Two anti-hunting screeds on Yahoo this morning. The first one has the tired old tactic of it being lead bullets fault for the California Condor:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070818/ap_on_sc/brf_condor_dead
The pertinant bit:
"Researchers believe the condor, North America's largest flying bird, may have ingested lead paint or soil contaminated with lead bullet fragments."
So look forward to more laws in CA trying to be passed banning hunting, ammunition, et al based off of this.
The next is even funnier:
Deer hunting is bad for your heart:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070817/hl_nm/deer_risk_dc
So strenuous activity with a heart condition or being "Sedentary" may not be the best idea. Why did they choose hunting? Why not, say, building a deck? Oh, right. Nevermind.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
My life rated as a quiz...
| This Is My Life, Rated | |
| Life: |  7.3 |
| Mind: | 6.6 |
| Body: |  7.6 |
| Spirit: |  4.8 |
| Friends/Family: |  6.4 |
| Love: | 7.5 |
| Finance: | 7.9 |
| Take the Rate My Life Quiz | |
It'll do.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
The PSH continues.
Nancyrob over at "Where did the gun come from?" continues to "moderate" comments that completely shred thier arguments. The recent post is remarking on the recent Newark shootings. What she completely neglects to mention is that the scum was out on bail for assault and child rape as well as being an illegal immigrant in a sanctuary city.
I ask why the judiciary failed to keep this violent criminal locked up and how many more they released. I'm sure my post won't make it through the censoring that is becoming the trademark of hoplophobe blogs. It's much easier to blame guns than it is to point out the failings of the courts, police, and sub-cultures that encourage violence.
She says that she's only targetting "crime guns". What this translates to is the traditional method of using trace data to locate high volume firearm dealers and sue them out of existance. It translates to making mandatory "safe storage" laws that require people to keep their firearms locked up at all times (hence removing any ability at self-defense), invalidate your 4A rights by allowing police to inspect your home w/o a warrant, and make you liable for the actions of criminals.
She doesn't want to hear about safety education like Eddie Eagle , about training and properly equipping police, or about prosecuting criminals instead of letting them plea bargain or jump bail. She would rather link to the VPC who use blatant lies as part of their standard policy.
Nancyrob, if you read this, here is a direct quote from the VPC:
"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."
The Brady Campaign continue to mislead the public by making false claims about the Tiahrt amendment. Your own posters have stated that police can't share data. This is false. The BATFE cannot release data except for legitimate invesitgations and not any for civil lawsuits. They have supported this legislation since the Clinton Administration and continue to do so today.
Should the BATFE locate and prosecute dealers who knowingly sell to straw purchasers? Yes they should. Instead they are pursuing a campaign to shut down dealers who put "N" instead of "No" on paperwork. They spend millions on interior decorating. They harass women and minorities at gun shows. They make up definitions of firearms to arrest people who have never had a history of crime. That's not going after the bad guys, that's abusing their authority.
Should straw purchasers be arrested and prosecuted? Yes. Instead local judiciaries let criminals out on bail to commit more crimes or jump. They let them plea bargain to lesser offenses for the easy conviction allowing them to continue their trade. They release violent, repeat offenders out on parole to stalk and slay even more people just to spend a little more time in jail. Maybe.
Nothing you have mentioned will have any effect on crime. You keep attacking the "gun lobby" as catering to criminals yet you haven't presented any evidence to support that hypothesis. Only the usual meme's about how "ebil" it is.
I ask why the judiciary failed to keep this violent criminal locked up and how many more they released. I'm sure my post won't make it through the censoring that is becoming the trademark of hoplophobe blogs. It's much easier to blame guns than it is to point out the failings of the courts, police, and sub-cultures that encourage violence.
She says that she's only targetting "crime guns". What this translates to is the traditional method of using trace data to locate high volume firearm dealers and sue them out of existance. It translates to making mandatory "safe storage" laws that require people to keep their firearms locked up at all times (hence removing any ability at self-defense), invalidate your 4A rights by allowing police to inspect your home w/o a warrant, and make you liable for the actions of criminals.
She doesn't want to hear about safety education like Eddie Eagle , about training and properly equipping police, or about prosecuting criminals instead of letting them plea bargain or jump bail. She would rather link to the VPC who use blatant lies as part of their standard policy.
Nancyrob, if you read this, here is a direct quote from the VPC:
"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."
The Brady Campaign continue to mislead the public by making false claims about the Tiahrt amendment. Your own posters have stated that police can't share data. This is false. The BATFE cannot release data except for legitimate invesitgations and not any for civil lawsuits. They have supported this legislation since the Clinton Administration and continue to do so today.
Should the BATFE locate and prosecute dealers who knowingly sell to straw purchasers? Yes they should. Instead they are pursuing a campaign to shut down dealers who put "N" instead of "No" on paperwork. They spend millions on interior decorating. They harass women and minorities at gun shows. They make up definitions of firearms to arrest people who have never had a history of crime. That's not going after the bad guys, that's abusing their authority.
Should straw purchasers be arrested and prosecuted? Yes. Instead local judiciaries let criminals out on bail to commit more crimes or jump. They let them plea bargain to lesser offenses for the easy conviction allowing them to continue their trade. They release violent, repeat offenders out on parole to stalk and slay even more people just to spend a little more time in jail. Maybe.
Nothing you have mentioned will have any effect on crime. You keep attacking the "gun lobby" as catering to criminals yet you haven't presented any evidence to support that hypothesis. Only the usual meme's about how "ebil" it is.
Resitance Vs non-resistance
There's little more that I could say to Dr Helen's post comparing these two beauty salon robberies:
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2007/08/non-resistance-in-face-of-violence-is.html
but I will anyway. :)
One group of ladies gets severely beaten after following the advice of "give them what they want", a meme pushed by various police and the Brady Campaign heavily during the crime ridden eighties. Another group of ladies, already at risk while being robbed, take control of the situation and beat the living snot out of the guy trying to rob them. Some police still discourage these actions because they "may get hurt". Hate to tell them, the only thing non-resistance encourages is more crime.
Let's look at the mindset of the criminal. By definition, these are not the most moral or socially endearing individuals. They are going to go after the easy targets. A "challenge" is not what the average criminal is looking for. I'm sure they laugh their asses off and cheer any time they see some officer or other authority telling people to jump up and down or not to resist at all . That's exactly what they want. It worked so well for so many years, didn't it? Now, after a while, just like anything else, this gets boring. Their street cred doesn't get very high just robbing people who don't resist and, once again, these aren't the most moral individuals. Passivity breeds contempt. They're going to start hurting people just out of spite, just like the scum who slash up a nice car after breaking into it to steal the radio. They don't want anyone else to have anything nice or be happy. They get a kick out of knowing someone will be afraid of them and looking over their shoulders all the time.
The logic behind "non-resistance" is that we are supposed to trust a person who has already shown they cannot live w/i the basic tenets of society (ie not stealing) to NOT HURT US OR OUR FAMILY. Does that make any sense?
Returning to the original two cases, which of the criminals do you think will be more likely to hit another beauty salon, the one who spends (most likely) some more time in jail or the one who spends some more time in jail after getting out of the hospital?
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2007/08/non-resistance-in-face-of-violence-is.html
but I will anyway. :)
One group of ladies gets severely beaten after following the advice of "give them what they want", a meme pushed by various police and the Brady Campaign heavily during the crime ridden eighties. Another group of ladies, already at risk while being robbed, take control of the situation and beat the living snot out of the guy trying to rob them. Some police still discourage these actions because they "may get hurt". Hate to tell them, the only thing non-resistance encourages is more crime.
Let's look at the mindset of the criminal. By definition, these are not the most moral or socially endearing individuals. They are going to go after the easy targets. A "challenge" is not what the average criminal is looking for. I'm sure they laugh their asses off and cheer any time they see some officer or other authority telling people to jump up and down or not to resist at all . That's exactly what they want. It worked so well for so many years, didn't it? Now, after a while, just like anything else, this gets boring. Their street cred doesn't get very high just robbing people who don't resist and, once again, these aren't the most moral individuals. Passivity breeds contempt. They're going to start hurting people just out of spite, just like the scum who slash up a nice car after breaking into it to steal the radio. They don't want anyone else to have anything nice or be happy. They get a kick out of knowing someone will be afraid of them and looking over their shoulders all the time.
The logic behind "non-resistance" is that we are supposed to trust a person who has already shown they cannot live w/i the basic tenets of society (ie not stealing) to NOT HURT US OR OUR FAMILY. Does that make any sense?
Returning to the original two cases, which of the criminals do you think will be more likely to hit another beauty salon, the one who spends (most likely) some more time in jail or the one who spends some more time in jail after getting out of the hospital?
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
About what we expected from the lawsuits
According to the VCDL , one of the shops sued by Hizzoner Bloomburg has shut its doors and its inventory being sold online.
http://www.inrich.com/content/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-08-14-0116.html
A spokesperson for Hizzoner gave the usual bull story that it wasn't their intention to shut down stores:
"It is not our intent at all to push people out of business," he said. "The goal of the settlements is compliance with the law."
Which is why they couldn't do anything in criminal court and had to go to civil court to do anything. Which is why they fought so hard to keep their discoveries private from the BATFE. Disingenuous to the end.
Was the shop boycotted by the VCDL? Yes, because they refused assistance and then settled. I feel as much sympathy for Cole's as I did for S&W when they cut a deal w/ the Clinton Administration
http://www.inrich.com/content/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-08-14-0116.html
A spokesperson for Hizzoner gave the usual bull story that it wasn't their intention to shut down stores:
"It is not our intent at all to push people out of business," he said. "The goal of the settlements is compliance with the law."
Which is why they couldn't do anything in criminal court and had to go to civil court to do anything. Which is why they fought so hard to keep their discoveries private from the BATFE. Disingenuous to the end.
Was the shop boycotted by the VCDL? Yes, because they refused assistance and then settled. I feel as much sympathy for Cole's as I did for S&W when they cut a deal w/ the Clinton Administration
Clayton on HR 2640
HR 2640
I tend to get paranoid w/ any new "gun law" but I agree w/ many that people seem to be taking this to the extreme. Could this law present future problems? Yes. Is the present situation of individuals like Cho presenting problems that the Anti's are using as ammo against us? Yes.
NOT passing this will hurt us more than supporting it. The whole area of debate has to many meme's and talking points that could be used in articles and reports that sound "reasonable" to the average member of the public. While the VPC is effectively neutralized except for the hardcore fanatics, the BC can still tone down the rhetoric enough to make us seem the bad guys in this situation.
I'm planning on keeping an eye on this bill but I'm leaning in the direction of support.
I tend to get paranoid w/ any new "gun law" but I agree w/ many that people seem to be taking this to the extreme. Could this law present future problems? Yes. Is the present situation of individuals like Cho presenting problems that the Anti's are using as ammo against us? Yes.
NOT passing this will hurt us more than supporting it. The whole area of debate has to many meme's and talking points that could be used in articles and reports that sound "reasonable" to the average member of the public. While the VPC is effectively neutralized except for the hardcore fanatics, the BC can still tone down the rhetoric enough to make us seem the bad guys in this situation.
I'm planning on keeping an eye on this bill but I'm leaning in the direction of support.
Say what again?
Via Sebastian via SaysUncle:
Paul Helmke is quoting Sarah Brady:
"The fact is that this debate isn’t about guns at all. It’s about how we as a society relate to guns. It’s about how we buy them, sell them, store them, and use them. When we talk about gun control, what we’re really talking about are ways to encourage people to behave differently around guns. A gun may be just a tool, but it’s a tool whose misuse can have profound and permanent consequences."
So talking about how we "relate" to them, store them, et al. is NOT debating about guns. So that means when we discuss seatbelt laws and DUI's we're not talking about cars? Of course the fact that they DO push for bans on everything from "saturday night specials" to "assault weapons" to "big 50's" is not part of the debate according to them. One might also notice that the Brady Bunch continue to push their agenda that the 2nd is NOT an individual right. But that's not debating about guns either? Is it.
And of course Paul just HAS to throw in the disingenuous statistic of 30,000 deaths by "gun violence". And he and Marsha wonder why there's no dialog.
Paul Helmke is quoting Sarah Brady:
"The fact is that this debate isn’t about guns at all. It’s about how we as a society relate to guns. It’s about how we buy them, sell them, store them, and use them. When we talk about gun control, what we’re really talking about are ways to encourage people to behave differently around guns. A gun may be just a tool, but it’s a tool whose misuse can have profound and permanent consequences."
So talking about how we "relate" to them, store them, et al. is NOT debating about guns. So that means when we discuss seatbelt laws and DUI's we're not talking about cars? Of course the fact that they DO push for bans on everything from "saturday night specials" to "assault weapons" to "big 50's" is not part of the debate according to them. One might also notice that the Brady Bunch continue to push their agenda that the 2nd is NOT an individual right. But that's not debating about guns either? Is it.
And of course Paul just HAS to throw in the disingenuous statistic of 30,000 deaths by "gun violence". And he and Marsha wonder why there's no dialog.
And Ms. Washington responds...
w/ little more than a what a automated generated reply would do. At least it's something.
Dear Mr. Thirdpower,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about my column on gun control. I appreciate you taking the time to write.
Best, Laura
Dear Mr. Thirdpower,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about my column on gun control. I appreciate you taking the time to write.
Best, Laura
Monday, August 13, 2007
Might this be a cultural thing?
"LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A 39-year-old grandmother accused of selling heroin on the streets of a Los Angeles suburb with her 11-year-old granddaughter as a lookout has been arrested on drug and child endangerment charges, police said on Tuesday."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070731/us_nm/grandmother_drugs_dc
So let's do a little math here. That means Granma became a Granma at least at age 28. Which means that she became a mommy probably around age 13 or 14 herself and her daughter as well.
But I'm sure it's all the guns that are causing crime to increase.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070731/us_nm/grandmother_drugs_dc
So let's do a little math here. That means Granma became a Granma at least at age 28. Which means that she became a mommy probably around age 13 or 14 herself and her daughter as well.
But I'm sure it's all the guns that are causing crime to increase.
Chicago Sun Times PSH on "Gun Control"
Laura Washington of the Chicago Sun Times kicks out the usual nonsense comparing legal owners and criminals:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/washington/507772,CST-EDT-LAURA13.article
Here's the letter I sent her:
MS. Washington,
I can answer your question. Others aren't "joining the call" because most realize that what is generally referred to as "gun control" has nothing to do w/ crime whatsoever. You mention the VT shooting where the state and judiciary failed to commit a recognizably violent individual. You mention the Newark shootings were an illegal immigrant was out on bail for raping a five year old. 25% of murders are committed by people out on bail or parole for another murder. Another 50% by people w/ a long history of crime behind them. No amount of "gun control" laws would have stopped people like these from committing the crimes they did.
Ask yourself why is it that 49% of murders are of and by African American? Is it the guns sending some signals into their brains or is it something else? Are the guns causing them to commit these crimes?
Mayor Daley has pushed for more "gun control" even though it's a complete failure in Chicago. The city accounts for half of crime in the state yet has only 1/4 the population. It has been the crime capitol of the US several times in the last decade. Firearms are effectively banned in the city. At the same time, we have over a dozen Chicago police officers indicted for violence and hundreds more on secret lists of numerous complaints against them.
Massachusetts has some of the strictest "gun control" laws in the country. It has seen a decrease in legal ownership of 25% over the last 6 years. It has also seen a spike in murders and violent crime.
Maybe if the judiciary would start doing their job, parents would actually start parenting, and Mayor Daley would stop protecting rogue cops, something might actually be done against crime and criminals instead of the 99%+ of legal firearm owners who actually follow the law.
Regards,
Thirdpower
UPDATE: Countertop sent a letter as well. Shall we place odds on the lack of response?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/washington/507772,CST-EDT-LAURA13.article
Here's the letter I sent her:
MS. Washington,
I can answer your question. Others aren't "joining the call" because most realize that what is generally referred to as "gun control" has nothing to do w/ crime whatsoever. You mention the VT shooting where the state and judiciary failed to commit a recognizably violent individual. You mention the Newark shootings were an illegal immigrant was out on bail for raping a five year old. 25% of murders are committed by people out on bail or parole for another murder. Another 50% by people w/ a long history of crime behind them. No amount of "gun control" laws would have stopped people like these from committing the crimes they did.
Ask yourself why is it that 49% of murders are of and by African American? Is it the guns sending some signals into their brains or is it something else? Are the guns causing them to commit these crimes?
Mayor Daley has pushed for more "gun control" even though it's a complete failure in Chicago. The city accounts for half of crime in the state yet has only 1/4 the population. It has been the crime capitol of the US several times in the last decade. Firearms are effectively banned in the city. At the same time, we have over a dozen Chicago police officers indicted for violence and hundreds more on secret lists of numerous complaints against them.
Massachusetts has some of the strictest "gun control" laws in the country. It has seen a decrease in legal ownership of 25% over the last 6 years. It has also seen a spike in murders and violent crime.
Maybe if the judiciary would start doing their job, parents would actually start parenting, and Mayor Daley would stop protecting rogue cops, something might actually be done against crime and criminals instead of the 99%+ of legal firearm owners who actually follow the law.
Regards,
Thirdpower
UPDATE: Countertop sent a letter as well. Shall we place odds on the lack of response?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)