Indiana Is A Failure. Thank Goodness!

The Brady Bunch has posted their ratings for 2008 and Indiana is an abysmal failure when it comes to infringing on the rights of the people who live there.


Now if we can only work on getting rid of their partial ratings we'll be a lot better off. I must say that I am rather pleased with the results, although I think Indiana is capable of a great big zero next year if we really try. The state needs to be stripped of the ability to keep records of gun sales and cities and towns need to rescind local ordinances that infringe on the right to carry in many locations.

We also need Vermont or Alaska style carry laws that would do away with the current permit system and return Indiana to a Constitutional position on firearms and self defence. Alaska scored a 4 out of 100, surely the Hoosier state can do better than Alaska? It's certainly something for libertarians to get behind. Let's be the biggest losers in the country next year!

Technorati Tags:
Guns, News, Gun Control, Libertarian, Indiana

Another Brick In The Wall

So, President Obama has his hand picked people going through the process of gaining their positions of power and one of the most important of them is a bad one. A really bad one.

Eric Holder, Obama’s nominee for attorney general, is hostile to civil liberties. He has previously expressed veiled support for using the misnamed “Fairness Doctrine” to squelch “conservative critiques” and “conservative media,” such as Fox News (which Holder believes is anything but “Fair and Balanced,” contrary to its slogan). The “Fairness Doctrine” is designed to shut down conservative Talk Radio.

Holder also has advocated hate-crimes legislation to prosecute people whom state prosecutors refuse to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. To justify broadening federal hate-crimes law, he cited three examples where state prosecutors refused to prosecute, citing a lack of evidence. In each, a federal jury acquitted the accused, finding them not guilty.

This doesn't even touch on his naked hatred of the 2nd Amendment and gun owners. This man is the worst of all possible worlds for libertarians and, especially for gun owners and yet there has been almost no opposition to his taking the reins at DoJ. Senator John Barrasso, (R-Wyoming) is seemingly the only one standing on his principles and opposing the nomination of Holder.

One question we do need to be asking is who else stands in opposition to this man? It's certain that the Libertarian Party doesn't. They're remarkably silent on the issue. The same cannot be said of their former Presidential candidate, Bob Barr. He has come out fully in favour of the man (.pdf) who sent armed marauders to kidnap Elian Gonzalez and who freed Puerto Rican terrorists at the behest of Bill Clinton. As things go in the LP Bob Barr speaks for the party. This means that the LP, by extension and the words of their chosen spokesperson supports placing this man in power. Silence is support.

The LP, now dominated by "pragmatists" and neo-Libertarians, stands in direct opposition to libertarian aims and goals. The time has come for them to repudiate the Republican in their midst who now acts as the face and mouth of the party. What has the LP become that they lend their tacit support to a man such as Holder? Who will stand to answer for their spokesman? No-one. Like Pilate they wash their hands and turn away. If the Libertarian Party won't stand in opposition to bad politicians then who will?

(Hat Tip to David Codrea for doing the yeoman's work)

UPDATE: Looks like the LP is playing catch up. Better late than never, I guess. Of course they didn't bother to mention any of his other egregious faults. Looks like they're falling down in the research department.

Technorati Tags:
Libertarian, Holder, Obama, 2nd Amendment, Bob Barr

The Gun Show Phenomenon

Well, as is my wont I ventured out yesterday to the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife Show. What a surprise it was, too. The crowds were amazing. Easily 3-4 times the usual number of people were visiting the show. I've never seen it so crowded. Apparently, Mr. Obama's election has inspired numerous people to exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights. The prices reflected a sellers market, too. Ammo that I would have normally bought was up $50 more per case than the last time I purchased. Why? Well, from my discussions with the sellers it boiled down to one thing. They didn't know if they'd be able to restock their supplies of ammo for certain calibres. The fear of gun and ammo bans is palpable in the market.

Many of the sellers have also raised the prices on their EBR's and other "evil" rifles to match. Handguns seem to be maintaining their prices, altho a few of the regulars have added a buck or two, here and there. All in all it's seemingly a good time to be doing business in the firearms market. For the moment, at any rate. In the future many of these folks could well find themselves out of business and that's why they're trying to move their existing inventory. No sense in getting stuck with something you'll never be allowed to sell.

The folks buying were a mixed bag, too. Lots of first time buyers and many more women according to the sellers at the show. All motivated by an uncertain future where Mr. Obama and the new regime are concerned. Even I laid in a couple of necessary things that are likely to come under any future ban from the incoming regime.

All is not gloom and doom on this front, tho. I managed to meet a few fellow bloggers at the show, as well. All of whom run well known and popular blogs in the 2nd Amendment community. Mike Vanderboegh was there, promoting the Sypsey Street Irregulars and his upcoming book, "Absolved". David Codrea, from War On Guns slogged his way through the snow from Ohio to attend. Mike H from "What McAuliffe Said" was in attendance, as well. The Western Rifle Shooters main man was also there. So many notable gun bloggers in one place must have generated more than the normal ATF reports, it was practically a convention. It was certainly nice to finally meet so many of the people whom I read on a daily basis and who do such a good job of keeping folks informed and motivated. I do look forward to the next time and hope they all have safe trips home.

Technorati Tags:
Indianapolis, Gun Show,2nd Amendment, Guns, Obama, Gun Bans

The Shape Of Things To Come

Well, the election is over and all we have to do now is wait to see what The Anointed One plans to do to us once he begins his reign. Fortunately, he has made it a great deal easier for us to find out what his plans are. On the governments dime, no less. Let's take a look, shall we?

Gun owners can look forward to new and "interesting" times.

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Suffice it to say, gun owners are going to be targeted because they have or wish to have firearms that others perceive as more dangerous than other common types of firearms. We can also look forward to having a nanny looking over our shoulder to insure that we make our firearms as safe as some hoplophobe wishes.

Small businesses are going to take multiple hits, as well. Not only will they be taxed at greater levels they'll be forced to pay more for jobs than those jobs are worth. This will also serve to increase unemployment among youth and the elderly.

Increase the Minimum Wage: As president, Obama will raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011 and index it to inflation so full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing – things so many people take for granted.

He also plans to give preference to urban dwellers over suburban and rural folks. Go figure that a Chicago machine politician thinks that no-one actually matters outside of the cities.

Create a White House Office on Urban Policy: Obama and Biden will create a White House Office of Urban Policy to develop a strategy for metropolitan America and to ensure that all federal dollars targeted to urban areas are effectively spent on the highest-impact programs. The Director of Urban Policy will report directly to the president and coordinate all federal urban programs.

He plans on fully funding programs such as No Child Left Behind. It's ironic that NCLB is in a section called "Do No Harm", huh?

Do No Harm: Barack Obama and Joe Biden do not support imposing unfunded mandates on states and localities. They strongly support providing necessary funding for programs such as No Child Left Behind.

He also plans on raping the oil companies. That would be the same companies which have a profit margin of only 8-10%. This is sure to do wonders for the economy and the price of gas. He actually has the audacity to say this will revitalise the economy.

Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families:Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.

Lest we forget the unions in this country, Obama plans to strengthen their grasp on businesses.

Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama and Biden believe that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA's passage and sign it into law.

The EFCA sounds nice, huh? Of course it also means that employees may be approached anywhere at anytime by union members in "signature drives" and does away with the secret ballot. Intimidation by unions is a hallmark of this legislation.

And, lest you thought the first black president was any different when it came to the issue of involuntary servitude.

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

Yep, he's going after your kids. Don't you just love it? These are are only a few of the myriad things he has planned for us during his reign. Trillions of dollars in spending, an explosion of cancerous governmental growth, the degradation of capitalism and your rights. These and so many other things are in store for us after his inauguration in January. I urge you to take a look at his "agenda" and prepare yourself as well as you can for what is to come. If you haven't purchased a firearm yet, the time is rapidly approaching when you had best do so. It's not going to be nice and it is certainly going to be a bad thing where liberty is concerned. This country will likely never recover from Obama's reign. What a sad day for us all.

Technorati Tags:
Obama, Politics, Things To Come, Libertarian, Guns, Economy

A Few Reactions To Heller

The usual suspects are out in force, running their mouths and looking for a chance to dance in the blood of the innocents.

"I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it."
- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Can you imagine my complete lack of surprise that this harridan has decided to come down on the side she did? She'd much rather see women raped and murdered than defend themselves with a firearm. Way to go Comrade Feinstein.

"Today, President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future."
- Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

Bob Barr's gun control buddy is just another in a long line of people that hate the right of self defence. The passage of his Lautenberg Amendment, (with the support and aid of Bob Barr) has managed to disarm thousands of innocent people for misdemeanors. Why should we expect anything different, right?

"Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."
- Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

As with virtually everything that comes from this petty Marxists mouth he manages to say something and nothing at the same time. Perhaps someone will manage to force a more detailed comment from him. We all know what his true feelings are, given his history.

"Eighty people a day die at the hands of guns. We have got to stop that. The court clearly ruled that reasonable regulations are permitted under that decision."
- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg

As if there were ever any chance that NYC laws would be changed. Mr. Bloomberg's city is surely one which will see a lawsuit in the near future, if there's any true justice. Unfortunately, as long as NYC has the power to tax their pockets will be deep, where funding of court cases are concerned.

I could only hope that Indiana will take this as a positive sign and do away with their permit system, going to an Alaska or Vermont style carry law - which is more in line with the original intent. We'll have to see what our state politicians say in the coming days.

Technorati Tags:
Heller vs DC, Gun Control, Libertarian, Politics, Indiana

Heller Is In And...

It disappoints in many areas. While it affirms that the right to keep and bear arms for defence of self and property, it also leaves intact an array of infringements on the right.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederal-
ists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-
bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpre-
tation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-
rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-
arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scru-
tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbi-
trarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a
dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,
joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

There you have it. The decision that affirms an individual right that most of us already knew existed. Unfortunately, in affirming that right it leaves intact certain provisions which are clearly infringements upon that right. Things such as licensing and registration are allowable under this ruling, as are weapons bans like the assault weapons ban.

While I applaud the decision, I cannot help but be concerned about certain clarifications in the decision.

Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

This one sentence undoes everything which went before, as it presents the Amendment as something which does not apply to the states, only to the Feds. Whether is will be applied in that fashion is an unknown which will obviously play out over the coming months and years. If Heller is allowed to stand, as is, then we will undoubtedly see the challenges mount in places such as Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. I can't wait to see them, either. These cases will likely see their day before the SCOTUS, just as Heller did and will serve to further clarify the issue. Not that it needed clarification for some of us. I'm still going to have to sit and think about this one for awhile and then see how it plays out.

Dave Codrea, over at War On Guns has some insight, as well. The War on Guns: HELLER AFFIRMED.


Congratulations to the Heller team and all those who supported them from the outset, (that would not be the NRA, for those who have paid attention).


UPDATE: Radley Balko wades in and touches on the incorporation issue in the Heller decision. Or really the lack of incorporation.
Technorati Tags:
Heller, Guns, 2nd Amendment, Libertarian, Gun Control

Taser Parties?

It's a sad day when you've got to learn about these things through the foreign press, especially the BBC. First we had Tupperware parties for the ladies, then assorted other parties and now it looks as if the ladies are being "blessed" with Taser Parties.

In a downtown loft apartment in Denver, Colorado, a group of 30-something women is having a party. They joke easily with each other about men, cats and botox.

It's more Sex and the City than Psycho, but party organiser Dana Shafman would have them believe they could easily be victims of violent crime.

She runs a company that sells Tasers, the electric stun guns used by security forces around the world.

In Colorado and other US states, it's legal for ordinary people to own them. Dana's marketing them to women as the ideal personal protection device.

"I've been to everyone's Avon-type tupperware-style parties, purse parties, clothing parties, boutique parties and I felt like why not have a self-defence party? Why not have a Taser party, because without self-defence you won't have any of the other stuff."

I'm fully in favour of parties like this, but I must say that I would vastly prefer that the parties were Taurus, Ruger or even S&W parties. Tasers are nifty little devices, but they are a poor substitute for a firearm. A Taser allows ones attacker to get back up and try again. The same cannot be said for a few rounds from a .45 or even a .380. They are also a one off device, not subject to fast reloads. They also don't have the fun factor that so many women shooters enjoy. Blasting away at a target or tin cans for an hour or two is a good way to spend an afternoon. Firing a Taser and holding down the button till it runs out of juice in 30-60 seconds....not so much. Women should be introduced to self defence items, even the Taser, but they should really be introduced to firearms. A Taser would be useful for a woman, no doubt about it. It should be used to stun her assailant long enough for her to reach for her firearm and insure her safety. And it's only good against a single assailant. What if you're confronted with a pair of thugs? They conveniently leave that out.

One small mistake does appear in the article, tho.

In a country with about one gun for every adult, Tasers are sometimes touted as a less dangerous alternative.

Plenty of people have been killed by police wielding Tasers, and the numbers continue to grow. Yes, they are less lethal than a hollowpoint to the chest, but they are not non-lethal. Your self defence weapon should be dangerous. If it's not...what's the point.

It's rather interesting that this article came from a news agency in a country with a disarmed populace. A country where mere possession of a Taser would cause your imprisonment. At least the author recognised that we Americans have a right to bear arms. Too bad the BBC doesn't support that same right in their own country.

Technorati Tags
Self-Defense, Tasers, Women and Guns, Libertarian

Gun Free Zone Erupts

Imagine my complete lack of surprise to see that Chicago had a banner weekend for murder, shootings and stabbings. I can't help but wonder how many rapes, robberies or burglaries also occurred during that same time period. How can this possibly occur in the paradise that is Chicago? Didn't they ban firearms? I know that I am not allowed to visit their city and bring a firearm with me for my safety and that of my family, with whom I would be traveling. I've checked on it. It looks like chaos reigns supreme in Mr. Daly's paradise by the lake.

In an especially violent weekend, no less than 31 people have been shot in Chicago -- six fatally -- and two people have been stabbed since noon Friday. The shooting victims range in age from 12 to 65.

By comparison I, (carrying my sidearm) went out this weekend and shot absolutely no-one. Had a nice impromptu dinner at Five Guys with my visiting dad, brother and the kids, ignored the other patrons and I didn't shoot one single person. My firearm didn't get out and do any damage on its own, either.

Chicago seems to have a problem. Too many gun laws would be my guess. A lot of innocent people managed to get hurt and killed there because they, unlike myself, were unable to defend themselves. The government disarmed them and made victims of them.

About 6 a.m., a man broke into an apartment in the 1900 block of West Winona Street and stabbed a man, 26, and woman, 30. Both people were taken to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center in critical condition.

If this had happened in my neighbourhood the results would likely have been very different. Never bring a knife to a gun fight isn't just a trite saying. It's a way of life.

REAL ID Redux

It's been some time since I wrote anything concerning the seemingly inevitable REAL ID Act and what the department of Homeland Security plans to use it for. Well, Declan McCullagh, over at CNET has a new piece on some of the most frequently asked questions concerning this travesty and how they'll go about foisting it upon the American people, (whether we wish it or not). One of the questions jumped right out at me, since it exposed yet another lever in their arsenal.

Q: What about buying firearms?
That's an open question. Homeland Security last month refused to rule out requiring Real ID for firearm purchases in the future.

When asked about requiring Real ID to buy a firearm, Homeland Security replied: "DHS will continue to consider additional ways in which a Real ID license can or should be used and will implement any changes to the definition of 'official purpose' or determinations regarding additional uses for Real ID consistent with applicable laws and regulatory requirements. DHS does not agree that it must seek the approval of Congress as a prerequisite to changing the definition in the future."

Not that a significant segment of the NRA crowd wasn't already on board with the national ID scheme, ( little brown people and t'rrists are hard acts to follow), but this has the potential to make things exceedingly difficult for those of us who are opposed to this and are gun owners and 2nd Amendment advocates. The worse part is that these DHS thugs don't even require oversight or Congressional approval for their infringements upon our rights. If they take the decision to impose new rules that require REAL ID Act approved documentation to purchase firearms, then it's a done deal.

Q: Does Homeland Security have the authority to do that kind of expansion, or can only Congress expand Real ID?
Homeland Security has the authority. The text of the law says that, starting May 11, "a federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a state to any person unless the state is meeting the requirements of this section." Official purpose is defined to include "any other purposes" that Homeland Security thinks is wise.

The potential list of "purposes" could be long. Real ID could in theory be required for traveling on Amtrak, collecting federal welfare benefits, signing up for Social Security, applying for student loans, interacting with the U.S. Postal Service, entering national parks, and so on.

If gunowners think they're safe then they are sadly mistaken and are on the wrong side of the issue. The time is here and now to put your foot down and just say no to the REAL ID Act. We do not need an internal passport. Especially, one which is as insecure as the REAL ID cards will be. No encryption and your info is not only shared with other states, Mexico and Canada, it will also be available to any 7-11, bar, grocery store or business with a scanner. Talk about ID theft potential. Not only will your rights as a gun owner be imperiled your every expectation of privacy will be shredded along with those rights.

My rights as a gun owner are no longer negotiable, especially where the DHS is concerned. Yours shouldn't be either. Take a stand now, because regaining your rights is a hell of a lot harder.

Technorati Tags:
Libertarian, REAL ID, Department of Homeland Security, Gun Owners, 2nd Amendment

They Are Not Your Friends. They Are The Enemy.

How often do gun owners need to be told this? Republicans, Democrats and politicians in general are not your friends. Few of them take a pro-gun stance as anything other than an election year tactic. And it should be abundantly clear by now that the bureaucrats in D.C. certainly are not our friends, especially those in the law enforcement sector. So, why should it come as any surprise when George Bush sends his Solicitor General to the Supreme Court to side with the anti 2nd Amendment forces arrayed against the upcoming case of District of Columbia v. Heller?

George Bush is no friend of the 2nd Amendment. Few politicians are. I, for one don't understand how gun owners kept voting for him. What did he ever do for us? He was eagerly awaiting a chance to sign the AWB, but was thwarted by the grass roots efforts of folks like the GOA, (the NRA was, until the very last minute in favour of the AWB being re-instated so they could get a piece of pet legislation passed. The NRA are also not your friends). Beyond this what has he actually done for us? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero.

Right now there are actually gun owners out there defending Republicans where your gun rights are concerned. I can't imagine a greater incidence of delusion. Defending any politician where guns are concerned is sheer folly. They will all surrender your rights, take them, infringe them or just flat out refuse them at any time, for the sake of "political expediency". This instance is all about power, (as are most of them) and its maintenance by the so-called Department of Justice.

John Lott cut straight to the heart of the matter.

Worried about the possibility that a Supreme Court decision supporting the Second Amendment as an individual right could “cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation,” the Department of Justice felt it necessary to head off any restrictions on government power right at the beginning.

Politicians crave power. It doesn't matter if they are already ensconced in the halls of power or are currently seeking to be the ultimate power broker in the form of the Presidency. They continuously tell gun owners what we wish to hear. It's long past the time that gun owners woke up to this fact and acted accordingly.

Unfortunately, it may take an uprising by voters to rein in the Justice Department.

Unfortunately, Mr. Lott may only be partially correct in his final statement. Voting is unlikely to change things and voting for Republicrats is especially useless.

Technorati Tags:
2nd Amendment, Gunowners, Libertarian, District of Columbia v.Heller,Bush,Politics, Gun Control

The NRA Conundrum

The NRA has been on my mind a good deal lately and for good reason. It seems that everywhere I look I see someone being inconvenienced or thrown to the wolves by the NRA, when they should be being courted by the NRA. Recent commentary by a well known poster over at The Boondocks, brought the NRA to mind, once again. Mama Liberty, a staunch advocate of open carry and the arming of women, was lamenting the necessity of having to acquire an NRA membership and training in order to teach women the basics of firearm safety and shooting.

I agree that the training is extremely important and that much of it just wouldn't happen without the NRA, but I'm not happy about being a part of an organization that is so clearly working against our basic right to self defense in the long run.

I know just how she feels. I've avoided the NRA for decades because of an early realisation that they would, and had, happily leapt right into bed with the government. I never had the feeling that they would protect their members in an way from a gun grabbing government. That's a feeling that has never gone away for me. Their reputation has never increased in my eyes and, in fact it has sunk farther and farther as the years have gone by.

The NRA has taken the wrong side on a number of issues, they've cooperated with the government to impose new regulations and oppose repeal of anti-2nd Amendment laws and regulations. They have been more than willing to compromise away our rights and have done so, time and again. I have a problem with that.

Lately we've even seen that one of their board members, Joaquin Jackson, has espoused gun control measures that would affect the many people who own scary looking AK's or AR's. Of course he lied, he waffled, after there was a hue and cry over his back stabbing remarks. It's just a never ending story with these guys.

And that brings me to my conundrum. I have a couple of shooting ranges in my area. One is quite literally around the corner from my home. Both have one requirement that I either cannot fulfill. They require their members to have...you guessed it....NRA memberships, to join. So, as it stands, I have to travel about 25-30 minutes to the west side of Indianapolis and pay a $10 range fee every time I wish to go shooting. I'd love to be able to drive 2 minutes and shoot a stones throw from my home and do so more often, but I choose to do otherwise. I sure wish these clubs would accept memberships in Gun Owners of America or the JPFO, instead. It sure would make things easier to be a member of an organisation that refuses to compromise our rights away.

The continuing fascination with the NRA is beyond me. It's like those people who keep voting for Republicans hoping for smaller government and never getting it. It's delusional. So, what's a guy to do? *sigh*

Technorati Tags:
NRA, Guns, Gun Control, Libertarian, Joaquin Jackson

We're Number One!

Outstanding! The US is number one, (in the whole wide world), for firearms ownership, according to a report from the "United Nations".

The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

Americans must do better than this, tho. Having a handgun is OK, but that's just what you use until you can get to your rifle or shotgun. We currently buy more than half of the small arms produced in the world, and we should be buying lots more, too. Especially the ones which look so mean and nasty that they keep the Chuckie Schumers and Hillary Clinton's of the world awake at night! We can do a lot better than 90 guns per 100 people. It should be a lot higher than that! At least 2-300 per 100!

This is seriously good news and politicians should take notice of these statistics every time it crosses their little Marxist minds to pass another of their gun control measures. For all our firearms we have a much lower crime rate than, oh, say...Great Britain? Facts speak much louder than anti-gun rhetoric.

So, the next time a gun show rolls through town, or a National "Buy A Gun Day" (April 15th) comes due get yourself out and buy a new one. This country needs to be number one at something and firearms ownership is a good thing to be number one at!

Technorati Tags:
Libertarian, Guns, Liberty