indeed just about everywhere else.
We spend most of our time talking about the handgun problem in the US. But, I suppose it's a lot bigger than that. The same rules apply, though. Arms manufacturers want to sell their product, just like handgun makers, and they couldn't care less who gets them as long as sales are up.

What do you think? Is that too harsh a judgment? Do gun manufacturers have a social conscience or are they as mercenary as I say?

Please leave a comment.

Dulce et decorum pro patria mori

This is written in the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst Chapel.

Today commemerates the end of the 14-18 War, a war where millions of men armed with rifles were slaughtered. Their firearms useless to protect them against the machines of war.

The Second Amendment is about the "values" one gains from the martial duties that come from Militia service--not the private ownership of firearms.

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori:
mors et fugacem persequitur virum
nec parcit inbellis iuventae
poplitibus timidove tergo.

"How sweet and fitting it is to die for one's country:
Death pursues the man who flees,
spares not the hamstrings or cowardly backs
Of battle-shy youths."

Thursday, November 10, 2011

The Numbers. Make a new number, make a good number; sign this petition.

Sign here.

The Deep Fried Mars Bar!

No shit! I do have to admit to thinking this was a joke when I first heard about it. It is an ordinary Mars bar normally fried in a type of batter commonly used for fish and chips. It originated at chip shops in Scotland as a novelty item, but was never mainstream. Since various mass media have reported on the practice since the mid 1990s, in part as a commentary on urban Scotland’s notoriously unhealthy diet, the popularity of the dish has spread.

Rumour is that it was invented in the Haven Chip Bar in Stonehaven, near Aberdeen, in 1995. The first recorded mention of the food was in the Aberdeen Evening Express following a tip off phone call to their journalist Alastair Dalton that a chip shop in Stonehaven had been deep frying Mars Bars for local kids.

Here’s the recipe if you are perverse enough to want to try this. I have the “luck” of having a chip shop that makes this nearby if I ever have the urge (that was the “inspiration” for this post).

* 1 Mars bars or 1 Milky Way bar
* 1 cup plain flour
* 1/2 cup cornflour
* 1 pinch baking soda
* milk or beer
* oil (for deep frying)

1. Chill the chocolate bar by keeping it in the fridge, but don’t freeze it.
2. Mix the flours and bicarbonate of soda (baking soda) together.
3. Add milk (traditional) or beer (which gives a lighter result) until you get a batter with the consistency of thin cream.
4. Heat the oil until a small piece of bread will brown in a few seconds, but don’t allow to smoke.
5. Remove wrapper from chilled chocolate bar.
6. Coat completely in batter.
7. Carefully lower into hot oil and fry until golden brown.
8. Serve, with ice cream or french fries, if you’re so inclined

One restaurant that serves this calls it a “A serious indulgence! For health and safety reasons, we can’t give you seconds of this.”

I can’t imagine wanting seconds of it.

But, it would be an interesting St. Andrew’s Day after!

And you thought Haggis was disgusting!

Swiss Guns

Normally, the Swiss are fairly law abiding, but in this case the service rifle was owned by a man who had several previous convictions for threatening behaviour and property damage before he shot his girlfriend in the head with his army assault rifle.

The Swiss have been debating the propriety of keeping the service rifles in the home for some time. There was a referendum held earlier this year about changing the law that resulted in a rejection of proposals to change the current laws.
"If the police have any doubts about how dangerous an individual is, there must be zero tolerance,” said police inspector and Swiss National Party national councillor Yvan Perrin to newspaper Le Matin.

"It's very simple: when someone is involved in a [criminal] case, the police have to determine whether this person is fit to own a gun. Then they must communicate their decision both to justice officials and the army," he said.

Denis Froidevaux, vice president of the Swiss Association of Military Officers, expressed a similar sentiment, saying people convicted on threat charges should not be allowed to possess firearms, “even if it’s just as a precaution.” But he said the decision should be made by justice officials rather than the police.

"This case raises questions about state responsibility”, criminologist Martin Killias told the newspaper, wondering if authorities have not been “negligent.” “Switzerland is too soft when it comes to weapons,” he said.
While the militia tradition still exists in Switzerland (unlike the US) and there is a similar attitude towards their guns to the US, the attitude there is much more pragmatic:
The issue of trust is key to the debate. “The Swiss system is based on trust,” so “someone who violates the law should not be rewarded with trust and, therefore, should be deprived of his [army] weapon,” said Liberal Party national councillor Isabel Morat.

The problem for inspector Perrin is that “there is still a taboo around army weapons.” And he added: “They say that every good solider should keep one at home, but above all, it is a weapon that can kill, let’s not forget that.”
Got that? but above all, it is a weapon that can kill, let’s not forget that.

Marine Corps Birthday

Gordon over at The Alternate Brain wrote something extremely touching and beautiful in 2005.

The Birthday Ball

My comment:

I hadn't read your post from 2005 before. I just loved it. I can see why you'd be proud of that piece.

I served in the Marines between 1970 and 1972. I didn't go the the war. Even before my discharge I became extremely anti-government, anti-war and anti-Marine Corps.

I remain that way still, seeing not much of patriotism or heroism in our current volunteers as much as frustration and a lack of economic choices. I don't see them as the noble paragons of virtue they're often touted to be but rather saps who have been duped by the government.

Nevertheless, I can't deny the emotional attachment I feel for fellow Marines. Never does a November 10th go by that I don't reach out in some way to my fellows.

Your essay about the Birthday Ball ceremonies touched me deeply. I thank you for that.

Fox Hunting in England

That was where hunting foxes and hares with packs of hounds worked so well. Because it was such a thoroughly inefficient way of killing the wildlife, it worked as a highly effective culling system – generally catching only the very old, the sick and the infirm.
If I'm not mistaken this is the same argument they make in The States for deer hunting. It's always for the good of the animals.

In Britain, they're right up there with the best of them when it comes to justifying.

And contrary to what the Antis would like you to think, hunting is not the preserve of toffs, but a totally levelling occupation, with packs of hounds kept by hill farmers and Welsh miners, all with that shared love of the chase.
I'm not sure if I understand the word "toff," but in the picture above I dont' see any coal miners or hill farmers, do you?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Alejandro Balderama - You Won't See Him No More

Balderama was in the southern bathroom arguing with his girlfriend, according to the affidavit, when another woman who was staying in the home wanted to use the bathroom to change her clothes before going to bed. The woman's boyfriend, Ernest Villa, 23, told her to go use the other bathroom at the other end of the mobile home, but then must have confronted Balderama, who then allegedly shot him in the head.

Balderama then left the bathroom and walked out into the living room, where he was confronted by Jaime Perez, who was watching a movie with his girlfriend Megan Ortiz, who lives in the home.

Balderama then allegedly shot both Perez and Ortiz. Balderama also allegedly shot at Patrick Dominguez, as he went to assist his cousin, Megan Ortiz, after she had been shot. 
One of the pro-gun arguments is that we should focus more on the violent criminals rather than the guns. They always make this argument as if it's a question of either/or, as if we can't do both. Sometimes they go so far as to accuse gun control folks of being easy on criminals, of wanting too lenient sentences.

There all lies. Alejandro Balderama is a perfect example. I don't think anyone wants a guy like that to get a light sentence and to be released in a short time, I know I don't. But what I see as a major contributory factor in violence like this is the easy access to guns by criminals, the violent and the mentally ill. And this is something we can do something about.

When forced to look at this, the gun-rights argument often says criminals will always get guns, there's nothing we can do about it.  That's another lie.  The truth is gun owners don't want to be inconvenienced themselves. Proper gun control would result in a certain increase in the inconvenient processes which no one likes to deal with. But in order to screen out the unfit individuals among them, this would be necessary.  But rather than accpet that as part of the deal, for everyone's good, the gun-rights folks go to any extreme to oppose even the most common-sense and reasonable restrictions - all for their own convenience.

Has there ever been a more self-centered and short-sighted movement among us than the gun-rights movement?  Has there ever been one that costs more lives?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Deleware Homicide / Suicide - 2 Dead

Deleware Online reports

Two friends were fatally wounded late Monday inside a Claymont home in what has been ruled a homicide-suicide.
Witnesses inside the house told police that the men were friends and it appears a gun accidentally discharged and hit Borican in the chest, killing him.  When Burbage saw his friend dead, he turned the gun on himself and fatally wounded himself in the chest.
It's not your usual murder/suicide, but one thing it has in common with all the rest, these are young men who shouldn't have had such easy access to guns. That's not freedom.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Ohio Voters Take Back the Country - from Extremist Conservatives

Ohio Senate Bill 5 Overwhelmingly Repealed 

"Conservative Overreach" Undone
Republicans Join Democrats to Push Back the Extremists

Republican Governor John Kasich had his butt handed to him on Tuesday.

Republicans overreach, they do it every time they win majorities in elections that they believe give them mandates, mandates which they mistake for support for right wing extremists.  But after the 2010 elections, they outdid themselves.

Kasich, along with Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, were in the front of the right wing Union Busting, in the false name of making a friendly business climate in their states.  Their careers and their 'centerpiece' legislation was heavily funded by the right, notably in some instances by the Koch Brothers directly and indirectly.  Kasich is consistently noted along with Wisconsin Governor Walker (who has a 47% disapproval rating) and Florida Governor Rick Scott as the most unpopular governors in the nation.  Walker faces a possible recall after only a year in office, despite attempts to change the recall process to save his job.

The numbers appear to indicate that more people voted to repeal Senate bill 5 than voted to elect Governor Kasich.

The legislation was repealed by a vote of 61% to 39%, by one report, while an AP source in Cleveland puts it at 63%.  This is a landslide, this is overwhelming, in the face of yet more attempts at voter suppression by the right, and is more noteworthy than ever that this occurred in an off-year election, and was distinguished by unprecedented numbers of petition signatures to initiate the ballot initiative.

Along with this signal repeal were other significant elections rejecting the extremists on the right.

Remember all those claims by the right to justify their voter ID measures that they were only supporting fair and honest elections?  In Ohio, as has been the case in other locations, the Right - funded apparently by the Koch Brothers - have engaged in dirty tricks in an attempt to cheat to win elections.   If they can't buy elections outright, they will try to buy elections through dirty tricks.

In Ohio, it failed. In Ohio, people won and big money lost.  But in Ohio, despite the overwhelming numbers, the right wing extremists are staying bought by their wealthy would-be union-busting wealthy interests; they are going to attempt to RE-pass the same provisions of the legislation that was repealed as separate bills.

Just a hunch, but I'm betting that won't be a successful re-election strategy.

According to Politico (bold emphasis mine - DG)
COLUMBUS - Republican Gov. John Kasich warned Democrats that they needed to support a hard-edged anti-union law or get run over by “the bus” — but on Tuesday Ohio voters left serious tread marks on Kasich and, quite possibly, the national GOP.
Unions hung a humbling defeat on Kasich, who has fast become his party’s poster boy for conservative overreach, by rolling back Senate Bill 5, a new collective bargaining law that bars public sector strikes, curtails bargaining rights for 360,000 public employees and scraps binding arbitration of management-labor disputes.
and this summed up the rejection by the center of the extremist right:
“Hey, I’m a Republican, but I’m telling you, Republican firefighters and police officers aren’t going to be voting Republican around here for a while,” said Doug Stern, a 15-year veteran of the Cincinnati fire department who joined the non-partisan “We are Ohio” coalition that helped repeal the bill.
“We’ll see what happens in 2012, but our guys have a long memory. We’re angry and disgusted.”
and Politco further wrote: senior state Republican blamed the governor, whose approval rating languishes in the low 30s, for “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory” by alienating labor-friendly independents in the state.
Look for more posts later today about the dirty right wing political tricks of voter suppression.  Look for more posts about OTHER elections, including unprecedented numbers of successful recall elections, notably the Republican President of the Arizona senate Russell Pearce and in Michigan, also in a recall election, Michigan State Representative Paul Scott was removed from office. In Virginia a recount will determine if their state senate will change to a Democratic majority; and in Iowa, the election of an Independent keeps their state senate in the hands of Democrats.
In an equally important rejection of an extremist right wing position, extremely conservative, extremely anti-abortion Mississippi overwhelmingly rejected the attempts to change the fundamental definition of personhood to conception, a position which has no scientific justification but is promoted by the extremists on the religious right.  If this doesn't fly in Mississippi, where it appears to have been rejected by 55% of voters, it is not going to succeed ANYWHERE.  This is going to pose a problem for many of the current crop of GOP Presidential candidate wannabees, who in an attempt to move further right in order to win primary support, have embraced that position. Look for a separate post on that in the near future.

The Story of Broke

Another piece from Annie Leonard who produced The Story of Stuff

Something for our Libertarian-leaning Self-sufficiency Friends

The Perennial Plate Episode 78: Eating Insects from Daniel Klein on Vimeo.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," to me means I can bring my kids to the playground without worrying about which of the other parents is carrying a gun, about which one of them might be in a domestic squabble with her husband who's about to storm into the playground shootin'.

But I don't have that. The reason is someone else's idea of freedom has trumped mine. This was done as a planned and systematic assault on the legislative interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Now, what we've got is something which would be totally unrecognizable by the sacred and revered Founding Fathers, not something they would approve of, but something they would be baffled and confounded by.

Indiana Shooting Spree - 1 Dead

A Bloomington man was arrested early Monday in connection to an area shooting spree that ended in the death of Pizza X delivery driver Adam Sarnecki.

James D. Finney, 21, is suspected in three recent crimes involving firearms, including the murder of Sarnecki, 22, Bloomington Police Chief Mike Diekhoff said during a press conference Monday.

Yeah, Indiana's right up there with Florida and Arizona. One of the things about Indiana is how much they hate the "May Issue" policy of some states when granting concealed carry permits for handguns.

The problem is you have guys like this 21-year-old Finney. As a minor he'd had many scrapes with the law, was well known to the local law enforcement, yet might have been able to qualify for a carry permit nonetheless. He probably didn't bother, inveterate criminal that he was.

But, this is the kind of young man who screams out for "May Issue," but in Indiana they don't care.  They'd rather have what they consider freedom, the ability for anyone to own guns and carry them anywhere, than safety from guys like this.  The thought of giving a tiny bit of power to the police with regards to gun rights is unthinkable.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Suicide Murder in Florida - Mother and Son

AP reports on what at first sounds like something that only happens in Florida.  But, upon further consideration, that's not the case at all, is it?

The Hernando County Sheriff's Office says a 54-year-old man fatally shot his mother before turning the gun on himself.

An employee at a Winn Dixie in Brooksville called authorities to say 80-year-old Elizabeth "Bettie" Jacobson had not shown up for work Saturday. The employee asked for a deputy to check on Jacobson.

When deputies arrived, they had to force their way into the home because the front door was locked. That's when authorities say they found the body of Jacobson and her son, Phillip Hayden. 

The sheriff's office issued a release Sunday saying that a preliminary investigation shows that Hayden shot his mother with a handgun, killed two of her dogs and then killed himself.

What's your opinion? Do you think the gun availability in Florida may have contributed to this? Do you think anyone checked to see if he was a concealed carry permit holder? Does anyone know if he was a legal gun owner committing his first crime?

My contention is many times those details are lost in the tragedy and never counted.

What about drugs and alcohol, or perhaps mental illness, do you think any of those elements were involved? I'm asking because I find it difficult to understand his actions. I can understand killing the ex-wife over a bitter divorce and custody rights but killing your 80-year-old mom? I don't get that.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Gun Juggling

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

What Would You Change in the Constitution?

The Monetary Cost of War

R.I.P. Smokin' Joe

In God We Trust

Concealed Carry Football Fan Shoots Self by Accident

The Boston Herald reports on a very interesting incident. CCW permit holders are among the most responsible of gun owners. Everyone knows this. In The Bay State, presumably, they're even better screened and therefore safer than, say, in Arizona.
The man, who is licensed to carry, was about to see the Patriots play the New York Giants when he checked the back of his ticket and saw firearms were prohibited at the Foxboro venue, said state police spokesman David Procopio. As the man was taking out the gun back at his car, a round went off, going through his leg near the knee about 3 p.m., Procopio said.
After all the flack I've received over my shared responsibility ideas, I dare you pro-gun guys to blame the gun-free zone rules at the stadium, I double dare you.

The fact is a guy with a license to carry a concealed weapon who doesn't know that the Patriot's football stadium is a gun free-zone is already in the wrong. I thought these guys were supposed to be aware of the rules before they go places?  Isn't that one of the big complaints? The poor endangered men have to take their chances unarmed when they go to the post office and the court house.

His failure to know the gun-free zones was the least of his sins. There's no excuse for a negligent discharge, other than negligence that is.  Negligence is not acceptable.  CCW permit holders must be held to a higher standard.  When you make a mistake with a hammer, you sometimes blacken your thumb.  When you make a mistake with a gun, the damage is likely to be worse than that.

The solution is the one strike you're out rule.  It's simple. It need not violate due process. It could be done properly. The results would be to disarm the most reckless and stupid among the gun owners, the ones responsible for most of the problems.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Mike W. Schools His Mom

Mike W. wrote on Another Gun Blog about the influence he's had on his mother.

Mom W. is armed now and I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, "Yay, good for her!" On the other hand, there's now an empty spot in my safe.

After I first brought her shooting a few years ago she asked "can the little gun be my gun?" There have been a few more outings with the FS22 since then and I suppose I finally caved. Sure, it's only a .22lr, but she likes it, shoots it well, and most importantly, she thinks it's "cute."

The whole thing is just too cute, isn't it?  That empty spot in his safe, her reaction to the gun. Mike is one of those gun guys who believes in preparing for the extremely unlikely possibility of needing to perform a DGU in order to save your life.  The consequences are so potentially damaging, that one must prepare, you see.

Too bad the stopping power of his mom's cute handgun won't be enough even if she does have the chance to use it in one of those unlikely but possible situations.  I wonder if Mike told her that.  Maybe he's instructed her to take two rapid head shots at her assailant.

Here's my comment.

I'm appalled by this story. It's bad enough that you yourself have made a stupid decision to own and carry a gun, a decision based on fear, insecurity and paranoia, but now in order to further justify your decision you've convinced your mom she's better off with a gun. She's not. The chances she'll use that gun to save herself are extremely slim. The chances that she has a negligent discharge or shoots the wrong person are much more likely. But, you, self-centered and biased in the extreme, don't even see that. Shame on you Mike. And I hope your mom is lucky and never gets hurt because of your bad influence.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

The Conspiracy Theories

via Wikipedia - the Reptilian Humanoids from Alpha Draconis Conspiracy.

According to British writer David Icke, 5 to 12-foot (1.5 - 3.7 m) tall, blood-drinking, shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system, now hiding in underground bases, are the force behind a worldwide conspiracy directed at humanity. He contends that most of the world's leaders are related to these reptilians. Icke's conspiracy theories now have supporters in 47 countries and he frequently gives lectures to crowds of 2,500 or more. American writer Vicki Santillano ranked the notion that "Reptilian humanoids control all of us" as the 10th most popular conspiracy theory.

via Media Matters - the Wayne La Pierre Conspiracy.

The Obama administration [...] hatched a political conspiracy to deceive Americans and hide its true agenda to dismantle the Second Amendment and our freedom. By delaying its anti-gun legislative agenda, it's tried to dupe gun owners into believing our fundamental freedom is safe.

The political calculation of the White House is clear: Deceive the voters and get re-elected at all costs and then, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling the Second Amendment and destroying American freedom forever.

I have bad news for President Obama and his advisers. Gun owners aren't fools - and are not fooled.

NRA members and gun owners see through this Obama conspiracy and know the president has been setting the stage to gut the Second Amendment, quietly and behind the scenes.

Mike Vanderboegh the Amazing

This is to drive Gregory Campbell barmy.

Meet the Scots Leid!

And yes, this is a language

Scots (or "Lallans" a poetic spellins for lawlands. Anis termed Inglis ) is a leid that's spak in the Scots lawlands, Northren Isles an in Northren Ireland an the Republic o Ireland (whaur it's kent as "Ullans" in offeecal circles, but by ordinar fowks as "Scotch" or "Scots"). In maist airts, it's spak alangside the Scots Gaelic an Inglis (English) leids.

Up tae the 15t century Scottis (modren form Scots) wis the name o Gaelic the Celtic leid o the auncient Scots, inbrocht fae Ireland aboot 500 AD). Thaim that uised Scots cawed Gaelic Erse (meanin Irish). The Gaelic o Scotland is nou maistlie cawed Scots Gaelic an is yit spak by some in the wastren Hielands an islands. For the maist pairt, Scots comes fae the Northumbrian kin o Anglo-Saxon (Auld Inglis), tho wi a litil influence fae Norse by the wey o the Vikings, Dutch an Laich Saxon throu troke wi, an incomers fae, the laich kintras, an Romance by the wey o kirk an legal Laitin, Anglo-Norman an syne Pairisian French acause o the Auld Alliance.

Anglian speakers wis weel staiblisht in sooth-east Scotland by the 7t century. In the 13t century Norman landawners an thair reteeners, speakin Northumbrian Middle Inglis, wis inveetit tae come an sattle by the Keeng. Scots kythed for the first time in leeterar furm in the mids o the 14t century an didna differ muckle fae ither northren Inglis byleids. The Anglian leid o Scotland growed on its ain sinsyne. By the late 15t century the sicht fowk haed o the differs wi the leid spoken faurder sooth cam tae the fore an Scots-speakin Scots stairtit tae caw thair leid Scots. Scots haes lend-wirds fae the fact that the Scots fowk haed contact wi Gaelic speakers. Thair lend-wirds is for ordinar juist for geographical an cultural thingies, sic as clan an loch. Like ony leevin leid, Scot haes cheenged a bittie ower the years, tho it haes arguably steyed closer tae its Anglo-Saxon spring-heid nor Inglis (English). Monie Scots wirds haes become pairt o Inglis (English) an aw: flit, greed, eerie, cuddle, clan, stob.

In Scotland's census o 2011, a quasten on Scots wis askit.

Nae, awa' an bile yer heid!

Income equality?

OK, all us wealth redistributors (And we are all wealth redistributors--depending on whether you want to see the wealth accumulate on the top or be more equitably redistributed).

This little clip comes from the BBC show Mongrels and tells of the benefits of everyone becoming middle class!

When every one is middle class, there will be no poverty or starvation!

Try the game make Vince Wince if you check out the show's website.

Nothing like a show featuring urban foxes!

Ralph Nader on Alan Grayson

Florida is desperate for a good politician.

Rape Prevention

Go published a rebuttal to Sheriff Chuck's advice. According to the author, carrying a gun is not the right way to protect yourself against rape.

Repeated studies have shown that people who own a handgun are at a high risk of that gun being used against them. Unfortunately, people who perpetrate violent crimes are often more adept at using, and more ready to use, handguns.

The fact is that very few rapes are perpetrated by strangers. We warn our children, our friends and family members to be careful of strangers when we should be warning them about those they know. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, most sexual assaults (approximately two-thirds) are perpetrated by someone the victim knows and trusts.

How willing and able would you be to pull the trigger on your relative, friend, spouse, boyfriend or someone else you know?
You know what the problem is, pro-gun folks who suggest that a gun makes you safer have an agenda. They're desperately trying to justify their own decision to own and carry a gun. In a free country like the United States you're certainly able to carry a gun if you want to, but it's not the smart move.

The gun-rights extremists love to point out anecdotal situations in which a gun MIGHT have helped, but they reject all the other anecdotal situations in which the gun did more harm than good.

Studies have backed this up, as the article mentioned, but I always prefer to use common sense. Assuming that no negligent discharge ever happens during the entire time you own the gun, and assuming no gun is ever stolen from you, and let's say you never get depressed and take you own life with the gun and that you never go off the deep end over work or economic or relationship stress. Let's say it never happens that on a dark night you mistakenly shoot somebody who didn't need shootin', let's assume all that.

As protection against rape the gun is still practically useless. If your rapist is one of the 75% who know their victims, it'll be too late by the time push comes to shove. If the rapist is one of the 25% who don't know their victim, he'll probably be quicker and better prepared and more willing to use violence than you.

Like all gun ownership and concealed carry, the gun can make you FEEL safer, but that's illusory, ungrounded in facts and irrrational. It's a bad decision to carry a gun when the chances of it saving you are so low and the chances of it causing harm are so high.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Christian Gun Owners

NOT the Last Word on Racism

I see Herman Cain as a hypocrite for asserting that he didn't see racism as a problem in our society; yet, Hypocrite Herman is now trying to blame accusations of sexual harassment on racism.  Sexual harassment accusations are not uniquely racist; we do not know the race of the women who have made this accusation - at least one of the four may very well be black, or Asian, Latino, or some other minority.
Sexual harassment is not specifically, uniquely, or predominantly a racial issue; it is more of a gender issue.
What I haven't seen from Hypocrite Herman is an acknowledgment of gender inequality in our culture, particularly in the workplace.  I'd bet that discrimination-denier probably doesn't believe that is true,either despite having settled more than one sexual harassment suit.
I am calling Hypcrite Herman a hypocrite here for apparently having one standard for himself in this - he himself admits he has NO factual basis for alleging this information about himself to be racist.  There is no indication it was made public by anyone on the political left or center EITHER, but I doubt we will be having any acknowledgment of that inconvenient fact either.
People who really DO sexually harass their subordinates, usually do so repeatedly.  I predict we have NOT seen the last of this, that there will be more.
In dealing with this kind of accusation, Arnold the Governator, just came clean about his conduct, tohis credit.  but then untruthfully, he went on to continue his sexual misconduct after saying that was no longer true about his behavior. Anthony Weiner compounded the fault of what HE did by his lying about it.  Seems to me Hypocrite Herman is somewhere in between those two, but far closer to Weiner.


Restaurant group acknowledges settlement with Cain accuser

The National Restaurant Association for the first time publicly acknowledged today that it settled with a former employee who accused Herman Cain, then head of the association, of sexual harassment.
It also released the woman from the confidentiality clause of the agreement, if she so chooses to speak. But her lawyer, who spoke in a televised news conference today, said she no longer wishes to do so.
"Based upon the information currently available, we can confirm that more than a decade ago, in July 1999, Mr. Bennett's client filed a formal internal complaint, in accordance with the Association's existing policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment,” the association’s statement reads, in part.
The statement goes on to note, “Cain disputed the allegations” and the restaurant association and the worker settled “without any admission of liability."
The lawyer, Joel P. Bennett, had requested his client be released from the confidentiality agreement because, he believed Cain had violated it with comments made regarding his client’s work performance. His client had indicated earlier in the week that she did want to speak, but has since said she does not, Bennett said.
A First Read review of federal election filings finds Cain ended his previous short-lived presidential bid in 1999 the same month as the harassment complaint was filed. "Cain for President" filed for termination on July 15, 1999 (in a letter dated July 14), as part of Cain's July Quarterly report.
Cain did not appear to be a serious candidate at the time. He was not well known on a national stage and had only raised $28,537.43, according to FEC filings. Cain's treasurer at the time, W. Reed Samson, noted in the 1999 July Quarterly filing that Cain "ended all campaign activity" prior to June 30, 1999.
Bennett told reporters Friday that because multiple women have made accusations against Cain that there must be some truth to the allegations.
"There's an expression: where there's smoke, there's fire,” Bennett said. “The fact that there are multiple complaints tells me that it is more likely than not that there was some sexual harassment activity by this man at that time… the fact that there's more than one complaint is meaningful."
Bennett called Cain’s claims that the resolution was a severance agreement and not a legal settlement an “inaccurate description of the settlement agreement."
"This was a settlement of an internal complaint of sexual harassment,” Bennett said. “It was not a severance agreement."
Bennett also said there had been “more than one” incident of sexual harassment involving his client, and that Cain was made aware of all the incidents in the internal complaint filed in 1999.
"Mr. Cain knows the specific incidents that were alleged,” Bennett said. “My client filed a written complaint in 1999 against him specifically, and it had very specific incidents in it, and if he chooses to not remember or not acknowledge those that's his issue."
He said the complaints were settled with a “monetary settlement” but did not elaborate on how much his client received or on the details of the allegations. He said his client doesn’t want to be a “public figure” and doesn’t want to discuss the issue further.
“She and her husband see no value in revisiting this matter now nor in discussing the matter any further publicly or privately,” Bennett said.

Change We Can Participate In

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Steppenwolf - Rock Me 1969

More on the Gun Registration Issue

The published a piece in support of abolishing the Canadian Long Gun Registry, too bad they can't tell the truth.

Wendy Cukier and the CGC are grasping at straws in a desperate measure to retain any or all of the long gun registry. These are public scare tactics filled with half truths and flat out lies.

Wendy seams to be under the impression that the only thing stopping an otherwise law-abiding gun owner from going on a shooting rampage is a little piece of paper. Sick people are sick, and require treatment. I’m sure $2 billion could have been better spent on mental health issues rather than harassing law-abiding citizens.
Did you catch that? Pretending that gun control folks actually believe gun registration will prevent people from going off the deep end by using such sarcastic language as this, is absolutely mendacious.
Wendy seams to be under the impression that the only thing stopping an otherwise law-abiding gun owner from going on a shooting rampage is a little piece of paper.
Nobody thinks that. But, well aware of that fact, gun-rights extremists both north and south of the border say stuff like this and make serious arguments against it as if we actually believe it and have said it. We done and we haven't.

The benefits of gun registration have been clearly defined. They have nothing to do with preventing people from going on shooting rampages. They have everything to do with preventing guns from flowing into the criminal world. They will help the so-called law abiding gun owners to hold onto their guns and stop allowing them to reach criminal hands.

And guess what, it's been proven to work.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.