April 28, 2008

NRA's next shill (UPDATED)

...isn't for gun rights, it's selling WINE for $6.99/bottle, which is either a loss-leader or it's "two-buck Chuck" and not worth swilling.

Am I the ONLY one who thinks that the NRA is like a kid in a candy store here? They are absolutely nutso with their mailing list. They are worse than Publisher's Clearing House.

Does anyone out there have a clue as to who I might direct a polite letter to within that benighted organization? A person who actually gives a rip about how we feel about our NRA?

Perhaps a movement to boycott this year's convention is in order.

You will note that I haven't even mentioned the propriety of an organization supposedly devoted to teaching gun safety selling alcoholic beverages....

******************************************************************************

UPDATE: 042808 2106 PDT: Just when you thought the NRA couldn't get worse, I open my mail and there is a letter, dated 4/12/08, asking me to renew my membership. Fine. Except my current membership extends until 11/30/08, or over seven months from the date of this letter of renewal. I have zero other memberships in anything that would ask me to renew an annual membership when I had over half of it remaining. Not only that, but the letter, signed by Wayne LaPierre, who I USED to respect, tries to lay a guilt trip on me if I don't renew this early:

"Also, you'll save the NRA the cost of sending more notices. That means more of your dues can go directly to critical NRA projects including our safety programs, our crime-fighting efforts and, most important, our fight to save your guns!!!"

OK, Mr. LaPierre, here's a flash for you: I don't want you to save my guns, I want you to help save my gun rights. There IS a difference, and you don't seem to notice that difference much. My guns aren't going anywhere without my OK, but under the NRA's stewardship, my gun rights have been steadily eroding.

Oh, and while I'm responding to your letter, let me add that it's YOUR CHOICE to send me all these early renewal notices which incur you additional administrative overhead expense. I know perfectly well when my membership dues are due, thank you, and rest assured that you will get them sometime in November.

******************************************************************************

April 21, 2008

Charles Ramsey, Second Amendment denier

Charles Ramsey, former Chief of Police in the gun-banning city of Washington, DC, assumed a new job of the same level in Philadelphia, PA this January, just as his dismal record of denying the Constitution was about to trumpeted in Heller vs. DC before the Supreme Court of the United States.

So he goes to Philadelphia, where there exists a horrible homicide record, as the PPD seems to have no handle at all on gang crime in that city, especially in it's northern districts. Ramsey's answer, of course, was to take the strict PA gun laws and turn them into DC-style gun bans, and he got together with the similar-minded Mayor Michael Nutter and has a set of draconian laws put together as City Ordinances that would totally gut the Second Amendment there.

Only one problem arose.

It was all unconstitutional on it's face, as the State of Pennsylvania reserves the right to itself to make all gun law. This pre-emption of cities' gun-banning authority has proven to be the bane of gun banners nationwide.

OK, so Chief Ramsey is a smart guy, it says here. When several Legislators and the Attorney General told him and Nutter informally that they couldn't write and enforce such laws, you would have thought they might have listened.

But no, they not only didn't listen then, they didn't listen when legislators denounced their illegal actions from the Speaker's podium in the State Capitol.

In fact, they not only didn't listen, the Mayor rammed the Ordinances through as emergency laws, and the Chief said his forces would begin to enforce them by arrest the minute they had been promulgated in emergency fashion.

The City was sued in Federal Court, and was enjoined to prevent the ordinances from going into effect. The same injunction also forbids the Chief from enforcing any City gun laws not approved by the Legislature, and even forbids the Chief from writing police procedures to enforce such improper law.

Now THAT'S a slap in the face. Not only did the Federal Judge tell the Chief he couldn't arrest anyone on the phony laws, the court told the Chief he couldn't even plan or prepare to arrest anyone on such phony laws.

Then, to add insult to the injury of being bashed with the Cluebat of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, the Philly District Attorney, a liberal herself, said she would not issue any criminal complaints on the ordinances pending their COMPLETE legal resolution.

It IS interesting that the MSM all parroted that all the opposition to this set of un-Constitutional fiats came from the NRA, when in fact, it came first from the Pennsylvania Legislature, performing it's proper role of defending it's own Constitution. The NRA's role was limited to carrying the lawsuit to court, because as a private intervenor, it could do that much faster than the Legislature could, since various interpretations of State's rights vs. Federal authority have resulted in cumbersome legal obstacles to be overcome prior to decisions. None of the three MSM articles I read had ANY mention of the role of the Legislature, only that of the NRA. Check it for yourself. Google "Philadelphia gun laws banned".

The upshot of all this might get lost in the fray. The best lesson to be obtained here is that a couple of Constitution-be-damned wheeler-dealer politicians tried to blame the serious failures of their respective administrations on inanimate objects, guns, instead of the very real people, criminals, who are causing the problems. It is the failure to deal with crime in Philadelphia that should be highlighted here, as well as the failure of the two slimy politicians and their attempt to hide their own personal failures by trashing two Constitutions.

My guess is, though, that the National Rifle Association will once again fail to take this pointed, but very real view, and settle for the kudos for their role in protecting the ownership of the firearms involved.

It is precisely the NRA's failure to take the full measure of vanquished enemies that has allowed New Orleans' chief gun-grabber Eddie Compass to remain untouched for trashing the Second Amendment during and after Hurricane Katrina in NOLA.

Defending the Constitution from treasonous usurpers is a life-or-death matter, but the NRA treats it instead like some sort of gentleman's game with a hardwood court, rule book and referees, with fouls to give and/or a penalty box.

This battlefield is very real, and if the battle is NOT won there AND the foe not TOTALLY vanquished, the war WILL be lost in the longer run and we will all be enslaved.

We gave you the thumbs-down signal, NRA. Muster the grit to walk these two to the prison gates and see them put away. If you can't summon the stomach for properly ending the fight, give way to those who have such determination.

I know for a fact that if the leaders of the GOA were doing this work, Mayor Nutter and Chief Ramsey would be raising bail money by now.

April 18, 2008

A new view of Militia

Jerry the Geek brings us this op-ed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. First, go read the AJC article, it's not too long, and then come on back with your thinking cap on.

OK, we've read the article. It is about that pesky part of the Second Amendment, Militia. Some complete elitists take the position that the Second Amendment (2A) is ALL about militia, and they are wrong (and my guess is that the SCOTUS will bury that position permanently very soon). This op-ed writer Oppelt never really disabuses himself of that elitist position, so at this point, he is a potential elitist.

Just how elitist is it to advance the idea of putting a restriction on the R2KBA that the keeper and bearer MUST be trained in the use of firearms?

First of all, only a total dummy would advance the position that a firearm may be carried daily as a personal defense accessory if the bearer was completely  untrained in it's use, but there ARE 2A purists who will make that argument, just because THEIR beliefs tell them that since wording mandating training is NOT in the 2A, training cannot be mandated. This type of purist viewpoint is either elitist or Neanderthal (and therefore unacceptable) because to believe this way is to accept that the Founders  decided that all future citizens of the Republic were to be completely ignorant, and require verbatim instruction in EVERYTHING, when there is ample evidence that the Founders assumed that the average US Citizen was of sound mind and adequate education.

Of course, interpretations of the language of the Constitution must be made, and that (in the case of the 2A) is what Heller is all about. No one really knows what the Majority Opinion in Heller will say, but it's a fair guess that the Second will be affirmed as both a collective (Militia) AND an individual right to Keep and Bear (and "shall not be infringed" will get new, current re-emphasis).

The Majority Opinion might and it might not address what would be "reasonable restrictions" to R2KBA. Most scholars are guessing that there will at least be language in the opinion suggesting that "reasonable restrictions" are OK with the majority of Justices. So, would a Training Requirement be a "reasonable restriction"?

This could become the next great question of the day for both supporters and wannabe destroyers of the 2A. Or it might be totally overlooked.

As I stated above, there is really no sane reason to oppose ALL training requirements for firearms carriage. There ARE very good reasons to oppose restrictions on "keeping" firearms.

First of all, it is difficult, at best, and improper, at worst, to try to regulate the acceptance of risk. The Founders knew this, so the Constitution they devised is very heavy on personal responsibility. Citizens (the "people") have personal responsibility for their governance (voting), for their education, for their religion, etc. The role of the Federal Government as envisioned by the Founders was really quite limited, and existed primarily in the authority to enumerate citizens (the Census), raise funds (Taxation) and defend the territory of the United States (defense, primarily Naval defense).

The Founders, as a concept, left almost everything else but these big questions to the States, and the Fourteenth Amendment later clarified that the Federal Government may NOT interfere with the States as they go about the business of regulating themselves or conducting commerce between themselves.

Militia was left to the States. The entire concept of Militia was specifically generated to prevent the Federal Government from using it's grant of authority for the Common Defense to become a "standing army" or "all the King's Men" and become a tool for centralized repression of the citizens.

The everyday role of using FORCE (in all it's levels, from show of force to actual projection of it) to protect the citizenry from forceful evils is what Militia is all about. The roles of Police are really the expression of Militia, and I have ZERO doubt that ALL nine of ANY Supreme Court of the United States would find that alignment of responsibility acceptable as an interpretation of the Constitution.

OK, you say, we have Police (Militia). All States have Police (Militia), and in fact, almost ALL levels of Government have Police (Militia). The Federal Government is NOT SUPPOSED to have Militia, remember? Remember Standing Army? We're not here to get into THAT conflict, so I'll let it ride for now.

So, with a clearer statement of Militia, which is expressed in our more modern form of Constitutional society by Police, can we just say that the training requirements for Police must suffice for citizens who are in the remainder of the Militia (that MIGHT be the "unorganized Militia" and it might not be, THAT question is also open to debate)? Oppelt seems to say that:

"They would be trained in not only the handling of the weapon but also conflict resolution."


This is where Oppelt's discussion runs off the rails of polite debate, and becomes a runaway train of 2A-killing rhetoric. We can politely debate what level of training in the proper and safe handling and carriage of firearms is appropriate under the concept of Militia, but when Oppelt tries to equate the Second with Militia, then equate Militia with Police (totally), then completes his circuitous logical train by equating Police training with the basic R2KBA under the Second Amendment, he is completely and totally out of order.

This is the elitist way: first stating a "reasonable-on-it's-face" concept (firearms training is appropriate for public carriage of firearms), then fortifying that statement with a more controversial concept (Militia Equals Police), then flinging himself right off the logic scale with his major premise (Police-level training MUST be considered a requirement for any citizen before firearms may be carried under the 2A).

The absolute lie to Oppelt's circle of imfamy is given by his "Militia is Police" position. He has that ABSOLUTELY BACKWARDS! The Police ARE Militia, but so is a schoolteacher, a farmer, a baker. All those people, all who have highly specialized training in NON-PROTECTIVE skills, are part of the Militia, as it was conceptualized by the Framers.

So, with this lesson in examining the logic in a proposition, and it being a lesson in how elitism works, do we want to proceed to examine elitism in other important arenas of current discussion?

Heheheheheh.


Two assignments today

We're returning to mid-winter in the Pacific Northwest. Russia's Chief Climatologist, Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, is proving more and more accurate every day. Last fall, he predicted that a severe "cool cycle" in the sun's warmth would make this year memorable for a lack of summer in northern climates. BTW, the same savant also predicted the end of the recent global warming cycle and a return to a cooling cycle.

So, in the Northwest, we're having an unheard-of Spring arctic outbreak for the next four days. It will probably snow at my house near Portland this weekend (438 feet of elevtion), and the Northwest's second most important crop, but the one it is best known for, fruit, is about to be severely damaged. Temperatures in the fruit-growing regions definitely will fall to the crop-damage level of 25-28 degrees, and in some of the higher pockets of those regions, will probably fall to the tree-damage level of 21-23 degrees.

Accordingly, I am back in winter mode. At my marina, my boat, which I should be using or at least working and living on right now, is plugged back into all it's winter heaters (sucking down kilowatt-hours of spendy electricity, but saving gallons of $4.00-plus boat gas I would be burning in her). My tip of the day to ALL readers: run out and buy all the canned fruit you can store and will use for the next year. It will probably double in price by mid-summer, as it becomes evident that this year's northern fruit crops have failed. If I turn out to be wrong, the diet change to more fruit salads won't hurt you.

This chilly forecast means indoor sports for this geezer, and when indoors, my thoughts turn to the Second Amendment (and protection of the same), and maintenance of guns. In yesterday's range session, I fired three handguns, so they need cleaning, and just as I was nodding off last night, I came upon a peculiar elitist point of view which attacks the Second in a dangerous new way, and I MUST write about it, so join me in the next post (while I go refill the coffee cup).

April 15, 2008

Wal-Mart goes anti-2A?

Just heard it on the noon news...KGW TV8, Portland

Wal-Mart is going to track when any gun sold there gets involved in a crime (the report didn't say how this was going to occur, but it stands to reason that it is being done with the aid and cooperation of the government), and will treat the buyer of that gun differently somehow if that person returns to buy another gun. This program involves creating a registry of gun buyers, and maintaining that registry as a historical record, available to who, they don't say (but who would want it besides the government?).

The Rivrdog recommendation: Immediately cease buying guns at Wal-Mart unless you are willing to be part of an extra-legal gun registration scheme.

To Wal-Mart: in case you think that this blog post is an improper secondary boycott, it isn't, I am merely exercising my First Amendment rights to inform others of a significant change in a policy that could have grave consequences for those people at a later date. If you, Wal-Mart, wants advice from me on what to do with and/or about your new policy, please email me and I will be delighted to conclude an advisor's contract with you.

*****************************************************************************

UPDATE: 041508: 2315 PDT: Mega-blogger Alphecca seems to be on board with this, details (and I didn't) that this is probably a Bloomberg initiative.

*******************************************************************************

March 04, 2008

Good news?

Brownell's editor seems to think so, but I'm not so sure that it's a good idea that one huge holding company is buying up firearms manufacturers as fast as it can.

Think: makes it REAL easy for the dot.gov to put the squeeze on a major portion of the gunmaking biz. Think: a near-future dot.gov wanting to shut down production and sale of EBRs to the civilian market. One letter to Cerberus hinting that their holdings might be under investigation, etc, and they will ax this small-dollar portion of their bottom line in a New Yawk minute.

Is this paranoid? You decide.

February 22, 2008

A Second Amendment Salute

To Mel, the better half of Anarchangel, who just joined what currently passes for the armed Militia.

I stand, face So'So'East towards central AZ, and render a snappy salute.

Good on you, Mel.

Bully for you, Chris, gently getting her ready for her duty in mind and prowess.

I am proud to call her a Comrade in Arms.

If all goes well, I should be able to make these kudos into a hug, personally delivered, in two weeks or so.

February 19, 2008

Micro-serialization redux - UPDATED

There are now NINE states with legislation in the hopper to end the Second Amendment by requiring that only micro-serial numbered ammo may be used, then tightly controlling that supply. That nine includes several who have signed onto the idea that guns may be fitted with firing pins which stamp such numbers on primers.

Random Nuclear Strikes is keeping up with this, but the Boss Hogg of this subject is Cogito Ergo Geek. This blog will mirror both of their efforts.

Folks, I hope I haven't "cried wolf" too many times about threats to the Second Amendment, because this is the real deal. If you can imagine yourself being restricted to buying just a few rounds of ammo at a time, say less than 20, and paying a large tax on EACH ROUND, then having to sign for EACH ROUND'S SERIAL NUMBER, then having to REPORT EXPENDING EACH OF THOSE ROUNDS, you get the idea.

Aside from the safety aspects, owning a firearm now is not a big deal, never has been (in states that don't try to end your Second Amendment rights before you even get there). With this legislation, it will become a HUGE HASSLE to own a firearm, and you won't be able to own them ANONYMOUSLY any more. The Government will have a record of all ammo you own, and will be able to guess what sort of weapons you have to put that ammo in, thereby having a de-facto registration scheme (which could ONLY be defeated if we convinced everyone to buy the expensive ammo even if they don't have guns, but that's unlikely to happen) . Large-caliber pistol ammo, in personal defense loadings, is already at $1.50/round and climbing, and good hunting ammo in the usual deer and elk calibers is up to $2.00/round. You can't load it yourself for much less than 40 cents per round, because of the huge jump in the prices of metals lately (lead went from 22 cents per pound 3 years ago to $1.50/# today), and the fact that the war is using up so much of the production capability, that there is a shortage of supply.

As I've said before, the anti-gun Socialists have already figured that they will lose the Heller case now bfore the SCOTUS, and the Second Amendment WILL be declared a personal, individual civil right. When that happens, cities like New York, Chicago and DeeCee won't be able to just ban weapons any more.

Micro-serialization is their new form of ban!

We MUST get ahead of the gun-banners this time, and NOT have to fight a rear-guard action as we've had to do with Heller.

I was sadly disappointed to go over to the very popular (among gunnies, anyway) Random Nuclear Strikes and note that there was only ONE comment on his last post about micro-serialization, and that comment was mine.

Over at Cogito Ergo Geek, the most recent micro-serialization post hasn't been commented on yet.

WAKE UP, PEOPLE! LET'S AT LEAST TALK ABOUT THIS THREAT!

***********************************************

Continue reading "Micro-serialization redux - UPDATED" »

Are you ready for Militia duty?

How fast we are heading for a severe breakdown in civil order in this nation is debatable. The fact that we ARE headed in that direction is NOT debatable.

The Founders were smart enough to figure out that such a breakdown was possible, and they examined all the angles it might come from, and they created the Second Amendment as a civil right so that citizens of their new Nation might be better prepared to handle the troubles ahead.

The Founders looked at three threats. They were, in ascending order of importance, civil riot, Indian fighting (on the frontiers) and a Federal Government gone awry.

The Founders' solution to all three was Militia. The CURRENT solution to the two remaining threats (Indians fighting is a thing of the past, even if some like Russell Means want to keep it alive) is Militia.

Let's see how you might prepare yourself for Militia duty. I will probably write several posts on this subject, and they will be cross-linked. They will also be linked to posts which ran from July 7, 2005 to July 22, 2005 which I wrote in my dormant, but still available blog Paratus. To read them, go to the blog, drill down on the right side to "Archives", click on the word "Archives", and then highlight July 2005 and scroll through that month until you get to July 7, then scroll upwards to see the rest of the series.

Some of the following material is already covered over in those Paratus posts, but the only things which have changed in the last three years are ammo and gun prices (both have gone up, but ammo has almost doubled in that time).

I'm going to discuss weapons first, because they are the most likely thing to be embargoed by a government gone bad (there are constant attempts to do that, if you just landed from the off-Earth and have tapped into our rudimentary communications network, the Internet). Weapons are also the most expensive of the Militia equipment to acquire and train in the use of, and the most time-consuming. They are 80% of the total concept of citizen responsibility for preservation of the Nation and it's Constitution.

To look at weapons, we have to look at how they are used, so as to get an idea of what weapons a Militia needs.

Weapons are used according to their capabilities to effectively bridge the distance between the shooter and the target. Note the emphasis on the word "effectively". It's there for a reason, because firearms for individual use come in three effectiveness levels: handguns, carbines and battle rifles. Shotguns fits somewhere in between handguns and carbines, as to range.

Those three ranges are: handguns, 0-5 yards/meters; carbines, 0-100 yards/meters; battle rifles, 0-700 yards/meters. A militia fire team should have all three levels of firearms available, in military calibers, in some combination. A fire team of, say, five members might have 3 with handguns (most useful in house searches/clearings and roadblock work), 3 carbines or shotguns and 2 battle rifles. In the field, the militia member must carry one battle-day's supply of ammunition. for the pistol, that is assumed to be about 30 rounds, for the carbine, 100-120 and for the battle rifle, 100-120. Practically, more can be carried, but since the handguns is only going to be used as a desperation weapon in brief encounters at close range, 3 magazines full of ammo is all that's practical for one day. The carbine might be used for suppressive/harassing firing, so a minimum of 100 rounds is required, and ditto the battle rifle.

The shotgun has very heavy ammo, and 100 rounds is a heavy load, and it is used in desperation, close-quarter fighting, so that 50 rounds is probably OK.

The carbines and battle rifles may be semi-automatic or they may be manual loading. It doesn't matter, for when the leader calls for harassing fire, the objective is to get a lot of rounds on the target quickly. If a manual loading rifle is carried, the rifle operator must be able to load and fire quickly.

Pistol-caliber carbines. I have several combinations of pistols, and the same caliber of carbine. This allows the militia member to carry only one caliber of ammunition while being armed with weapons suitable for close-in work and for medium-distance work, and in a pinch, the member may arm an unarmed person who comes into the fight on the militia's side.

An excellent combination would be a .357 Magnum caliber revolver with a 4 or 6 inch barrel and a Marlin Model 1894 carbine of the same caliber. A bit beefier would be a .44 Magnum revolver and a Marlin carbine of the same caliber. This caliber in a carbine is lethal out to 500 yards/meters, but the bullet drop is such that nothing much past 300 yards/meters is effective. You might hit something holding over 5 feet (300 yard bullet drop), but your sights aren't made for holding over 18 feet (500 yard bullet drop).

There are semi-automatic pistols which have companion carbines also. You can pair Glock, Smith and Wesson, 1911A1 and some others with various carbines. The Kel-Tec Sub-Rifle 2000 is a carbine that takes the pistol's magazines. The most effective caliber is .40 S&W, but this carbine ranges only to 100 yards/meters, and anything over that will require excessive hold-over. The upside of these weapons is their weight, only 4#. That means you can carry much more ammo.

The battle-rifle is not meant to be light weight, most weighing 9# and up. They are generally some caliber of 7.62mm, such as 7.62 NATO (highly recommended, since it is the NATO heavy-rifle caliber), or 7.62X54 Russian (the WW2 Soviet blot-action rifles or the more modern RPK semi-auto), and the .303 British (the variants of the Enfield WW1 and WW2 rifles). The 8X57 is the old Nazi caliber, and there are plenty of those old Mausers around, and for the time being, plenty of the ammo, as the former East Bloc nations dump their supplies on the market (and while the Federal Government still allows imports of it).

The semi-auto battle rifles are the best. In 7.62 NATO, the CETME (Spanish) Model B (as imported and modified by Century Arms) is plentiful and reliable, and the H&K 91 and clones (PTR-91) are similar in function and better-built (but twice as expensive). The King of these pre-Stoner 7.62 autoloaders is the M14 and clones (Springfield M1A, Taiwan Type 57). There is an AR-type which shoots the 7.62 NATO, the AR-180, and it is a fine rifle, but well over $1,000. Finally, there is the FN-FAL, still in service in many armies. Having one of the above battle rifles means that you are the fire team's long-range member, and you need to be in shape to haul your 13-15# rifle (yes, it will weigh that much with bipod and scope), and 20-25# of ammo in 20-round magazines.

The militia member might show up for muster with a hunting rifle. Those who do will probably be relegated to duty not likely to involve volume-firing, because they probably won't have much ammo (most hunters don't have more than 40 to 60 rounds of ammo for their rifles), and by law, the weapons can't hold more than 5 rounds, and can't be loaded with stripper-clips, meaning reloading another 5 rounds takes a half-minute as opposed to 2-3 seconds for a magazine change. As a militia member, if you don't have a military weapon to muster with, bring a repeating shotgun, which will be more useful anyway than a scoped bolt-action rifle meant to kill elk at long range. If you are really proficient with such a hunting rifle, you might be pressed into sniper duty, but you'd better know military sniping doctrine, and most hunters don't. If you only have one long gun, bring it (except no .22 rimfire rifles).

In following posts, we will look at how the Militia will fight, what types of missions it will have, and what might become of it politically.

Stay tuned!

February 15, 2008

NIU shooting reaction...

Just a guess, mind you, but since the info has come out that the shooter "stopped taking his meds" (presumably some sort of anti-depressants, and isn't that a HIPAA violation to release that information, Chief Grady?), we will now hear a suggestion from the VPC and/or other anti-gunners that no one on anti-depressants should have 2A rights, maybe unless they "prove" that they are still on their meds.

You won't turn blue holding your breath to see if I'm right, I promise.

Let's see, that would rip off 2A rights from how many citizens? 10 million? 20 Million?

That would set back treatment for this usually-mild condition 30 years? 50 years?

OTOH, I noted that Obama was quick to re-affirm that there IS a Second Amendment, and that it is an INDIVIDUAL right, but subject to "reasonable" restrictions like "background checks"? Hmmm, one could drive the USS Nimitz though that little crack in the door of the Constitution as he views it, but let's cut him a break, he cut the VPC off at the knees by connecting the NIU shooting and the Second Amendment's right.

Blog powered by TypePad