Entries from March 2008 ↓

A friend sent me this link over IRC earlier about some UK fishwrap’s campaign to ban jackets with hoods on them. After much laughing, I was about to make a post sticking another fork in Britain..

..Until I popped it into Google and found this article from Alabama.

Mobile police are looking to ban the sale of hooded jackets that zip up over the face and have been used in several recent robberies.

…

“I’m almost to the point of outrage concerning the hoodies,” Police Chief Phillip Garrett said. “I don’t think these should be sold. The only reason you would buy one is to disguise your identity.”

Or, you know, you could buy one to keep your face warm in the winter and stuff. There’s probably dozens of other non-criminal reasons where that came from. But isn’t that beside the point? Last I checked, we live in a free country where we don’t need “reasons” to own things. Likewise, I seem to remember that the police work for us rather than rule us.

Now, maybe it’s just me, but banning an article of clothing doesn’t really sound like an effective way to fight crime. Especially since the “outrageous” and “terrifying” ability to hide one’s face can easily be replicated with a fifty cent bandanna. If that’s the best idea any of these people can come up with, maybe they should really be looking into a new line of work that doesn’t require so much thinking..

Good morning class. Today’s lesson in propaganda comes from a post on the “Gun Guys” site in which their astroturf blogger is shrieking hysterically that Kansas might allow people to buy machine guns. The first omission some of you may notice is the complete failure to mention that said machine guns would still be strictly controlled by the Federal government via the NFA and its progeny. This, however, is not the focus of our lesson.

Instead, please direct your attention to this skillfully crafted paragraph:

The potential availability of machine guns to just about any American is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right; it’s a recipe for carnage on a scale that we have yet to see.

But, umm, most States do allow the sale of machine guns to anyone who jumps through the Federal hoops. So where is all this “carnage?” Oh, right, it’s something we’ve “yet to see.”

As far as anyone can tell, there have only been two homicides involving legally owned automatic weapons. Since 1934. One of which was committed by a police officer. It’s amazing how their omission of these two facts while admitting the lack of carnage changes things entirely, isn’t it?

Or, if they do think 2 deaths in 74 years qualifies as “carnage,” then would the 62 lightning deaths per year be considered apocalyptic?

The bit about “potential availability” is rather funny too. After Congress closed the full-auto registry in 1986, the law of supply and demand has priced automatic weapons out of most people’s tax brackets. $16,000 (or more) for a used, 40 year old AK-47 is hardly what I’d call “availability.” But, hey, they can’t let little things like facts get in the way, now, can they?

To be fair or something, they could be soiling their pants over a repeal of the ’86 ban. But, even then, both known homicides involving automatic weapons happened after the registry closed. As above, one murder was carried out by a police officer, to whom the ban doesn’t apply anyway..

Hat tip to VPC Blog.

Michelle Malkin is reporting that Rev. Michael “Snuffy” Pfleger has come out to shriek in support of Obama’s ex-pastor Jeremiah Wright. And shriek he does. Not content with trying to incite a mob to “drag” a gun retailer, gun owners, and pro-gun legislators into the street “like a rat” and “snuff them out,” he also doesn’t think anyone should be “allowed” to criticize Rev. Wright. Apparently he hates the First Amendment as much as the Second. Though I suppose these PC fascists kind of have to get rid of the Second before really going after the First.

Oh, and look, he’s endorsing Obama too. Surprise, surprise..

Now, before anyone moans about how it’s soooo unfair to judge the Obamamessiah by the company he keeps, let’s not forget how quick the left was to trash Ron Paul because some racist happened to donate some money to his campaign and because Lew Rockwell wrote some non-PC things in his newsletters. Naturally, I’ve probably associated with a few unsavory characters in the past as well. But, then, I’m not exactly expecting anyone to vote for me as President either.

Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell has found this new anti-gun hit hit piece by the AP on one of my favorite subjects: The alleged “arms race” between the cops and bad guys blamed on the expiration of the AWB. And like the propaganda covered here before, this piece of “news” reads more like a press release from the VPC.

To set up the article, they start with four short paragraphs about a shooting that took place at a birthday party outside some low-income apartments. With the emotional think-of-the-children card played, they move on to the deception.

The Sept. 15 killing was remarkable in that it took place in the most innocent of settings — the fifth birthday of twin boys. But it was unremarkable in that one of the guns brandished was an AK-47-type rifle — a powerful, rapid-fire weapon that has long been used in Third World conflicts but is increasingly being used in American street fights.

Ah yes, ye olde powerful, rapid-fire weapons of war card. Make people think of a machine gun..

Figures from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, obtained by The Associated Press through public records requests, show a marked increase in the number of AK-type weapons traced and entered into the agency’s computer database because they had been seized or connected to a crime.

And, umm, where are these figures? The rest of the article is rubbish, but they expect us to believe these figures without seeing them? And, erm, haven’t they all been shrieking that they’re not allowed to see such figures anymore since the ATF trace data was closed to journalists? Make up your mind people..

The number of such tracings rose even while the federal assault weapons ban was in effect and has continued to climb since its expiration.

So, in other words, the ban didn’t do anything?

Since 1993, the year before the ban took affect, ATF has recorded a more than sevenfold increase in 7.62x39mm guns — which includes the original Russian-made AK-47 and a variety of copycats from around the world. The number of AK-type guns rose from 1,140 in 1993 to 8,547 last year.

It’s been illegal to import an original Russian-made AK-47 since 1968. It’s been illegal to register any new automatic weapons (which is what the real, original AK-47 is) since 1986. The 1994 ban did not effect real AK-47s, or any other “rapid-fire” weapons. But they’re telling me despite these all these laws (plus the 1934 NFA which requires the registration of all automatic weapons), the number still increased? Why, it’s almost like criminals don’t obey the law. Imagine that.

Since 2005, the first full year after the ban’s expiration, ATF has recorded an 11 percent increase in such tracings.

If we’re still talking about original Russian-made AKs, or rapid-fire weapons in general, they’re lying. The import and full-auto ban did not expire in 2004. If they’re talking about semiautomatic clones, those weren’t actually illegal. More on that in a bit though.

From here, they go into some anecdotal evidence about how “assault weapons are terrorizing their communities” and such. In the midst of this appeal to emotion, something interesting pops up:

On Thursday, Sept. 13, Jose Somohano, a 37-year-old officer with the Miami-Dade Police, was cut down during a traffic stop in suburban Miami by a man with an AK-type weapon. Three other officers — armed, like Somohano, with just handguns…

…

Days before the ambush, Miami Police Chief John Timoney agreed to let patrol officers carry assault rifles to help counter the use of such weapons by criminals.

Wait a second. Timoney now says he authorized the carbines days before Officer Somohano was killed? But, umm, he’s said in the past that he authorized the carbines in response to that incident. Which is it? Though I suppose that explains the picture from that ABC story of an officer holding what appears to be a shorty AR-15 with an EOTech and a low-profile gas block which Timoney said didn’t exist at the time. Either way, I find it rather hard to believe he authorized the carbines “days before” and started handing them out on such short notice. Don’t large police departments have like training procedures and stuff?

Next up, the Authorized Journalist drones on for a bit about machine guns and grenades in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Australia (wait, I thought they were banned there?!1). After using the classic Sugarman Method of confusing the reader about what kind of guns we’re talking about comes this nice piece of disinformation:

Bullets fired by AK-47s travel at a higher velocity than those from many other weapons, and can do grievous damage to the body. Often they have enough energy to pass clear through.

Higher velocity than what? Handguns? Sling shots? Crossbows? As far as rifles go, the 7.62x39mm is on the low end of the velocity scale. Most “traditional” hunting rifles travel much faster and can “pass clear through” a body. They kind of have to in order to take down large animals.

Knockoffs of the AK can be bought from legitimate gun dealers for as little as $300, and are also available on the street. Original Russian-made models are more expensive. Normal ammo clips hold 30 rounds, but higher-capacity ones are also available.

Nice touch throwing legitimate dealers and “available on the street” right next to each other. As if both are somehow to blame for the PSH above. However, it is nice to see the MSM refer to 30 round capacity as being normal, even if they called them clips.

Oh, look, after spending two-thirds of the article painting a picture of machine guns, they finally try to clear things up. No doubt hoping that most readers wouldn’t have made it this far in.

Most of the AKs on American streets are semiautomatic, meaning they fire as fast as the gunman can squeeze the trigger. Fully automatic ones, common on the battlefield, require just one pull of the trigger to release a burst of fire.

Yet, even then, they avoid mentioning that semiautos only fire one round at a time. Instead, they give a vague description more fitting for a squirt bottle; as if bullets spray out if you quickly jerk the trigger once. And of course, they just had to thrown in another battlefield reference.

Did I say the article read like a VPC press release? Oops. Maybe it was written by the Brady Bunch.

A 2004 study by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence concluded the U.S. ban on AKs and other guns was successful, saying in the five years before its passage, assault weapons made up 4.82 percent of ATF crime gun traces, compared with 1.61 percent between 1995 and 2003.

Hmm.. Is it just me, or does this totally contradict what was said above about the “sevenfold increase” during the ban? Oh. Right. The Brady moonbats are talking about things that look like “assault weapons.” Pretty much every rifle banned in 1994 remained perfectly legal to make if you removed a few odd cosmetic features like bayonet lugs. Remove said cosmetic features, and, bam, instant reduction in the number of imaginary “assault weapons.”

Many politicians, police chiefs and gun control advocates point to the expiration of the assault weapons ban as a reason for the spread of the guns. But many others argue the law was so riddled with loopholes that it had little effect.

They can’t even agree amongst themselves whether the law did a damn thing. First they say there was a “sevenfold increase” despite the ban, then that it worked and the ban’s expiration is spreading the guns. Finally they claim there were “loopholes.” By which I assume they mean the aforementioned fact that the law only banned trivial cosmetic bits, and people *gasp* followed the law by removing them.

Now with all that PSH out of the way, they finally let in an opposing view point get in a couple of words a few paragraphs before the end.

The National Rifle Association says the focus must be getting criminals off the streets, not more legislation.

“The basic reason why gun control laws fail is that they require the cooperation of a very unlikely source, and that is criminals,” said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. “Each time you pass a gun control law, the only people that are going to be affected by that law, the only people that are going to follow that law are law-abiding Americans.”

They probably expected an article this long to be continued on another print page where most people wouldn’t bother to read the tiny space they allowed for a rebuttal. But then, I suppose they couldn’t take that chance, as they finish the article with more appeals to emotion by talking about birthday ballons and bullet-riddled bodies.

Nope. No media bias there..

So, yea, the media is freaking out because someone, somewhere, looked at three of the Presidential candidates’ passports. I don’t get it. What’s the big deal?

For, like, forever, Congress has been making law after law collecting more info on us. They’ve been adding more and more places where we’re asked to show “papers, please!” And when RealID goes into effect, we will essentially have to carry Federal interstate passports which any agent of the state can ask to see, and will be needed to enter buildings that we pay for with our taxes.

But they’re shocked that someone would have the audacity to look at their passport?

With all due respect Senators, you’ve made your bed; now lie in it.

As the global media descended on DC to cover the Heller case, a rather interesting thing happened. Sebastian from Pro-Gun Progressive and Maryland Shall Issue debated Rebecca Peters from IANSA live on Al Jazeera. Videos can be found here.

Despite being in what had a hint of a hostile venue, Sebastian did a spectacular job of taking Ms. Peters to task on her lies and disinformation. Personally, I don’t know if I could have kept a cool head while she spewed such rubbish. As usual, she rattled off the usual crap about the US being the most violent country in the world, the NRA exporting illegal weapons, and that the UK is a fairy tale land of peace because they ban most guns.

And on that note, allow me to present the statistical piece I’ve been working on; Homicide in the US, England, and Wales. It was originally going to be a blog post (hence the snark), but it got so long I decided to make it a static page. While it could use a peer review and such before being considered truly scientific, the raw numbers do paint a different picture than what Ms. Peters and her ilk would like you to believe.

After listening to the oral arguments and reading a bunch of reactions to it, I think Alan Gura did a splendid job. At first I was a bit perturbed that he agreed a ban on machine guns might be “reasonable,” but as others have said, this was probably a tactical move to avoid scaring away any fence sitters. Likewise, the machine gun talk could have been a trap by the left half of the Court to get Mr. Gura to overstep the Miller precedent. This case isn’t about full autos though, so it’s kinda beside the point anyway.

There was another exchange that puzzled me. At one point, Justice Ginsburg asked if it would be reasonable to require a license to posses a gun, which Mr. Gura answered with:

Well, the government could set reasonable standards for that, Your Honor. The government could require, for example, knowledge of the State’s use of force laws. They can require some sort of vision test. They could require, perhaps, demonstrated competency. And those are the types of things that we sometimes see; background checks, of course. Those are going to be reasonable licensing requirements.

Again, I realize that he was just playing it cool, and only arguing against the ban since that’s all that’s at issue here. But where the heck did vision and competency testing come from? Given the precedent (or lack thereof) stacked against us, I can understand leaving licensing alone for the time being. But do we really want to volunteer competency testing?

Granted, this too could be strategery, so I’m really not blaming Mr. Gura for it altogether. However, I’ve seen it pop up in a number of discussions around the internet with more antis than usual pointing it out as if it’s a great new idea. The idea of competency-based licensing annoys me for two reasons:

First, if we allow the government to set training requirements, what is there to stop them from setting the standards impossibly high? For instance, the anti-gun loons in Australia are demanding a “rigorous training and testing program over a six month period” to earn a license. How many people would really be able to quit their job for half a year to take such a course? Even if the requirements aren’t that ridiculous, wouldn’t it be kind of hard to be competent with something you’re not allowed to own until you become competent? Sounds like a Catch-22 to me. And what about, say, someone in a poor rural area who can barely afford a $200 shotgun or rifle needed to put food on the table? Does his right to keep and bear arms go away if he can’t pay for some class?

Second, I fail to see how this even passes a rational basis test; let alone strict scrutiny. If the purpose is to prevent criminals from murdering people, wouldn’t training them to shoot effectively make them more likely to hit and kill their victims?! On the other hand, if the idea is to prevent accidental shootings, those are already exceedingly rare.

According to the CDC, there were only 789 Unintentional Firearm Deaths in 2005; which no doubt includes a good number of “misdiagnosed” suicides. Not to mention 683,396 law enforcement officers who have their own fair share of “accidents“. Given that there’s ~80 million people who own an estimated 290 million guns, 789 fatal accidents is statistically negligible.

To put that in perspective, there were 927 Unintentional Pedal cyclist Deaths and 19,656 Unintentional Fall Deaths in the same year. Ergo, there would be a far more compelling government interest in competency tests and licensing for bicycles, ladders, and windows in multistory buildings.

The Supreme Court will be hearing arguments in DC v. Heller today, and people have been lining up since Sunday night to watch the show. Unlike camping out for a new Star Wars film or Harry Potter book, however, the lucky few who get a seat in Heller could very well be watching the case which will decide whether the Bill of Rights means anything anymore. Or, for that matter, the entire Constitution.

So how bad could a “collective rights” ruling really be? Well, put on your tinfoil hat, and join me as we examine how such a precedent could be used to gut other provisions of the Bill of Rights which mention “the people.”

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

“The people” mentioned here in the First Amendment are the same ones found in the Second. Now, let’s assume the Supreme Court rules against Heller, and apply the District’s logic and write a bad law..

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Ensuring National Salesman Livelihood And Vibrant Economy Act’ or the ENSLAVE Act.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has found that “the people” is a legal term of art which means the governments of the several States;

(2) Whereas the governments of the several States have a right to peaceably assemble in State Assembly buildings;

(3) Whereas the assembly of groups of citizens in private dwellings affects interstate commerce by depriving shopping centers, restaurants, theaters, and other commercial enterprises of business;

(4) Whereas the health and safety risks of private assemblies in facilities which are not properly inspected and licensed affects interstate commerce by placing an undue burden on the national health care system.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF UNLICENSED ASSEMBLY VENUES.

Section ???? of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(?) It shall be unlawful for five or more unrelated persons to assemble in any dwelling, building, or other venue which is not properly licensed by a Federal, State, or local agency to conduct business in a manner which safely accommodates visitors in accordance with OSHA guidelines except that–

[insert a bunch of exceptions for legislators, and Only Ones here]‘

Tack on some definitions, criminal penalties, Federal carrot-and-stick funding rules, and perhaps some exemptions for public parks and you have yourself a nice foundation for a police state. You could also swap out the assembly bits, focus on the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, and make it illegal for anyone other than State representatives to contact members of Congress. After all, it’s not like Congress hasn’t tried to outlaw political speech before.

And, of course, redefining “the people” to mean the government would pretty much destroy the Fourth Amendment. But that’s already being eroded as well, so, umm, yea..

Oh my. They’re banning fire extinguishers in the UK now..

Fire extinguishers may be removed from blocks of flats across Britain after they were deemed dangerous by buildings risk assessors at two blocks on the South Coast.

Many residents regard the distinctive red extinguishers as the first response to fire, giving vital time until professional firefighters arrive.

But a review of two residential blocks in Bournemouth has raised concerns that householders could delay their escape to tackle a blaze. There is also concern that the use of extinguishers by untrained people could add to the danger.

Got that? Fire extinguishers are a “danger” in the hands of “untrained people” because they might try to *gasp* protect themselves from fire. Why, someone might just get hurt while they’re, umm, trying to not get hurt!

But, yea, where have we heard something like this before? Oh. Right. From the gun-banners. First the statist bastards are all like “turn in your guns, the police are the Only Ones with enough training to use them to protect you!” And now they want to ban fire extinguishers because they think the British subjects are too stupid to pull a pin and spray a hose towards a fire.

Stick a fork in Britain. It’s done.

Or, on second thought, you might want to ask a specially trained and licensed chef to do that for you. Otherwise, you might put your eye out with the fork..

Not content with infringing on the Second Amendment, the DOJ and ATF are also going after the First Amendment. In an open letter to US Marshal David A. Meyer who made the veiled threat, Mr. Codrea explains, in part (be sure to read the whole thing):

I understand you took Ryan Horsley aside at the conclusion of trial testimony and instructed him to advise me of the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, specifically, “Inspector Meyer asked me to contact you in regards to posting any information with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a crime of violence against that covered official… “

WTF? Reporting on what ATF agents are doing is somehow “threatening” and “intimidating” now? Last I checked, government agents work for us. We pay their checks via our taxes. We have a right to know what they’re doing, and we have a right to speak out against it. Furthermore, we have also have a right to peaceably assemble in order to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But now they want us to shut up ignore their actions because talking about it somehow “threatens” them? What could be so “threatening” about the truth unless they have something to hide? It’s almost like cockroaches panicking when the lights come on. Only instead of having the decency to scurry away, the ATF cries that the big, mean bloggers are scaring them and ask the DOJ to start bullying people into silence.

Disclaimer: The picture above is a artist’s rendition created for the purpose of satire. Said picture is in no way intended to “threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a crime of violence” (nobody would hurt a baby, right?). No ATF agents, babies, or kittens were harmed in the making of this post. The management is not responsible for misuse of this image; nor for lost coats or handbags. Image void where prohibited. Offer good while supplies last. No rain checks.