Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Her Equipment is the Same

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same. 

- Rudyard Kipling

I am both lacking babe and man, and I do stride to claim my rights.
With Smith & Wesson at my side.

God made Man and Woman.  Samuel Colt made them equal.  A fact I am grateful for.


Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Nice Tyranny There, Governor!

Now we have Governor Cuomo in New York admitting that if the public had been allowed to review the measure that became the SAFE act, it would have never passed!

From the Times Union:
“I think we did a great thing,” Cuomo told the Times Union Editorial Board on Monday. “Nothing like that will ever happen without a message of necessity.”
Unless you call the vote when you actually have the vote, it’s shifting sands … It will never happen if you put it on the desk for three days. Well, from a process standpoint, wouldn’t it be better if you could do it and put it on the desk for three days? Yes! Yes, I believe that, and that’s why I’ve done fewer than anyone. But if say we’re going to be slave to a process requirement and not get really big things done, then I disagree with you.
Another article here.

He flat out admits the reason the "message of necessity" was used was to take advantage of immediate, emotion-driven momentum to get things done and to prevent public review that might kill that momentum in the light of day and with the time to think.

This is unbelievable.  And refreshing.  It is rare to see someone don the mantle of dictator or tyrant so openly.  Usually they couch such ambitions in terms of promises to make people safe, promises of free stuff, open and free elections that are anything but, that type of thing.

I do believe this is the form American tyranny takes.  Can't be so overt as to directly threaten rights in the open.  Just hijack the legislative process and write your own rules for it since you own it.  Once you've done that, everything becomes a "message of necessity" and make sure the People can't mobilize against you.

I am quite sure right now Governor O'Malley in Maryland is taking notes on what such wonderful ideas these are!  Why have people come to pesky hearings and make their displeasure known when you can simply ignore them and do what you want.

Nice tyranny you have there, Governor!  I sure hope something happens to it.  Like the Courts and elections to right this egregious wrong.

Sadly, we're seeing a preview of our future.  Here's hoping it can be stopped.  I like freedom and rights.  I don't want to change that to "I liked the freedom and rights I used to have.".


Monday, January 28, 2013

Transcripts from Tyrants #8: Steven F. McLaughlin - Ammo Registration

We're coming over the hump in this ongoing series to transcribe the "lack of sacred honor" among those who supported the NY SAFE act and its champions in resisting it.  Here is part eight in this ongoing series with another video of Steven F. McLaughlin discussing the ammunition registration requirements.

Video #8: Steven F. McLaughlin - Ammo Registration

Begin Transcript

Steven F. McLaughlin:  Ammo registration.  Already hearing from local gun shop owners.  One of 'em, one of whom I've already heard from is the biggest gun shop owner in this area.  He's already said, he was on the radio today, I've already gotten word: he's not gonna comply.  He will not do these private sale, uh, background checks.  That's him.  I don't know what's going to happen across the state.  I suspect, that these men and women, that adhere to and honor the 2nd Amendment of these United States, will also choose not to comply.  

Dick's Sporting Goods may decide not to do it and they're a huge gun seller.  There may be a lot of retailers that say "We're not doing it.  We're not going to maintain the records.  We're not going to go through the background checks 'cause we disagree with them", for whatever reason, and I'm not even arguing that is right or wrong.  I'm just saying a lot of them are going to have objection to that and for 10 lousy dollars, they're just simply not going to do it.  What do we do then?  How do private sales take place if, en-masse, nothing happens.  If, if all over the state people refuse to comply with this.  What's our, what's our plan then?

Joe Lentol: Well, first of all, uh, licensed dealers may not want to participate in a gun show and that's their right.  But this bill incentivizes them to do so by allowing them to charge a fee.

Steven F. McLaughlin:  10 dollars.

Joe Lentol: And there are some licensed dealers that will want to get that fee, and they can probably get a lot of fees at a gun show.  So, so they'll be willing to participate.  As far as the, uh,  ammunition is concerned when you talked about the licensed dealers, again, I have to repeat myself: I believe that those folks are lawful citizens and they will comply with the law.

Steven F. McLaughlin:  I'm not saying they will not, I'm not saying they won't comply.  I'm just saying they may choose not to participate.  But I think you misunderstood my question.  In a private sale, as is not between family members, when I want to sell my gun to another assembly member.  Uh, that would require a NICS check.  Correct?

Joe Lentol: Right.  Just like a gun show sale.  It would be the same requirement.

Steven F. McLaughlin:  Yes. Correct.  But, we're not at a gun show.  I want to sell it.  I then need a NICS check and I cannot find a dealer, anywhere, to do it.  None of the gun shops will do it, the major retailers have decided not to do it.  It's not a gun show thing, it's just you're gonna bring a stop, virtually, to a lot of private sales that way, I think if they choose not to comply.  Not that they're flaunting the law, they're choosing to not to participate.  And we can't force them, can we?

Joe Lentol:  No.  We can't.  No...

Steven F. McLaughlin:  Is there any provision in there...

Joe Lentol:  We can't force it...

We can probably rest assured there will be, uh, voluntary compliance because there is a fee involved and I suspect there are a lot of gun dealers who are gonna want that fee.

Steven F. McLaughlin:  Ya, I don't think they're clamoring for 10 bucks, Joe.  With all the record keeping requirements that they're under right now.  They're selling guns and ammo like it's going out of style.  This 10 dollars doesn't matter to these guys. 

Joe Lentol:  I know if I was a dealer and it brings a customer into the shop that I'd wanna do that.

Steven F. McLaughlin:  We'll see.  I mean we will see what happens.  I may be wrong but it's not what I'm hearing so far.  Um...

End Transcript

Here we see an example of economic incentive in the mind of a liberal.  The belief of, you dangle a carrot of a small fee through statutory force against the populace to pay it, that these businessmen and women will throw their doors wide open and stick their money-grubbing paws out for a ten-spot with glee with all the hapless sheep the State has herded their way.


I agree with Mr. McLaughlin.  If the cost of the fee is greater than the record keeping costs, and if anyone who's been to a gun store will likely agree this is the case, it doesn't matter how many transfers they do, it will be a loss for them every time.

And a loss for the citizens of New York unable to even dispose of their property due to fee caps set in place by the State in total ignorance of economics. 

And I believe that is exactly the purpose.  To force these guys to disappears into more fee competitive states or to lock them in closets and safes, gather dust and become paperweights for their owners.  To them, a gun locked away and unsold is a gun not "on the street".

I suspect Mr. Lentol has probably never run a small business on thin margins under huge regulatory burdens like a gun shop or a marina.  Then maybe he might not be so eager to put words in their owners mouths.


Friday, January 25, 2013

Transcripts from Tyrants #7: Steven F. McLaughlin - Proof They Want to Confiscate Guns

This is the seventh entry in this series on the NY SAFE act and the "debate" that leading up to it.  This entry is the one that made the rounds on the Internet described the final intention behind the passage of such laws.

Video #7:Steve F. McLaughlin - Intent to Confiscate

Begin Transcript

Steven F. McLaughlin:  And Joe, I have in my hands here, uh, something that we received from the Senate, which is rejected Democrat proposals, uh, in this gun bill.  And I don't if you've seen this or if you know these are there or not.

Joe Lentol:  No.  But we don't have our own list of rejected proposals that the Senate rejected.  I don't have anything to show you.

Steven F. McLaughlin:  Ok.  Alright.  Then I won't address it then if you haven't seen it.  I'll leave that one alone.  Uh, ok.  Thank you, Joe.  Appreciate it.  And, uh, Mr. Speaker on the bill.

Joe Lentol:  And by the way, I would recommend not to have that list shared because it really has the capacity to, uh, dampen the enthusiasm to compromise.

Steven F. McLaughlin:  Well it sure does when we talk about confiscation of assault weapons.  It absolutely has the ability to dampen a compromise.  Mr. Speaker on the bill.

End Transcript

Here we see a rare glimpse of honesty in the true intent behind gun control from gun rights opponents.  "Dampen the enthusiasm to compromise" will go down as one the great understatements in the history of New York gun control.  Do people like Mr. Lentol honestly believe anyone is going to not fight such proposal tooth and nail after statements like that?

Here we see, again as we have so many times, the anti-rights meaning of compromise: "we won't take as much as we want...this time".  If confiscation is your starting position is there truly any compromise from your opponent?  Is it any wonder that as these proposals continue to be floated that the intensity of resistance to them only grows and for good reason?

Compromise is defined as both sides walking away from an outcome angry.  Anti-gun people don't seem to understand that.

The time for giving is over.  Hold fast.


Thursday, January 24, 2013

Hypocrisy Burns: California Schools Buy AR-15s for Student Defense

I thought having firearms on school grounds affected the learning environment, contributed to school shootings and "assault weapons" have no place near school grounds or yours/my hands?  And that the NRA stating having armed individuals to defend students was the worst sort of nuttery this side of a Salem witch trial?

Apparently not in California.

An excerpt:

In response to a wave of gun crime across the country, particularly in Newtown, Conn., the police department for a California school district just outside Los Angeles has purchased 14 AR-15 rifles in efforts to protect its students.

Fontana Unified School District Superintendent Cali Olsen-Binks OK’d the measure, allowing each school to keep the rifles stored in a secure location for officials to access in case of an emergency.

This hypocrisy burns:
  1. Guns will be on school grounds to protect students.
  2. They will be available for "officials" to use.  School resource officer?  Teachers, perhaps?
  3. They said "AR-15s" and not "assault weapons".  Apparently "official" use turns off their inherent evilness that the rest of use see.
No mention if these were Bushmaster AR-15s.  Wouldn't that be just scintillating if they were, especially after the California Teacher's Union dropped them from their pension funds due to being made of pure, concentrated evil?

And nary mention saying these are the same deadly, child-murdering, Devil's tool "assault weapon".



Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Guns are the Redheaded Stepchildren

Going to take a quick break here between the transcripts of the NY SAFE act to expand on a thought I had previously.

My premise is this:

I believe guns are the only legal consumer product where their misuse by a minority results in restrictions on the lawful majority.  Every.  Single.  Time.

Isn't that perverse?  Really think about that for a minute.

If a person goes to a bar, gets drunk and is driving home in a <insert car brand here>, crosses the median and smashes into a family driving home and kills them all, we don't ban <insert car brand here> type cars because they were used to kill by a  criminal.

If a person goes to a drug store, buys a pack of condoms, goes out and rapes a woman wearing one so as to not leave DNA behind, we don't ban the use of condoms by those who don't want a baby or a disease because they were used to rape by a criminal.

If a person goes to a liquor store, buys a bottle of booze, goes home, gets drunk and beats their spouse to a pulp, we don't hold the liquor store responsible and sue the maker of the brand of alcohol because of drunkeness and lack of impulse control by a criminal.

I could go on and I think you get the point.  But not so with guns!  If we applied the demands and punishments, and they are punishments against a culture that doesn't conform to a certain ideal of society, we would have the following:
  • Condom registration to track potential rapists.
  • Liquor purchasing limits and stockpiling limits to ensure abuse or damage can be limited.
  • Car operator licensing and testing to ensure safe operation.  Whoops, have that one!  How is that working out?
  • Breathalyzer locks on cars to make sure people don't drive drunk.
  • Mandated tobacco safety and danger courses including viewing an autopsy of a dead smoker so the dangers of tobacco are understood.
  • Female dress codes so as not to provide temptation to those who might assault or rape them.  After all, it is often said it is the gun's fault a criminal acted so it heinously must be the woman's fault a man lost control of his penis.  Oh, wait, that one is being done in certain countries around the world because of that exact concern!  Heaven forbid a man catches sight of a woman's ankle flesh.  Who knows what might happen?
  • A procreation permit before a couple can get pregnant to ensure they are of sound mind, gotten references that they would be good parents and gone through a State-approved parenting course.
  • A fee and a waiting period before you can publish an article in the newspaper.
  • An excise tax on computers to compensate libelled speech victims and pay for the harm they have suffered.
Ridiculous, right?!? Who would dream of such things?  Truth be told, every one of these redone as a proposed or current law in many states is precisely what gun owners have to put up with.  And if a crazy snaps and does something horrible as recent events show, they clamp just tightens and the restrictions move a notch forward.

All in the name of crime prevention, saving the children and a common sense, reasonable next, often good first, step that isn't perfect but given enough steps, it will be.

Admittedly, some products have become restricted as a result of misuse by criminals.  Most notably Sudafed and other cold medicines since they can be used to make crystal meth.  But, but, we don't restrict you from purchasing it other than limiting quantity at any given time.   Nothing stopping you from going around town.  You still have to present identification.

So I guess my outlandish list isn't so outlandish, after all.  Perhaps over time, people will simply accept this as the price of "freedom" and feel good that they've prevented <insert future tragedy here>.

Some freedom.


Transcripts from Tyrants #6: Steven F. McLaughlin - On Collection of Gun Owner Data

This is my sixth entry in my ongoing attempt to document the shenanigans that occurred in New York in the "emergency" passage of their guns laws meant from prevent another Newtown.

This was all passed with the most thoughtful and reasoned of "debate".  Well, reasoned from the side of people like the Honorable Steven F. McLaughlin below.

Video #6: Honorable Steven F. McLaughlin on Collecting Gun Owner Data

Begin Transcript

Steven F. McLaughlin: Uh, let me ask you a question about Federal law.  In the ObamaCare legislation, there is a provision in there, it is Senate amendment 3276 section 2716 part C.  Some people say it was put in there as a, uh, to quiet down the NRA but nevertheless, it is in there.  And it says that the government cannot collect quote "Any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition".  So by enacting this law, are we not then violating what is now Federal law?

Joe Lentol: I don't know.  I think that relates to health care.  I don't think it has anything to do with this.

Steven F. McLaughlin: Absolutely relates to gun control legislation because it says you cannot collect any information.  Nothing to do with health care.  Nothing.  So...

Joe Lentol: You say that it outlaws our total licensing scheme if you wanted to, uh, (unintelligible)

Steven F. McLaughlin:  No I can't say that because the law, this amendment is very specific in what it says.  It says that the government cannot collect any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.  It's very clear.  So I'm just...

Joe Lentol:  It is clear.  It is clear that the Federal government doesn't choose to do that but it doesn't say anything about the states.

Steven F. McLaughlin:  Well I'm just saying.  So it's o.., you're saying to me, I didn't go to law school, but you're saying to me it's ok that New York state wilfully violate Federal law.  Wilfully violate ObamaCare.  Cause that's what's were doing.

Joe Lentol: I'm in favor of state's rights.

Steven F. McLaughlin:  Doesn't answer the question, Joe.  But, you're so, there's no legal, there's no legal answer to that just that you're in favor of state's rights?  So, that's, that's ok with you, that we're ignoring that aspect of ObamaCare?

Joe Lentol: We're not ignoring it. It's just they haven't, uh, they haven't prevented us from taking that kind of action

Steven F. McLaughlin:  Well I suspect they will when that situation does arise.

Joe Lentol:   There's nothing in the Constitution that allows the state to take different action that the Federal government.  They've not, they've not prevented us from doing that by taking that power away from us.

Steven F. McLaughlin:  Absolutely correct.  We are allowed to take different action.  I don't believe we're allowed to violate Federal law.  But we'll see.  Uh...

End Transcript

While I admire Mr. McLaughlin's attempt here to inform the NY assembly that their continued attempts at registration of guns and gun owners may violate Federal law, I believe his is incorrect.  Based on my understanding, Mr. Lentol is correct that the law in ObamaCare relates to prohibiting medical professions from asking about or compiling records on gun ownership.  And from all indications, it was put in there at the behest of the NRA due to publicized attempts by doctors to ask children about their parent's gun ownership or refuse patients if they refused to answer.

That being said, I find Mr. Lentol's respect for state's rights to be a weak argument.  "State's rights" is often invoked to allow a state a path to interpret and violate the Constitution as they see fit when the Federal view is one they disagree with.  Fascinatingly, most states that have strong abortion rights also tend towards strong gun control.  It's almost like they want to kill on both ends of the life spectrum. 

It's unfortunate that there's been no attempts to hold state's feet to the fire on 18 USC 926(a):

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

Emphasis mine. 

I would argue that any and all licensing or registration schemes are illegal as Federal law is binding on the States.  Too bad no one has saw fit to press that argument forward. 

After all, we don't require you to get a license before an abortion, go through a background check before you publish online or pay a fee to vote.  All were found to be violations of the Constitution.  I hope in time such schemes in New York and other states will fall for the same reasons.

Tomorrow I will get to the final set of videos for Mr. McLaughlin.  That puts this halfway complete. 

Thank you for reading!


Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Transcripts from Tyrants #5 - Steven F. McLaughlin - Seven Bullets

This is the fifth entry in my ongoing series of posts to transcribe and document part of the process that lead to the debacle in New York on the passage of the NY SAFE act.  An act that basically was the next step in dismantling the 2nd Amendment in New York state and tightening the noose of serfdom around the necks of innocents.

Video #5: Honorable Steven F. McLaughlin - Seven Bullets

Begin Transcript

Steven F. McLaughlin: Uh, couple of questions for you and sorry if they seem a little nitpicky or, uh,  detailed but, uh, we didn't get this bill til very late last night and that's what happens when things get rushed through around here so we're not, we're kinda still digesting some of this.  So, uh,  a couple of questions for you.

Um, on the magazines being dropped, uh, the magazine limit being dropped from 10 to 7.

Joe Lentol: Yes.

Steven F. McLaughlin: Simple question is "Why?".  Why are we limiting  law-abiding citizens ability to defend themselves in a home invasion by 30 percent?

Joe Lentol: I think the short answer to that bill is that, uh, if you have a magazine with only 7 bullets, it will limit the amount of people you can unlawfully kill. 

Steven F. McLaughlin: Well that's true.  It also would limit the ability to defend yourself, would it not, from people that are invading your home?

Joe Lentol:  Change the clip. (laughter)

Steven F. McLaughlin: Change the clip.  (laughter)  I'm sure the people who are under invasion will be thrilled to hear that.  Change the clip.  We heard a senator say that the other day on the radio.  Change the, change the magazine or change the clip and call the police.  That'll work great in rural Albany county or up in the Adirondacks where your nearest police may be 60 miles away.  So I don't think they'll be too thrilled to hear that response.

But, uh, does, you know I heard you say earlier,  "A part of thing we like is that there's increased penalties for criminals to illegally use weapons".  The truth is we already have penalties for illegal use of weapons, do we not?

Joe Lentol:  Yes.

Steven F. McLaughlin: And criminals being what they are don't seem to care too much about any penalty, that's why they are, by definition, criminals.  So I'm just wondering why we think that this is, after 600 failed gun laws apparently in this state, why this is the magic elixir that is suddenly going to get criminals to pay attention to a law?  

Isn't it kind of a fallacy to think that, and aren't we just infringing upon law-abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms?   And I'm not sure of what part of will not be or cannot or shall not be infringed is, subject to debate, or difficult to understand?  But are we not just infringing on the law-abiding citizen?

Joe Lentol:  No we're not, I think.  I think you're mistaken in that this bill has a two-pronged approach.  It raises the penalties for criminals, you're right about that.  And it also tries, as best we can, as a state, because you know, this province should belong to the Federal government but like other places in our law, they haven't acted.  So we believe it's up to us to lead the way.  

You know, the border of Connecticut is only a few miles away from the state of New York.  And I don't want, I for one don't want to wait for a tragedy like Newtown before we take some action to prevent it.

Steven F. McLaughlin: Right.  And I don't really want to wait for a potential tragedy of a home being invaded and losing a family because they o..obeyed this law, and only had 7 bullets in a magazine, when there were 2 or 3 animals coming in to do them harm.  So it cuts both ways.  Make no mistake about that.  It cuts both ways.  And it mainly impacts the law-abiding citizen.

End Transcript

I have to wonder what makes Mr. Lentol think that a criminal, being what a criminal is, will, as Mr. McLaughlin pointed out, suddenly obey a law on a magazine restriction?  This is the disconnect I have in trying to discuss issues with friends.  They seem to operate under the delusion that a law is a preventive measure by way of the penalties it imposes.  That the evil person, the criminal, faced with the prospect of a large fine, and perhaps months, years or life in prison, will decide "You know, they've bumped this up from a misdemeanor to a class C felony.  If I shoot this person and kill them, that new law is really going to do me in!  Time to take up knitting.".

And, always, in the Name of the Children.  Couched in that generic phrase "take action to prevent it".  What action, Mr. Lentol?  What insight do you possess that makes you think this will do anything but criminalize and punish the innocent?  Not children but their parents.  The people who work, pay taxes in the state and are the ones, whether you believe it or not, who elect you to represent, not oppress, them!  Not strip away their rights and limit their choices because you and the Governor know what's best for them.

Mr. McLaughlin is right.  What will you do if some law-abiding citizen, being the law-abiding person that they are, obeys this law and has their family hurt or killed as a result? 

I'm sure a New York husband will be thrilled, after emptying his gun into one invader attempting to defend his wife and daughter and then being caught by the other while "changing the clip" as Mr. Lentol puts it, to watch them rape her and then his daughter before his eyes, as animals are wont to do for sport, before slitting their throats and leaving his for last.  And then take his gun on their way out the door leaving a job well done for the arriving police called on 911 to admire.

And in your universe and that of Mr. Abinanti's, another legal, lawful gun owner will be responsible for letting a gun, perhaps a deadly "assault weapon" onto the streets.

But no one will demand this law be repealed to prevent such a tragedy except for men like Mr. McLaughlin.  Because such a scenario is the intention of the law.  And to blame the law-abiding for the scourge of violence committed these animals.

Just "change the clip", Mr. Lentol.  We'll remember that with the scorn you heap upon us.  I hope your constituents do too.  I hope they appreciate that if they only walk away with just scars and a bloody reminder that were unable to lawfully kill as many as necessary.  After all, how long before you make the killing of a criminal unlawful simply on the basis he or she wasn't offering sufficient harm and you used more than one bullet as Mr. Abinanti believes is enough?  That, of course, is the next step.  When we can read minds, we'll know how to deal with the criminals before they commit crimes and actually prevent them.

For now, I guess we'll just have to "change the clip" and hope for the best.

I'm not laughing, Mr. Lentol. I'm sure Mr. McLaughlin isn't either.


Monday, January 21, 2013

Transcripts from Tyrants #4: Steven McLaughlin - The Reason for the NY Gun Law

This is the fourth in a series of posts documenting the passage of the NY SAFE act, crafted on an "emergency" basis and filled with long, thoughtful, rigorous "debate" before its late night, hour's warning passage.

Now I turn towards one of the good guys, in my opinion, to the Honorable Steven F. McLaughlin.  He is quite articulate in laying out what is wrong with this law and is opposed to its passage.  There are five videos total.  Like with the previous transcripts from the Honorable Thomas J. Abinanti, I will do the excerpted videos first followed by the complete video and transcript of his closing statement.

This is also a video where you get to hear some more statements from Joe Lentol, the chairman and sponsor of this law.

Video #4: Steven F. McLaughlin - The Reason for the NY Gun Law

Begin Transcript

Steven F. McLaughlin: Uh, so far, there's earlier in the debate, 57 sections of law that were amended, right?  Plus various chapter, uh,  amendments.  So we've got some issues with this bill already which I think speaks to why we don't rush things or why we should not rush things.  Would you agree with that or not agree? I mean if, do you think this law as it is written right now is complete?

Joe Lentol: I agree that in a perfect world we should have extended hearings, and we should try to have as perfect a piece of legislation as can be had on the books.  I also believe that when we have a pile-up of events like what happened in Wisconsin and Aurora and then it strikes close to home in Newtown, Connecticut, that, uh, this cries out for action.  And if the Federal government is not going to do, as I said before, then the state of New York has to one again, like it has in the past, lead the way.

Steven F. McLaughlin: So but there is no indication that the Federal is not going to take action, they are in fact, on the verge of taking action shortly.  Was this not just a rush to get something done so that we could have bragging rights across the state because clearly there's a lot of problems with this bill that could have been taken care of before printing this a couple of hundred times, rolling it out to the population of New York under cover of darkness without the details being hashed out.  This is like half-cooking the meal and then everybody gets food poisoning from it because it's not done correctly.  There's a lot that could have been done.

Joe Lentol: The Governor is trying to save lives and I have to commend him for that.

Steven F. McLaughlin: Well let's talk about that.  Let's talk about saving lives.  As my colleague pointed out, 769 homicides, which have been dropping year after year after year.  Now I know next year when they drop again, people will talk about how this ban did it.  It won't have anything to do with it, hardly, because only 5 were caused by long guns.  Long guns.  Not assault rifles, may have been 5 at maximum, might have been 2, might have been 1, might have been none.  We don't know.  But it was 5. 

So if this is about saving lives, why aren't you going after handguns, which are by and large overwhelmingly the problem and overwhelmingly the weapon of choice among gang members?  Why not?  Doesn't that sort of lack a little bit of integrity to going after point f..., (Lentol interrupts) hold on...

Joe Lentol: We are going after handguns.  I, you know, we are going after handguns.  We've done that before and we're doing it again in this bill. 

Steven F. McLaughlin:  What handguns?

Joe Lentol: We've made it a C violent felony to have a handgun in the state of New York.  

Steven F. McLaughlin:  Illegally.

Joe Lentol: Illegally.  

Steven F. McLaughlin:  Yeah.

Joe Lentol: Isn't that what you're talking about?

Steven F. McLaughlin: So you think that the criminals are going to pay attention to that now it's a class C felony?

Joe Lentol: So what do you wanna do? You wanna make it...

Steven F. McLaughlin: I, I'm simply saying that you're making the point that you wanna save lives and if you were truly interested in doing that, you'd be having an argument about banning all weapons, number one, which I don't agree with, but you'd be having that argument...

Joe Lentol: (laughter)

Steven F. McLaughlin: That would, yeah,  that would, that would be an actually valid argument to have that we should ban all weapons, be a complete violation of the 2nd Amendment, but apparently that's trivial any more.  

But what I'm saying here is, it, it lacks a little bit, or it smacks a little bit of grandstanding to say that we're gonna to go after these assault weapons, which cause statistically across the nation and it's the same holds true in New York, assault weapons are used in one-fifth, point two percent of all violent crimes and in about 1 percent of all gun crimes.  1 to 7 percent of all homicides in the US are caused by assault weapons.  So don't kid yourself that we're going after the real issue here because we're not.  (shrugs).

Joe Lentol: There's nobody grandstanding here especially not the Governor.  Um, you know, I agree with you.  I'm in favor of the 2nd Amendment.  I'm gonna surprise you.  I'm in favor of the 2nd Amendment.  I believe that, uh, in the Constitution.  I also believe in the preamble that I won't read.  But more importantly, we have to remember the Constitution was amended back when they used muskets.  Ok?  With one shot being able to be fired by a musket and then you had to reload.

Steven F. McLaughlin: Yup.

Joe Lentol:  Remember that?

Steven F. McLaughlin: I absolutely do.  Do you know why?

Joe Lentol:  Remember that because...

Steven F. McLaughlin: Because that was the state-of-the-art weapon of the day, Joe.

Joe Lentol:  That's right.  Our Constitution has to expand.

Steven F. McLaughlin: Gotcha.

Joe Lentol:  As the times call for it.

Steven F. McLaughlin: So the Constitution was also rented, written and distributed on a printing press so are we saying we should limit the freedom of speech, because you know, the Internet and text messaging and everything else, that's just not what they intended.

Joe Lentol:  Supreme Court of the United States renders decisions every day that interprets the Constitution and expands its applicability to, to today's times. 

Steven F. McLaughlin: Oh, you're right and they've ruled three times now, that the right of the people to defend themselves cannot be infringed.  Which I believe is exactly what we're doing.  I believe this is just arbitrary...

Joe Lentol:  There's  (inaudible) in the 2nd Amendment

Steven F. McLaughlin: Why did we not come up with a 5 round limit or a 2 or a 1.  Why 7?  What's the magic number there at 7?

Joe Lentol:  The Governor proposed 7, we thought it was reasonable and so did the Senate.

Steven F. McLaughlin:  I'll be back.

End Transcript

The contrast between Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Abinanti to be quite striking.  I prefer Mr. McLaughlin's speaking style. I also find Mr. Lentol's body language and demeanor to be condescending, like having to deal with this issues is a foregone conclusion and pesky questions such as raised by Mr. McLaughlin need to just go away.

Mr. McLaughlin gets in some good points and I find Mr. Lentol's tone with him to be offensive.  As the Governor's spokesman apparently, Mr. Lentol sees no limit on restricting the 2nd Amendment since apparently that particular amendment needs to have a limited interpretation to deal with modern times but the 1st Amendment is perfectly fine to expand beyond the printing press. 

This is the problem I find with a liberal reading of our rights.  Depending on what you believe in, you favor expansion on one side and contraction on the other.  This isn't political thermodynamics here.  These are our rights.  How can I have an expansive reading the 1st Amendment in keeping with technical advances, keep the 2nd Amendment mired in the 18th century because clearly it was too dangerous to allow modern applicability and find for a right to abortion, which while I gratefully  agree with it, exists in the shadows and penumbras of the Constitutional text and requires special insight to divine.  And yet we protect that unwritten right more than for someone like me to protect myself from harm.  All because men like Joe Lentol feel 7 rounds is perfectly adequate.

Oh well, at least he's not Thomas J. Abinanti, who feels one shot is perfectly fine.

Here's hoping you don't miss.


Transcipts from Tyrants #3: Thomas J. Abinanti - Closing Statement

This is the third in my series of posts transcribing the results of the "debate", which I will continue to place in quotes as you'll see in upcoming entries in this series that no debate actually occurred, of the passage of the NY SAFE act.

This video and transcript that follows is the complete closing statement of the Honorable Thomas J. Abinanti, representing Westchester County, NY.  As you will see and read, he has a definite opinion on gun rights and gun owners.  Portions of this video you have already seen in the previous entries.  I am sorry for the length at 13 minutes.  The transcript is equally long but either provide a glimpse into the mindset of those who dislike gun ownership.

Video #3: Thomas J. Abinanti - Closing Statement

 Begin Transcript

 Speaker: Mr. Abinanti.

Thomas J. Abinanti:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Uh, first of all will the sponsor yield for a certain question?

Speaker: Will you yield?

Joe Lentol (bill sponsor, not visible): Yes, I will, Mr Speaker.

Thomas J. Abinanti: Uh, Mr. Chaiman, I like to refer to you to the section that deals with, um, safe storage.  I just want to confirm that my understanding is (correct), that there is no language here that preempts a locality from having a stronger piece of legislation by local law, um,  which would require gun owners to safely store their guns.

Joe Lentol: Right.  There is no presumption by implication on this issue.

Thomas J. Abinanti: There's no preemption by implication and there's no specific language preempting it.  Um, no expressed preemption and no preemption by implication.

Joe Lentol:  That's correct.

Thomas J. Abinanti: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Mr.Speaker, um, in another time and another place, a modern poet named Bob Dylan, if I can call him a poet, said "How many deaths will it take till we know that too many people have died?".  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it's taken far too many deaths to get us to this point.  

Gun violence is plaguing all of our communities.  In many different ways.  Whether it's guns on the street or whether it's people with mental problems killing lots people at once.  I'm somewhat concerned that I'm hearing from some members here, "Well, it hasn't happened in New York, therefore there's no basis for the law that we're considering today".  It happened in Connecticut.  It's happened throughout the country.

I have lists and lists of kids who've have been killed around this country.  And it wasn't just in Connecticut.  Going back to 80s, the70s, this is not a new phenomena.  It's time we stepped to protect the people in our state.    Every one of these incidents affects all of us and every one these incidents sets the stage for the next one.  

We need an effective, common sense plan.  I would suggest that we need to keep guns away from those who would misuse them.  Remove the opportunity.  Don't have them there.  Ban the military-style weapons.  Register all guns.  Regulate their transfer.  Mandate that the all guns in this state must be securely stored.  Carefully license every gun owner.  Train them in gun safety and check them periodically to make sure they still qualify.  That doesn't repeal the 2nd Amendment.  It just makes it work for everyone.

Secondly, we use, we need to use more mental health professionals in our communities.  To minimize the likelihood of violence.  When we deal with budget time, I challenge my colleagues to join me in putting more money in the budget for mental health facilities rather than cutting the government services that are out there today.

And lastly, I think we need to change our culture and the political dynamic.  Let's stop glorifying violence, guns and those who use them.  All I hear, today, is we need to have these weapons to defend ourselves.  Well, we're not going to be invaded by an army.  The reasonable gun owners that I talk to tell me that they want one gun with one bullet.  They're gonna lock themselves in their bedroom and if that guy comes in, that's when they pull the trigger.  In the meantime, they are calling the police.  

I've been told that by woman after woman after woman.  Who is concerned about the violence that we have today.  And are reasonable gun owners who have licenses.
And who say they not, they don't want further more violence, they just want to protect themselves.  They know enough to retreat, and then if necessary if the police don't get there in time, they then have their protection.  And they're doing that without endangering the rest of the society.

Mr. Speaker, guns are not toys and we gotta to stop treating them like toys.  Guns are made to kill people and assault weapons to kill a lot of people.  So why are we shocked when they're used for their intended purposes?  We allow civilians to arm themselves for war.  Why are we shocked when they act like they're in the middle of a war?  

The answer is not more violence.  The answer is to make sure that we have reasonable gun laws.  The answer is not to arm everyone so the gun manufacturers can make more money and more people die.  The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right to bear arms to kill innocent firefighters, teachers and children.  And that's the message we have to send. 

We are under siege by those who misuse guns.  No one is safe in this country until we get reasonable gun laws.  Lax gun laws are literally killing us.  We need to stop the violence now.

It's been said that a camel is a horse drawn by committee.  Well Mr. Chairman, this legislation was drawn by a big committee.  By a lot of people with a lot of disparate interests.  We did not get a race horse.  We got a camel.  And this camel is carrying us in the right direction.  And it'll bring us to a safer place.  But it's taking us very slowly.  

Some of my colleagues have pointed out some of the defects in this legislation and therefore they say "Do nothing.".  No, I suggest we put in some future legislation. If, if there is a problem, if we are not restricting enough guns because some are still out there, if we're not taking guns away, we're not taking all assault weapons away, well then I challenge my colleagues, join me.  I'll put in legislation that says "None of these guns at all.  Period.".  If that's a problem with this legislation, because those of us that wanted stronger anti-gun violence measures, compromised with those who don't want anything at all and you're saying that's bad?  Well then fine, let's fix it.  I'll be glad to carry that legislation.

But the drafters of this legislation tried to accommodate all interests.  And tried to, to quell the concerns of the 2nd Amendment advocates.  So you ended up with legislation which is not as strong as it could be.  But it's a step forward.  We're going in the right direction and we're sending a message.

You know, I hear over and over again about lawful gun owners.  Who have legally owned guns.  It strikes me, that all guns somewhere along the way, started off as legal and in the hands of a lawful gun owner.  But somehow it ended up the hands of someone who misses uses it.  So enough with the legal gun owners.  I am tired of hearing about legal, lawful gun owners.

Some legal, lawful gun owner allowed her kid to get his hands on her, uh, assault rifle in Connecticut.  And everywhere else, these little kids who are shooting other students, who going in the classrooms with guns, didn't buy these guns themselves.  They got them from lawful gun owners.  Supposedly responsible gun owners.  And every one of these crimes that we're talking about are done with guns that started off legally.  The problem is, we as a government, have not kept them in the hands of lawful people.  We've allowed them get out their, other hands.  

We in Westchester County have a law that says every gun owner has to have every gun safely stored.  So that it cannot be stolen, that it cannot get into the hands of someone with mental problem, it cannot get into the hands of kids.  Why are we not considering that for the entire state?  Why do we have this narrow, narrow exception in here? 

Why?  Because the people who, are supposedly 2nd Amendment believers have blocked us from putting that legislation forward.  That's why.

You know there are some other problems with this, Mr. Speaker as well.  Um, some people interpret the 2nd Amendment, which is, uh, which they claim protects their right to, uh, to uh, to be armed.  They also believes it gives them the right to secrecy.  Uh, a newspaper in Westchester County actually revealed, put on-line, the list of all, the legal gun owners in Westchester County.  And they got excoriated for it!

Because somehow, the mantra of the NRA, that your home is safer if you have a gun and it will deter somebody to come rob your house if they know you have a gun, now all of a sudden that doesn't matter any more!  Now all of a sudden you have a right to secrecy.

What's going on?

What's really going on is people believe, somehow, that the 2nd Amendment is going to protect them from some excess of government out there.  That this government is going to come in and lock them up.  And they need to be armed.

Well Mr. Speaker, I prefer to use the power, not of the 2nd Amendment, but of the 1st Amendment.  I believe freedom of the press and freedom of speech is the true champion and the true protector of democracy.  And to say to the newspapers that they can't publish information that the public wants to know, I think is the true violation of our Constitution.

This bill contains restrictions which I think are intolerable.  But I am going to vote for them because this is a compromise.  I believe the newspapers should be able to list all of the people who have guns.

I would recognize some exceptions for undercover police officers and people like that who have put themselves on the line for our community and who really need to, to be, continue to be undercover.  But I believe this is an infringement of the 1st Amendment.  I prefer to rely on the 1st Amendment.  And the newspaper I believe did us a favor.

Look, what is, how do we know about excessive government?  How do we know that the persons issuing permits is not issuing them (phone rings) to someone who has a mental problem?  Who is someone who should not have a gun.  The only way we, we can control government is to know what it is doing.  And now we're going to have this process which, which makes gun permits secret.

First and secondly, allowing public information enlists the public in the enforcement of the statutes.  I'll will tell you right now, I looked at that database that the Journal News published in Westchester County.  And I identified inaccuracies in the database.  People who have moved still have guns registered at their old address.  That is, the public now, can say to, to the officer who is licensing, you better send out a police officer and check that out.

You know, we passed a law in Westchester Country that requires recertification.  We did back in 1995, 97.  And the purpose of it was, so that the end of five years or any time in between, a police officer could go out and make sure the gun is there. And I'm not going to suggest to you that this recertification process is perfect.  Cause it's not.  But we had a situation in Westchester County, where if it had been done properly by the police department, it would have saved some lives.

We had a, a gentleman who is a lawful gun owner.  Had his license, right up to the date he left the state of New York.  And left the gun behind in the closet.  Where it was found by the next person who sold it.  It ended up being the weapon that killed somebody.  The police, when they found out that this gentleman did not renew his license at the end of five years, went looking for him.  And instead of tracing him to Florida and asking "Do you still have your gun?", they said "Case closed.".

Well, this law is going to, we're passing now is going to rely on the police department and individual citizens, to make sure, that those who lawfully have guns, follow and do, and perform not just their rights but their responsibilities as well.  Guns are dangerous and innocent people suffer when they're misused.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of this legislation, um, hopefully this will bring us forward to a little bit of a better place.  I think there's still a lot more that needs to be done.  Those of us who want to stop gun violence are going to continue the efforts to move forward.  But I urge an affirmative vote because I think this a very good piece of legislation, and deserves the support of this legislature. 

Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Abinanti.

End Transcript

I would like to apologize to anyone who cares about gun ownership who read this and/or watched that.  Some of the contempt that I sense from Mr. Abinanti here is palpable. Remember, he is an elected representative.

I am very thankful to carver6666 on YouTube for uploading these videos!  They provide a rare window into legislative process and debates I think more people should witness and listen to.  If you're not upset by some of the things you hear in these conversations, regardless of what side you are on, you're not paying enough attention.  There is enough in these videos to anger anyone who values and cares about their individual freedom.

I promise the acid taste you may feel in the back of your throat will be dealt with.  The next series of videos will be from the Honorable Steven J. McLaughlin.  This is a man after my own heart and whom should be held as role model for gun rights representation in any legislature in the country.


Transcripts from Tyrants #2: Thomas J. Abinanti - Wants Gun Owners Names Published

This is second in a series of posts documenting the "debate" that occurred over the passage of the BY SAFE act.  This video is from the Honorable Thomas J. Abinanti, one of the SAFE act supporters.  In it, he describes his views on gun owner privacy and completely misses the point, in my opinion.

Video #2: Thomas J. Abinanti, Westchester County, NY

Begin Transcript:

You know there are some other problems with this, Mr. Speaker as well.  Um, some people interpret the 2nd Amendment, which is, uh, which they claim protects their right to, uh, to uh, to be armed.  They also believes it gives them the right to secrecy.  Uh, a newspaper in Westchester County actually revealed, put on-line, the list of all, the legal gun owners in Westchester County.  And they got excoriated for it!

Because somehow, the mantra of the NRA, that your home is safer if you have a gun and it will deter somebody to come rob your house if they know you have a gun, now all of a sudden that doesn't matter any more!  Now all of a sudden you have a right to secrecy.

What's going on?

What's really going on is people believe, somehow, that the 2nd Amendment is going to protect them from some excess of government out there.  That this government is going to come in and lock them up.  And they need to be armed.

Well Mr. Speaker, I prefer to use the power, not of the 2nd Amendment, but of the 1st Amendment.  I believe freedom of the press and freedom of speech is the true champion and the true protector of democracy.  And to say to the newspapers that they can't publish information that the public wants to know, I think is the true violation of our Constitution.

This bill contains restrictions which I think are intolerable.  But I am going to vote for it because this is a compromise.  I believe the newspapers should be able to list all of the people who have guns.

End Transcript.

Mr. Abinanti feels it is "intolerable" (his word) to not allow the press complete freedom to paint scarlet letters, metaphorically speaking, on gun owners and out them like some type of shameful deviants.  I wonder if his desired provisions would include exceptions for law enforcement, judges and important people or would be lump them in with women who have orders of protection from stalkers and abusers, people under threat of death for testifying or victimized women trying to hide from their rapists?

It is apparent in my listening to his voice that he considers gun owners equal to any criminal who needs to be registered and tracked and for their neighbors to know what type of person lives next door.

Was this the representation you voted for, Westchester County?


Asking For It

Newtown didn't change anything in the way that many people think.  This despite the fact I still sit up and try to understand why this person did what he did and cannot.  I literally cannot comprehend the destruction of thought process and collapse of our deepest instincts against harming children and innocents that lead to that event.

The changes Newtown has wrought is to heighten the contrast between those who feel guns are evil and those who feel gun ownership outweighs that evil.  This is a process that will resolve itself.  Even if to do nothing more than return to an uneasy balance of the two sides glaring at each other and spoiling for a fight.

The culture war being waged right now has many parallels with the Temperance Movement that led to Prohibition in the 1920s.  Society needed to blame "the demon rum" for the ills they were observing.  After a decade of that era's equivalent of the Drug War and its striking parallels to today with a thriving black market, use of violence to settle disputes, widespread turf wars over liquor bootlegging and near limitless money and lastly widespread civil disobedience, the harms of this policy were recognized by society-at-large and the Will of the People was exercised again.

The fact we have a magnificent historical case study in how trying to implement such controls in the belief that if we simply ban the thing, whether by law or by Constitutional amendment, that the problems was caused by the thing will disappear being ignored is amazing.  If you truly believe that banning guns will cause gun violence, or any violence for that matter, to end, well, I have a one-horned horse I'd like to sell you.

Before I owned a gun, I had no real opinion on them.  They were a distant and unknown thing.  I knew they existed but never knew anyone, at least openly, who owned one and I knew nothing about them.  It was only later when I decided to buy one did the blinders lift and did a new culture appear before me.

Many of those who emote against guns refuse to see that culture.  To them, those who would own a gun are deviant in some way.  They must be!  Newtown is proof of that deviancy.   "Look at the evil that guns have wrought!  Children were killed!".  Not by an evil man.  No, by a gun.  Like it walked in there all by itself.

Even those confronted with the question of without guns, "How would a woman defend herself against a man holding a knife to her throat while he was unzipping his pants?", usually gets no response or a blank stare.  Or some lame platitude of "She should call 911 and the Police will come to stop it.".  I can only shake my head in disgusted wonderment. 

Calling 911 worked well in Newtown, didn't it?

Newtown did change things.  For a generation that were children leading up to 1994, this feels like a new thing without realizing they are treading well-marked paths.  So they can't understand why people can't go along with their "common sense approaches" and are shocked at the resistance. For those that have been around longer, this is either an opportunity to be exploited or yet another battle to be fought.  And only one side can "win".

Newtown changed things because it is highlighting the cultural divide over guns vs. no guns.  In many ways I find the highlighting of this event the worst sort of base manipulation.  There are other shootings in the country.  Children do die in them.  But they are the wrong socio-economic type, in the wrong place and often, the wrong shade to be photogenic on the news.  I would ask how some of these people in the media can look themselves in the mirror but I realize it would require them to actually poke their heads above the surface of their cesspool to take a peek.  When you're lower than slime, seeing it drip from your head is too much of a reminder of how empty moral bankruptcy can make you.

Will Newtown change this country?  I think it will but in an uneasy way.  It is merely the latest turn of the knob on the fire that is causing this culture war to simmer and heat up.  I'm worried about it boiling over into open violence.  Not in the insurrection sense but in the continuing breaking of bonds.  At what point does emotion and belief cause someone to turn from their friends or neighbors of years solely over this divide?  To begin to truly enclave ourselves based on belief and ideology.  To draw red, blue and purple lines on a map and start a process making these enclaves real from a legal and contract perspective. 

How long before we see private corporations and enhanced HOAs that require a code of conduct that includes bans on gun ownership, submission to the group belief system and enforcement of same?  Admittedly, some have already tried but so far it remains unenforceable thanks to our Constitutional system.  As our freedoms and rights to do what we want gets weaker and weaker, how long before that weakness in individual freedom translates to strength in the collective to suppress us further?

How long before instead of burning crosses on lawns we get burning schoolhouses symbolizing "one of the hated ones lives here, an evil gun owner"?  The publishing of the gun permit list in New York is a symptom of this process.  A formalized process of bigotry, hatred and dehumanization under the guise of "the public's right to know".  No different than a sex offender registry.  At least those in the sex offender registry did something legally and morally wrong to get there.  I didn't.

Unless I was asking for it.  Wait, we were talking about guns, correct?


Sunday, January 20, 2013

Transcripts from Tyrants #1: Thomas J. Abinanti - I am Tired of Legal Lawful Gun Owners

I have stumbled across a series of videos from the New York State assembly from the debates on the "emergency" passage of their new gun control law.  A law that others hope will be emulated to disarm myself and others as too dangerous to remain so in society.

In these videos we get a rare glimpse of both how those opposed to gun rights and ownership view those who value and those who defend the rights of those to own guns for lawful purposes. 

Having watched these videos and both been inspired and felt like retching at the contempt some of these people exude, I have decided to transcribe all of these videos.  It is one positive thing I can do to let others see and read the words of those who both hate gun owners and those who try to look after them.

I will try to do one or two a day for the next several days.

Let us start with the Honorable Thomas J. Abinanti of Westchester County, NY.

Video #1: I am Tired of Legal Lawful Gun Owners

Begin Transcript:

You know, I hear over and over again about lawful gun owners.  Who have legally owned guns.  It strikes me, that all guns somewhere along the way, started off as legal and in the hands of a lawful gun owner.  But somehow it ended up the hands of someone who misses uses it.  So enough with the legal gun owners.  I am tired of hearing about legal, lawful gun owners.

End transcript.

This is an excerpt from a larger speech he gave.


Ephemeral Thought #3

"Random Thought" is too generic.  My thoughts come and go, fleeting like shooting stars unless I write them down.

A friend of mine pointed this out to me...

If they ban 30 round magazines for the AR-15, why not just relabel them 'For 458 SOCOM Only"?  At the proposed 10 round limit, the 30 round .223 magazine is a 10 round .458 SOCOM magazine.  By design and intention.

Doesn't that hold to the letter of the law?  One of the unintended consequences of magazine capacity limits.  As limits fall, caliber increases.  If you are limited to less, you want each round to mean more.  

Unless you got caught loading something other than .458 SOCOM into the magazine, they still would be legal to sell provided they had the right label.  Bet those who want my AR-15 haven't thought of that.

Unfortunately, my shoulder has thought of it.  I don't think I could handle a .458.


Friday, January 18, 2013

Random Thought #2

Things that just come to me out of the blue.  I'll expand on this later but for now, think about this:

Punishing gun owners for the acts of criminals is like banning people from owning condoms because rapists prefer to use them.


The ABC's of Mass Shootings

I want to finish out my first week of successful blogging with a little observation I've heard and thought about.

All mass shootings have an "ABC" element to them.  The ABCs are:

Armed Resistance.  Every mass shooting ends when armed resistance of any sort, either police or private individual, interrupts the shooter's plans.  When such arrives, they invariably off themselves.  Loughner was the exception, not the rule.
Banned Guns.  All mass shooting with Giffords being the only notable exception over the years have all occurred in places where guns are banned by law (Gun Free School Zones Act) or by private declaration (private businesses posting a "No Guns Allowed" sign). 
Crazy in the Head.  Without exception, all of these shooters had some mental issues that caused them to snap and take it out on innocents.  Every.  Single.  One.  Whether undiagnosed schizophrenia, bullied loner pushed to act, the Voices of the Prophecy making them do it and so on.

So remember your ABC's when it comes to mass shootings.  Hopefully someday we'll never have to start singing the alphabet because the crazy will never get past "A" before the killing or maiming starts.

I'm enjoying this.  I've had good feelings doing this, saying things and writing about them when they come to me.

May your weekend be happy and pleasant!


Thursday, January 17, 2013

Open Mike Night in New York

It seems Governor Cuomo, in his zeal to shove New York residents further down the road to government serfdom, forgot to put an exemption in the new law for police.  So as it stands, police officers are being held to the same standard as the laws that were imposed on the citizenry-at-large.

That pleases me.  I think it a wonderful expression of Peel's Principle #7: "Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.".

In my world, if it is good enough for us, it is good enough for them. 

 What is telling is the gem of a quote:
State Senator Eric Adams, a former NYPD Captain, told us he's going to push for an amendment next week to exempt police officers from the high-capacity magazine ban. In his words, "You can't give more ammo to the criminals"

I find myself wonder which criminals he was referring to?  The citizens they just criminalized?  Is it me or is this also a tacit acknowledgement that gun control doesn't work against, gasp, those who don't obey the law?

I think we need more "open mike nights" in legislative chambers across the country.  We'd get a clear picture about how those who are supposed to represent us really feel about us.

Courtesy of "Shall Not Be Questioned".  A blogger I really enjoy.


The "N" Word


We've been hearing a lot of that word lately.  Especially from the "British Blowhard" Piers Morgan.

He keeps asking "Why does anyone need an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine?!?".

We are so far apart on this issue he'll never understand it.  Maybe I feel I need a 30 round magazine for my AR-15 because I live in a not-so-nice neighborhood, can't afford to move and the possibility exists that a few guys might want to come into my small domicile late at night and each take a turn with me.

I'll bet there are a lot of women in India right now wishing for a community AR-15 in a glass case at the back of the bus with a loaded 30 round magazine.  I dare say such a thing would put quite the dent, in a manner of speaking, in recent trend of free-for-all gang rape that's been all the rage there lately.

A woman defended herself and her children with six shots, missed one (a better average than the police) and the guy still walked away and lived.  God help her if he had brought a friend along.

There are no fines or penalties for having rounds left in the magazine, Piers.  It doesn't matter whether you think I "need" it or not.  The last time someone "needed" something from me, they got it and didn't think much of how I felt about it at the time.

Never again. 

The next time, it'll be a smoking gun in my hand and the officers that arrive are free to count the rounds remaining.  Last time I checked, I don't get fined for having ammunition left over from a firefight.

The worst sound in the world at that moment is "click" instead of "BANG!".  Or would you prefer that a woman be found with an empty gun with a liberal-approved capacity of 10 or less (and trending downward rapidly as 10 is merely a stepping stone to a preferred value or one or none) in her cold, dead hand, panties at her ankles and strangled with her bra?

At least then you can say she was doing her part for the good of society in not being allowed the scourge of an AR-15 with a 10+ round magazine or a scary "high capacity" Glock.  She might have committed mass murder.

Piers, did you ever stop to think about your position?  If "need" is the basis for all decision-making, what are you doing here?  Do you "need" to be on CNN, a foreign national, telling another country how to live?  Do you need a nice house or car or yacht or whatever it is makes you happy?  I'm sure you have interests or hobbies.  But you don't "need" them?  What if I disapprove and begin a campaign against you? 

There are those would have given anything, anything, to have had something in their darkest moments.  I understand that need deeply and clearly.  It makes their personal need no less important than your view of the societal one.  Society merely reflects the values of the individuals.  And unlike your homeland, ours at least recognizes some needs and values lie beyond the reach of fickle, wantonly destructive and irrational emotion.  As shocking as it sounds, we do try to place the individual higher than the group. 

Given some of your interviews lately, I think you can fully appreciate the irrational nature of emotion.  Emotion only carries you so far.  And interrupting someone every second word with your machine-gun, rapid-fire browbeating as they're trying to simply answer you is not the way you engage in civil discourse.  I think perhaps you need to look at a 30 words per minute or less speech limit in order to actually have a conversation.  The dangers of rapid-fire, diatribe-laden, one-sided invective cannot be overstated.

I, and others like me, don't need to justify our choices to you.  How dare you demand an answer from us?  We don't owe you one.  This is America.  Land of the (Mostly) Free.  Free to choose whether or not to do or own something.  Not ask "Mother May I?" to our Queen, bowing and scraping at her feet for permission.  It's a philosophical divide that I can't explain to you.  You have to figure it out for yourself.

If the prospect of us owning an AR-15 terrifies you so, there are boats and planes that head back in the direction you came from.  A place that limits guns to sensible, sane, civilized values.  A place where violent crime is soaring.  Sure, they don't use guns but knives and fists do wonders too.  I'm sure you're glad to know people don't die and suffer at the hands of guns back in the UK.  After all, without gun violence, who "needs" a gun to protect themselves from other forms of violence?  I'm sure the woman about to have her sari torn off or her panties sliced off to satisfy the "need" of another against her wishes will feel better at such enlightened attitudes.

I need to throw up.


Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Arrested at Maryland Gun Show for Selling Illegal Magazine

Seems a couple of fellows at the Timonium gun show (outside Baltimore, MD) got caught passing off 30 round magazines as legal to sell by labelling them as 20 round magazines.  Another version here.

In Maryland, it is illegal to sell, transfer, manufacture, offer for sale, purchase or receive a detachable magazine with a capacity greater than 20 rounds of ammuniton for a firearm. (Source).

So the good....

The law worked.  Two people violated and were caught.  They tell us we need to be aware of the law and these two were apparently wilfully violating it.

It goes to show how much law enforcement presence there is at a gun show and how stupid it is to try and violate the law at one.  So much for the anti-gun people's view that gun shows are wild free-for-alls arms bazaars.

And the bad...

A person may have knowingly or unknowingly just got himself into a world of trouble.  If he didn't know it was illegal for him to buy a 30 round magazine in Maryland, I feel bad for him.

Anti-gunners will use this as proof more, stronger laws are needed and point out how criminal gun owners are for the "wink and nod" to acquire "child-killer high-capacity magazines" as proof they need to be banned.


V for Vendetta

V for Vendetta was a movie, not a documentary.  I don't want today to be seen as our St. Mary's.


Tuesday, January 15, 2013

I Don't Know What You Call It But That Wasn't Democracy

Today was a pretty dark day for New York gun owners.  It seems they decided that "something had to be done" to prevent another Newtown.  After much debate and thought, they weighed the options, evaluated the impacts and passed a carefully considered law that balanced the rights of the law-abiding to minimize the possibility of another tragedy.

Oh wait...

How foolish of me to be that stupid!

So let me see if I have this straight?

  1. A bunch of lawmakers hold an emergency session in the dead of night.
  2. They negotiate a bill behind closed doors with no input or warning to the outside they were doing it.
  3. Once having crafted said bill, they convene in the dead of night to vote and pass it without any notice of hearing, publishing of proposed content or comment by those who put them in that chamber in the first place: their constituents.
  4. Only in the morning after all this is done does it go to the House chamber where the process is repeated with the sun barely to its zenith.  
  5. Law is passed and lawmakers celebrate their success.


If this is what passes for democracy, direct or the Constitutional republic type, what exactly is the point of elections?  To select who will be our landed gentry and nobleman who us serfs will be grateful for any opportunity they give us and beg them to not punish us any more than they feel we deserve?

For the first time in my life, I am truly terrified for the future of my home and country.  We just witnessed the form that American tyranny will take.  Once the election is over, assume carte blanche and do whatever you want.  We may not have King George but we have his modern equivalent: elected representative who see themselves as the anointed ones and shall rule us with the power they see fit.

Is there any redress for our grievance at this utter lack of representation?
Is there any way to reverse this sham of democracy?
Whether one tyrant or dozens, it makes no difference, the People were not heard nor their input desired or wanted.  We were rendered meaningless.  Tallies on a vote count, to then be discarded and ignored.
Is there any way to stop this from happening elsewhere?  You don't think other states aren't thinking about simply doing the same thing?

Albany was the Stamp Act of the 21st Century.  What will be its Lexington and Concord?


Random Thought

I wonder if January 15, 2013 will be traced by history as the day the United States began to come apart and the lead in to the Second Civil War or disintegration of the Republic?

It is much better to read about world-shaping history than to bear witness to it.


Monday, January 14, 2013


Hello everyone!

My name is D.K. Winter.  Welcome to my new blog.

I am starting this to talk about my interests and me.  Some of the things I will reveal for now are:

  • I am a gun owner and care about my rights.
  • I am a shy person and this is a new experience for me.
  • I have had enough with being pushed around by those who don't agree with me and want to impose their value systems on me.
This is my way of contributing my small voice against those who would put me down.  It is a big step for me.  I hope you will read, appreciate and comment constructively on anything you feel is important.  If not, I understand.  It is my catharsis to express how I feel.  I'm not the most outgoing person in the world.

With that said, here is what I am thinking about right now...

 On Piers Morgan And Others Like Him

What Piers Morgan and others like him don't understand is Americans don't ask permission from their government to exercise their freedom and rights.  The American government needs to ask my permission if it is ok to limit my freedom and rights and we get to say "No!". 

It's not our fault this import Brit, who doesn't even appreciate his good fortune to be on these shores, can't understand this.  He is so used to the Government being the default authority in all things that he can't comprehend questioning it when they want to do something "reasonable" or decide that citizens don't "need" something for their own good.

And it shows.  Look how childish he acts in his arguing with those who disagree with him.  He's simply acting the way his society has taught him those in supposed power are supposed to act.  What he fail to comprehend here is government power is at the behest and Will of the People and turning the greatest threat a politician anywhere can face: being an EX-politician, is alive and well in this country.

So when he cries for bans and "reasonable gun control" in an attempt to control the narrative, he is showing his ignorance of where the narrative leads.  Our politicians know.  More than a few have cleaned out offices after elections for their failure to pay attention.

Get used to it, Piers.  I support your right to spout off using the First Amendment to defecate on the Second.  But don't be surprised when we use the First Amendment along with the Fifteenth, Nineteenh and Twenty-Sixth to remind you and the government who really runs the show here.

It isn't you and your ilk.

Something to think about.