Archive for April, 2007

Where’s the blood?

Posted in The Most Fundamental Right on April 30, 2007 by Darkman

Every time a new state was considering the passage of a concealed carry law, what did we hear?

The blood will run in the streets!

Every time a new state has passed so-called “stand your ground” laws that protect those who use lawful lethal self defense, what have we heard?

The blood will run in the streets!

Now victimization apologist Dan Simpson suggests:

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for “carrying.”

Our favorite quote is conspicuous by its absence.

Those who would deprive us of our right to use justified lethal self defense–against criminals both civilian and government–seem to believe that simply carrying a gun against the possibility of being forced to use it in self defense, will cause “blood to run in the streets.”

And yet they seem, by their silence, to believe that mass confiscation of said guns will not “cause blood to run in the streets.”

Mr. Simpson, I sincerely fear that if your suggestion came to pass, blood would indeed run in the streets.

I fear this, deeply.


Simple Truth, Ugly Fact

Posted in Getting It Straight on April 29, 2007 by Darkman


Simple truth, ugly fact.  By Oleg Volk.

Enemies of Liberty: H.R. 1022

Posted in Amerika, The Most Fundamental Right on April 29, 2007 by Darkman

House Bill 1022, introduced by Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York (who cares which party–there’s no difference), is an assault against the Constitution and our liberty.

There has already been lots of writing on this in the blogosphere. Here’s just a bad taste:

(i) is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years; or’.

That’s enough for now.

“Assault weapon” is an arbitrary and meaningless term. It means whatever they want it to mean.

“Assault rifle” has a technical definition: It is a rifle that fires a cartridge intermediate in power between a pistol cartridge and full battle rifle cartridge. It must be capable of selective fire, that is, it must be capable of either semi-automatic or full automatic operation.

“Assault weapon” is whatever is used to assault someone, be it a gun, a baseball bat, a knife, a table lamp, or a frozen leg of lamb.

H.R. 1022 would allow banning of all semi-automatic firearms. This means your favorite defensive handgun as well as your favorite target/plinking .22 rifle.

There are no “common-sense gun laws.” There is only abrogation and freedom.

The following are co-sponsors of H.R. 1022 and are therefore enemies of liberty.

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI]
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY]
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA]
Rep Capps, Lois [CA]
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO]
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY]
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO]
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA]
Rep Emanuel, Rahm [IL]
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA]
Rep Farr, Sam [CA]
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA]
Rep Filner, Bob [CA]
Rep Frank, Barney [MA]
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ]
Rep Harman, Jane [CA]
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI]
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ]
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX]
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI]
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA]
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY]
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY]
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA]
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA]
Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA]
Rep Miller, Brad [NC]
Rep Moran, James P. [VA]
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ]
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ]
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL]
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA]
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA]
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY]
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA]
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD]
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL]
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA]
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA]
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL]
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA]

What’s the point in posting this list? Because every small voice speaking in the darkness makes the shiny happy lunatics shine just a little brighter.


No, you do not have this all straight

Posted in Getting It Straight on April 29, 2007 by Darkman

A Voice of Reason has an uninformed view, actually:

So let’s see if I have this all straight.

1. [Name redacted because I refuse to print it–Darkman], the mad gunman of VT, had an e-bay account.

2. He used this account to bypass federal and state background check regulations.

3. The good folks at e-Bay had no obligation to assure that the gun supplies listed on the e-Bay website did not get sold to the wrong people.

The good folks at eBay are well known for their anti-gun bias. They have decided how many cartridges a magazine is allowed to hold, and they have decided it is ten. This is regardless of state and federal laws that no longer impose such an artificial and arbitrary restriction.

The VT mass murderer purchased magazines via eBay. Magazines are not subject to any background checks, not by any existing state or federal laws.

He did not purchase any ammunition. He purchased a couple of magazines, which, by the way, were standard 10-round magazines, since they are the only kind in existence for the Walther P-22.


If it floats like a duck, it must be a witch

Posted in The Most Fundamental Right on April 29, 2007 by Darkman

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, not being content with taking away your second amendment rights for shouting at your spouse, now wants to take away those rights if you’re a suspect:

Last night, U.S. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced legislation to prohibit terrorist suspects from purchasing firearms, mirroring an Administration plan released yesterday. The bill seeks to close the “terror gap” in federal gun law by giving the Attorney General the power to block gun sales to terror suspects. Under current federal gun law, there is no provision to deny suspected terrorists from purchasing a firearm.”It took years, but the Administration finally realized that letting terrorists buy guns is dangerous. This ‘terror gap’ in our gun laws has been open too long and I am going to shut it down,” said Sen. Lautenberg.

Under the federal Brady Act, a licensed firearms dealer must request a background check through the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) before an unlicensed individual may purchase a weapon. However, even if a NICS check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist, nothing in current law prevents that person from purchasing a gun unless he or she meets one of the other disqualifying factors, including felony or domestic abuse convictions.

And here we go again. Who gets to decide? How long until the otherwise legal attempted purchase of a firearm places you on the suspect list?

Credit: Armed and Safe


Desire for a gun is the first sign of mental instability

Posted in The Most Fundamental Right on April 29, 2007 by Darkman

That’s what they’ll have you think.

The NRA says:

The National Rifle Association has always supported including the records of individuals adjudicated mentally defective into the National Instant Background Check System. We believe that the NICS should serve the intent of Congress, which is to prohibit the legal sale of firearms to criminals and other prohibited persons, such as adjudicated mental defectives. However, we must not forget that the NICS also serves the purpose of clearing firearm purchases by law-abiding Americans. Too often, the system has been abused and has not delivered on the promise of a fair and instant check.

So the NRA has always supported a system that they know “has been abused and has not delivered on the promise of a fair and instant check.

But back to “adjudicated mental defectives.” Who gets to decide? A doctor who has decided that “gun violence” is a “disease,” or that your desire to defend yourself is a sign of paranoia? An elitist judge or legislator who doesn’t want the common rabble to defend themselves?

Who gets to decide? Who do you trust to decide if you’re competent enough to defend yourself?

Credit: The War On Guns


Bringing it forth…

Posted in Blogging on April 29, 2007 by Darkman

“If you bring forth what is within you,
what you bring forth will save you.
If you do not bring forth what is within you,
what you do not bring forth will destroy you.”