Illegal Demands His Due

Ok folks, rant alert! I figure it is posts like this that turn people off of my blog. Oh well, I don't care. If you have a problem with what follows, leave a comment.

Is CNN expecting me to be sympathetic here?

A fisking we will go...

For 11 years, Pedro Zapeta, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, lived his version of the American dream in Stuart, Florida: washing dishes and living frugally to bring money back to his home country.

Note: His country, not ours. His version of the American Dream is to take what he can from our country, never give back and get out of Dodge once he's gotten his piece.

Also note: 11 years! 11 bloody years this guy stayed and milked this country.

Zapeta, who speaks no English, said he didn't know he was running afoul of U.S. law by failing to declare he was carrying more than $10,000 with him. Anyone entering or leaving the country with more than $10,000 has to fill out a one-page form declaring the money to U.S. customs.

Why should he be aware of the law he was breaking? It's not like it had stopped him in the first place. How many other laws had he broken or cast off prior to that point? If I had done that as a legal resident, I'd be sitting in a jail cell courtesy of ICE, my residency revoked and awaiting deportation.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. So they keep telling me.

Officials initially accused Zapeta of being a courier for the drug trade, but they dropped the allegation once he produced pay stubs from restaurants where he had worked. Zapeta earned $5.50 an hour at most of the places where he washed dishes. When he learned to do more, he got a 25-cent raise.

Hey ICE, did you get the names of his employers? Want to get the illegals to leave, go after the folks hiring and paying people like our poor, downtrodden, oppressed individual here.

"They are treating me like a criminal when all I am is a working man," he said.

You ARE a criminal. The only difference between you and a street robber is the means by which you acquired your money. Mugging by dishwasher isn't nearly as nefarious as stepping out of a dark alley and beating the cash out of my hands.

Robert Gershman, one of Zapeta's attorneys, said federal prosecutors later offered his client a deal: He could take $10,000 of the original cash seized, plus $9,000 in donations as long as he didn't talk publicly and left the country immediately.

Should have taken the deal, Mr. Zapeta. That is a better offer than I would have ever gotten from the Government. $19K is far better than zero and zero is all you deserve. But your chose to exert your "rights" and now you're going to get burned.

Now, according to Gershman, the Internal Revenue Service wants access to the donated cash to cover taxes on the donations and on the money Zapeta made as a dishwasher. Zapeta admits he never paid taxes.

Not a criminal, Mr. Zapeta? Gee, I wonder why the IRS might want to talk to you about taxes unpaid on $59,000 in undeclared income? Trust me, us law-abiding legal aliens here in this country pay taxes. Watch what happens to us when we don't pay taxes to the IRS. They don't like it. They don't like it one bit as a matter of fact.

By the time they are finished stacking interest, penalties and fines on that money (not to mention on your illegal employers for failure to remit Federal and State taxes), you'll be lucky to be allowed to leave this country with 59 cents in your pocket. Which is still 59 cents too much.

Marisol Zequeira, an immigration lawyer, said illegal immigrants such as Zapeta have few options when dealing with the U.S. government.

"When you are poor, uneducated and illegal, your avenues are cut," he said.

Poor and uneducated you can fix. Illegal is where I have a problem. His options should be limited, he broke the law!

"I am desperate," Zapeta said. "I no longer feel good about this country."

Not that you cared much about it in the first place except as a means to take what you wanted. Now you're facing the consequences of your criminal actions and you expect me to by sympathetic?

Sorry if I sound cold in all this but I am not sympathetic to his so-called plight. I have spent 10 years in this country, 7 of those on work visas that severely restricted who I could work for. It was essentially paid slavery. But those are the rules. And in that time I have probably paid somewhere in the range of $300,000 in taxes to the Government. This man has not paid one dime. Now he's going to lose his money because he was ignorant of our laws here? Tough. Actions have consequences.

Zapeta said his goal in coming to the United States was to make enough money to buy land in his mountain village and build a home for his mother and sisters. He sent no money back to Guatemala over the years, he said, and planned to bring it all home at once.

And here the media trots out the violin and tugs at our heartstrings. Look, he was just trying to make a better life for himself. Yes, in his country, not ours!

You know, I have no problem with a fellow coming into this country on a temporary work visa, earning money, paying taxes and then taking his net earnings back home with them. I've known more than a few folks from India who have stated those exact intentions. There is nothing wrong with that.

Temporary work visa means exactly that, temporary. They're honest about their intentions but they are also playing by the rules. They are contributing back into our society for the privilege of being here. They are paying taxes. They are not drawing on public funds in the form of health care, welfare, etc (we are specifically barred from doing so under the terms of our visas).

This guy didn't do any of this. The old saw of we have plenty in this country so why not let them have a slice? Fine, change the law to allow teeming masses of folks like his to do that. Oh, guess what, the politicians tried that!

And the response of the American citizenry was: "No fucking way! Here is how we want OUR country run!". Until the Peopleof the United States decide we want to change the law to accomodate Mr. Zapeta, he has to play by rules we have and those rules say he is a criminal. End of story.

At Wednesday's hearing, Zapeta was given official status in the United States -- voluntary departure -- and a signed order from a judge. For the first time, he can work legally in the U.S.

By the end of January, Zapeta may be able to earn enough money to pay for a one-way ticket home so the U.S. government, which seized his $59,000, doesn't have to do so.

How nice, we let the criminal pay to get himself out of jail. Any wagers that as his deporatation date draws near and after the IRS is finished with him that he'll actually show up with that plane ticket and leave voluntarily?

The next time I hear someone say all the illegals want to is to make a better life for themselves, remember this fellow. Remember it when they try to shove amnesty down our throats again.

Loophole! Loophole! Must Close the Loophole!

The blogosphere is all over this one along with the PSH from the media as a result.

They are screaming "Loophole!" because this gunman bought a muzzleloader without any background check and then got caught with it. Now they are screaming it is a loophole in the law because he didn't need a background check like for any other type of gun.

Sigh.

You know, if the media would do a little research, we'd all be much better off as a society.

There is no loophole. The law is extremely clear on this point: A muzzleloading, black powder rifle or pistol OR a rimfire/centerfire rifle made on or before 1898 is not considered a firearm under the law.

That's the law as written. There is no loophole.

Loopholes are legal gaps and creative interpretations that lawyers can use to wiggle around and try to alter the meaning and intentions in the law where the law is vague to start with. That is not the case here. The law is utterly explicit on this point.

And the gun grabbers and media are just waking up to this now?!?

Yes, people can purchase objects that propel projectiles in specific directions and they don't need the permission of the Government to do it! Don't believe me? Go buy a bow, crossbow, paintball gun, airsoft gun or slingshot sometime. There. Now I have the means, if I wish, to potentially kill someone by hurling projectiles at them. A muzzleloader is no different.

The only difference is the means of how the projectile is thrown. Ignition of blackpowder packed in the bottom versus a string or air. Aimed with murderous intent, an BB pellet, ball bearing, arrow or crossbow bolt can kill you just as dead.

And frankly, if I am faced with a person intent on doing me harm somewhere, I'd rather they use the muzzleloader than the crossbow. You want to know why?

It takes a little effort load a muzzleloader. You'll get that first shot off but reloading is gonna be a bitch. A trained infantryman during the Civil War was considered good if he could fire three aimed shots in a minute. That's 20 seconds to fire, reload, aim and repeat. Sure, our gunman could had the potential to kill one person but I am going to have plenty of time after that to jump out from under my desk, rush him and then use the muzzleloader between his knees as he's tamping a new round into place as a club to beat his ass senseless.

Reloading a crossbow is much quickly. Compared to the muzzleloader, it is a deadly machine gun. Sorry kids, I'm taking my chances with the Wolf Muzzleloader.

Come on, media, use some common sense here. It was because of this laborious process of reloading that led to the invention of breech loaders and brass-cased ammuntion. Contrast the 3 aimed shots in a minute in the 1860s to the 30 aimed shots required of British soliders using magazine-fed bolt action rifles durin the First World War.

As a result of the whole reloading thing and the fact that anyone with a high school chemisty book and a little will can corn their own black powder, the Government decided that muzzleloading guns aren't really a serious threat within society.

You want some PSH, gun grabbers? Here's three:

1. Did you know that there are black powder revolvers out there that can fire five or six shots and they likewise require no background check? Imagine the carnage!
2. Did you know I can order an 1898 Turkish Mauser through the mail that fires modern 8mm Mauser high-powered ammunition and they'll deliver as many as I want to my door with just a signature to UPS? My God, mail order "high powered sniper rifles"!
3. Did you know you can legally build modern firearms in your garage including handguns and evil, scary "assault weapons" without registration, background check or involvement of the Government (for the most part)? Want to close the "manufacturing loophole" now?

(A future post is going to address #3 on that list).

Seriously, if you're going to wail and scream, at least do it with the facts and the law on your side. You have no clue as to what you are talking about.

This quote from the article says it all:

"It is totally outrageous to have this type of firearm considered to be an illegal type of firearm, especially under federal and state law," said former ATF agent Domincik Polifrone.

There is a reason why you are a former ATF agent, Mr. Polifrone. You apparently didn't even know the law you were supposed to be enforcing.

Unlike you, I do. Welcome to the real world.

Hat tip to Sebastian, Say Uncle and Ahab.

Blast from the Past

It's interesting what pops up when you go Googling for gun stuff.

I was doing a search on .223 match grade ammo for service rifle competition. Just curious about cost and competitiveness. Specifically, is a 77gr Sierra Match King round in a magazine length cartridge a competitive round and how much does it cost in quantity? Didn't get an answer to the first and the answer to the second is "Mortgage first-born child now." ($271 per case of 200 on one site to $42.00 for 50 on another. Ouch!).

On this search was one of Google's groups links. A title of "Assault on guns" on talk.politics.guns. If you recognize what "talk.politics.guns" is, you've been around awhile on the 'Net.

So, being the curious sort, I clicked it.

Here is the article that popped up.

Note the date. May of 1994. This article was written during the period of debate prior to the passage of the famous 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban that banned nothing.

This is a nice little snapshot of history. What I find interesting is this article is making the same factual arguments back then prior to the ban (that it won't work to reduce gun crime) that we are stating now as "See, I told you!" whenever some anti-gunner brings up banning these "deadly, high-powered rifles".

The talking points and the facts haven't changed at all in the past 13 years. Here's a quote:

But it also served to underline the character of the campaign to ban "assault weapons," which from the outset has been composed of 10 parts vapor to one part substance. The advocates have done more to confuse that to inform, which is a shrewd tactic given the scarcity of facts on their
side. Last year, their effort was enough to persuade the Senate to approve a measure forbidding the sale, manufacture or possession of 19 different guns. This week, the House is supposed to consider the idea.

Same old playbook, different times.

Additions to the Blogroll

Decided to add a number of my regular daily blog stops to the roll. Peruse and enjoy!

Eternity Road
New Jovian Thunderbolt
Sharp as a Marble
Taking the Time to Stop and Think
The LawDog Files
The View from North Central Idaho

The Protest You'll Never See

You ever just sit there and think about "what if"?

I found myself thinking back to when the illegal aliens were protesting in public, carrying Mexican flags and essentially demanding that we ignore their transgressions and give them residency, tax breaks, citizenship, a free lunch, etc. It still stuns me to this day the chutzpah this took.

Essentially, you had a bunch of probable criminals congregating in public (which the Government would call a criminal conspiracy), flouting the law and demanding that we were supposed to accomodate them due to inconvenience or simple sheer numbers.

It also stuns me that you probably had several thousand known criminals standing in one place and not a one was arrested on the spot for breaking Federal immigration laws. If the USCIS (INS) and ICE were serious about enforcing existing law, that would have been a fantastic way to start.

I know, it makes for great evening news footage, lousy politics and all that.

But I digress.

But it did get me thinking. Here you had a bunch of criminals flouting a law they didn't like and demanding we change it. This behavior would be no different than every drug dealer in the city congregating on the National Mall and demanding that Congress change the law to grant them honorary degrees as pharmacists so they could come out of the shadows (of their street corners and crackhouses) and become licensed dispensers rather than undocumented narcotics distributors.

So what if instead of a bunch of criminals we had a bunch of law-abiding citizens organize and break the law somewhere in order to prove a point in getting that law changed or repealed?

We Americans have a long tradition of that. It's called "civil disobedience".

Then I started thinking about the ultimate protest by law-abiding gun owners that could have. In light of the current Heller vs. DC (formerly Parker vs. DC) appeal to the Supreme Court, I see an opening here for the law-abiding gun owner to demonstrate in a fashion that I am quite certain would gather serious national attention.

Quite simply: Imagine 10,000 law-abiding gun owners marching on the National Mall with rifles on their shoulders and carrying signs demanding the repeal of some existing gun law felt (and rightly so) to be Unconstitutional.

Ok, maybe 10,000 is asking a bit much. But 1,000 would be in the realm of possibility.

Can you imagine the fun?

Before you continue, allow me to state that this is a thought experiment. A free exercise of my 1st Amendment rights. If you actually try to organize or participate in something like this, you're on your own. I am not encouraging anyone to actually try this! I am not advocating for you to break any laws here! Thoughts, not actions.

With that disclaimer aside...

Ok, to lay the groundwork, I will state that such a protest would have to organized with very strict rules of conduct. It is a peaceful march. The firearms are part of it but they must be carried safely and must not be touched. They are present to prove a point: That the law-abiding citizen can be and is responsible with their gun. The keyword here is "peaceful".

The last thing you want is the next Lexington Green.

Still, could you imagine it? Just visualize this for a second. 1000 armed citizens standing by the Reflecting Pool holding signs demanding the repeal of NFA'34, the Brady Bill or GCA'68. Chanting, waving, shouting slogans and making speeches. Guns bobbing up and down on their shoulders, muzzles skyward in a safe direction.

You'd see the largest police turnout in the history of the District of Columbia.

And oh my, would it be interesting! As long as the protesters are marching peacefully, these officers have a real dilemma on their hands. The crowd would be breaking numerous DC gun laws and probably a few Federal firearms laws as well. Of this, there is no doubt. But that is the whole point of the protest. To highlight the foolishness of the logic that got these laws passed by basically saying the average citizen cannot be trusted with a gun. Any gun especially in DC. I think 1000 armed individuals demonstrating peaceably like any other citizen kind of puts the kabosh on that notion in a very public way. Isn't civil disobediance wonderful?

The dilemma for the officers, who I am sure would be surrounding this crowd, is what to do. They'd very likely want to be making arrests but you aren't dealing with armed indivuals in ones and twos. Those can be subdued with overwhelming force. 1000? The dynamics change a little bit here.

There are approximately 3500 officers in the DC Metropolitan Police Department (based on my reading of this). Assuming that covers all three shifts, you'd be seriously hard-pressed to find 1000 spare officers to even achieve parity with the crowd. And even then, talk about a serious Mexican standoff.

I don't doubt for one solitary instant that there wouldn't be a bunch of twitchy nervous trigger fingers amongst the police officers tasked to keeping an eye on this crowd. Expect it. It would only be a natural reaction under the circumstances. Hence the discipline in the crowd. Every motion, twitch or gesture is going to be watched. The appearance of someone reaching up to a shouldered rifle even to adjust it could send someone over the edge.

And result in the Washington Mall being the next shot heard 'round the world.

We don't want that.

And if you think that a peacefully armed crowd protesting on the Mall would get the authorities spun up, imagine what would happen if they started marching!

There are only two logical directions folks: the Capitol Bulding and the White House.

I'd avoid the White House. Only because the only thing worse than nervous Metro PD is nervous Secret Service.

The conversation I want to listen in on will be the one between the command post inside and the snipers on the White House roof.

It would go something like this:

Sniper One: I have hundreds of armed individuals approaching from the south. Lead targets are in my sights. What do you want me to do, over?
Command: Sit tight, One. What's your ammo situation?
Sniper One: Twenty rounds, Command.
Command: Copy that, One. Ammo status on Two, Three and Four.
Sniper Two: Same, Command.
Sniper Three: Twenty here.
Sniper Four: Likewise, Command. Advise please.
Command: Stand by. Let us assess.

Damn right, "Let us assess". That's simple math that even a chimp can figure out. 4 x 20 rounds = 80 rounds. Assuming perfect shot placement, 1000 - 80 = 920 now pissed off, armed individuals. Unless you've got a large ammo bunker downstairs and some powder monkeys to haul it as fast as they can load and shoot it, you're looking at a serious force imbalance.

Temporarily, at least.

The difference between the Metro PD and the Secret Service is the Secret Service can call in the Marines and would be likely to do it. It would be best to not give them a reason and especially to prevent an "accidental discharge" from occuring. Protecting the President would kind of take precedence and rules be damned. If the Secret Service felt those 1000 armed individuals were there for nefarious purposes (like a coup), I don't doubt for an instant that they wouldn't open fire.

At that point, it is only a question of how many would die. We don't want to go there.

Now if they marched towards the Capitol, it becomes pure entertainment. I'll bet even Diane Feinstein would be calling in to the California Sheriff's Department to get her rather hastily renewed carry permit (as in over the phone at that moment) faxed over as fast as possible and sending one of her aides to Jim Webb's office to see if he might have a pistol she could borrow.

I dare say as the phone calls start flooding in to the various offices about an armed crowd approaching the seat of Government, I would expect a number of reactions.

One, an exodus of as many Senators and Congressional Representatives to National Airport or reachable military facilities as the local traffic will permit.

Two, a flurry of phone calls to media to get statements ready and a plan to negotiate/appease/placate/beg said crowd by a designated target...er...spokesman. Complete with Kevlar lined podium.

Three, aides quietly fanning out and buying out every last pack of adult Depends from nearby CVS and Rite Aid stores as can be humanly acquired. Given the voting records with regard to individual right to arms (among others) on the Hill and citizen displeasure with regard to said voting records, certain individuals are probably going to need them. (McCarthy, Feinstein, Lautenberg and Schumer pay special attention here).

That would be a media circus the likes of which we've never seen. I'll bet you'd see news helicopters risking FAA fines, license revocations and possible shootdowns for the chance to film that. Law offices downtown would be renting access to rooms overlooking the crowd for prices that would make any corporate lawyer smile with joy. Watching the talking heads report on this would be worth watching. This is where I'd be sitting back with a soda and popcorn and enjoying the show.

That, my friends, would be Reality TV.

Screw "Survivor", I'm tuning into "The Next Revolution?".

The funny thing is, it would be much ado about nothing.

Just a bunch of peaceful protesters demonstrating as citizens are wont to do demanding the Government listen to them and change their course.

I have no idea why the Government would be so upset about such a protest?

Strangely, I could actually see a protest like this succeeding. People organized, marching and getting their message out in magnificent fashion. Unlike a lot of protests where the individuals inside who are supposed to be getting the message are probably saying, "Hey can you pass me another bagel? Want to hit the gym later?", the targets of the protest here would be unable to do anything but pay attention. They'd really have no choice.

The negatives with such an event (assuming it doesn't turn into the next Concord) are two-fold: getting organized and getting out.

The group itself wouldn't be under threat while they were together. That whole force parity thing. The forces at play that prevented the INS from arresting the previous group of criminals protesting en masse on the Mall would be the same ones that would from preventing Metro PD from acting.

The big issue would be the organization and dispersement of the protesters. You may not be able take them 1000 strong but as small numbers of individuals or groups with SWAT team support, it would be doable.

It is unlikely that such a protest could be prevented unless the organizers and individuals participating are loose lipped. This is not an event you'd want to be bragging about beforehand. Kind of ruins the whole spontaneity and surprise of the whole thing. Announcing a protest in advance doesn't serve your interests since you just told the receivers of your message where and when to ignore you. Surprise is so much better.

So I would expect this to get off the ground.

The aftermath is the issue.

As the protesters begin to head home, you're going to have a real problem trying to avoid being followed by twitchy and now very angry Metro PD officers (and by this point, FBI and BATFE agents) to wherever these protesters gathered from. People carrying rifles just kind of stand out, you know? You might as well all be wearing Guy Fawkes masks.

And once they figured out where you were going, they would probably leave the protesters alone. Let the media see them peacefully dispersing, unharrassed, jubulant and happy at having gotten away with it. Right until the news cameras weren't looking a couple days later.

Then the newspapers would be reporting on record arrests of individuals suspecting of plotting "terrorist activity" against the Government and the counterspin would begin with regard to the nature of the protests. Days, weeks, months of charges, courtroom appearances. Perhaps the odd "cold dead hands" resister taking someone with them figuring the end of the Republic was near.

People haven't forgotten the illegal immigrants protesting and they sure wouldn't forget this. Unfortunately for those involved, I think it would be a pyrrhic victory at best.

The fallout from such a protest would be enormous and I don't know what the end result would be. I could easily see the Government going either way in response. I leave it to you to imagine the state of Washington DC after such an event.

It could be the start of real reform with regard to our rights or it might be the start of the jackboot coming down on our throats.

What if, indeed.

A "Reasonable Restriction" on Shouting Fire

I got into it over the weekend with my future mother-in-law.

Sparring about rights with a Government and History Teacher: Bad Idea.

Let's just say we agree to disagree on the meaning of rights in society.

Don't get me wrong. I respect her highly. I consider this an educational process. I can always learn from her and I hope she can learn a thing or two from me.

For her, the Constutition is a "living document" meant to be interpreted in the context of the times and the needs of society.

For me. the Constitution was written by men who said what they meant and meant what they said. Some fundamental values are timeless and should stand above the tumult and fickleness of the masses.

Not surprisingly, the one area we disagree 180 degrees on is the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. I think I might have scored a point or two but overall, it was a stalemate. She is of the opinion that the greater good of society takes precedence over the right of the individual to bear arms. Handguns was the topic of discussion (in regard to the post about O'Malley's supposed executive order) but we did stray a little into "assault weapons".

Her concerns were largely emotional and boils down to "violence never solved anything".

Unfortunately, I didn't think to invoke Heinlein in response to that at the time.

It's not that I meant to start an argument. Actually, it was more of a "vigorous discussion" and something that I do enjoy thoroughly. Perhaps in future rounds I can educate her a little and perhaps persuade her to do a little research (especially in her view that "assault weapons" are used a lot in crime. Maybe she'll believe the FBI Uniform Crime Report instead of me but I digress).

The point of this post is in when we got to discussing what constitutes reasonable restrictions on rights. With regard to gun control, she is of the view licensing and training should be required, background and mental health checks should be mandatory, certain guns are not necessary in society (both types I own) and registration is not unreasonable in order to prevent crime. Not all of this was stated in this particular conversation but I have heard this stated outright in various past conversations. For example, she was quite shocked to realize I didn't need a permit or license to possess or move my firearms around.

The area that got me going was when she brought up the famous rights restriction example: "You can't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.".

The anti-gun forces and the ignorant (she is definitely not the latter) often cite this as an example of how a right can be restricted for the greater good of society. It was my response to this that I think did manage to get her to think for a moment.

They say you can't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. It is illegal. The injury and panic that would result from such a First Amendment act trumps your right to do it. Thus, you can't do it. Your 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech is thus restricted.

It is nothing of the sort.

People get confused when I state this. They say "But you can't do that! It is against the law! It endangers people! You are restricted from doing it!".

No, I am not.

There is nothing stopping me from standing up in a theatre and shouting "Fire!" in the absence of such. Panic and riot will ensue. And shortly thereafter, so will the handcuffs around my wrists and the criminal charges for doing so.

But at no time am I restricted from doing so! I have exercised my free speech rights to do so, unfettered and unopposed. It is only after I do so does the punishment commence, not before.

It is only by my irresponsible exercise of my Right do I suffer punishment but not for the exercise of the Right itself.

And therein lies the difference in understanding. Most people can't or won't make the fine distiction between the law saying I can't do something and my actually doing it. And the law agrees with this distinction. The law doesn't say you can't shout "Fire!". It only says that "if you do and it is unwarranted, here are the consequences of exercising your right irresponsibly".

You are expected as a citizen to exercise your rights responsibly. And as long as you do so, they will not be restricted or denied to you. If you are irresponsible with your rights, you will be punished and have them removed from you by a jury of your peers. This is the way it works.

So why is it the idea of restricting 2nd Amendment rights by citizens in the absence of their abusing those rights considered justified?

That is when they turn to the argument above. That by stating you can't exercise a right "for the greater good", it is reasonable. With the understanding, in my view, that no such restriction exists and it only comes into play after you exercise the right in an irresponsible manner.

You can dance around the distinction all you like here since it is speech we are talking about. Spoken speech is intangible. It cannot be contained or controlled. You can't really restrict it prior to its use. Not so with firearms which are tangible metal and plastic. These you can control beforehand. Restrict them. Guide them into "the proper hands".

My response was you should restrict such speech in the same way you propose to restrict firearms under this umbrella. After all, if it is good enough for guns, it should be good enough for speech.

Because the law says you can't shout "Fire!", by extension we should make laws that prevent you from a getting a gun without proving you won't misuse your right to have one. That the pre-emptive restriction for the greater good trumps your individual rights. Society wins and damn your inconvenience or outrage over such restrictions. Unlike for speech, we can enforce restrictions on guns beforehand.

I argue that what is fair for the rights that you don't like is fair for the ones you do. I say that 1st Amendment rights can be subject to the same restrictions you would wish to impose on me with regard to firearms.

So my response to the idea that a right can be restricted in the context of shouting "Fire!" was as follows...

Let's say there is a rash of "fire shoutings" in theatres. A bunch of kids are going to movies, shouting fire, creating panics and leaving in the rush. No one catches them and they are having a grand ole time laughing amongst themselves at the havoc they are creating.

Movie ticket sales plummet. Patrons stay home. Movie theatres demand the government do something to curb this public health menace and save their declining revenue as a result of these troublemakers.

In response, the government decrees that due to the actions of a criminal few and for the greater good of the community-at-large, no one will be permitted to shout "Fire!" in a theatre anymore.

But wait, you already can't do that! The right is already "restricted".

Now they are going to make sure it is properly restricted and they pass a new law. The law requires that anyone who isn't a licensed "Fire Shouter" will be required to have their mouth duct taped shut prior to entering the theatre. That way, "fire shoutings" will be prevented and people can enjoy their movies in peace. Each theatre will post licensed individuals (ushers) in each theatre to keep watch for fire so that any shout of "Fire!" will be a real one.

A private citizen can apply for a license to not have to wear the duct tape only after taking a speech safety course and attending a minimum of 5 movies duct taped so they understand that with rights come responsibility and they understand the gravity of said responsibility in having an unrestricted tongue over those who might abuse theirs.

Everyone wins. That way, the only calls of "Fire!" will be legitimate and the people are only mildly inconvenienced. After all, what's a couple hours of duct tape for the greater good of society?

No one would accept such a "restriction" on their free speech rights. It would be beyond the pale to say the least. Totally unwarranted and not in keeping with how our laws and society are supposed to function. But in keeping with the idea of "reasonable restrictions" on a right, this would be a reasonable response since the same people who would oppose this are perfectly content in doing virtually the same thing with regard to firearms possession.

The difference being, for us the "fire shouters" are actual criminals misusing guns. But the actions of this small minority are essentially serving as duct tape (and straight jackets) on the law-abiding. But in my future mom-in-law's eyes, such restrictions are necessary because of the criminal acts of a few.

She got my analogy with regard to shouting fire. But to her, the two issues are separate. Gun restrictions and speech restrictions are in different leagues. One item can kill, the other cannot. I heartily disagree. Speech can kill. Shouting "Fire!" proves it.

But until you actually shout "Fire!", you've done nothing wrong. Punish the act afterwards, not before. But she couldn't see the distinction with the misuse of guns.

To her, the restriction is necessary beforehand to prevent carnage after the fact. That the restriction of the rights of the majority is justified because of the potential for irresponsible exercise by a minority. That the greater good must triumph over the individual.

Sometimes, the greatest good is allowing the individual to stand alone and responsible for their acts and to leave it at that rather than punish those pre-emptively who have done no wrong.

We agreed to disagree.

Maryland Alert: O'Malley to Require Mental Health Check for Handgun Purchases!

This remains unconfirmed.

Apparently, Governor Martin O'Malley (D-Elitist) signed an executive order over the weekend that would require potential handgun purchasers in the State of Maryland to undergo a mental health examination prior to being allowed to buy said handgun.

What this means is without review in the Legislature, input by the citizens or any concern at all, he is planning to implement a DC type handgun ban in this State on his authority only.

If he's done this, he's way overstepped his authority as governor.

This type of thing pisses me off to no end.

More importantly and as a general observation which ought to scare anyone concerned about individual liberty is the idea of a third party deciding who gets to own a gun. Specifically, a third party who, as a member of a group, are vociferously anti-gun. Doctors and their umbrella organization, the AMA, consider firearms ownership to be a public health threat.

I don't consider a mental health worker (substitute favorite term here like psychologist, psychiatrist, etc) to be a doctor in the scientific sense. Take an individual who is very likely already prejudiced against guns, throw in subjective analysis of an individual with that bias in place, give them untrammeled authority from the State telling them they get to decide who can own gun (in the absence of any detailed criteria) and you're telling me that it won't be abused?!?

Welcome to the May-Issue state. And not for carry permits as exists today. For basic ownership. You might as well consider Maryland to have a DC gun ban in place with regard to handguns if this is in fact true and it will have been done without any input or vote by the citizenry (through the Legislature). Not even DC could pull this off in 1976.

If you live in Maryland, you better be prepared to have your rights stripped from you by executive fiat.

Funny, I didn't know O'Malley was running for King.

The number for the Governor's office is 410.974.3901.

As soon as I know something, you will.

More information here and will appear here if he did it.

DC Smackdown!

Wow, just wow.

It seems in the District's attempt to defend their Unconstitutional ban on guns in Heller vs. DC (formerly Parker vs. DC), they decided in their request to the Supreme Court to narrow their complaint to areas they think they can win.

The problem was, by doing so, they, by omission, stated the areas they weren't arguing to the Supreme Court were uncontested and not at issue.

Unfortunately for the District, the lead counsel for Heller vs. DC noticed and has filed a motion to lift the ban on functional long guns (rifles and shotguns) in the hands of citizens for self-defense immediately. The logic is simple: Since the District didn't argue that that area was Constitutional based on their reasoning, they accept the Circuit Court's ruling at face value in that area.

Folks, this is world-class lawyering. Go read the details here and the actual motion here. The motion, like the Parker decision itself, is very readable by the layman and is a first-class smackdown. Enjoy stuff like this because you don't see it often.

Absolutely fabulous! Rejoice, citizens of DC, your liberation is at hand!

Thank you, Alan Gura! If I ever need a firearms attorney, I'm calling you!

Need Help: Looking for .22LR Competition Rifle

Perhaps my few readers out there can assist me. I am looking to acquire a .22LR rifle for NRA Smallbore Competition.

As much as I would like to do service rifle or high-power, cost is a factor. Put mildly, even with reloading, service and high-power are expensive propositions.

Smallbore is doable in the sense that it is somewhat more affordable. But I need some help and I hope someone out there can help me out.

I need a rifle that will be suitable for NRA Smallbore competition. Here is what I would like:

• Magazine fed
• Bolt action
• Stock adjustable for height and length of pull
• Ambi or left-handed stock design with a pistol grip style
• Adjustable aperture iron sights, target grade
• Be a competitive tack driver

These are my preferences. Of the most negotiable are the feed and action. If I can get by with a single shot bolt action, that's fine. Or a semi-auto over a bolt gun. I am more partial to good sights, ergonomics and the rifle's ability to shoot a very tight group (so I know it is the shooter, not the gun).

Budget is up to $1000. The gun can be used or new. I'd rather spend $700 on a top flight used rifle than $1000 on a new one which may or may not turn out to be a decent shooter.

My preference is for an Anschutz rifle. But cost is an issue. I like the Model 1903 JR and Intermediate. If the 1903JR (aka 64R) will fit me, I have found them for reasonable used prices. If someone knows of a used Anschutz suitable for left handed shooting with sights in my price range, I would be interested in learning more.

Otherwise, I need to turn to a commercial off-the-shelf rifle that is extremely accurate and can be fitted with good sights. My stock preference is for ergonomics over tradition. I prefer modern pistol grip ergonomics and I am willing to rebed into an aftermarket stock. Kimber, CZ, Remington, Savage, Marlin and Ruger (to name a few) are all possibilities.

Building is acceptable. I have been looking at a Ruger 10/22 based rifle and essentially rebuild the gun from the ground up. Definitely within my price range. I would like to hear from anyone who is using a 10/22 as a competition platform and what you are using. A Boyds SS Evolution stocked rifle with a .920 target barrel is one such combo I've found that has possibilities.

I will be doing this sight unseen so whatever I buy needs to work. Once it is ordered, it generally can't go back and the last thing I want is a gun I don't shoot and will need to take a huge loss on to dispose of.

Can anyone help me out or provide advice?

PS: Before you shake your head in amazement, I do own a .22LR rifle. Problem is, it is a dedicated .22LR upper for the AR-15. As fun as it is to shoot, I have no ability to accurize it. Plus, the standard military sights are piss-poor for competitive shooting and replacing them with national match sights or custom sights is prohibitive and renders the rifle unusable as a trainer for the .223 AR-15.

Why There Can Be No "Middle Ground" (aka A Bad Analogy)

In the gun rights debate (not that there is any in my mind), you'll hear terms like "we need to find a middle ground" or "a compromise between people having guns and gun violence needs to be made". Generally, these phrases are coming from those who are looking for more gun control or restriction of rights. And then they are shocked and confused when the rights advocates tell them to go pound sand. After that, they paint the rights advocates as "extremist" and unwilling to negotiate.

For the record, you don't negotiate away rights. Period.

But I think I've figured out where the confusion over where the "middle ground" is in this so-called debate. Forgive me, I am going to use a sports analogy to explain this.

Think of the gun control issue as a football stadium. Around 1934, they built the stadium to let the games begin and it kind of languished from there. Finally, the games themselves started in 1968. Sporadically, irregularly. Rarely would the games be anything worth watching or would there be a large crowd.

The gun rights people, the perennial fans that they are, had season tickets at the stadium since the games started in 1968 but they really didn't pay attention. The gun rights team rarely showed up and generally either found themselves outnumbered or more often, the gun control teams brought gorillas instead of men to play. Unfair, yes, but beyond a howl from the stands, the gun rights supporters did nothing.

These games are also different in that they always started from the gun control end zone. As the games progressed through the years, neither team could win. The games were judged by how far a team could go towards the opposite end zone. And wherever the game ended in one year is where the next game started the next. The gun rights team never noticed that the gun control team, slowly but steadily with some years measured in inches, others in yards, that they were approaching their end zone.

After about thirty five years of this, the gun control team decided to ban a large segment of the disinterested gun rights spectator from the stands. No one knows why, they just did it. Maybe they figured their constant advances and lack of interest of the gun rights fans meant they could do whatever they wanted at the stadium. Suddenly, there were riots outside the stadium from the banned gun rights fans who only wanted to tailgate and sit disinterested in their seats. But they did nothing other than wail.

And then, for reasons only known to deities and the insane, the gun control team not satisfied with that unprecedented victory, drags the remaining gun rights spectators onto the field and challenges them to a final game of "winner take all".

Suddenly, the impromptu gun rights team finds themselves standing on the fifty yard line wondering "How in the Hell did I get here?!?" with the gorillas charging at them to push them into their end zone. And so the game commences.

What does this have the "middle ground" you ask?

Everything. It all depends on your perspective and which way you're facing on that fifty yard line.

For the gun control team, you're looking at the gun rights end zone. But they're focused on getting to the parking lot in their happy, gun-free utopia of puppies, strawberry kisses and riding unicorns. For them, the middle ground is that end zone.

For the gun rights team dragged onto a field they didn't want to be on and are forced to play on regardless. They are standing there at center field going "What the fuck?!? How did we get here?!?". For them, the middle ground is getting back into the seats they were just yanked from so they can get back to being disinterested spectators.

The problem is, the middle ground in that case just happens to be the end zone for the gun controllers.

There can be no "middle ground" as long you're looking at different goal lines!

For gun control for so long, the end zone is the distant goal but the game is what matters. As long as they are making progress, they're happy. A few inches a year, a yard there a year, perhaps the occasionally sack, but for the most part they are making progress.

For gun rights, as long as gun control wasn't scoring points against them, they didn't care. The problem was they never realized the game was never about scoring but seeing how far gun control could go.

It was only when the gun rights team was dragged kicking and screaming onto the field to face gorillas did they actually understand what the game was about and began to fight back out of necessity.

And in doing so discovered two things.

One, the gorillas were men in gorilla suits.

Two, they still dropped when kicked in the testicles.

Suddenly, the gun control team found themselves losing ground by the yard that they had inched across, slowly but surely, over 40 years and now they aren't at the 50 anymore. They are at the 20 yard line and stuck in the line against some very pissed off individuals who want nothing more than to get back to their seats and are getting tired of the game.

For them, the middle ground just happens to pass through the gun control end zone to get back where they belong.

The catch being, if we get back to our seats through our middle ground, it reveals what we should have learned the first time around: that the stadium itself should have never been built since we didn't want or need the seats or the game that came with it to begin with. It was all artificial designed to draw us into a phony game that was made important by others.

It should have never been built in the first place.

So when gun controllers talk about "reasoned discourse", "a need for compromise" or "a middle ground", just think about where they are looking. It is difficult to find a middle ground when you're looking at different destinations.

(Note: For those who don't know what period I am referring to when the gun control team insanely dragged the gun rights team onto the field, it was in 1996 after the passage of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban. That law was largely responsible for the creation of the grassroots movement in which we are trying to take back rights that should never have been gamed away in the first place).

Today's Recommended Reading

It isn't a stretch to say that certain bloggers have been a influence in my present political outlook and worldview. Admittedly, I was predisposed for some of it from the outset but it took the words of others to crystallize my views and set them into the shape they are today.

Certain bloggers helped push me along the path and made me think, "Yeah, he's right!". One of whom is Kim du Toit. I don't always agree with him but he was the first that really got me started on the outlook I have today. To this day, I can't honestly recall how I came across him (or any other blogger for that matter). But I am glad I did.

Because he led me to the other blogger who has been extremely influential in the sense that his writings educated me. That would be Kevin Baker of the Smallest Minority.

Kim is entertaining and poignant in the sense he has his opinions and view and will stand by them even in the face of disagreement. His view is "Here is how I see it, feel free to disagree and we are welcome to agree to disagree. But don't come here trying to change my mind past the point I have made it clear that I won't. If that is your goal, then fuck you.".

I admire anyone who does that. Whether you agree with him or not, if it is one thing that Kim du Toit has always exhibited is a high degree of personal honor and integrity.

It was his blog that led me to the Smallest Minority run by Kevin Baker.

Kevin is different than Kim in the sense I see more philosopher in him. He dives into the whys and meanings of rights and it is his writing in this area that can't but fail to captivate and make you think. It was Kevin's writings that made me begin to see and contemplate the fundamental nature of our Rights. Furthermore, he analyzes the rights debate through the court cases and history that defines it and backs up his position. I have encountered no one else that goes to the depth that he does and I consider his research into the history of gun control and fundamental rights to be the first place I send people to learn more.

So, since I have other stuff I am working on, here is your reading for the day:

A Mistake a Free People Get to Make Only Once should be required reading for anyone on the fence on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment or who argues for gun control.

And from Eric Raymond, Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun. It was this essay through Kevin that made many of my current views fall into place. When asked how I became the way I am or why do you act this way, look no further.

For those of you who have never read Kim or Kevin, get a beverage. You can kill hours on both sites.

Enjoy.

When You Shouldn't Own a Gun

Is the title of this post serious?!? The Armed Canadian advocating that people shouldn't own guns?!?

Hell yes.

I stumbled across this article about a woman who wrote a letter to some would-be home invaders imploring them to change their ways. The invaders apparently scared her and her family nearly to death and caused them to cower with fear in their closet.

This family owned a gun.

The home invaders were four 14 year old boys.

Read the letter and come back. I don't normally do that but I don't want to post the letter or the article in its entirety. It is secondary to my point and I will only comment on a couple of areas within it.

If there was ever a case illustrating how a gun in the house is not a magic talisman that deals with all potential evil, this is it. There are those who believe any gun in a house is a recipe for disaster. In the hands of this household, I agree wholeheartedly. Why? Because if this family owned a gun for the purposes of self-defense and they had no business doing so.

The reason is simple: The presence of a gun does not suddenly impart one with the ability to act in self-defense. That requires will and this couple clearly lack the will and attendant mental conditioning to do so.

As much as I am a supporter of the concept of armed self-defense (a concept that I personally practice), I recognize as a reasonable person that this not appropriate for everyone. As I tell anyone I have spoken to who have talked about maybe getting a gun for protective purposes, if you haven't given deep and troubling thought to the prospect of actually laying the sights on someone with a shaking hand, pulling the trigger and after the noise fades, having to face the prospect of having killed someone and that thought not woken or startled you in a cold sweat, you have no business owning a gun for self-defense. Recreational shooting, target practice, sure, but not self-defense.

Clearly, this family had never gone through this process. Their gun was a lump of useless steel. For all the magic the gun banners supposedly believe a gun has in imparting a possessor to kill at a seconds notice, this family was apparently immune to its effects.

Unless you have conditioned yourself to possibility of using a gun on another human being, there is no point in keeping it around for the purpose of self-defense.

This is borne out by the wife's letter. I'm not going to belittle her efforts. I believe she was doing it out of the fine motives and hope for the good she believes these children possessed somewhere deep down. Maybe she's right. Maybe this experience will put them on the path of the straight-and-narrow.

They're also damn fortunate they did it to her rather than someone else less "enlightened". Someone who wouldn't have cowered in a closet in the face of an unknown threat. Yes it was four kids breaking down her door. But she had no idea as to their intentions or motives. What if they had been ruffian gangbangers looking for loot and street cred? What if they had been armed and after being disappointed in their robbery take, they decided that perhaps it was better to leave no witnesses? It doesn't take a gun to kill witnesses, only an evil heart. A butter knife and the desire to kill an innocent is all that is necessary.

In other places or maybe the house next door, these children may not have been sitting in a jail cell. They'd be lying in a morgue or hospital somewhere recovering from their botched attempt at break-and-enter, intentions unknown, persuaded by multiple .45 inch holes or double ought buckshot scatter.

In some places, forcefully breaking down the door of a person's home is all the justification that is required. These children as well as the home owner in this story were both fortunate.

Most stories of this type do not have happy endings. The media loves stuff like this because it serves their "the police are their to protect you" and "see, people don't need guns" agenda. However, most of the time the victims in such cases wind up maimed, traumatized or dead. And when that happens, the media may only report it at all beyond a "a couple was found dead in their home" if it is a small town or the crime was particularly graphic or out-of-character for the area.

Why this family even owned a gun is beyond me. Not that I am questioning anyone wanting to own one. But if they bought it for self-defense, they shouldn't have and their reaction to the crime should serve as an illustration why. It is obvious that this event was deeply troubling to this woman and a gun in her hands is more of a hindrance than a help. Neither she nor her husband were prepared to use it.

If you aren't prepared to use a gun against another person and have actually thought about doing it, please don't keep a gun for self-defense. Because you are more of a threat to yourself and your neighbors under such circumstances than the intruders you would hope to stop with it. Legally, physically, morally, financially.

I am not questioning this family's values. I don't share them or agree with them but everyone is different. I will simply provide a caveat: What worked once for them will like not work for them or you under different circumstances.

Next time, there may not be a happy ending. And if there isn't, I'll bet the gun will be found exactly where the couple placed it untouched and unused.

A Gun Poem

With credit given to Pastor Martin Niemoller...

When they came for assault rifles,
I supported it.
I was not a government hater.

When they banned the .50,
I liked it.
We needed to stop the terrorists.

When they came for handguns,
I did not care.
I was not a drug dealer.

When they banned semi-autos,
I secretly applauded.
I've never liked them.

When they came for my hunting rifle,
I protested that the 2nd Amendment protected my rights!

But I had already those who would support me locked up.
And they took my gun.

Jesse Jackson Needs to Buy DSA

Courtesy of SayUncle comes this little article on Jesse Jackson and his protest against D.S. Arms in Illinois.

Nothing like pissing me off over lunch, so here we go...

Despite no evidence of legal wrongdoing, the Rev. Jesse Jackson wants a Lake Barrington gun plant shut down.

Fortunately, he won't get what he wants short of buying the factory himself. Which he could probably afford. Hey Jesse, put your money where your mouth is! Buy DSA and shut them down and then I might actually believe a few words that come out of your mouth!

Jackson, founder and CEO of the Chicago-based Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, will at noon today lead a protest in front of D.S. Arms, a gun manufacturer that's been registered in Lake Barrington since 1998.

More than 30 protests to ban assault weapons are planned today around the country. Stopping gun manufacturing would halt illegal distribution of firearms, which feeds into the illegal drug trade, Jackson argues.

"This is not about Barrington; it's about gun death, and gun manufacturing," Jackson said.

And how many drug dealers and gang bangers are going around shooting each other with DSA FALs? Here I thought the preferred gun used by criminals were handguns, not rifles.

Criminals do not prefer "assault weapons" and never have! That is a media invention with no basis in reality.

Jackson wants residents to be aware of the gun plant and rally against it. He spoke Monday night at Barrington United Methodist Church in Barrington Hills. He blamed the illegal gun trade for mass slayings like the ones in Columbine and Virginia Tech.

Really? Let's see. At Columbine, the two teenaged killers were already prohibited from possessing firearms outside of adult supervision and committed numerous felonies (stealing guns from their family) prior to actually killing anyone. Not a street corner gun peddlar in sight.

At Virginia Tech, the psychopath Cho purchased both of his handguns legally! He went through the NICS background check and passed. A background check, I might add, pushed by the gun controllers as a mechanism to stop the very thing that Cho did! The failure there was administrative, not legal. The law was followed.

And how is DSA in anyway responsible for this? None of their products were even involved!

So, Jackson is asking residents to protest a local business that probably pumps hundreds of thousands of dollars into the local economy as well as provide jobs for those very same locals? That's smart. What does he want them to rally against? A profitable business? Don't expect a lot of support from the locals there, Sparky.

In fact, I think you may need to bus in paid protesters from elsewhere to get anyone to show up to your so-called protest.

Society has become desensitized to inner city gun violence, and the suburbs need to take notice, Jackson said.

"We don't make guns in the city of Chicago," he said. "We don't manufacture death."

And neither does DSA. They manufacture a legal product under very strict legal and regulatory control.

If you have evidence, Mr. Jackson, that DSA is selling FALs off their loading dock or in a back alley for cash to anyone illegally, I will be the first to call for them to be shut down and those responsible be sent to jail for a very long time.

But you don't. You're just smearing the good name of a local manufacturer who has done nothing wrong in order for you to get on the 5 o'clock news.

Monday, someone answering the phone at D.S. Arms said they were reserving comment until after the rally. D.S. Arms, at 27W900 Industrial Ave. in Lake Barrington, makes military and police assault weapons, Jackson said.

Yes, DSA does make assault rifles for military and police use. They also make semi-automatic rifles for civilian use that just happen to look like military firearms and are perfectly legal for civilians to own. I know. I have a DSA receiver on order.

In fact, Mr. Jackson, their product is so highly regarded in the civilian world that it takes 12-14 weeks to get a DSA receiver or rifle. They make some of the best US-made, fully legal FN FAL copies in the world.

I hope you say something during your rally against a legal, law-abiding business that will cause them to sue you. I will be happy to watch them walk away with your entire net worth as punitive damages. After buying several hats, T-shirts and some gun parts to help them along in their suit against you.

In-state events are also planned today for Evanston and Springfield. The rally coincides with the anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington, where civil-rights leader the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke. Jackson noted that King met with President John F. Kennedy Jr. before the speech. The two were killed with high-powered weapons like the ones Jackson wants to ban.

Complete, unmitigated and utter bullshit!

If you, dear reader, have managed to find this screed in your Internet travels, this is one of the two things I want you to pay attention to.

Jesse Jackson is a liar and the fact that the Herald printed this statement without fact checking serves as proof that journalistic integrity and honesty are two things far removed from each other.

Neither John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King Jr. were killed by "assault weapons". Assault weapons don't exist except in the eyes of Jesse Jackson and those like him who want to ban guns and know nothing about them.

Or history for that matter.

Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK with an Italian Mannlicher-Carcano bolt action rifle. That's right, a hunting rifle.

James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King Jr. with a Remington 7600 .30-06 pump action rifle. That's right, a hunting rifle.

High-powered? Perhaps. So what? Ever single hunting rifle in existence with a caliber .30 inches and up is consisdered high-powered.

Essentially, Jackson is calling for bans on guns that DSA doesn't even make!

Great piece of investigative journalism there.

The protests also coincide with the 1955 slaying of Emmett Till, a black Chicago teenager who was shot in the head after whistling at a white woman. The all-white jury instantly acquitted the two white suspects.

"The assassination aroused the consciousness of an entire nation," Jackson said.

Jackson also differentiated assault weapons from guns used to hunt deer.

"These weapons are for people hunting," Jackson said.

So are hunting rifles. It all depends on the hunter. You know what we call a deer rifle that is used to hunt people? A sniper rifle. See above, you amoral liar.

Lake Barrington Village President Kevin Richardson will take part in today's protest. But he stressed the Lake County sheriff's office has not reported any problems with D.S. Arms. He did not say he would support or oppose the plant shutting down, and said his village manager has spoken with officials from the plant.

But if the village did hear of any problems, they would "swiftly and immediately take action," Richardson said. Richardson mentioned July's discovery of 30,000 marijuana plants at a nearby Cook County forest preserve as an example.

"It's all a matter of public safety," he said.

What does a drug bust have anything to do with DSA except for the reporter trying to create a connection in the mind of a reader that DSA making guns is somehow shady and wrong like growing pot in a public forest.

Nice cheap shot there, Herald.

Assault weapons were banned in 1994 by President Bill Clinton, but in 2004 the ban ended.

And for those you that found this screed by accident, allow me to ask you to take away this second point.

The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban DID NOT BAN ANYTHING!

It banned features, not guns. Things like collapsable stocks and bayonet lugs. With those features removed or altered, the manfacturers, including DSA, were free to sell functionally identical but cosmetically different guns throughout the entire period of the ban.

Get it? The guns made under the "ban" fired the same cartridges as the guns made before the "ban" in exactly the same way. They just looked different.

At no time were guns rounded up and removed from citizen hands or did manufacturing of them stop. If anything, the AWB accelerated the production of such guns and placed them into civilian hands at an unprecedented rate.

By banning features found on guns like the FN FAL and AR-15 (both made by DSA), the AWB is probably responsible for making the AR-15 the most popular civilian rifle in America.

After the "ban" expired, all that happened is manufacturers put the banned cosmetic features back onto the rifles. Nothing more.

Let me repeat: The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban did not ban anything!

"Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney allowed the sun to set," Jackson said.

No sir, they did not. Congress did in accordance with the sunset provision built into the law. The President of the United States cannot make law! When the so-called ban expired, it was the job of Congress to pass a new bill to reauthorize it. President Bush indicated he would sign such a law had they done so.

Wisely, Congress did no such thing. They learned a lesson from recent history (a topic that Jesse Jackson knows nothing about). Did you ever wonder why the Democrats lost the house in 1996 after over 40 years of domination? The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban is the reason. That one law pissed off so many voters that they turned out and kicked out the supporters of that law in the next election. You had Democratic supporters voting for Republicans because their party had sold them out. Don't believe me? Google "Bill Clinton" and "AWB".

And the Democratic Party knows and remembers it. That is why all but the most rabid of them won't go anywhere near gun control. They know it will lose them elections.

And the Democrats that got in to replace Republicans were largely moderates and for the most part respect their constituents right to keep and bear arms.

Barrington Hills Village President Robert Abboud is a proud gun owner but supports banning assault weapons. Abboud, whose family is longtime friends with Jackson, won't be participating in today's protest, saying he felt uncomfortable with targeting a law-abiding business.

Abboud added the problems isn't just urban. If Barrington Hills doesn't aid neighboring towns that are having difficulties with gun control, Abboud said his village will be susceptible to the same problems.

Mr. Abboud is misguided. He has some stones to understand DSA has done nothing wrong but is willing to sell out certain groups of gun owners. Mr. Abboud, don't you understand? Ban one type of gun and it is only a matter of time before they come after your hunting rifle, calling it a "sniper rifle".

With friends like you, I don't need enemies. Please realize that to Jackson and folks like the Brady Campaign that all guns are evil to them. They'll simply leave yours until last when they've gotten done with mine. And when they've gotten mine, I won't be able to stand with you to defend your right to keep yours.

Off Doesn't Mean Off (Unless We Feel Like It)

Now for something a little different comes this article (courtesy of Slashdot) where a fellow who went on a cruise in Europe with 3 iPhones who came home to a $4800 phone bill from AT&T Wireless. The reason: It seems that turning an iPhone off doesn't actually turn it off and the phone was periodically checking in for e-mail and messages. That's fine the USA where it is included but when roaming, you get charged.

The AT&T spokesman stated that this is part of its terms and conditions.

Ok, here's my problem with this and most people who own any device will expect this by default:

When I turn something off, I expect it to remain off.

As far as I am concerned, AT&T can eat this bill. Because otherwise, they are taking away my control from a device that I bloody own! My girlfriend ran into this with her new Blackberry. She turns it off for a movie and comes out and found it showed several missed calls and e-mails.

The reason? It turns out the Blackberry center switch detects when it is removed from its carrier and turns it on in the background. This is damn annoying and fits right in with the iPhone issue.

I work in technology (software specifically) and this type of thing annoys the living crap out of me. Companies taking powers for themselves using property you purchased and own. That's right, your property, not theirs. I don't care what the terms and conditions say. If I can't turn a device off, then I am being bound by an unconscionable contract since any reasonable person would see if I press the power button that says "Off", I expect the device to remain off. Period, end of conversation. None of this "but the terms and conditions allow us to do this.".

No, they do not. Your terms and conditions do not give you a license to print money using my checking account. Especially given that the iPhone has the battery built in and soldered in place so one can't even remove the battery to ensure power is indeed off.

And AT&T Wireless somehow thinks this type of product design is acceptable to the consumer? It sure wouldn't to me and I'd be returning to the provider with an instruction that you give me a proper off switch that actually works the way they have for over 100 years or you cancel the contract without penalties.

Unbelievable. Engineers and companies need to stop getting creative with stuff like this because all it does is piss people off. A hallmark of good product and software design is the mantra: Good design is defined not by what more you can add but when there is nothing left to take away.

Simple products work best. Don't trust companies or hardware makers to look out for your interests. The ones that do I guarantee will get my repeat business because it means they are making a good product.

An off switch that doesn't turn anything off isn't a good product. At $400, I expect to be able to turn off any device.

Sorry Apple, I support you a lot but you screwed the pooch on this one. I suggest you release a patch real quick to fix this.

Hatred of America

In the comments section of this article on Reasoned Discourse, one commenter asked another why he hated America so much of why this poster (Travis) would not comply with turning in his guns even if the Constitution was changed to make it possible. The responder merely asked why Travis hated America so much.

Here is my answer...

You can owe the rebellious streak that Travis has (as many Americans do) to the fact that the United States was founded by a nation of rebels. Traitors to the Crown, in fact, that had they failed in their rebellion, the gallows is what awaited them.

This rebelliousness may seem quaint and barbaric in our "enlightened" age, but some aspect of our culture are time-tested and enduring. That rebellion is sometimes a reflex action but most of the time it isn't. It serves as a good gut check and forces us to question what the government has in store for us and let us ask if that is what we want. After all, this country shook off one tyranny so it would be free and not wind up underneath another one.

Rebellion is part of the nature of being American. It is where we came from. And arms were the means by which it was done. Not in the hands of the Army but in the hands of the People. The Revolutionary War was won by a Federal Army but it took the militia to help them do it. The militia formed by and of the People. Us.

Understanding this helps to understand where the mentality of "cold, dead hands" and "I STILL will not comply" comes from. We did it once as a people. It can be done again as long as we have the means and the will. We are not there yet by any means but the heart of the gun issue is this option. It is why the Second Amendment exists.

As Judge Alex Kozinski put it, "The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed...".

As a result, this isn't hatred of America; it is defending it. It is keeping America true to its values laid out by the People and embodied in the values of the Founders. Because if we cast aside those values and that little streak of rebellion and questioning the authority, then we are no longer American. We might as well just be another European social experiment circling the drain where everyone has no power, no rights and does what the Government tells them and assume the Government will always be benevolent. Not here and not while we stand watch over America.

We change what it means to be American through the Constitution. It embodies what it means to be American. It codifies what America is and what we should uphold America to be. Until we decide as a nation, as America, that the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary because the Government is small, does as little as possible and is always justifying itself and accountable to the People and will never grow and pervert itself, we will need it as our last line of defense and pray we never need to invoke it and carry out our duty to throw off such Government.

And I write this as an immigrant to this country.

Hatred of America because someone will not comply with giving up a natural right of existence? Hardly. It is a Right that can never be taken away.

The fact we recognize that is what makes us American. That is not hated of America. It is love of America.