Archive for January, 2007

More Northeastern RINO BS

January 15, 2007

Pull out the hip waders, folks, ’cause it’s just gettin’ deeper and deeper…
Via David Codrea comes this, from the Boston Globe:

Former governor Mitt Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics.
In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.
“That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.
At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: “I don’t line up with the NRA.”
And as the GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2002, Romney lauded the state’s strong laws during a debate against Democrat Shannon O’Brien. “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”
Today, as he explores a presidential bid, Romney is sending a very different message on gun issues, which are far more prominent in Republican national politics than in Massachusetts.
He now touts his work as governor to ease restrictions on gun owners. He proudly describes himself as a member of the NRA — though his campaign won’t say when he joined. And Friday, at his campaign’s request, top officials of the NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation led him around one of the country’s biggest gun shows.

And via THR, we have this from Newsmax:

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney touted his conservative credentials at a gun show in Orlando, Fla., Friday, where he met with a GOP-friendly crowd in an effort to garner support for his 2008 campaign.
“I support the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution,” said Romney, former governor of Massachusetts.

Granted, I don’t really find any of this surprising, as we all know by now that politicians will say just about anything to get elected. I do, however, find it quite insulting. It seems like just about every leftist politician who tosses his (or her) hat into the ring every four years pulls crap like this.
“I support the Second Amendment.”
Once again, we have a politician mouthing empty platitudes, as even a cursory glance at Mr. Romney’s record, and his rhetoric, clearly shows he favors all sorts of infringements on our right to keep and bear arms. He supports the Brady background check and the “assault weapons” ban, even going so far as to sign a bill passing such a ban in Massachusetts that pretty much mirrored the now-expired federal AWB. As the Globe quotes Romney as saying as the GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2002, during a debate against Democrat Shannon O’Brien, “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” I do not think the Second Amendment means what Mr. Romney thinks it means.
Why, oh why do these elitists continue to insult our intelligence so? Contrary to the media-driven perceptions, gun owners are not stupid. We do keep up with the issues, and we are quite politically astute. We know empty platitudes and pandering when we hear them, and here’s a clear-cut case of just that.
I may well be preaching to the choir here, but Mitt Romney sure as hell is not a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms as envisioned by our Founding Fathers in accordance with the laws of nature and the principles of true liberty and freedom. As Bruce said, with friends like these, who needs enemies?
And, like David Codrea, I’d like to know — what in the bloody hell is Wayne LaPierre doing escorting him around? Somehow I think I already know the answer, and it’s quite disheartening to say the least.


Best News of the Young Year!

January 13, 2007

Via JR over at A Keyboard and a .45, and several other bloggers, comes this excellent, excellent news:

Ron Paul, the iconoclastic nine-term congressman from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward launching a second presidential bid in 2008, this time as a Republican.

Talk about the answer to a real conservative Republican’s prayers. Between the Northeastern leftists Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney and the Constitution-trashing, power- and -attention-hungry John McCain, the GOP field for 2008 was looking positively nightmarish. I don’t know what kind of chance Mr. Paul is going to have, but you can be damn sure he’ll get my money, and my vote if he gets that far. As the article says, his candidacy is a long-shot, but then once upon a time no one ever thought a California movie star could ever be elected to that office, but Ronald Wilson Reagan proved them wrong — twice — and he was a long-shot candidate, too. Don’t give up, Mr. Paul. We need you…dear God, do we ever.

Same "Progressive" Anti-Gun Drivel, Different Day

January 11, 2007

Via Jeff at Alphecca, via the Huffington Post, comes this, from Paul Helmke, the chairman of the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence Ownership:

…this book (David Hemmenway’s “Private Guns, Public Health” — ed.) was recommended highly as one of the best summaries of the issue of gun violence in the United States. After meeting with Dr. Hemenway at his office at the Harvard School of Public Health last October, I was even more interested in reading this book.
Hemenway starts by making it clear that taking a “public health” approach to the issue of gun violence is no more “anti-gun” than efforts to deal with other areas of injury are “anti-stairs, anti-swimming pools, [or] anti-cars.”

Actually, Hemmenway’s full of shit here. Talking around his own damned issue, just as pretty as you please. Obfuscating it, even. There just isn’t any other way to put it. The anti-gunners have been casting gun ownership as a public health issue, again, for years now. Hell, it was one of the main rationales behind the lawsuits against the gun manufacturers, for crying out loud! Does Hemmenway and his ilk think anyone who really knows this issue is going to swallow that line of crap? Really now. If there’s any kind of public health issue here, it’s the fact that the morals and value systems have gotten so far out of whack that violence perpetrated with guns has gotten to the point that it has, and then there’s the contention people put forth that a good chunk of the violence perpetrated with guns is related to the illegal drug trade that flourishes due to the War On Some Drugs. But you’ll never see these hacks say anything about that — it’s always “get rid of the eeeevil guns!” — which leads me to believe even more than I already did that it isn’t about guns at all…but about control.
As for Hemmenway and his deceptions, well, take a gander at this

Hemenway’s latest attempt at data-dredging appeared in the February 1997 issue of the American Journal of Public Health. That article, “Characteristics of Automatic or Semiautomatic Firearm Ownership in the United States”, attempts to make a connection between problem-drinking and emi-automatic (read: “rapid-fire”) gun ownership. It was paid for by you, the American taxpayer, because it was supported, in part, by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Authored by Dr. David Hemenway and Elizabeth Richardson, it’s a perfect illustration of the phrase “figures lie, and liars figure.”
The title itself underscores the deception Hemenway tries to perpetrate. Hemenway creates a firearm category – “automatic or semiautomatic.” The phrase “automatic or semiautomatic” is used 30 times in the course of the three-page paper – 13 times on the first page, alone. Only in his final paragraph does Hemenway admit to the reader that, in the course of his survey, he “did not ask about automatics or semiautomatics separately.” That trick allows Hemenway to confuse the firearm-ignorant reader, and extend the rapid-firing capability of fully automatic firearms to semi-automatic firearms.
Hemenway knew that respondents to his survey most probably did not include any owners of fully automatic firearms, for, in the final sentence of his paper, he admits, also, that “fully automatic weapons in private hands are rare.” So rare, in fact, that, given the number of lawfully-owned automatic firearms in the hands of private U.S. citizens, the number of households in the U.S., and the number of households polled, it is unlikely that even ONE such owner would have been questioned in the course of his survey!
Hemenway did not tell a single lie in order to obfuscate the truth. By creative use of the English language, he deliberately blurred the distinction between fully-automatic and semi-automatic firearms, and then set out to paint the picture of potentially murderous, machine-gun-owning problem-drinkers, living right down the block from – or right next door to – Mr. and Mrs. Joe Citizen, and family. That mental picture is enough to scare the pants off just about ANY peaceable American, including gun-owners like us!

What do you know, once again we find an anti-gun academic trying to fix the data around his pre-determined conclusion by any means necessary, including deception.
As Jeff also points out, Hemmenway has also dismissed out of hand the data from Dr. Gary Kleck, which has from what I understand been pretty well vetted and accepted as credible.
As far as where the “progressive” epithet comes in, I thought this was quite a telling comment:

Those of you who think you’re progressive but oppose work on gun control should just quit whining and join the Republican party.

Now, I know there are quite a few lefties out there who don’t agree with that, but still, given the number of remarks made (in comments to Huffington blog posts by both Paul Helmke and Josh Sugarmann) disparaging gun owners and gun ownership, it makes me wonder how many in the Democratic base actually still believe that gun control is not only a viable policy but still something that’s going to advance them politically. I keep thinking of what Bill Whittle wrote in his excellent essay titled “Sanctuary” (the essay actually begins here, emphasis mine — ed.):

The French Revolution produced the New Man, free of religion, and fully decimal. The streets ran red with blood for a decade – then came Napoleon, and then back to the Bourbon kings that they rebelled against in the first place. If I shared that history, I’d be a cynical, defeatist, Frenchman too. The New Soviet man was to be different: communal humanity Mark II with all the latest improvements. 50 million died, shot in the back of the head in basements and forests, or starved in frozen camps and coal mines, followed by collapse, ecological ruin and endless misery. And still these leftists push the same ideas. Poor bastards. No wonder they are so damn cynical and depressed.

And you can very well count gun control in with each of those other instances as a complete and utter failure. Yet it’s the self-styled “progressives” who still push it. I loved what Kevin Baker said:

…the UK has uniform gun laws, IT’S A FREAKING ISLAND and guns still flow across its borders.

Yet the “progressives” still want to import the resultant misery to our shores.
I’d like to tell them where they can stick that kind of progress…

Another Predator Calling for Victim Disarmament

January 9, 2007

…and a member of the esteemed Religion of Peace, at that!
Via Blogonomicon comes this, and a right damn good fisking from the Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, much better than I could do, though I do have a few comments.

The idea of terrorist cells operating clandestinely in the United States, quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages in our malls, is right out of Tom Clancy’s most recent novel….
…what about the more immediate threat posed by terrorists with guns? The potential threat of terrorist attacks using guns is far more likely than any of these other scenarios.

Oh, yes, of course, why didn’t I think of that? To defeat the terrorists, let’s first disarm their potential victims!
Seriously, though. The American public has more or less been armed ever since before there was an America. And America and her people have been on fundamentalist Islam’s shit list since before I was even a twinkle in my mother’s eye. Mall shootouts and such have been a (comparatively miniscule) threat for, hell, I don’t even know how long. How convenient that it’s just now being discovered, after we finally woke up to the fact that these people want us dead.

The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore.

Really, only someone so steeped in the muck of tyranny as an Illinois attorney could make such a fatuous claim (although Illinois is just full of statist pricks, so I’d say he’s probably right at home). Just how many studies have affirmed that guns in the hands of the public save lives? From John Lott, Gary Kleck, the Clinton Justice Department, for crying out loud! And there are more out there, if I remember right, though I can’t think of them off the top of my head, but depending on the study one cites, guns in the hands of the public are used for self-defense between 700,000 and 3 million times each year.
As far as the claim that gun ownership doesn’t deter tyranny anymore, that’s every bit as wrong, as it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of armed combat; I would say the best illustration of this is what happened in Vietnam 35 years ago, and what happened with the Soviets in Afghanistan back in the 1980s. You know the basic story — an armed and determined citizenry held back and eventually defeated the largest, most powerful armies on the planet. As far as deer rifles vs. say, full-auto weaponry, well, I would also argue that one determined American hunter with a good scoped rifle and ammo could wreak all sorts of havoc on whoever would come to disarm him and his fellow citizens. I wonder if the name Charles Whitman rings a bell with this character, or Lee Harvey Oswald, or John Allen Muhammad. Personally, I think this guy really ought to stick to lawyering and keep to himself his ignorance of why being armed goes hand-in-hand with being free…but, now that I think about it, perhaps if he didn’t really believe that an armed people were a threat, he wouldn’t be advocating our disarmament.

But, I’m gonna close with the words of the great David Codrea (with, of course, the name changed):
You can’t have our guns, Junaid. We’re not going to give them up. There aren’t enough of you to take them from us, and if you try we will resist…Be warned, Junaid. The wretched, superficial paranoia you live in now is nothing compared to the horror you and yours will visit on this land if you don’t back off, and back off now. Push peaceable people far enough and hard enough, Junaid, and they will eventually push back. Pray that you never see America’s “backbone,” Junaid. Stop digging us into that hole… How many holes will be filled, Junaid, if you and your fellow subversives continue to dig away at our freedoms?
Molon Labe, Junaid.
Come and get them.

Confronting A Criminal: The VCDL Goes On the Offensive

January 8, 2007

From Sailorcurt:

(New York City Mayor Michael) Bloombergs lawsuits have already run two Virginia gun dealers out of business. If his (probably illegal) activities are allowed to go unchallenged, it will only embolden him to file further lawsuits in an attempt to shut more small businesses down. The ATF has already acknowledged that his “sting” operation was potentially illegal and some have hinted that it interfered with ongoing criminal investigations.

And the Virginia Citizen’s Defense League is stepping up in a big, big way.:

Let me prefix this with the following new information – another
Virginia gun dealer is going out of business thanks to Bloomberg:
Franklin Rod & Tackle in Rocky Mount. Bloomberg’s spokesman said
quite piously a few months ago that Bloomberg didn’t want to put gun
dealers out of business.

We know better.


Maniacal New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his Mayors’
Coalition Against Illegal Guns will be meeting for a one day
“National Summit” at the DC Capitol Hilton (corner of 16th and K at
1001 16th Street NW) on Tuesday, January 23rd – see

Bloomy’s summit runs from 9:30 AM until 2:30 PM followed by an
evening reception at 5 PM at the Capitol Hilton.

VCDL’s headquarters will be at the nearby Crowne Plaza Hotel at 14th
and K, where at 2:00 PM we will rally members and hand out picket
signs, and march on to the Capitol Hilton 2 blocks away to begin
protesting. …

Click the links above for more details. Good bless you folks for standing up to that goon. If any Readers have the time and funds to make it, please do.

A Window into the Darkness…

January 6, 2007

of the anti-gunner’s mind, via THR:

Heading into the 2007 Legislature, leading lawmakers are reluctant to pass new gun-control measures despite last year’s mass killing on Capitol Hill, a downtown office shooting and this week’s gun slaying of a Tacoma high school student.

Bryan Jones, director of the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at the University of Washington, agreed that the gun lobby is the main reason politicians are unlikely to pass new control laws.

Jones said the National Rifle Association’s power is declining, but he thinks Washington politicians are “playing it safe in the sense that: Why kick a sleeping dog that’s leaving you alone right now?” he said.
“I hate to say it but it’s going to take the kind of massacre that kills lots of children. That’s the only way we are going to see progress,” Jones said.

Does it get — dare I say it — any more evil than that? They are now defining making progress, essentially, as innocents getting killed. There’s really not much I can say to that right now, but that it’s a crying shame these people still have even a shred of credibility among the general public, and that anyone — anyone — still ascribes any kind of benevolent motive to them. Their “solutions” have been proven time and time again to be nothing more than feel-good moves that have in fact cost untold numbers of innocents their well-being and indeed their lives. I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again: They might well try to present a civil, rational facade, but at their cores these people are rotten.

He’s probably right on one point, though:

“I think it’s got to be worse than (Columbine). I mean, you didn’t see anything in Colorado” in substantive new gun control laws after 15 people were killed at Columbine High School in 1999.

…but the smart money says that the next Columbine-type slaying, if it happens, is going to be something similar to the Beslan siege, with bombs, RPGs, full-auto weaponry and such, all of which is likely going to be obtained in defiance of the laws on the books…and, of course, in the aftermath, we’re going to hear these very same people say, in effect, “Hey, you know what would have prevented this? Making it harder for good citizens to arm themselves!”
I’ve also said this before, but I’ll say it one more time: Morons they are, one and all.

Red Flags, and Infighting

January 3, 2007

Via David Codrea at The War On Guns, yet again, comes this:

Nearly all courts have also held that the Second Amendment is a collective right, rather than a personal right. Therefore, despite the Second Amendment collective right to bear arms, the FAA has the authority to prohibit firearms on launch and reentry vehicles for safety and security purposes.

This, of course, was AFTER President Bush’s first Attorney General, John Ashcroft, took the right and proper position that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, despite what “nearly all courts have…held.” It’s quite disheartening, indeed, as is what Kim du Toit had to say about Mr. Codrea’s opinion:

My personal opinion is that this is a storm in a teacup, and Codrea needs to take a Valium or something. But it still worries me that this collective rights nonsense still has currency anywhere outside the GFWs at the Brady Bunch and the Violence Policy Center.

I’ve been reading Kim du Toit’s writings for a long time now, and I owe him a debt of gratitude for introducing me to the world of the gun bloggers, planting the seed for my re-awakening vis-a-vis the joy of shooting and all things gun-related, and helping me see things a different way with his insights on different aspects of American culture. That said, I don’t find this kind of talk helpful at all. I’m pretty sure he’d agree that if there’s anyone who needs to take a Valium, it’s the ignoramuses at the Brady Center and elsewhere who do their best Chicken Little impersonations every time a politician proposes something that would expand protections on our natural right of self-defense. Take a Valium? No, no, no. We all need to wake up, and be a little afraid, and be quite angry — righteously furious, even — that an administration that so openly courted the gun owner vote would turn around and use the very same specious, dangerous reasoning the anti-gun bigots use to advocate denial of our rights to ram through something like disarming all spaceship passengers. “FAA has the authority to prohibit firearms…”?
No they don’t. They just took it, via a nakedly insidious power grab, and in the process double-crossed us all.