Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Sunday, 4 December 2016

Just How Stupid Are They?!

Filed under: Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 12:26 AM (00:26)

While browsing the gold mine of information that is publicintelligence.net, I came across this gem

Here’s the PDF version, for grins and giggles.

The absolutely hilarious part about it is this line in bold-type red ALL-CAPS across the bottom —

FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY – NOT TO BE FURTHER DISSEMINATED WITHOUT ATF PERMISSION

Seriously, folks?

The technology depicted on the poster has been around for over one hundred years before the poster was published (April, 2006).

This sort of information has been in the public domain since the 1950s – that’s over fifty years.

Yet this agency still thinks that this is on the level of “TOP SECRET” ?

No wonder we refer to them as “the F-Troop” – the moniker is definitely hard-earned in their case.


NOTES

  1. Published elsewhere
    1. The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 901, 4 December 2016
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – App.net / Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook [page / profile] / Gab / Galaxy2 / Google Plus / Liberty.Me / Minds / seen.life / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK / WordPress.com
    2. Darth Mike Facebook page
    3. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
    4. Wood Chipper Facebook page

Copyright © 2016 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with medit and Notepad++.

Wednesday, 19 October 2016

Team Hillary Spews Yet Again

Filed under: Humor, Politics, Principles — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 5:59 PM (17:59)

No, that isn’t the actual Hillary Clinton for President campaign bus.

But maybe it SHOULD be Her Majesty’s official stagecoach.

Hillary’s performance as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State was bad enough – the above picture sums up her “public service” rather nicely.

So does the next bit –

Remember this scene from National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation ?

The reality in Lawrenceville, Georgia doesn’t seem to be far from that clip –

Gateway Pundit: Figures. Hillary Bus Caught Dumping Sh*t on Highway (VIDEO)

WND: Hillary bus caught illegally dumping poop in street

CBS-46 WGCL-TV video clip on reddit

One wonders if Christian de la Rosa (the local TV reporter on the scene) will soon be dead found after having “committed suicide” from being shot in the back of the head several times, from different angles. Or killed via an “accident” at the local gym.

For what it’s worth, maybe Donald Trump might get some mileage out of this incident for a few days, but does anyone really expect any significant legal ramifications from this for Team Hillary?

Seriously, folks?

If any of us Joe Sixpack types did that sort of thing, we would be looking at hefty federal-, state-, and local-level fines (at least 10,000), jail or prison time, a felony conviction, being unhireable for years, that sort of thing.

If anything happens to Team Hillary, it will most likely fall upon the bus driver and campaign crew of the bus. Any senior staff involved will most likely skate on this one.

Of course, I’m just guessing here, but if the past is any indicator – the private home-based server, Benghazi, Rosatom, Libya, Syria, the DNC emails, Vince Foster, Whitewater, the 1994 White House health care task force,interactions with George Soros, – Hillary and her senior staff won’t have to give up the cocktail party circuit one bit.

Yeah, I know what the Hillzillers will say – “She didn’t tell them to do that! You can’t hold her responsible for that!”

Why not?

If anyone is a supporter of third-party liability to get at parties with deep pockets, it’s Hillary.

Just ask the gun industry – she’s been talking about repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act for a while now.

It just goes to show, you might be able to take Hillary out of the corruption, but you can’t get the corruption out of Hillary.

For the record, NO, Hillary is NOT a “wonderful public servant,” despite whatever you’ve heard on CNN. For anyone who says that Hillary has “no criminal intent,” I defy you to cite ten (10) times in the last twenty years when she’s acted WITHOUT criminal intent (the intention of taking from others without their consent, etc.).

H/T David Codrea at The War on Guns


NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 13.1
  2. Published in The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 895, 23 October 2016
  3. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – App.net / Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook [page / profile] / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.Me / Minds / seen.life / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK / WordPress.com
    2. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    3. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
    4. Vote the Air Facebook page
    5. Vote Dumpster Fire Facebook page
    6. Wood Chipper Facebook page
    7. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    8. The Libertarian Enterprise Facebook group

Copyright © 2016 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with medit and Notepad++.

Sunday, 16 October 2016

GPCGC 15 October 2016 Open Carry March

Filed under: Fun, Networking, Organizing, Politics, Preparedness, Principles, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 8:52 PM (20:52)

Yesterday, the Greater Philadelphia Chinese Gun Club held an open carry march in the middle of Downtown Philadelphia

Now the hoplophobes and victim disarmers will portray such events as death and mayhem just waiting to happen, especially when participants are carrying that “weapon of mass destruction” known as the dreaded AR-15 (cue the doom-and-gloom music at the point, OK?).

Hell, there are some who otherwise support the individual pre-existing right to own and carry weapons that decry open carry events for nonsensical reasons. I’ve even heard such inanity from some who call themselves “libertarians.”

The fact remains that open carry events like these are the gun rights movements’ version of the leatherboys in the LGBT Pride Rally. They’re not harming anyone by just being there. If you don’t like them, no one is forcing you to associate with them or even to look at them.

What they’re doing is saying with their mere presence, “I’m here, what are you going to do about it?”

But alas, the GPCGC disappointed them by NOT behaving like the rabid hyper-zombies as depicted in 28 Days Later

 

YES, there was a significant law-enforcement presence at the march, but the cops weren’t decked out in riot gear or SWAT gear –

 

 

Probably because the march participants were too busy waving signs and taking pictures of each other to be looting local stores and destroying cars?

I’m almost tempted to move back to the Philadelphia area.

H/T Jing Zheng


NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 11.8
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – App.net / Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook [page / profile] / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.Me / seen.life / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK / WordPress.com

Copyright © 2016 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with medit and Notepad++.

Wednesday, 12 October 2016

“Mine” vs. “Yours”

Filed under: Politics, Principles, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 12:27 AM (00:27)

From what I’ve seen in thirty years of being involved on the public scene, there seem to be two basic mindsets towards life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, money, time, effort, you name it, where politics is concerned.

First is the “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is yours” way of thinking. This is the dominant mindset amongst libertarians. Some conservatives subscribe to it, as well.

But not the neo-conservatives and social conservatives, who seem to be perfectly OK with government at every level getting bigger, more intrusive, more expensive, just so long as they approve of the ways it gets bigger, more intrusive, and more expensive. The issues of abortion, same-sex relations, gambling, drugs and prostitution are examples of this.

Or said “conservatives” are concerned with getting “their fair share” of time at the public trough – contracts for the various social-welfare programs, construction contracts, and such.

Which brings me to the other prevailing mindset on the political scene, that of “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours in negotiable (and ultimately mine).”

These are the people who get all kinds of pissed off when their money or personal property is damaged or taken without their consent. Yet if yours is similarly taken or damaged, especially when done by governmental edict, well, it’s your job to “suck it up for the common good.” Or “for the children,” “for the Earth,” or whatever.

For example, this picture of someone complaining that her Bernie 2016 sticker was stolen:

Seriously, folks, since when has Bernie Sanders EVER supported the rights of private property owners?

I would assume that anyone supporting his failed presidential bid would be in line with his views of “let’s take from the rich.” Am I out of line by suggesting that?

Another point – despite Bernie’s rather “strident” rhetoric about “soaking the rich,” he didn’t have any problem plunking down 575,000-600,000 for a lakefront dacha in Lake Hero, Vermont.

Does anyone care to guess what will happen to any vagrants who should wander onto the property?

You mean he won’t put them up in the guest bedroom for a few days, til they’re ready to move on?

What do you mean, his protective detail from the Vermont State Police will have said vagrant taken away in handcuffs?

Another instance of this:

Back in January 2013, Santa Fe City Councilor Patti Bushee and ProgressNowNM Executive Director Pat Davis[1] supported “assault weapon” bans of various kinds, and then campaigned for the State of New Mexico to recognize same-sex marriages as legal[2].

So according to Bushee and Davis, my individual, pre-existing right to own and carry weapons isn’t really a right at all, merely a government-granted privilege, revokable upon the whim of a bureaucrat (the “yours” of this instance). At the same time, they insist that the rights they cherish (same-sex marriage — the “mine” here) to be taken as sacrosanct.

Well, America, which mindset do you prefer? Pick one and stick to it, please.


NOTES

  1. Bushee is no longer a City Councilor in Santa Fe, while Davis is currently “representing” District 6 on the Albuquerque City Council. No doubt that Bushee has been replaced with someone equally looney.
  2. Patti Bushee and Pat Davis Hinder, Not Help, the LGBT Cause

    Not that such an ordinance would have actually survived a court challenge, as New Mexico has a pre-emption clause in Article II, Section 6 of the State Constitution:

    No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

    But Bushee had to have her warm fuzzy (and no-charge advertising media coverage) for the moment that she “got something done” and “made a difference,” so she sponsored the ban anyway.

  3. Approximate reading level – 13.4
  4. Published in The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 894, 16 October 2016
  5. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Facebook [page / profile] / Google Plus / seen.life / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK / WordPress.com
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress.com

Copyright © 2016 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Tuesday, 4 October 2016

Quote of the Day for Tuesday, 4 October 2016

Filed under: Quote of the Day, Resistance, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 12:26 AM (00:26)

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s Liberty teeth and keystone under Independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizens’ firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this Land knows firearms and more than 99 99/100 per cent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference and they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good. When firearms go all goes, therefore we need them every hour.”
~ C. S. Wheatley.


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook [page / profile] / Liberty.Me [blog / profile] / Minds / seen.life / Tea Party Community / Twitter / WordPress.com
    2. Extropy UnboundFacebook / WordPress.com
    3. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress.com
    4. Libertarian Party –
      1. New MexicoBlog / FB page / FB group
      2. Bernalillo County, New MexicoBlog / FB page / FB group
      3. CNM College Libertarian ClubBlog / FB group
    5. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    6. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group

Copyright © 2016 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico, CNM College Libertarian Club and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Friday, 19 August 2016

[LPNM] Resolution: Right to Self-Defense and to Firearms

Filed under: Politics, Principles, Resistance, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 5:32 AM (05:32)

WHEREAS, Libertarians affirm that self-defense is an inherent and unalienable human right; and

WHEREAS, the Platforms of the National Libertarian Party (LNC) and the Libertarian Party of New Mexico oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition; and

WHEREAS, the Platforms of the LNC and the Libertarian Party of New Mexico affirm the right of due process, and deny the legitimacy of “victimless crimes”; and

WHEREAS, the government has steadily encroached upon these rights by illegitimately regulating and restricting access for firearms and ammunition, and may further seek to deprive people, who have been convicted of no crime, of their inherent right to full self-defense by denying their civil and inherent rights to obtain firearms and ammunition; therefore

BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of New Mexico opposes any policy which would deny access to any firearms or ammunition to any person solely for being placed on any government watch or no-fly list, and reaffirms its call to repeal and oppose any existing or proposed firearm and ammunition regulations.


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – App.net / Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook [ page, profile ] / Liberty.Me [ blog, profile ] / Minds / seen.life / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK / WordPress.com
    2. Libertarian Party –
      1. New MexicoLPNM Blog / LPNM Official Facebook page / LPNM Official Facebook group / [LPNM-discuss] Yahoo! group
      2. Bernalillo County, New MexicoLPBC Blog / LPBCNM Official Facebook page / LPBCNM Official Facebook group
    3. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress.com
    4. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    5. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group

Copyright © 2016 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with medit and Notepad++.

Monday, 18 July 2016

Obama: “It’s easier to get a Glock than a book . . . .”

Filed under: Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 5:25 AM (05:25)

When addressing the assembled mourners in Dallas, Barry Obama said the following[1]:

It’s easier for a teenager to get his hands on a Glock than a computer . . . or even a book.

First, there’s these places called libraries that will let you read books without going through any paperwork at all. Quite a few of these . . . libraries . . . will let you check out books and — wait for it — take them home without so much as a simple background check.

Nor do the librarians make you fill out federally-mandated paperwork asking you if you’re a convicted felon, fugitve from justice, illegal immigrant, been dishonorably discharged from the military, have been adjudicated as mentally unfit to read, have any domestic violence convictions, or if you’ve renounced your U.S. citizenship.

And if you want to keep the book, you don’t go to a library, but to another place called a bookstore, where you can hand over some of your cash and take the book home with you. No background check, no waiting period, just pay for your book, take it and go. Nor do you have to be at least 21 years old to purchase small, easily-carried books.

Why, they even let you buy or borrow multiple books without additional paperwork. WOW!

Nor do the feds require bookstore owners to get a federal license to sell books across state lines.

Now, what about prices?

Let’s see:

A mass-market paperback of the kind that I bought most of my books as ran at 2.50 (plus tax) back in the early 1980s. Now they’re up to ∅7.99-8.99.

Trade paperbacks in the 6″ x 9″ format usually run ∅9.99-19.99, depending on how many pages, the publisher, etc.

Hardbacks are pricier — they’re usually over ∅20, most likely in the ∅22-27 range (it does pay at times to check the remainder tables!).

How about computers, then?

You can get a used desktop (such as the one I’m typing this article on) for about ∅100-200 (I paid ∅90 to a place that was going out of business).

Used laptops are in the same price range.

And as with books, there’s no need to fill out any federally-mandated paperwork, no waiting periods, no required background check, no age requirement. You can get a computer, even a brand-new one, even if you’re a convicted felon, messed up between the ears, been dishonorably discharged, etc., etc.

As for the Glock, though, that’s a bit different. Brand-new, a Glock will run you about ∅500. Used, they can go for more or less, depending on condition and after-market modifications. A factory-model Glock in decent condition will cost you about ∅300.

On top of that, if you’re a convicted felon, don’t get caught possessing that Glock by the cops — the feds love to throw people in prison for ten-year stretches for that.

That federally-mandated paperwork and background check I linked to above? That’s the sort of thing you have to go through to purchase a firearms from a federally-licensed dealer. In order to sell firearms across state lines and on any sort of commercial basis, the feds require that the dealer get a Federal Firearms License [FFL].

So much for Obama’s comment in Dallas.

Here’s the really bad part about Obama’s comment:

He’s got advisors from the Cabinet secretaries and agency directors on down who could have offered up the correct information for his Dallas speech. It’s already bad taste to use a memorial service to score political points. On top of that, he used nonsensical comments to score those points? Come one, now.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Ixquick search / DuckDuckGo search / Startpage search / Qwant search / Encrypted Google search

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 9.2
  2. Published in The Libertarian Enterprise#882 : 24 July 2016
  3. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook [page / profile] / Galaxy2 / Liberty.Me [blog / profile] / Minds / seen.life / Tea Party Community / tsu / Twitter / WordPress.com
    2. Extropy Unbound Facebook / WordPress.com
    3. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress.com
    4. Libertarian Party –
      1. New MexicoLPNM Blog / LPNM Official Facebook page / LPNM Official Facebook group
      2. Bernalillo County, New MexicoLPBC Blog / LPBCNM Official Facebook page / LPBCNM Official Facebook group

Copyright © 2016 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with medit and Notepad++.

Monday, 20 June 2016

“No One Wants to Take Away Your Guns” [2]

Filed under: Politics, Principles, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:03 AM (06:03)

Well, it’s Hoplophobia Season again, as your friendly (in appearance only) politicians scramble to stand atop the fifty-some bodies of those killed at Pulse Orlando. As usual, their media friends will say “no one wants to take your guns,” even as they say explicitly that they do want to disarm you. Here are some examples:

The first is an old one, from August of last year, from science fiction, fantasy and comic book writer Peter David, which is a shame, as David can be a good writer when he wants to be. Still, at least he’s honest and up-front about his desire to disarm America’s population, which is more than I can say for most hoplophobes and victim disarmers.

[Click on the picture to go the article]

Amitai Etzioni, a current proponent of what’s called “communitarianism,” wrote the next piece in The Huffington Post yesterday, and suggests that they probably will need to be sneaky about disarming the American population:

[Click on the picture to go the article]


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Wikipedia page on Peter David
  2. Wikipedia page on Amitai Etzioni
  3. Wikipedia page on Communitarianism

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 15.9
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – App.net / Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook [page / profile] / Galaxy2 / Google Plus / Liberty.Me [blog / profile] / Minds / seen.life / Tea Party Community / tsu / Twitter / WordPress.com
    2. Extropy UnboundFacebook / WordPress.com
    3. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress.com
    4. Libertarian Party –
      1. New MexicoLPNM Blog / LPNM Official Facebook page / LPNM Official Facebook group
      2. Bernalillo County, New MexicoLPBC Blog / LPBCNM Official Facebook page / LPBCNM Official Facebook group
    5. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    6. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    7. The Libertarian Enterprise Facebook group

Copyright © 2016 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with medit and Notepad++.

Tuesday, 19 January 2016

“Nobody wants to take your guns” v.1

Filed under: Politics, Principles, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 12:19 AM (00:19)

Whenever I, or others, object to "registration" or bans on transfers, or other forms of "gun control" and firearms restrictions as steps toward an eventual complete prohibition and the confiscation that such would necessarily entail, we get told we're paranoid and "nobody wants to take your guns."

Well, perhaps we should consider these "nobodies":

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls . . . and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act . . . [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic – purely symbolic – move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."
Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"
John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."
Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."
Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."
Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes interview.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."
Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers . . . No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."
Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think – I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."
William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take . . . we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."
U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991.

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."
Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October 1997

"We must get rid of all the guns."
Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil Donahue Show" September 1994

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."
Sarah Brady 7/1/88

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."
Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true . . . "
U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"My bill . . . establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."
U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."
Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."
President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times
12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned . . . We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."
The Washington Post – "Legal Guns Kill Too" – November 5, 1999

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution."
USA Today – Michael Gartner – Former president of NBC News – "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" – January 16, 1992

"I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns," Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

" 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
           (1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
           (2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
           (3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."
Legislation introduced in Missouri. 2013

And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." NIJ Memo on a new "Assault Weapon" Ban. 2013

"The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection" (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program.  Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) 2013

California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include ALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed / sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device. SB47 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes. Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated. ("High-cap" means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40's–AK pattern rifles–or 60's–AR pattern rifles.)

We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it . . . We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”
Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

"People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed." Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed?  "Final Solution" anyone?)
(Emphasis added in the above).

"We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”  Discussion among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14) of New Jersey's State Legislature, May 9, 2013

“No one in this country should have guns.” Superior Court Judge, Robert C. Brunetti, Bristol, CT. September, 2013

Proposed Missouri Bill to ban "assault weapons":

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

New York sends out Confiscation letters.

But nobody wants to take our guns?


NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 10.9
  2. Original article
  3. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – App.net / Blogspot / Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook page / Facebook profile / Google Plus / seen.life / tsu / Twitter / WordPress.com
    2. Libertarian Party –
      1. New MexicoLPNM Blog / LPNM Official Facebook page / LPNM Official Facebook group
      2. Bernalillo County, New MexicoLPBCNM Blog / LPBCNM Official Facebook page / LPBCNM Official Facebook group
    3. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    4. Extropy Unbound Facebook page
    5. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page

Copyright © 2016 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with medit.

Sunday, 3 January 2016

17th Century “Assault Weapons”

Filed under: Principles, Resistance, Science, Self-Defense, Technology — Tags: , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 11:18 AM (11:18)

First, the very term “assault weapon”[1] is a nonsensical phrase intended to cause confusion amongst the members of the public who aren’t familiar with firearms, specifically to incite fear of said firearms amongst those same people[2].

With that out of the way, let’s talk about the inane notion that “the Founders didn’t forsee today’s weapons such as the AK-47 or AR-15 — thus the Second Amendment only applies to single-shot muskets and flintlocks.”[3]

The fact remains that the Founders were familiar with multiple-shot firearms, as such had been developed in Europe over a century before the Revolution:

For starters, there’s the Kalthoff repeater.

Kalthoff repeating rifle c 1650

Kalthoff-type flintlock rifle (1600s) at the Livrustkammaren (Photo from Wikipedia)

The Kalthoff repeater was reportedly used in the Siege of Copenhagen (1659)[4] and the Scanian War (1675-1679) between Denmark and Sweden[5]. That’s 132 and 116 years, respectively, before the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.

The Kalthoff never saw widespread use because it was expensive to manufacture, maintain and repair, thus only the wealthy could afford to obtain them. Still, it was a start. The “standard issue” magazine for the Kalthoff appears to have been six shots, while some models may have gone as high as thirty shots. If today’s hoplophobes and victim disarmers had been around then, the Kalthoff would have them soiling their drawers like semi-automatic copies of the AR-15 and AK-47 do today.

Next comes the Cookson Volitional Flintlock Repeater, first made in 1750 in the UK (41 years before the Second Amendment was ratified).

Cookson Volitional Flintlock Repeater

Cookson Volitional Flintlock Repeater at the National Firearms Museum (Photo from the National Firearms Museum)

The Cookson apparently used the Lorenzoni System (first developed in 1680111 years before the Second Amendment was ratified) as its internal mechanism. As with the Kalthoff, the Cookson appears to have been expensive to build and operate, hence it was relegated to a historical footnote instead of taking the world by storm.

While the Founders had heard of the concept of multiple-shot firearms, it wasn’t until the idea of interchangeable parts came about as a practical form of technology — in the 1820s[6] — that they became a real possibility.

So when practical, portable laser and railgun weapons become a realistic possibility[7], we’ll hear and read it all over again from the hoplophbes and victim disarmers — “The Founders never foresaw these!”

I think just as Tench Coxe wanted private civilians to have ready access to and proficiency with the military weapons of the day[8], today he’d be talking about the AR-15 / M-16 / M-4 and AK-47 / AK-74 series of weapons, and in a hundred or so years, he would be talking about lasers and railguns.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. See the Wikipedia page for “assault weapon” [quotation marks added by myself – MWB] versus the Wikipedia page for assault rifle
  2. “Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”
    Violence Policy Center: Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, by Josh Sugarmann
  3. District of Columbia v. Heller backs me up here –

    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
    District of Columbia v. Heller via the Legal Information Institute [LII] at Cornell University Law School

  4. Wikipedia page for the assault / siege of Copenhagen
  5. Wikipedia page for the Scanian War
  6. Wikipedia page for interchangeable parts
  7. When I took Intro to Lasers (PHOT 2005) at CNM in 2008, the Nd-YAG laser we used would put out 3 W of continuous-wave (CW) power, and could go up to about 20 W when in Q-switching mode (pulsed beam). That unit (built in the 1980s) had a power supply and cooling pump about the size of WWII-type footlocker and required 2.5 gallons of water per minute for cooling purposes to be pumped through the laser head. Fast-forward to today . . .
    1. Wicked Lasers advertises its “Spyder 3 Arctic” as being about the size of a handheld flashlight, with an output of 1-3 W. Prices range from 200 to ∅400, depending on beam power.
    2. The “Burning & Cutting Lasers” page at Information Unlimited offers plans, kits and assembled units of portable and desktop lasers for cutting, engraving and other purposes.
    3. “Kipkay” on YouTube likes to modify handheld laser pointers, jacking up the beam power on occasion.

    As for railguns . . . DuckDuckGo search for “railgun DIY”.

  8. The power of the sword, say the minority . . . , is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.
    Tench Coxe, Letter to the Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 13.4
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – App.net / Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook page / Facebook profile / Fetlife / Google Plus / seen.life / tsu / Twitter / WordPress.com
    2. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    3. Extropy Unbound Facebook page
    4. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
    5. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    6. The Libertarian Enterprise Facebook group

Copyright © 2016 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with medit.

Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: