• 
  

• Categories

  • "Assault Weapons"
  • "Sniper Rifles"
  • Administrative Information
  • benefits of guns
  • Colorado State Issues
  • Courts
  • Culture War
  • Elections
  • fairness doctrine
  • Federal Law/Policy
  • Foreign Gun Laws
  • Gangs
  • Gun Law Failures
  • Guns in Schools
  • History
  • Hunting Issues
  • Junk Science
  • Legislation
  • Legislative
  • machine guns
  • Media Bias
  • non-gun violence
  • Official Misconduct
  • Order of Battle
  • Other States
  • Politics
  • psychology
  • Registration
  • Research
  • Second Amendment
  • Trojan Horses
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions
  • United Nations
  • Vietnam
  • War on Terror

• Blogroll

  • ballotpedia
  • Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
  • Colorado Gun Issues
  • Dave Kopel
  • Front Page Magazine
  • Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
  • National Rifle Association
  • Sam Adams Alliance
  • The Unarmed Citizen
  • The Volokh Conspiracy

• Statistics

  

A story by Brittany Anas from The Boulder Daily Camera that was printed in the Rocky Mountain News indicates that the Colorado Springs Chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus plans to petition CU Regents to allow permit holders to carry on school property controlled by the University of Colorado.  I agree with the opinion expressed in the group’s petition that “Gun-free zones only disarm victims.”

Comments from the anti-gunners on the article include fears that drunken college students will shoot up the University and lay waste to most of the surrounding area, if concealed carry permit holders are allowed to exercise their admittedly licensed rights on school property.  It might be well to remember that CCW license holders have completed training courses and background checks.  It is also against the law in Colorado to be in possession of a firearm while intoxicated or impaired. (Go to very end of the referenced page for this citation.)  But then, opponents of concealed carry and guns in general usually seem more concerned about statutory offenses than mass murder.

The opponents of defensive concealed carry seem blind to the fairly obvious logical conclusion that rapists, muggers and spree killers will likely be deterred by the knowledge that a victim or victims might be armed.  Research done by Wright and Rossi on the informal risk/benefit analyses performed by many criminals before commiting crimes certainly suggests a deterrent effect, as does research by Lott and Kleck.

The Left, of course, will probably spin this issue as one of allowing unrestricted importation of firearms onto college campuses, resulting in the ever popular “rivers of blood” scenario.  Even more sad and perplexing, the next mass murder in a “gun free” criminal friendly free-fire zone will no doubt spark an increased drive for more gun control to further deprive potential victims of sociopathic killers of their last, best chance for self-defense.

Let’s hope the CU Regents take this opportunity to “do the right thing” and “save one life” in spite of the uproar that this petition is sure to cause in Liberal Academia, especially in the People’s Republic of Boulder.  Beccaria was right and Jefferson was insightful to quote him.

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty… and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?

Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.”

Let us hope that the Regents of Colorado University come down on the side of the innocents.

 Def Mech

   

In her excellent article, “Raging against Self-Defense, A Psychiatrist Examines the Anti-Gun Mentality,” Dr. Sarah Thompson does a great job of describing the roles of projection, denial and reaction formation in what Colonel Jeff Cooper labeled hoplophobia, that is, an irrational fear of weapons.  Projection, denial, and reaction formation are among the defense mechanisms postulated by Sigmund Freud, the “father” of psychoanalytic theory.

In short, projection means that if a person is angry, he or she may believe that everyone else is also angry.  “I’m so mad that I could kill my brother.  Therefore, he must be so mad that he wants to kill me.”  Denial is simply a refusal to consider the possibility of a particular event or circumstance.  “I could never possibly be robbed, so why would I want to carry a gun?”  Reaction formation is an attempt to battle a personal internal compulsion by publicly proclaiming the opposite.  With regard to hoplophobia: “I’m afraid that I might hurt somebody if I had a gun; therefore, I say that I want to ban all guns.  By announcing that I want to deny everyone the right to have a gun, I can “protect” myself from my own violent tendencies and hide those tendencies from the anticipated disapproval of others.”

Displacement is another defense mechanism that I believe plays into hoplophobia.  Displacement occurs when an emotion can not be directly expressed against its perceived cause.  For example, a union steward yells at a factory worker.  The worker can not yell at the steward without incurring negative consequences.  The worker unconsciously displaces his anger by driving aggressively on the way home, yelling at his wife, and kicking his dog.  The behavior is useful to the worker, because it allows him to externalize his anger without losing his job.  The negative side effects of aggressive driving, irritating his spouse, and abusing his pet may not be immediately apparent to the individual involved.

In the gun debate, displacement expresses itself in the anger that many crime victims, surviving relatives, and well-meaning Liberals feel when they are unable to punish or express anger at criminal perpetrators of violence against innocent people.  Displacement may even be used to relieve personal guilt perceived by a friend or relative over a failure to somehow protect a loved one from violence.

Liberals are especially prone to this kind of unrealistic thinking, because they have been taught to believe that criminals are merely products of genetics and environment.  There are no evil people, there are only disadvantaged people who have never been given a chance in life.  But, something must be responsible for the injury or death of a loved one.  Since it can’t be the perpetrator, it must be the gun.  “It can’t be that somehow I failed to keep my loved one safe.  It can’t be my fault.  I’m a good person.  It must be the gun.  Yeah!  That’s it!  It’s the gun.  If we can just get rid of all the guns, then my loved one didn’t die in vain.”

As Dr. Thompson points out, with regard to Freud’s defense mechanisms, we all use them to some degree.  It is only when the use of defense mechanisms causes other undesirable results that there is reason for concern.  With gun control, the undesirable results include emboldened criminals, increased danger of corruption through the development of black markets in firearms, and increased risk of tyranny and genocide.

Dr. Thompson also mentions that the leaders of the Left do not necessarily suffer from hoplophobia.  They may be subject to the far more serious condition of unlimited political ambition.  If you believe that political ambition is their motivation, you have to ask yourself this question.  What are they planning to do that is so terrible that they fear provoking armed resistance from the citizens of America?  That is a  fearful question and fodder for more discussions.  But most of the folks on the Left are probably not bent on world domination.

Dr. Thompson has some good advice on educating rank and file Liberals on gun issues.  See also my post: “A figurative ‘quick shot’ at Liberals on gun control,” 07-29-08, under the category, “Psychology” on this site.

And remember, while we are educating Liberals, we have to keep them from infringing upon our natural, fundamental right to self-defense from crime and tyranny.  Vote Republican!

Def Mech

 

 

 

According to an AP story in the Denver Post, Maryland police raided the home of the Berwyn Heights mayor on July 29th and shot his two black labs over a package of marijuana that had been placed on the front porch.  The parcel was apparently part of a dope smuggling scheme that involved a FedEx employee, who delivered pot-filled packages to the homes of innocent people.  The parcels were then to be picked up off porches by an accomplice.

The mayor, Cheye Calvo, triggered the police attack when he picked up the package addressed to his wife and took it inside.  Mayor Calvo claimed one of his dogs was shot while running from the invading officers.  AP, “FBI looks into raid on home of mayor,” The Denver Post, Denver Newspaper Agency, Denver, CO, 08-08-08, page 5A.

According to the initial report, the Mayor and his mother-in-law were in the house during the ordeal.  The mayor’s wife came home during the raid to find her dogs dead and her husband and mother in handcuffs.  No one in the house has been charged according to the article.  The county police chief offered no apology for shooting the dogs, saying the officers felt “threatened.”

I don’t know about you, but if police officers mistakenly invaded my home and shot my pets, I would be angry.  If I were the mayor of a town and had a certain amount of political clout, I think I would spend a considerable amount of time to ensure, to the best of my ability, that the police chief and the officers involved in such an erroneous, violent invasion never worked again in law enforcement.

Cowboy police raids drive a terrible wedge between the people of a community and the public agencies hired to protect them.  If it turns out that this raid was a mistake, badges should be forfeit.  We don’t need more Wacos or Ruby Ridges.  Thank God no human beings were killed this time.  Where is the Liberal outrage about the dogs?

Def Mech

 

A few weeks ago, we received a letter from unicef soliciting money to help out in violence-ridden Darfur.  If you’re as old as I am, you may remember that as children,  many of us used to take our little milk cartons and go door to door doing the “Trick or treat for unicef!” number, instead of collecting candy for our greedy selves.

(Don’t blame me for the capitalization anomalies re: unicef/UNICEF.  It’s unicef on their letterhead and UNICEF in the texts of their letters and web pages.  I think it’s probably reflective of the confusion and indecision that seem to be the hallmarks of the UN, but then, I could be mistaken.) 

Since those days of innocent youth, I have become more and more suspicious of the United Nations’ motivations and tactics.  On June 5th of this year, the unicef Press centre issued a News note to the effect that Gun control is an “urgent priority for Jamaica.”

Since I am one of those people to whom gun control is a good eye and a steady hand, I was “interested” in their press release. It seems that the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and UNICEF issued an appeal to all “stakeholders to stem the illegal flow and use of small arms in Jamaica, saying gun control-combined with long-term social interventions-are critical to curb the armed violence that has enveloped the country.”

“UNDP and UNICEF expressed deep concern for the effect of the spiraling murder rate on children and their communities…  The agencies said small arms, which include machine guns, shotguns, assault rifles and other deadly firearms are the dominant weapons used in the violence sweeping the island.”

Why am I shocked (and somewhat bitter) over the apparent need for more gun control in Jamaica?  Because Jamaica has had draconian anti-gun ownership laws since the 1970’s!  And, like virtually everywhere else where local civic education, moral values and religion have broken down under nanny state meddling, gun control has been an abject, catastrophic failure.

David Kopel, a preeminent scholar in the field of Second Amendment issues detailed Jamaica’s gun laws in his landmark book, The Samurai, The Mountie, and  the Cowboy, Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of other Democracies?, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1992.  Pages 257-277.

In 1974, the Jamaican Government licensed gun owners and allowed no new guns to be introduced onto the island.  The government conducted warrant-less searches for guns and essentially outlawed private ownership.  They set up a “Gun Court” to try firearms’ offenses.  Violators could, in theory, be sentenced to life in prison for possession of one illegal bullet.  (Pages 260, 261)

Violence went down in 1974.  In 1975, violence went up.  In 1978, one in three adults in Kingston, Jamaica reported having been robbed. (Pages 263, 265)  By 1998, the situation had not much improved.

Apparently, despite 34 years of strict gun control, there is still violence in Jamaica that is “sweeping the island.”  I am shocked!  Jamaica isan island!  It is not a big island.  Don’t they have enough patrol boats to guard every small beach and inlet?  Don’t they have enough police to conduct warrantless searches of every house on every street?  Don’t they have enough prisons to house the offenders?

The answer, of course, to all those questions is, “No.”  No country that turns itself into a prison by disarming its people has enough police, coast guard, air force, army, secret police, gestapo, or other security forces to establish and maintain a relatively civil order.  Once a government loses the confidence and respect of the people it supposedly serves, the society descends into warfare against itself.  It happened in this country during Prohibition.  “Ordinary” citizens (to use a Liberal term) decided that the government was off the rails in banning liquor.  Bootlegging, moonshining, corruption, and a cosmic rise in organized crime followed the ban in natural succession.

There is an old story about a European who visited Colonial America.  He was strolling with an American friend, when they saw George Washington walking alone on the street.  “But where is his guard?”  The European asked.  “Who protects him?”  The American slapped his chest and replied.  “I do!”

It is not armored vests, armored cars, and more and bigger guns that ultimately protect law enforcement officers and public officials in a free society.  If they are to be relatively safe, they are protected by the trust and the positive moral values of the people that they serve.

Jamaica is a member state of the United Nations, which we should remember is made up of precious few countries with remotely representative governments.  Oh yeah!  And the Sudan, where Darfur is located, was on the UN Human Rights Commission.  Things were so bad on this commission that the name was changed to protect the guilty.  The new name of the group is the Human Rights Council. 

Somehow, I don’t think I’ll be sending money to either the Democrat Party or unicef this year.  The Dems want the UN to have greater influence here.  I have serious doubts about the desirability of UN influence anywhere.  The UN experiences in Darfur and Jamaica inspire confidence in neither their competence nor their motives.

Def Mech

The National Research Council (NRC), in a report released in March of this year and reported in Science Daily, has recommended against the creation of a nation-wide database made up of ballistic images of all “new and imported guns” sold in the U.S.  ”Current technology” apparently “may not reliably distinguish very fine differences in large volumes of similar images…”  Science Daily also reported that current technology does not support the idea that ballistic markings can “identify a particular source gun ‘to the exclusion of all other firearms.”

This should come as news to Left-wing politicians and mystery movie writers who promote the idea that ballistics matching is the philosopher’s stone of criminal detection.  Their detectives frequently rely on ballistics and permit systems.  How often do we hear, “We’ve got a match!”  “Do you have a permit for that weapon?” is almost as common in crime movies as having a good character say, “I hate guns.” 

The NRC report does recommend further research into “Microstamping” technology currently required by California on all “new semiautomatic pistols sold in the state by 2010.”  (Other states are also dabbling in this panacea.)  One of the areas for additional study involves exploring the effects of possible tampering by criminals with microstamping mechanisms.

That’s a good line of investigation.  Just how hard would it be for a reasonably intelligent criminal to take a micro-sized file and remove the microstamping capability from a firing pin?  What about the old movie adage that a professional hitter, mechanic, or whoever always leaves the weapon at the scene of the crime?  Of course, an investigator might get lucky on the DNA.  Stay tuned for another report on that issue.

How about the careful criminal who uses a revolver or who polices up his or her brass after a shooting?  No brass, no microstamp.  No case, no how, no way.

How about using an older semiauto with no microstamping?  Ah!  Liberals have the criminal there!  They will simply ban or “license to death” any semiautomatic without the technology.  No criminal bent on robbery or murder would dare to obtain an illegal gun through a clandestine source. 

Wait a minute?  Criminals routinely break the law…  Might have to rethink this one, if in fact, the purpose of gun control is to keep guns out of criminal hands…  Of course it is!  The Dems said so in their draft platform plank on guns for 2008.  But then, I just bought a big bridge and a famous tomb in New York City.  Oh well…

Let’s do what the Liberals always say they want to do.  Let’s build a fence around the top of the cliff, instead of assigning an ambulance to wait at the bottom.  Let’s encourage concealed carry, so the risk-averse criminal will have to wonder if he or she is the only one with a gun in the potential crime scenario.  (Barack Obama doesn’t like this approach.  We (gun owners and civil libertarians) have no influence with him.)  Let’s keep career criminals in jail, instead of sentencing them to probation or community service.  (Not sure that this one corresponds to Democrat plans.)

Let’s also look at the immigration situation to make sure that we are not importing gang members wholesale from other countries.  (We need to influence John McCain on this issue.)  Let’s look at firearms education in the schools and more shooting ranges in our communities, so that guns will cease to be mystical, forbidden, attractive objects, and young people will have more positive role models with regard to gun ownership. 

Don’t hold your breath on any of these proactive approaches, because Liberals are quite comfortable contemplating the use of scientific innovation to strangle civilian gun ownership.  They are not comfortable with the concept that criminals are persons with evil intentions who will use whatever weapons are at hand to intimidate, rob, and kill those perceived to be weaker than themselves.

Def Mech

The proposed 2008 Democrat Platform Plankon the Second Amendment is as honest as Al Gore inventing the Internet,  John Kerry crawling through the leaves with his double-barreled shotgun,  Hillary Rodham Clinton duck hunting, Hillary and Chelsea dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, and Barack Obama saying he didn’t see the questionnaire about the handgun ban that had his handwriting on it.  The text of the proposed 2008 Democrat plank reads as follows:

“We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.”

Item:  “…what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne” is liberal code for “We’re going to pass the most draconian laws we possibly can where our political machine is the strongest.  We’ll round up the rest of the bitter, clingy hicks, rubes and rednecks later, when we have an iron grip on power.”  (See my post: “Chicago gang violence shows gun law failure,” 04-24-08, Category: Gun Law Failures, this site, for what doesn’t seem to work in Chicago.)

Item: “…closing the gun show loophole…” is code for “regulating gun shows out of existence, so that members of the ‘Community of People Who Own Guns’ will be less likely to get together to oppose our Socialist Agenda.”

Item: “…improving our background check system” means the “registration of all gun sales in the country in preparation for eventual confiscation of civilian firearms.”

Item: “…Reinstating the assault weapons ban…” is Liberal code for “banning every semi-automatic firearm in the country with a magazine well.”

Democrat support of the Second Amendment reminds me of the guy who built a boat without a bottom, because “The bottom doesn’t show, anyway.”  Their “support” is all for show.  The proposed Democrat Platform, if implemented,  would render the Second Amendment meaningless.

Washington D.C., in spite of the Heller Decision, still classifies semi-auto firearms as “machine guns.”  See previous post: “New D.C. gun regulations seem to flout Supreme Court decision,” 07-17-08, Category: Courts, this website. 

Heller also affirmed that the Second Amendment protects firearms in common use for lawful purposes.  Semi-auto firearms are extremely common and are used for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense, in addition to their obvious utility in preparing young people for service in the police and the military.

The Democrats try and try to “appear” sympathetic to the Bill of Rights, but their stands on “The Fairness Doctrine” and the Second Amendment reveal their willingness to do anything to gain power and keep it.  The Democrats want to suppress free speech and disarm the American People.  They have published their proposed agenda.  It is up to the freedom-loving people of America to act politically in this election year to make sure that the Dems do not have a chance to implement their platform.

Vote Republican or lose your legal right to own a gun.

Def Mech 

While trolling for tidbits of information from the other side of the gun debate, I came across an interesting poster on the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Website.  The poster claims that in 2004, “Guns murdered” 11,344 people in the United States.  I suppose what they mean is that guns were used by American criminals to kill other people 11,344 times in 2004, as opposed to some other method.

I seriously doubt that any number of guns slipped out of their holsters and gun safes, somehow managed to load and cock themselves, and then, for reasons of their own, sought out and killed human beings.  As far as I can tell, guns are inanimate objects.  They do not reproduce on their own.  They do not exhibit goal-directed behavior.  In fact, they do not behave at all.  I personally have been close to numerous loaded guns and have never seen one demonstrate aggression, let alone deadly intent.

On the other hand, research done by Democrat Professor Gary Kleck indicates that guns are used in America up to 2.5 million times every year for self-defense.  I suppose that if we must condemn guns for murder, we must commend them for coming to the defense of their owners and others.

If guns are somehow animate and capable of murder, must we then grant them habeas corpus?  Are police illegally holding sentient beings without bail, without trial, without hope of eventual release?  Most of these guns are probably being crushed and burned without any pretext at due process.  Where is the ACLU?  Where are the trial lawyers?

Where is the common sense on the other side of the gun debate?

Def Mech

Now that a son of Colorado Senate Candidate Bob Schaffer has apparently deliberately flushed his father’s political career down the drain, and with it, the most important U.S. Senate race in the country; let’s review one narrow aspect of the consequences of a third party vote.  Setting aside what I believe to be the disasterous implications of an Obama victory on health care, foreign policy, social welfare, free speech, energy independence, and overall personal freedom, I want to look at one area of domestic policy and one bill.

I believe that a single term of unrestricted Democrat rule would be fatal to the individual right to self-defense recognized by the Second Amendment and recently affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Heller Decision.  I base this conclusion in part on the provisions of S. 2577, Frank Lautenberg’s new bill to “regulate” guns shows out of business.  (Search Thomas by bill number.)

The Hard Left’s real problem with gun shows is, in my opinion, that they currently provide forums for persons in “The Community of People Who Own Guns” to meet and exchange information.  Just as the radicals want to cripple talk radio with the “Fairness Doctrine,” so do they want to eliminate any opportunity for gun owners to gather to discuss possible resistance to Democrat plans for complete domination of America’s political landscape.

S. 2577, following some dubious claims in the findings about the frequency of criminal use of firearms purchased at gun shows, goes on to require that a gun show promoter register every gun show with the U.S. Attorney General according to regulations “promulgated” by that Attorney General.  The promoter must then pay a fee for every gun show in an amount to be set by the Attorney General.  Can you imagine Janet Reno writing regulations and setting fees?  The words arbitrary, capricious, outlandish, and impossible come to mind.

How about a $10,000 fee for every show?  That alone would wipe out all the smaller shows and probably kill most of the larger ones.  As far as this bill is concerned, “Mission Accomplished!”

“But wait!”  As they say in the TV ads, “There’s more!”  The promoter has to verify the identity of “each gun show vendor.”  (The Democrats don’t want to verify voter identification at the polls, yet they want to identify each vendor at a gun show!)  By the way, a “vendor” is defined as anyone “who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers or exchanges 1 or more firearms at a gun show.”  How does a promoter know that an attendee might offer for sale a firearm that might not even be present at the show.  (Crystal ball time again in Democrat Oz.)

If “any part of the transaction” occurs at the show, it is covered by this law.  If Joe says to Harry, “Someday, you ought to come over and look at my shotgun,” at a gun show, in theory the sale of that shotgun across the back fence ten years later could be a criminal act.  I believe this law criminalizes both thought and speech, beyond what I believe to be its patently illegal infringement of a fundamental right.

Before the show, every vendor must sign a ledger and a form regarding the legal liabilities imposed on every vendor at the show.  Each person who attends the show must also be notified of the provisions of this onerous law.  How would you do that as a promoter?  If I were crazy enough to hold a gun show under this legislation, I would require every attendee to sign a form signifying their understanding of the law.  Many gun show attendees would not complete the form.  Gun show attendance would plummet.  Mission accomplished!  Gun shows killed.

All transactions at gun shows must be through a licensed dealer.  Another fee (read tax) on a constitutional right.  No person is allowed to take possession of a firearm until a criminal background check has been conducted.  This bill refers to a real time background check against a federal database; however, I believe that the now all-powerful Attorney General could easily mandate a three-day, ten-day, or ninety day waiting period for completion of the background check.  Most gun shows last two days.  Mission accomplished, etc.

The gun show promoter has to submit within ten days a report to the Attorney General regarding sales at the show and the licensed dealers involved.  The promoter must keep a record of all attendees who “offer to sell” that is subject to warrantless search without “reasonable cause” at any time by agents of the Attorney General.

Not to worry, however, violation of any these provisions will only net you a felony conviction, up to a $10,000 fine, and between two to five years in a federal pen.  The conviction means you can never legally own a gun again.

If you are a conservative, a civil libertarian, or even a freedom-loving American, this law should give you nightmares.  This is only one of fourteen anti-gun laws currently before Congress.  These bills are being stalled by a shaky coalition of conservative Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats, and a possible Presidental veto.

If Barack Hussein Obama is elected with a 60 vote unassailable majority in the Senate, all these bills will most probably pass.  Game, set, match, checkmate!  The Left may not be able to ban guns, but they can make it so hard for you to own one that it will hurt. 

This evisceration of the Second Amendment could very well take place in the course of one four-year Presidential term and there would be nothing that we could legally do about it.  Even if there were a “backlash” against Left-wing excesses, which is doubtful given the Socialists’ ability to slam the door behind them when they gain power, it would take decades to regain the freedom that would be lost.

Please review my 13 relevant posts under the category “Elections” on this site for a much deeper comprehensive review of the damage that I believe an Obama Presidency would cause.  Of course, I could be over-the-hill paranoid crazy, but I have trouble ignoring the 14 gun bills poised to bury the Second Amendment.  S. 2577 isn’t the worst of the lot.

I know about John McCain’s record on gun shows.  I don’t personally like the man, but he has to pay some degree of attention to gun owners.  Barack Hussein Obama wants us to dry up and blow away, the sooner, the better.

If you are a potential third party voter (aside from supporiting Nader-Go Nader!), tell me where I’m wrong.  Has not a third party candidate always thrown the election to the other side?  What could possibly be different in 2008?  What leads you to think that freedom could survive four years of Socialist rule?

Def Mech

 

  

Thanks to Nicky Cheese for pointing out that parts of Australia already have recycling police equipped with headlamps, no less.  But don’t worry, folks, they are only allowed to lift the lid on your trash can.  They can’t legally rummage through your trash.  That’s very comforting.  When will they want to come into your house to inspect your waste baskets?

I opined before that Republicans want to govern and Democrats want to rule.( ”Conservatives voting for Obama?  I think it’s a bad idea.”  July 27th, 2008, Category: Elections, this website)  Don’t think the Libs want total control? 

J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Chief, remarked that everything a Communist does is to further Communism.  Now most “Progressives,” the new word for Liberals, would deny that their roots are firmly in the Communist tradition, but let’s look for a moment at their beliefs and their desires.

For Progressives, everything is a political act.  Eating is political.  No trans fats, no red meat.  Eat only organic foods.  Fish have feelings, too.  Smoking is a horrible sin.  Dressing is political.  No leather.  No fur.  Buy nothing made with non-union labor.  Your job is political.  Working in the corporate world is discouraged by the Obamas.  Remember Ward Churchill’s “little Eichmans” remark about World Trade Center victims?

Transportation is political.  Liberals want everyone to to use mass transit, like the “sophisticated” Europeans.  Gas guzzlers are horrible.  Remember how gas prices have gone up with Liberal control of Congress.  (If you want to be scared, look at gas prices in sophisticated Europe.) 

Drilling for oil is bad.  It’s better to check our tire inflation and continue to depend upon Arab oil for the foreseeable future than it is to tap our own considerable resources. 

Nuclear power is bad, even though France gets 75% of its electricity from the dirty, evil, smelly, vile, nasty, dangerous, abominable, demonic, unprogressive atom.  French atomic power, however, is, how shall I say it, so, cosmopolitan, so urbane, so French!

Wind power is good, although those wind farms seem to kill off a lot of eagles and other raptors.  (Damned unintended consequences!  You know, shoot-from-the-hip “Change” isn’t always a beneficial thing.)  Solar is good.  Coal is bad.  Actually, it seems that only U.S. coal is bad.  China and India appear to get a pass on the Kyoto Protocols.  Indian and Chinese coal is good!

How you get information is political.  NPR and PBS are good.  Mainstream, liberal, big city newspapers are good.  ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN News are good sources.  Fox News-BAD!  Talk radio is bad and needs to be controlled to give liberals more of a voice.  They haven’t figured out how to regulate the Net, yet.  Give them a little time, Obama in the White House, and a solid majority in the U.S. Senate and I’ll bet you they’ll find a way.

Speech must be suppressed on college campuses to prevent “hate” speech, which is basically anything that is “non-progressive.”  In Europe and Canada, governments imprison people for denying the Holocaust.  (I personally believe you would have to be mentally defective to deny the Holocaust.  I have seen Dachau.)  However, imprisoning people for their beliefs and statements smacks of witch hunts and burning flesh, even if it is in the name of repressing “hate” speech.  As much as the Left likes the President of Iran, you would think they would have a bone to pick with him about the Holocaust, but then there are are a lot of contradictions in the minds of the Liberal Elites.

Of course, the Libs want to regulate/ban guns.  To Bill Johnson, Denver columnist, handguns are an abomination.  I wonder if he has thought about hiring an exorcist to drive out the evil spirits.  One local priest even referred to “demon” guns, as I recall. 

A Batman propaganda piece is entitled ”Seduction of the Gun.”  (I’m confused.  Are we supposed to  be under the “spell” of these weapons.  I confess that I get stock tips from my toaster.  I think my blender is plotting against me, but don’t tell the disposal.  Are we supposed to be bitter?  Are we supposed to be bitterly seduced or seducedly bitter?  Maybe all gun owners should go to a New Age healer, shaman, brujo, curandero, witchdoctor, personal trainer, or whoever, to get rid of our psychic problems with these mysteriously demonic objects.)

In California, there was talk of government regulation of your house thermostat by radio control.  How dare you decide what the temperature should be in your own home?  That is certainly a matter for government intervention.

Oh!  But not abortion.  It would be immoral for the state to interfere with a woman’s right to kill her unborn child for any reason.

The most classic example of the Democrat obsession with control is playing itself out in their Presidential Nomination Process this year.  The party of the “working person,” the party of the “common citizen” has created a cadre of “SUPERDELEGATES” to make sure that the working people and the common citizens don’t screw up and nominate someone that the Rulers of the Democrat Party would not want as a candidate.  Let’s do that one more time.  The party of the “working person,” the party of the “common citizen” has created a cadre of “SUPERDELEGATES” to make sure that the working people and the common citizens don’t screw up and nominate someone that the Rulers of the Democrat Party would not want as a candidate.  Whew!  And they call themselves Americans!  Well, actually, some of them call themselves “citizens of the world.”  

The Superdelegate phenomenon tells you all you need to know about the Democrats.  To paraphrase Emily Dickenson, Love, Hope, and Change are all we know about Democrat promises of Heaven; and what they have done, what they are doing, and what they propose to do to this country are all we need to know of Hell.

If you value freedom, vote Republican.

Def Mech 

On 07-21-08, I projected in a post entitled, “Obama’s “service” speech: Gestapo, Red Guards, or something else?”  that Left-wing oriented youth service corps members could very well become Red Guard-type garbage inspectors enforcing strict recycling trash sorting laws. (Categories: Culture War, Elections-on this site)

The San Francisco Department of the Environment didn’t even wait for the November Election to demonstrate how life imitates art.  Under a proposed law, trash collectors are going to inspect garbage before throwing it in the truck.  If you (gasp!) don’t put your recyclable materials into the right containers, you will be warned.  You could also draw a fine.  “Big Brother is watching.” & “Ve haf vays of dealing mit people like you!”

If you offend three times, you could be fined up to $1,000.  This is yet another example of Left-wing bureaucrats who really don’t think that “common” citizens have the sense of a cucumber.

Imagine what could happen if they found a gun cleaning patch in your plastic bottle bin!  Worse!  It could have powder solvent on it, which would no doubt make you guilty of a Haz Mat offense.  Call the SWAT Team!

“We believe mandantory recycling can get us to the next level,” a city spokesperson is reported to have said.  Would that be the Brave New World Level, The 1984 Level, the Brazil, The Movie level, or the It can’t happen here! level?

OK!  Maybe I’m not psychic.  Mayor Newsom apparently did announce in April that he planned to begin “issuing fines to encourage recycling.”  (Emphasis mine.)  I don’t remember hearing anything about it, but it could have crept into my unconscious.

I can’t help thinking of Voltaire’s quote about the English occasionally shooting an admiral “pour encourager les autres.”  For anyone unfortunate enough not to read French, as Barack Hussein Obama would no doubt say, that means, “to encourage the others.”  By the way, do you feel bitter and clingy?  I’m not bitter today, but I do feel a bit clingy.  Must be the heat.

I couldn’t make this stuff up, if I tried.  Well, maybe I could.  I’m working on a novel that I plan to inflict upon you, if I can get the insurance problems worked out.

If you’re trapped in The City By The Bay, watch your garbage and for gosh sakes, don’t throw away anything incriminating.  Drug paraphernalia and evidence that you are an illegal alien are probably all right.  Do not!  I repeat, do not, throw away anything that might identify you as a gun owner.  “Ve haf vays of dealing mit people like you!”

Vote Republican or lose your rights! 

Def Mech   

• Recent Posts

  • Will CU allow concealed carry on campus?
  • Displacement as a defense mechanism in the irrational fear of guns
  • Oops? Police stage pot raid on mayor’s house, kill two dogs. May be mistake!
  • unicef and more Jamaican Gun Control. I’m shocked! Shocked! Yet another gun law failure.
  • National Research Council nixes national ballistic database for now!