Common Sense

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya: Democrats and liberals keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what they think it means.

Bob Owens elaborates:

The simple fact of the matter is that Barack Obama is completely ignorant about firearms, and if you gave him one, he’ d hold it awkwardly, looking quite stupid, and probably point it at half the people in the room before it was snatched out his hands as a threat to public safety.

The same holds true for Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carolyn McCarthy, Dianne Feinstein, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and the vast majority of politicians attempting to destroy a part of the Constitution they fear in their ignorance.

As I gained an understanding of the Constitution and just where the rights enumerated in that document as amended truly come from, I decided it was time to exercise that right guaranteed in the Second Amendment. I took some training and then purchased a pistol. I researched different models, tried several out at the range, and made my decision. I know far more about guns, how they work, how various types differ, and what they're capable of than any of these ignoramuses. My opinion on the subject ought by right carry near infinitely more weight than theirs.

So where does "common sense" come into it?

Barack Obama and his allies want “common sense” to rule on guns. I completely agree.

It is “common sense” to ignore the recommendations of people who are superstitious, factually ignorant, politically-motivated, and poorly educated.

It is “common sense” to engage with real experts, credentialed in their area of expertise, when important matters are before the nation.

It is “common sense” that politicians be held accountable for their assaults on the Constitution.

By all means, lets introduce “common sense” to the debate over firearms. It’s the last thing that anti-gun politicians, media figures, and activists really want.

Remember S&W

So the word is that Democratic mayors will be "grading" gun manufacturers on how well they comply with "gun safety goals" with consequences for those that don't measure up:

Apparently the word has come down from the White House to Democrats across the nation, get in line behind the Obama Administration on gun control. The National Conference of Democratic Mayors are now threatening to have their police departments boycott the purchase of guns from manufacturers who won’t adhere to the Obama Administration’s strictures.

The various firearms manufacturers would do well to remember what happened the last time one of them cut a deal with the government:

Gun clubs and gun rights groups responded to this agreement by initiating large-scale boycotts of Smith & Wesson by refusing to buy their new products and flooding the firearms market with used S&W guns. After a 40% sales slide, the sales impact from the boycotts led Smith & Wesson to suspend manufacturing at two plants.

Eventually, S&W was purchased by Saf-T-Hammer Corporation who publicly renounced the agreement. They even introduces the Model 500 Revolver, chambered for the new .500 S&W Magnum round, which took the title as the world's most powerful handgun. It was designed as a hunting weapon, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit of a middle finger to the government and a message to members of the gun culture that the old S&W was back.

What I'd like to see is the gun manufacturers uniting in solidarity so that, should a city boycott one of them because it didn't toe the line, the rest will refuse to do business with that city. There is precedent. When the State of California banned private ownership of .50 caliber rifles, Ronnie Barrett, founder and CEO of Barrett Firearms responded by refusing to do business of any kind with any government agency in California. This includes servicing rifles that these agencies already own. I would not be surprised if, once he hears about this plan by Democrat mayors, his response will be similar to what I've proposed.

The resistance is growing

Earlier I mentioned legislation that has been proposed in Wyoming that would nullify any ban on any semi-automatic firearm or any magazine regardless of how many rounds it can hold. Anyone trying to enforce such a ban, including any Federal agent or officer, would face arrest.

Unsurprisingly, similar legislation has been proposed in Texas.

And in related news, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky, and Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon, have stated that they will not enforce, nor allow to be enforced in their counties, any legislation or executive order that violates the Constitution and requires confiscation of weapons.

The latter is interesting because Oregon, as a whole, isn't a terribly conservative state. However, as with its neighbor to the north, I expect that different regions have different political compositions. In any case, hats off to both of these fine gentlemen and patriots. May more and more sheriffs and other law enforcement officials across the nation follow their lead.

The road to servitude

Runs through New York.

So the New York State Legislature, in its far less than infinite wisdom, has passed a gun control bill that is far more restrictive than the original Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was passed in 1994 and allowed to expire ten years later because it did jack all to reduce crime. The New York law includes the following list of items; it's not exhaustive but it covers the most important ones.

• Flat out prohibits any magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds. The Federal AWB allowed such standard capacity magazines provided they had been manufactured prior to it going into effect. The New York law requires that any such magazines be sold to someone outside the state or otherwise disposed of within a year. After a year, possession of any such magazine is prohibited.
• Sets the limit on new magazines at seven rounds. As I understand it, no new magazines may be purchased that can hold more than seven rounds. Magazines holding more than seven rounds but no more than ten are grandfathered in but they can only be loaded with up to seven rounds.
• Broadens the current state ban on "assault weapons" to those with only one of the features on a list of those "commonly associated with military weapons," instead of those with at least two. It also adds to that list of features.
• Requires that any "assault weapon" with two of the features that was grandfathered in under the existing "two feature" ban, and any with one of the features that will be grandfathered in under the expanded "one feature" ban be registered. Note that in the summary of the law it says, "All registered owners will be subject to a review of disqualifiers by the State Police."
• Prohibits the sale of any "assault weapon" to anyone else in the state unless it's a licensed firearm dealer. In other words, it stays in the state only as long as you own it.
• Requires a background check for all gun sales, except to immediate family. Previously background checks were required for purchases from dealers and at gun shows.
• Additional requirements regarding safe storage of firearms and new measures to keep guns away from mentally disturbed people.

 From the article at Fox News:

"It is well-balanced, it protects the Second Amendment," said Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Long Island. "And there is no confiscation of weapons, which was at one time being considered.

This, coming from a so-called Republican. There will be no confiscation now. But unless this law is struck down or repealed, you can bet the topic of confiscation will come up again, probably the next time someone uses such a gun in any way unlawfully anywhere in the country. Maybe even sooner. Registration historically has tended, very strongly, to lead to confiscation. Don't think it won't happen in the United States, and especially in New York.

There is one upside, however. the law does prohibit making public the names of registered gun owners as was done by the Journal News recently. I'm not sure how that one slipped in there. Maybe someone realized that a list of gun owners is, by logical extension, a list of people who don't own guns.

Taken as a whole, this law is a naked attempt at rendering the Second Amendment meaningless. I expect considerable lack of compliance. Ultimately, there will be people arrested, tried, and sentenced under this law. I hope when that happens there will be enough support to appeal it as high as possible, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Of course, by then, Obama may have managed to appoint one or more justices so the point may become moot.

One possible way to resist

From a report at the Huffington Post, just so nobody can accuse me of using only sources that agree with me:

State Rep. Kendell Kroeker (R-Evansville) has put forward a bill making it a felony to enforce in Wyoming any federal ban on assault weapons or high-capacity gun magazines, two proposals that Biden's gun control task force is likely to present to President Barack Obama on Tuesday.

 As noted, this approach is controversial. Nevertheless, I hope it passes. It will be an interesting test if an arrest is ever made under that law. There's no way in hell such a law would ever be considered in my home state so I have to live vicariously through others.

Required reading

Although by no means an exhaustive list, the following two essays are among the most powerful and eloquent regarding the right to keep and bear arms. I can't recommend either of them enough. Read them and pass the links around to your friends, especially those who wonder just why the Second Amendment exists.

First up is the seminal piece by Jeffrey R. Snyder, A Nation of Cowards. An excerpt:

One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence.

Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone -- the handgun. Small and light enough to be carried habitually, lethal, but unlike the knife or sword, not demanding great skill or strength, it truly is the "great equalizer." Requiring only hand-eye coordination and a modicum of ability to remain cool under pressure, it can be used effectively by the old and the weak against the young and the strong, by the one against the many.

The handgun is the only weapon that would give a lone female jogger a chance of prevailing against a gang of thugs intent on rape, a teacher a chance of protecting children at recess from a madman intent on massacring them, a family of tourists waiting at a mid-town subway station the means to protect themselves from a gang of teens armed with razors and knives.

But since we live in a society that by and large outlaws the carrying of arms, we are brought into the fray of the Great American Gun War. Gun control is one of the most prominent battlegrounds in our current culture wars. Yet it is unique in the half-heartedness with which our conservative leaders and pundits -- our "conservative elite" -- do battle, and have conceded the moral high ground to liberal gun control proponents. It is not a topic often written about, or written about with any great fervor, by William F. Buckley or Patrick Buchanan. As drug czar, William Bennett advised President Bush to ban "assault weapons." George Will is on record as recommending the repeal of the Second Amendment, and Jack Kemp is on record as favoring a ban on the possession of semiautomatic "assault weapons." The battle for gun rights is one fought predominantly by the common man. The beliefs of both our liberal and conservative elites are in fact abetting the criminal rampage through our society.

And second is an essay by Eric S. Raymond, one of the most influential people in the Open Source Software community, titled Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun: What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life. An excerpt:

The Founding Fathers of the United States believed, and wrote, that the bearing of arms was essential to the character and dignity of a free people. For this reason, they wrote a Second Amendment in the Bill Of Rights which reads the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with it, the Second Amendment is usually interpreted in these latter days as an axiom of and about political character — an expression of republican political thought, a prescription for a equilibrium of power in which the armed people are at least equal in might to the organized forces of government.

It is all these things. But it is something more, because the Founders regarded political character and individual ethical character as inseparable. They had a clear notion of the individual virtues necessary collectively to a free people. They did not merely regard the habit of bearing arms as a political virtue, but as a direct promoter of personal virtue.

So here we are again.

With all that has been happening, namely the "re-election" of Barack Obama to the Presidency, the so called "fiscal cliff" deal that raised nearly everyone's taxes, and the renewed calls for disarming law-abiding citizens, it's probably time to dust off this blog. Not that I think it will make much difference but at least it will provide an outlet for what I believe needs to be said.

For some time I've had an online presence on a certain major social media system under my real name, as required by the Terms of Use for that service. It's true that a lot of people using that service do so under pseudonyms but I've been using it to correspond with friends so having it under my real name was beneficial. In recent years I've allowed myself to post more often about political matters in attempts to support my friends who I agree with, and try to convince those with which I don't that they may be in error.

Given what is currently going in, however, I think it's time for me to tone that back. Although I hope I'm wrong, I foresee the official climate becoming increasingly hostile toward me and those who think as I do about politics, and especially about the right enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Thus I return here. Though I have no illusions that a concerted effort, especially on the part of law enforcement or other government agency, would not be able to ferret out my identity, at least it will be a bit more difficult and hopefully they won't wast their time on someone with what I'm sure will be a relative insignificance.

I hope this move will prove to be unnecessary, but I believe that I must act as if it is. The ballot box has failed. That leaves us with the soap box and, in the gravest extreme, the cartridge box. Some include the jury box but I don't think it applies because it's not something the average person has access to at will.

So to anyone who happens to stumble across this little corner of the resistance, for that it surely is, welcome. May fortune favor us and may our resolve never falter.

It continues

I just received this press release from the Second Amendment Foundation.

HOLDER NOMINATION SIGNALS OBAMA’S TRUE ANTI-GUN RIGHTS AGENDA

BELLEVUE, WA – The nomination of Eric Holder for the post of attorney general of the United States sends an “alarming signal” to gun owners about how the Barack Obama administration will view individual gun rights, as affirmed this year by the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

“Eric Holder signed an amicus brief in the Heller case that supported the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, and also argued that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right,” noted SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “He has supported national handgun licensing and mandatory trigger locks. As deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, he lobbied Congress to pass legislation that would have curtailed legitimate gun shows.

“This is not the record of a man who will come to office as the nation’s top law enforcement officer with the rights and concerns of gun owners in mind,” he observed.

Holder’s nomination, like the appointment of anti-gun Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff, tells American gun owners that Obama’s campaign claims supporting the Second Amendment were “empty rhetoric,” Gottlieb stated.

“America’s 85 million gun owners have ample reason to be pessimistic about how their civil rights will fare under the Obama administration,” Gottlieb said. “Mr. Obama will have a Congress with an anti-gun Democrat majority leadership to push his gun control agenda. Gun owners have not forgotten Mr. Obama’s acknowledged opposition to concealed carry rights, nor his support for a ban on handgun ownership when he was running for the Illinois state senate.

“Barack Obama vigorously portrayed himself on the campaign trail as a man who supports gun ownership,” Gottlieb concluded, “but now that he has won the election, he is surrounding himself with people who are avowed gun prohibitionists. What better indication of what to expect from Barack Obama as president than the people he is selecting to lead his administration? This isn’t a roster of devoted public servants. It’s a rogue’s gallery of extremists who have labored to erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights.”