A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Republicants For The Promotion Of Cowardice

Pete Talbot picks apart the lame attempt by Eric Iverson (MiniMe to Dennis Rehburp's  Dr. Stupid) to promote the GGF, Great Gun Fear (The Gubmint Gonna' Take OUR GUNS!!!)  What Pete doesn't highlight quite to my satisfaction is the shear disdain that promoters of the GGF have for voters.

Through more posts than I can link here (given my laziness) I have attempted to show the lunacy of the GGF.  I have argued that no politician would be stupid enough to think they could succeed in such an effort without an epic FAIL on their part.  I have argued that law-enforcement would  not even attempt to follow such a dictate, and if they did, it would be with the help of military or paramilitary enforcement, i.e. you're screwed anyway.  I have shown that most every gun restriction can, has been and will be subverted by the clever populace.  There will be no taking of our guns.  None.  Not Ever.

MiniMe argues that there are people, fearsome frightening people, who *want* to take our guns.  MiniMe wants you afraid of those people.  MiniMe thinks Montanans are cowardly enough to be afraid of those people ... Boo!  This is an insult and absolute bullshit.  I for one have never been afraid of what other people want, except for those with power who want us to be afraid.  There are people out there who want everyone to be blond and blue-eyed.  Though I don't fit that bill, I am not afraid.  There are people out there who want us to accept everything they say as if from authority, when they have very little.  I'm not afraid of them either.  No, it's the one's who want me so afraid that I give my rights and money to them and their friends.  That, I am afraid of, because they tend to be successful in making my fellows afraid.

MiniMe, the NRA, and other lying politicians and political organizations all want us filled with the GGF.  To them I say, "Bite me."  Worse still, they want us terrified of the scary black man who 'wants' to take our guns.  They know that some seemingly rational, non-bitter people will suddenly become bed-wetting children when faced with the GGF.  They bank on it, and I do mean 'bank'.  They want your money to prevent the GGF, when in fact it's already prevented, in part by the very fact that you have those guns.  The Scary Black Man ain't gonna take anything, and he hasn't said one word about his desire to do so; yet MiniMe will lie to you, for he desires profit at your expense in money and dignity.

Barack Obama has been called elitist because he believes that some folks cling to gun ownership (the GGF) out of poorly thought out fears (bitterness).  But he supports the Second Amendment, and is willing to defer to the will of Congress and the people.  Some of my best friends on the right use a litmus test for truth.  Does someone use an issue (like race, guns, gender) to make money?  Despite the claims of Hillary Clinton (Republicant candidate Senator from New York) or John McCain (lobbyist Gelding candidate from Arizona) Barack Obama hasn't attempted to gain funds with his comments about taking guns (comments he's never made).  MiniMe sure has.  Eric Iverson is an elitist because he believes that he can toy with your feelings and manipulate your base fears, and he can make a buck for Richy McRehburg while doing it.

In bringing this to a close, I would be remiss if I failed to point to this comment from Carol Minjares, Fearful Rabbit for H.D. 97:

So they assembled a list of lefty notables who hunt and fish to certify that Obama is an okay guy who won't take our guns away. Wow.

Apparently, MiniMe's manipulation of the cowardly works on some folks ...

She's terrified.  Vote accordingly, Missoula.

Why I Can't Take The Montana GOP Seriously

Looky what's I got in my e-mail, a missive from the Montana GOP titled "Answers Montanans Deserve To Know!".  You'd figure, with such an impressive header, that they would be asking Denny Rehberg whether he believed his continued support for the Iraqi boondoggle is good for Montana, or will more likely bankrupt the country.  Perhaps Montana Republicans want to know why Senator McCain, their Presidential candidate, can't tell the difference between Iranian Shi'ites and Sunni al Queda.

But no, in a classically retarded bit of 'concern trolling', they want Montana Democrats to find out where the Democratic candidates stand on a gun-ban in a city 2000 miles away from Montana.  A gun-ban ... in Washington D. C.  Not the fact that the national economy is going down the crapper.  Not the continued borrow-and-spend policies of the Republicans, which has put our dollar below the currencies of most every 1st world nation.  Not our continuing military losses in the eternal occupation of a country that doesn't want us there and was never a threat to us.  These things affect Montana.  But, no, what the Montana GOP wants Democrats to ask of the candidates, candidates that Republicants will *never* support or vote for,  is a gun ban that has already been challenged and heard by the Supreme Fricking Court.

~sigh~

Every rational intelligent person already knows that the Supreme Court will endorse the individual right of citizens to keep firearms.  The only real question now is whether the Republican Bush administration has argued effectively that the "reasonable" term of law equates to local governments limiting access, such as to handguns in DC.  Montanans needn't worry about such trifles because our right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in our own Constitution.  We can, however, hope for a loosening of gun restrictions (contrary to the hopes of the Republicans) based on the SCOTUS interpretation of the term "reasonable".  Perhaps Iverson and the Montana GOP have missed this point, and don't get that it's now a non-issue to Montana.  Or, more likely, they're playing the 'fear card'.

"The GUBMINT gonna take your guns and HitleryoBamamuslimangryblackman gonna let 'em!!!"

What a bunch of retards.

The Montana Republican Party understands and appreciates the excitement Montana Democrats feel about having their leaders candidates come to our state. But it's our hope they will also use this wonderful opportunity to demand answers to issues important to Montana.

I'm sure we will.  But Heller v. DC ... that just ain't among them.

Idiots.

Stirring The Pot

Certain recent events have once again sparked the never-ending fire of the 'gun-control' debate.  As Jay, at heart, rightly points out, it isn't really a debate anymore.  It's a shouting match, around which the vapors of reality and desire swirl in ever more pointless bickering.  On one side are those who 'want something done about gun violence!'  Quite seriously, that's an understandable position.  On the other side are those who's motives are, shall we say, less than pure.  In the middle are those who attempt some rational effort, but tend to get lost in the shouting mostly coming from absolutists.

But I, oh yes, would rather light a candle than curse the darkness.  I have proposed this idea before, for which I received a death threat even.  (You've no idea the mirth that gave me.)  I propose this:  legal registration of firearms.

I know, I know.  That's what Hitler did.  Those who regularly read NRA releases (and often understand only half the English contained therein) will boldly point out that the Nazi's registered guns before instituting harsher gun controls (taking them away from 'undesirables').  Uhhhm, kids, the Nazis were building a war machine, and manipulated a populace that was not well armed but told that Jews and gypsies and queers and cripples all could use those guns against ... YOU!   BOO!  Grow up.  This is America, not 1930's Deutschland.

And I know this as well (because it's happened before.)  There are those who will scream "Second Amendment!!" at the top of their lungs like it is a 13th level demonic banishing spell.  Sorry, folks, the Constitution isn't a spell book.  The Second reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Please notice that at no point does this prohibit weapon registration.  None.  It's not there.  Look for yourself ... it ain't there.  Registration is not infringement; it's mere record keeping.   "But what would those records be used for Wulfgar?  Huuuhhhhh?  Huunnggh?  Argybargle?"  Uhm, record keeping?  Law enforcement?  Public fricking safety?

And ... intimidation.  A lot of the '2A' screechers claim that having guns keeps you safe ... from those who have no idea that you have a gun?  Burglars and home-invaders are more frightened of dogs.  You know why?  'Cause they know you have one!  They bark, they alert, they raise holy hell with the best laid nefarious plans.  If, as the paranoid presume, a "bad guy" were to know for certain that his life depended on my ability to miss with the .44 mag aimed squarely at him, that bad guy is gonna pick a safer target.  So, if as the paranoid presume, gun registries were used to target for crime, then I'm safer having my weapons registered.

Then the '2A' screechers, fearful bunch they are, will bring up the idea of tyranny.  What poor thinking on their part.  Let's be clear:  I want the government to know how well armed I am.  I relish the idea.  I'm excited to be a part of this plan.  You know why?  'Cause it would scare them shitless.

Here's the scene:  Some HitleryObamaniteCommunoIslamoFascist stooge seeks to take my guns with a midnight raid.  They stealthily approach my door, and bash the thing in screaming about law enforcement and military control.  Only two problems.  A)  I heard them do this at my neighbor's house, and they run into bullets, and B)  If they know my arms, they aren't going to be stupid enough to try this shit in the first place.

The only people who actually swallow the choad of belief that says the government will take our guns are the ones stupid enough to believe that they are the special snowflake that the government will target.  If you're stockpiling weapons to resist a government attack, many of them already legally prohibited, you will draw their investigation and ire (see Ridge, Ruby).  At that point, you've already declared war, and this will not stand.  If we all register our weapons, the government functionaries will shit their pants before attempting to take those weapons.  Ultimately speaking, people should not fear their government.  Government should fear the people.  I don't need some wackass nutcase on Ruby Ridge to protect me.  I only need the government to know how much fire power is within 10 square blocks of my house.  Trust me, that will get their attention, and they will be afraid.

I'm just not seeing the downside to firearm registration.  Perhaps you good folk can clear it up for me.

Response To Pragmatic Revolt

Yo, Moorcat!  Your website is hosed, buddy.

Okay, not really completely hosed, but showing signs of hosery nonetheless.  The URL www.moorcat.com/pragmatic_revolt gives the following message:

Not Acceptable

An appropriate representation of the requested resource /pragmatic_revolt/ could not be found on this server.

---

HTTPD Server Server at www.moorcat.com Port 80

That's easily fixable by just removing the "www".  moorcat.com/pragmatic_revolt works just fine.  Obviously, that's what the left bloglines  are using, because your posts are accessible from there. 

However, when one attempts to comment, the same error message occurs.  Because of that, I'm forced to respond to your latest post here,

Concerning Brad Johnson and his op-ed:

Johnson's letter did not spring from a vacuum.  It is rather in response or as a political addendum to an "extra-session" resolution/petition from the Montana legislature, signed by such level-headed notables as Joe Balyeat, Roger Koopman and Rick Jore.

For more links and information, as well as very good discussion, please read this MetaFilter thread. 

Why I Support Gun Control, Reason # 432

At the risk of being accused of over-compensation, I *like* having power in my firearms.  I desire the sublime marriage of velocity and impact.  My favorite pistol caliber is .44 Mag, and my hunting rifle is a .300 Win. Mag.   'Bring the smack down', that's my motto.

The downside is recoil.  Newton decreed that you will pay a price for the power.  Some weapons are just too much pain for the bang. 

That's a Ruger Super RedHawk, 2.5 inch barrel in .454 Casull.  I mean really, what were they thinking!?  I have large strong hands, and that gun intimidates me.  It's nothing but pain and punishment in a real tight parcel.  If you want me to shoot the big loads, put some barrel on the damned thing, for Christ's sake.

But no, some people go for ever more blast.  Like the guys who build the pistols ... in .600 Nitro Express.  If you're unfamiliar, that's an elephant round, commonly shot from a long double barreled rifle, or at least as common as such a beast is used.   Check out this bad boy:

The picture is reprinted only for scale and to wow you with the enormity of how big such a hand gun must be to control it.  Notice, the author takes pains to advise bench or brace shooting only.

But what happens when someone builds such a monster that doesn't have such weight?  And what happens when some eager buddy, over-estimating his own prowess, decides to shoot such a behemoth, free-hand.  A friend sent me a video of the event, so lets go to the tape:

Download elephant_pistol.wmv

Watch it, laugh and then watch it again.  And that, my good friends, is why I always agitate and advocate for gun control.    Hit what you're aiming at, nothing less and most importantly nothing more.  And whatever you do ... control the goddamned firearm.

Spittle Flecked Freak Out

I had thought by now that Dave Budge would have learned to distrust anything coming from Don Surber, (patron saint of mongoloid drama queens).  But, Sadly, No! (heh!)

This time, old Don's got his bloomers in a wad because the NRA told him to bunch up, bend over and take his man medicine that bad men want bad things for him.  Don states,

Massachusetts legislators seek to remove toxic chemicals from ammo.

Just because I know that it bugs Dave that the funny folk are more salient than he, I must promote the phrase Sadly, No!.  That isn't what the proposed bills state at all.  Despite what Surber is willing to swallow from the NRA, what the proposed bills actually state is the Mass. government will, by all due law, investigate and promote alternatives to known toxic chemicals.  Don't believe me?  Do what Budge and Surber failed to do, and read the bloody things.  You'll notice, there isn't one thing in those proposals that would, as the NRA puts it,

virtually shut down all shooting ranges as well as ban the sale and use of lead ammunition for self-defense, hunting and target practice in Massachusetts. 

Could these things happen? It's possible.  But please notice that the fact checking and financial feasibility provisions are already built into the proposals.  In other words, bullets aren't likely to change because that change would adversely affect the manufacture and sale of the product.

It's not surprising that the NRA would chase this vaporous fear.  They have become fear mongering money grubbers manipulating the stupid for their benefit.  What is surprising is that Don Surber would be stupid enough to snag the chum and think it a banquet.  (Okay, it isn't that surprising.)  What is more surprising is that Dave Budge would follow the lead of the head lemming, Don Surber, without checking and/or balancing his input.   Dave must truly think the rest of us  stupid, or worse, he considers us more stupid than Don Surber.

I seem to remember a wise man asking the question:  who is more foolish, the Fool or the Fool who follows him.  It is almost painful controlling my laughter as I write ... you followed Don Surber, Dave ...

All In Favor ...

Say "Aye". 

Feel Good Policy

Let's get this right out in the open and up front like:  To those who don't know, I work on the MSU campus.  However, I am not a University employee.  That written, I think I have the wiggle room to comment every once in a while on University policy.  I've been pretty vocal about the fact that I don't like "feel good" policy, either from the government or the University administration that works for them.  It is often pointless, counter-productive and, let's face it, stupid.

Though I don't think this qualifies as stupid, the new proposed University weapons policy certainly qualifies as pointless.  I'll leave it to others to argue the 'counter-productive' because they are often more fear-driven and extreme in their fantasies than I am.  I'll just stick to the pointless aspects.

Just so that we're clear, these are the weapons that are proposed to be banned from campus:

rifles, shotguns, handguns, knives with blades four (4) inches or longer, explosives, swords, nunchucks, throwing stars and other martial arts weapons, crossbows, compound bows, recurve bows, pepper spray (except for small, personal protection dispensers), BB guns, paintball guns, dangerous chemicals, and non-functioning replicas that could be confused with actual firearms.

That sounds like a very thorough list, yes?  It is also ambiguous.  Two of the very most effective "martial arts" weapons of all time are the long staff (Bo) and the short staff (Jo).  I may be in error here, but I find it awfully pointless to ban sticks on campus.  The ambiguity goes further, however when one considers what a 'replica' gun can look like.  Does this include squirt guns?  Who adjudicates the confusion involved in an appearance?  The policy prohibits compound and recurve bows, but I have a flat bow.  Banned?  Long Bows?  Native ceremonial bows?  MSU does have a very vibrant native student population.  And would somebody please explain to me, just what exactly is a dangerous chemical?  Bleach?  Ammonia?  Windex?

This is what the AP article has to say is the impetus behind revising the policy:

MSU was the site of a double fatal shooting in 1990, and the university has long had a policy concerning the possession of weapons on campus. But campus administrators found that it was troublingly vague after the tragedy at Virginia Tech,

I don't think I'm wrong in pointing out that the policy is *still* troublingly vague.  To that degree, it remains pointless.  If the effort is to control school shootings, then it is pointless to prohibit BB guns, wrist-rockets (oops, not banned), sticks, banana knives and and water pistols.

For the record, I was an MSU student (non -trad) in 1990.  The shooting was done with a hunting rifle, and was, to some wacko degree, premeditated.  It should have taught us this:  if you're going to whack somebody on campus, having instant access to your weapon of choice is not really that big an obstacle.  Most people aren't gonna choose their paint-ball gun.  Specifically defining weapons won't change intent.  Pointless.

Further, the ban isn't a ban on weapons; it's a ban on seeing them.  From the AP article:

Students or university employees who are preparing for a hunting trip may store a weapon in their vehicle, but only if it's unloaded and kept out of sight.

I have some killer seat covers, lovingly hand-crafted by the most beautiful woman I know.  I guarantee you that I can store my entire arsenal in my truck, and no one would ever know that those weapons are there.  And if the weapons are out of sight, how in the hell can the questions surrounding lock'n'load ever arise?  They can't.  They won't.  I know at least two individuals on campus who have conceal-carry permits.  Even though, a C&C permit doesn't allow you to carry on campus, they are concealed ... that first pesky little C.  Just exactly how is one supposed to know the danger if a weapon is hidden?  They won't.  The provisions of concealment:  Pointless.

So, I'm hoping by now that you're asking the right question.  What is the point of the newly proposed Firearm and Weapons policies at Montana State University?  Money.   The University is a business, and it has a product to sell.  That product should, in the minds of most, just be education.  But now, thanks to events in far distant lands, they have to try and sell security as well.  The fear-laden security Moms want Junior to be safe ... or at least those marketing the MSU brand would like to think so.  So, they've generated pointlessness in order to sell safety, as well as an edumacation.  Again to the article:

Time was when it was common to see rifles in racks on the rear windows of pickups -- and who knew if they were loaded? But times have changed. The horrific shootings at Virginia Tech -- the worst in the nation's history -- reminded us of what's possible in an era in which violence has become all too commonplace.

Not at MSU it hasn't.  And if it was so damned commonplace, why did it have such a huge impact on the national consciousness?  It isn't commonplace.  It was random, just as almost every other bit of "random violence" tends to be.  It is a possibility, not a certain effect of the availability of "nunchucks".  Violent minded people will commit violence.  It's the talent, not the tools, kids.  Do something about that, if you can.  But, efforts to cage that particular beast remain mostly ... pointless.

Zombie Targets

Any y'all gunslingers out there know that down-loadable targets aren't the easiest to come by, depending on what you're looking for.  I've been looking for zombies, and generally haven't found a thing that some guy isn't asking an arm and a leg for.  Be Serious.  We're talking about pieces of paper that some person is gonna put fricking holes in, okay?  Draw a picture on poster board with goddamned crayons and it's a target, right?  Yet some buttheads still want to charge you your first-born for their special take on shootable paper.  Give me a break.

I'm offering these up for free.  Yes I know that my Photoshop (copyright Adobe inc.) skills aren't that great.  But for pity's sake, were talking about pieces of paper that people will put holes in.  We all get that, right?

I don't know who the original artists are, and I apologize in advance should they not want people to shoot the horrors they keep in their heads.  Gosh, I'm real sorry guys.

These are pistol targets, though if you have balls and can print them big, you can use them as rifle targets as well.  The head shot is nearly life sized.  The full body shot should be treated as a zombie at distance.  We all know what they're capable of should they get close, so take them down far away, yes?

I know that the target zones are small, and well they should be.  What?  You think a zombie is going to present it's two-foot wide cranium to you for practice?  Get real, Sharleen!  Print them out; take them down.  That's the very point.

And, you're welcome.

p.s.  Anyone that has access to high-rez pics of zombies is welcome to share them.  ... Just sayin' ...

I Listen To The Wise Men

Simply because I couldn't have said it better, a comment left at my brother's site:

The anti gun folks really need to realize that just because we like guns, and talk about guns, and shoot guns, doesn’t mean that we entertain any kind of fantasies about killing people. There’s a word for those kind of people, and that word is “criminal”. I’m not a criminal, and I hope to God that I’m never threatened by another human being to the point that I would even consider pointing a weapon in so much as their general direction let alone firing it. I just don’t happen to have any desire to be a victim. I would like nothing more than to live out my life in peace, and never have to take up arms against another human being, but unfortunately there seems to be more and more people every day that are hell bent on making that an impossibility.

I honestly doubt that I ever will have to take up arms in defense of myself or my family, but I’d rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. To me it’s no different than putting away money for a rainy day, or keeping some extra canned food, bottled water, and extra flashlight batteries around in case the power goes out. Hopefully, my guns will never be used for anything except hunting and target shooting, but should the need arise, a gun in the hand beats a cop on the phone every time. I’ve never bought a gun for the purpose of defense, but any of the firearms that I own could be used for that purpose should it become necessary. I think I speak for pretty much all law abiding gun owners when I say that anyone in favor of gun control really needs to attend a sanctioned shooting event at least once in their life just to see “how the other half lives” so to speak. There’s millions of gun owners that didn’t kill anyone yesterday, they won’t kill anyone today, and they’re not going to kill anyone tomorrow either. If you want to reduce crime, go after the criminals, don’t make law abiding folks defenseless against them.

Justin is so correct, and in light of current events, this statement couldn't be more timely.  I do confess that I have bought a weapon for defense.  Not against humans, mind you, nor against the Zombies.  Humans and zombies announce their presence, and that's one of the reasons to keep dogs (that and they are big fuzzy love buckets!)  No, I bought a weapon that will take down a bear and that is my defense in the Montana mountains.  The rest of my firearms I have because I want them.  Now please tell me that I don't need them and that should somehow give you a voice about whether  or not I have them.  I dare you, heh.

(Yes, my eyes are bugging out at the irony of what's been displayed over the last 48 hours.)