A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Cuttings Cast God's Eye Upon Ye Earthly Plague

Holy England be ye lands largest maker and seller of ye blades'o'death, ye Axe.  But yet, that land's free ways with Axe provision hath disturbed bile 'mongst  her noble neighbors. Verily, all lands face wrath from such harsh tool.

Ye aft-Sabbath slaughter in ye academy o' ye Queen's holy library, offering a score and thirteen souls to our Holy Lord,  were ample display o' ye plague which ye axe doth visit upon our realms.   Sadly, ye knight, black be his array, didst fall upon the unarmored supplicants.

"Mother England doth stand as example and exemplar o' ye plague o' Axe" crieth Alun, o' ye House o' Howard, advocate for the Many Lands Guild o' Axe Removal, as told this, thy humble crier.

Ye King offers boon to the people, and defends all Axe needs in his balcony address on these, ye day o' woe.

"As befits our suit, ye king holds to ye use of Axe as tool and implement of righteous justice" cried ye King's fool.  "Yet all must obey Kingly dictate forsooth in all matters.  That one must pay for defying ye King's pleasure holds without doubt, for ye King's will stands in affront."

Ye Guild o' Axemen, garnering support oft useful peasantry to whom ye Axe be icon, tarried in taxing ye King's will, nor that o' any other, and post letter stating their sorrow in face of ye Black Knight's use o' Axe.

-------------------------------

I was going to do the whole thing, and probably shoulda.   But I'm really too tired to try.    The upshot of the whole thing is that America has a gun culture that we're exporting to the rest of the world.    No kidding.   What's missing from this article is that America has birthed something that can't be revoked.  We can't, we won't, just remove shooting from our lives.  Nor should we.  The rest of the world has to figure out it's own way of dealing with guns.  We obviously haven't figured it out for ourselves.  But trying to lay the burden of a world epidemic of guns in our lap is just stupid ... silly ... counter-productive.

I think I was so pissed at the outcome of yesterday's events in Virginia because I saw this coming, on so many levels.  Agendas trump human life; always have and likely always will.  For now, let's deal with our own black knights, and let the rest of the world deal with theirs.

Not Very Clear On The Concept

After everything I've written, it should be damned clear that I am not an anti-gun crusader.  Only an idiot would think that arguing reason would put me in the camp of the GFW (gun fearing wussies, which is Kim DuToit's pet term for anyone he thinks might not appreciate the righteous weight of his gun-lust).  Of course, there are idiots out there, so let me be clear right up front:  there are things about the proposed Montana Gun Rights bill (House Bill 693/340) that I like.  I like the fact that it states clearly a person's right to self-defense in the face of harm.  I like the fact that one need not appeal to the nanny-state police force before using firearms in self-defense.  I deeply like the fact that it addresses the most manipulated plank of the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.  It brings it into the public purview and removes the shallow thinking that one person's feelings of intimidation based simply on their delicate perception of another trumps another person's Constitutionally granted rights.  If I hike up a trail with my .44 on my hip, HB 693 ensures that I won't get hassled because of some security-mom horrified that her children on a nature hike were exposed to this brawny hairy scary guy who obviously wants to kill everyone with his big bad hogleg.   Security-mom can suck-it-up.  I need the Mag against the grizzlies, and they don't intimidate.

Unfortunately, that right there is what I don't like about HB 693/340
.  It allows and codifies the legality of intimidation.  Section 1, article 5 reads: 

(5) the use of firearms for self-defense discourages violent crime and prevents victimization; and

I, for one, would like to see some proof of that.  That is an unfounded assertion of the bill that I find ludicrous, and dangerous.  I'll be the first to admit that proper use of firearms can have the stated effect, and that's why we allow cops to carry guns.    Security-mom, trying to defend her children with a weapon she's fired at the range *twice*, is more likely to have the gun taken from her, get more people killed and escalate violence both before and during a criminal act.  If I'm a bad guy gonna rob you, and I think you're armed, I'm gonna pop you before you know my intent.  If you think I'm full of it, look at the pattern of crime in areas like South Central LA, where most folk are assumed to be packing and murders accompanying larceny are astronomical (compared, of course, to Montana.)  The intimidation factor involved in firearms does not necessarily preclude violence or victimization.  It might just solidify the resolve of the violent.  The above article is pathetically poor language to put in a bill.

But what I really don't like about HB 693/340 is Section 3.  Read this:

NEW SECTION.  Section 3.  Defensive display of firearm not a crime. (1) A person who displays or shows a firearm for a defensive purpose may not be held accountable for a criminal act.

That right there would ensure the very intimidation that we fear might prohibit us from defending ourselves in the future.  If I walk down the street with my Mag swinging in my hand beside me, I'm definitely announcing to the world that I am defended.  Or, I'm announcing to the world that I'm just gonna light up the universe of anyone who pisses me off.  Or, I'm announcing to the world that my ex-wife  is about to get a big surprise.  Regardless of my intent,  those who encounter me will make assumptions, including law-enforcement.  HB 693/340, places the burden of proof on those individuals who would challenge my right to walk down the street with a bad-ass Mag swinging in my hand.  Do I have a criminal intent, or am I just displaying my weapon for defensive purpose?  The burden of proof would lie with the one who would accost and challenge (and thereby threaten) the guy with the gun in his hand.

Security-mom:  You can't just walk around like that!
Billy Bad ass:  Are you gonna stop me?  It's my right.
Security-mom:  Put that thing away in front of my children!
Billy Bad Ass:  Are you threatening me?
Security-mom:  I'm calling the Cops!

Cops arrive:  Halt, or we'll shoot! 
BBA:  But I'm not breaking the law.  Back off, Copper.
*Pakoww*  *Blam, Blam, Blam*

According to HB 693/340, Billy Bad Ass is in the right.  Too bad he's dead now.  Say hello to the lawsuits, and have fun paying for them.

The legalization of intimidation actually goes farther than that, though.  Let's say that I have a neighbor who has trespassed on my property and done damage to it (yeah, I'm looking at you, Paul.) If I pull a gun on him to let him know that I'm not putting up with his shit, am I in the right?  As long as I don't point it at him, I am.  I can claim "feelings" of threat at any time.  If he shows up at my door to apologize for his buttheadness, I can blast him.  Shit man, I didn't know what his intent was.  He might have been here to do me harm.

And, ya' see, here's the real stupidity of this law.  It prohibits things that are almost impossible to legally adjudicate.  The bill reads:

(3) The right to show or display a firearm does not include:

     (a) pointing a firearm directly at another person or sweeping another person with the muzzle of a firearm;

Uhhm, If you think you're threatened, and the point of carry is to be able to defuse a hostile situation, then isn't aiming the weapon kind of neccesary?   Hells yes, it is.  Read above.  The  Bill states that the threat of using firearms will prevent crime.  If I think I'm going to be attacked, pointing my gun at the kids down the street won't exactly help, will it?

(c) deliberately provoking another person into threatening words or actions when possessing a firearm; or

And, exactly, who in the hell is going to prove that?  Pointing a weapon at the  Meth-head standing on my stoop, while screaming "Get the  F~@k off my porch, doper!" is pretty threatening, and likely to evoke a threatening response.  And one would have to say it's also effective according to the supposed spirit of the bill.  But yet, it's illegal by the language of the bill.  WTF?

d) an offensive display or showing of a firearm while verbally threatening another person.

Please see the above.  What the hell is the point of letting someone know you're armed to the teeth if you're not going to threaten them with using those firearms against them?  That's just patently stupid!  So, you can't point your weapon, you can't elicit a response while declaring your weapon, and you can't  tell somebody what the consequence is if they force you to use your weapon.  Does this make any sense at all? No.  No it doesn't.

Folks, I hope you've learned by now that I am not at all in favor of dumbass law.  And HB 693 is dumbass law.  It's even deeper dumbass law when one recognizes that it's defenders are basing it's efficacy on a meth addict's twisted threats against a maintenance guy.  Even worse, the Montana Republicant party has jumped into this sewage of a bill, based on a lie, with attack ads and bone-headed stupidity.  And the final insult is that rabid defenders of our right to keep and bear arms, regardless of the stupidity involved in doing so, are swallowing the MT Rep's cum-load whole, anus to oral even.

Folks, this is just idiotic.  The NRA wants you to think that this is a gun rights issue.  It isn't.  It wasn't introduced as such, and it makes no sense.  This is just hearkening back to the 'good old days' of gun-slingers and shoot-outs.  HB 693/340 is bad law, and needs to go down, and the Republicans need to be held accountable for thinking that you're stupid.

What convinced me to write this post was a paragraph from the Gazette article on this issue.

Marbut still strongly believes the new gun rights bill is needed, in particular to make sure it is OK for people to brandish a gun to defray a potential conflict and to put more burden on prosecutors to disprove claims of self defense.

Brandish.  What a polite word.  To me, there are certain incontrovertible laws to human existence, and one of the most high is this:  You never *EVER* pull a weapon on somebody that you don't intend to use.  I don't care whether its a knife, a baseball bat or a gun.  If you pull it, you will (or should) use it.  Marbut is an idiot.  This bill, if made law, will encourage more violence, and enable it to happen without due consequence.  I guess that's just Republicant-think, but it makes me sick.  Apparently, the State House Republicans are unclear on the concept:  Self defense is violence, and allowing the use of guns to be exempt from the consequence of that violence is holding to the idea that there is something noble about intimidation, something strong about violence morally empowering the weak of spirit and the weak of will.  If the goal is to decrease violence, you don't encourage more, yet the House Reps seem to think that's a good idea.  Not even, on both counts.

It's My Way Or ... Well, It's my Way

Bill Schneider, at New West, has drawn some online fire for his writings about Jim Zumbo.  He didn't revile the man in the manner that the gun-wackos desired, so now Bill is suspect.  He finally got around to writing about H.R 1022, the attempt to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which expired in 2004.  And his opinion is certainly drawing ... something ... at this point.  I write that he finally got around to it because I beat him by over a month, with the same point.  It is bad, wrong, stupid for the Democrats to continue to tie themselves to gun control.  But I invite you to read his comments.  You'll find what I firmly believe to be the truth.  It doesn't matter whether Bill calls for Democrats to distance themselves from  gun control efforts or not.  The NRA head-cases , absolutist in nature, will still hold to the believe that  Democrat=GunGrabber.   That's stupid on it's face, but that they believe it as a high-holy-dogma is a reality that must be dealt with.  There are people out there who believe that the Democraps gonna come take der guns.  That ain't gonna happen, but that isn't really the problem, is it?  The NRA wants you to think so, and manipulation is truth to these kinda folk.

The Montana webtubes have been all a twitter with thoughts on Schneider's post.  Matt has a rational take concerning the necessity of recognizing the need for the tool while defending the use of the tool.   Shane takes a strong stand for the western idea of what it means to be a Democrat.   Both are good ideas; good thoughts.

But I'm going to be annoyingly lazy, and offer a response to something Shane wrote as my post for today.  These are my thoughts.  Shane posted in comments:

These are people who knew exactly what the constitution intended. If that is not the case today, then let us repeal the 2nd amendment, because the words the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed could not be any more clear to me.

Read Shane's comment, because I couldn't agree more.  But he doesn't scratch the bleeding wound quite deep enough for healing.  So, I reply:

Aye, and there’s the rub. Without touching at all on the arguments regarding “well-regulated” or what constitutes a “militia”, the real demon is in that last clause itself.

Gun control efforts, to date, have not sought to do what the NRA wailers claim. No one, (at least no one in power and sane) has advocated a prohibition on firearms. There are no such things as “gun-grabbers”, except for crooks who grab your guns before you get a chance to shoot straight. No, gun-control efforts don’t focus on the right to keep arms.

They focus on the right to bear arms, and what constitutes an “arm(ament)”. And well they should. Walking down the streets of New York with an AK is a pretty clear sign of mal-intent. Packing a Glock on your hip while boarding a flight is something that most people agree is a bad idea. All but the most rabid NRA whackjobs would agree that the “right” to bear has it’s limits, just as screaming “FIRE” in a theater is not free speech. Fine, so we’ve agreed that there is no absolute right to bear arms. And any infringement of that does not pose a Constitutional challenge. I would ask, why not? Just because most of us agree that that right isn’t absolute doesn’t mean that it isn’t absolutely stated in the Constitution. It is. It’s right there. Shane even quoted. It’s stated absolutely, and yet we (almost) universally accept that the government has a right to protect us from each other by denying us an explicit right from the Second Amendment.

The more insidious level of gun control questions what is an armament allowable to the people. There is no explication of that in the Constitution. The absolutist stand of the NRA is that anything should be allowable, and yet most of us also agree that citizens with bazookas and hand-grenades are a danger to the children. *WE MUST THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!1!* So, if the government has the right to stop us from commuting in a M1 Abrams tank, why shouldn’t they also have the responsibility to stop us from hunting with a Barrett .50 caliber, or an AK-47, or just plain can-plinking with a Tec-9?  Simply asked, shouldn’t we have the right to bear and use whatever “arm” we choose?  Certainly.

Except, that poses a problem for law-enforcement. No cop in this country wants to face a Barrett when serving a summons. Being greeted by an AK when responding to a domestic dispute is likely pretty disconcerting. The police are the arm of the government, they enforce the law. So, if the right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct in order to ensure the people’s control, then law enforcement has no right to be better armed than the citizenry. That’s what we call “self-defeating”. And that’s the really awful part about gun-control.

We, as Americans, like to think that we support our government and our Cops and our troops. But we want the ability to blast those bastards if they try and pick on what we feel are our rights. Yeah, that’s some kinda support we got there. And to be honest, I favor that kind of support. Law enforcement and the military are the very tools of violence that the Second Amendment protects us against. Handing them an advantage is precisely the thing we shouldn’t do, but favor doing. Quite the paradox, yes?

Before someone comes waltzing in claiming that I have to have a solution to their selective absolutism, let me offer one. Keep the rights that we have. No assault weapons ban. No self-defeating ‘bans’ of any kind. Return the control of the regional (state) militias to the state Governors. Completely. If the Freemen want to go whack-job, fine. Send in the Montana Guard, our militia, to defend the rights of the people of the state. If the people of New York City want to ban guns, let them. I don’t care. They will reap what they sow. Finally, and most fervently, let’s have it out in courts of law. This hypocritical and irrational absolutism has got to stop. We need legal precedent not clouded by re-election chances for waffling politicians. Castrate the NRA. Until such terms as “bear” and “arms” are defined legally, we will continue this absolutely bullshit ridden cycle we are on. Ultimately, this will force our politicians to consider what their constituents want, as opposed to what will gain them favor with lobbies.

 

As I've pointed out, H.R. 1022 is a bad idea.  Very bad.  It's bad for the Democrats and it's bad for the country.  We can do better.  And kindly remember, I'm in favor of gun control.