Def Mech

Last night, 60 Minutes ran a rant against U.S. gun smuggling into Mexico.  The problem is that some of the guns shown on the program were not firearms that are legally, commercially available in the United States.  It is these legally available guns that Eric Holder and the Obama Administration want to ban.

Can you say, “Bait and switch, Amigo?”  Common, legal semi-automatic firearms are apparently being misclassified as fully automatic military weapons.  In a conversation with Steven Schreiner, President of the Firearms Coalition of Colorado, I learned that the guns shown in the 60 Minute segment included an M-60 machine gun, which is legal in the U.S. only if you have a Class III Firearms License and pay a $200 transfer tax.  These machine guns are extremely rare and expensive in the U.S., and therefore unlikely to be smuggled across the border.

Also shown were U.S. M-16 rifles with grenade launchers.  While it would be theoretically possible to re-machine these military firearms, it would be much easier and more economical for Mexican gangs to obtain them from corrupt government sources and from gun runners  in Mexico or neighboring states.  The M-16 select-fire rifle that can be used in an automatic mode is in military and terrorist use in many countries in Central and South America.  The U.S. civilian version of the M-16 is the AR 15.  It does not fire full auto and is not available with a grenade launcher that accepts anti-personnel ammunition.  The 60 Minute piece showed obsolete M-1 type hand grenades.  Live grenades are not commercially available in the U.S. legal market. 

AK 47 “assault rifles” have been displayed in previous televion exposes of guns used in Mexico, according Schreiner.  Again, possession of any full auto firearm is heavily regulated and taxed by the U.S. government.  Any grenades or actual select fire weapons likely came from Mexican or foreign sources.  The AK 47 is probably the most common modern rifle in the world, since the old Soviet Union exported them wholesale in support of “people’s” revolutions.  Soviet satellite states also produced large quantities of these guns.

Venezuelan Strong Man Hugo Chavez has imported 100,000 AK-47’s and is planning factories that produce AK-47’s and ammunition.  There is no shortage of old Soviet-bloc and even new Russian arms, if you have the money to pay for them.  The drug cartels have the money.  (gunpolicy.org is not a Second Amendment-friendly site.)

Belt-fed Russian PK or PKM machine guns have appeared on previous TV programs about Mexican gang weapons.  They are also regulated, rare, and quite expensive in the U.S.  Former Soviet allies and socialist governments in South and Central America would have extensive access to these military weapons.

Schreiner said news reports indicate that Russian hand grenades are showing up in Mexico, along with Soviet-style rocket propelled grenade (RPG) launchers.  These long, slender, shoulder-fired weapons are used by armies and terrorists around the globe.  RPG launchers and ammunition are not coming from U.S. markets.

Let us remember that Mexico has absolute, draconian gun control laws that deprive virtually everyone in the country except the ruling class of the legal ability for self-defense.  I guess the drug cartels and violent street gangs didn’t get the memo banning guns.  See my posts on Mexico under the Category: “Foreign Gun Laws.”

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has issued a warning to federally licensed dealers against selling guns to persons without proper documentation.  If you want to privately sell a firearm, please make sure you know to the best of your ability that the buyer is legally eligible to buy the gun.  I would recommend checking the driver’s license and asking some questions.  You might get two forms of ID.  (This is not legal advice.  Just trying to help keep a few  guns out of the hands of gangsters and terrorists.)

It’s possible that some American firearms are being smuggled south across the border.  Given the availability of military weapons from other sources, I don’t believe that the U.S. is a significant source of Mexican violence.

 Don’t fall for the “bait and switch” tactic on the part of the Obama Administration.  Between South and Central American sources, the Mexican Police, and the Mexican Military, there are plenty of guns for the gangs.  Any guns coming from the U.S. would most likely be commercially available firearms, not the military weapons shown on 60 Minutes.  Again, Mexico has gun “control,” so there must be some “mistake” about the killings, kidnappings and murders south of the border.

Trying to fight the violence generated by MS 13 and other international gangs in this country and Mexico through American gun bans is like trying to fight a fire with a can of gasoline.  It’s exciting, but it doesn’t work very well.

Def Mech

Our opponents, those that believe that “common citizens” should be herded like cattle at the whim of rich and powerful philosopher king “intellectuals,” believe that they can divide us.  They believe that the “one slice at a time” Fabian Socialist ploy will cause us to falter.  They believe that coming in “under the radar” with incremental attacks on handgun and semi-autos will lull other gun owners into complacency and submission.

They believe that talking about support of the Second Amendment is enough to lull us to sleep, while they push for gun bans, registration schemes, and plots to keep young people from entering the shooting sports.  They believe that “Smart Guns,” and “Ammunition Accountability” can drive up the price and limit the availability of firearms and bullets to the point that the American Gun Culture will dry up and blow away.

Make no mistake about it.  There is a threat.  As Walt Whitman wrote, “There is no week nor day nor hour, when tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their roughness and spirit of defiance-Tyranny may always enter-there is no charm, no bar against it-the only bar against it is a large resolute breed of men.”  (I might add here, and, a large resolute group of women.)  (Bartlett, John, Familiar Quotations, Fourteenth Edition, Little, Brown, and Company, Boston-Toronto, 1968, page 703 b.)

But, what exactly are we fighting for?  Certainly we want to stop the possible rise of tyranny, the killing fields, the boxcars rolling to Dachau, or the casual lawlessness and murder of the Mafia, or Mexican and Columbian drug gangs.  I believe we are also fighting politically to preserve the miracle of American Republican Democracy and to keep this country from descending into the nightmare of a civil war or a protracted insurgency like the one that has rent Northern Ireland for generations.  (See my post, “Non-violence a non-starter as counter to established modern tyranny,” 09-08-08, Category: “Official Misconduct.”)

We want to prevent lawlessness, gang violence, and widespread public disregard for law and order such as that brought about by Prohibition, America’s greatest flirtation with heavy-handed government control.  We want to save America from the spectre of the Terror of the French Revolution, or the slaughter of brother by brother of our own Civil War.

We seek to preserve by any available political means those freedoms, which would at the last ditch, have to be preserved by force, in the event of the failure of all other remedies.  We seek to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States, as all our political leaders and military personnel are sworn to do.  (May they always be mindful of their duty!)

Jeff Knox has written two thoughtful posts regarding some of the issues involved in our quest to maintain the liberties recognized by the founders of this nation.  “Mutual Assured Destruction, The power is in the threat, not the execution” and “Where’s Your Line?  It’s hard to draw in shifting sand,” should serve as cautionary  essays for everyone involved in the debate about the rights of Americans to armed self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide.

Is there a risk in standing up for freedom?  You know there is.  Will you be held up to ridicule as a “desperate, clingy” gun owner with one tooth, a dirty flannel shirt, an “assault weapon,” an alcohol problem, and a psychotic drive to slaughter Bambi?  They have already stereotyped you.  Is there a risk that political speech that should be protected by the First Amendment will result in discrimination, persecution, and possible unfair prosecution?  You never know.  Is it safer now to pretend that “they” don’t know who you are?  I don’t think so. (See my post, “Believe me!  They know who you are,” 11-18-08, under the Category: ” benefits of guns.”

Winston Churchill wrote, “If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

We owe it to ourselves, our families, our ancestors, and hopefully, our descendants, to do everything we can within the political framework created by the Founders to preserve that framework, which is the Constitution of the United States, especially the Second Amendment.  Let it never be said that we failed as citizens, patriots, and lovers of freedom to do everything possible to prevent tragedy for our country.  We never want to reach another sunrise, such as the one thrust upon another great American, Chief Crazy Horse, when he was forced by broken treaties and the murder of his friend, Conquering Bear, to say, “It is a good day to fight.  It is a good day to die.”

Let us rather emulate Churchill and the Greek, Thucydides, who said, “The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom is courage.”  Let us now demonstrate political courage and resolve in the face of challenges to our liberty.

Def Mech

It is not that Mexico’s draconian gun control laws are the main cause of their deplorable internal security problems.  Drug-financed gangs and widespread governmental corruption have been strangling that nation for years.  The salient point for me as I look at Mexico, is that their strict gun control regulations have done little or nothing to ameliorate their desperate situation.  (See my previous posts under the Category: “Foreign Gun Laws.”)

You could argue that their condition would be worse without gun control, but it is hard to imagine a more serious situation.  Honest, police, military, and public officials are murdered with apparent impunity.  Civilians are killed wholesale by gangs.  Serial killers seem to operate without hindrance, given the number of women who end up dead along the border.

If gun control worked, the gangs would stage demonstrations and sit-ins to settle their rivalries and protest government interference in their illegal activities through attorneys.  Before the new American administration embarks on a policy of strict gun control, they would do well to look again at pobre Mexico.

Def Mech 

P.S. The main Blogivist Server is being worked on this weekend.  See you on the other side, when I will address comments on my post on H.R. 45.

To Brooke,
Fact One: Capitalization is our friend.
Fact Two: Your school apparently cheated you on spelling and the use of contractions. You may want to consider legal action.
Fact Three: Your other two comments were spam. I deleted them.
Fact Four: Gun control laws don’t keep people safe.

In my post, I was urging gun owners to vote for candidates who support the individual rights of American Citizens to armed self-defense against crime and tyranny. In many cases, that didn’t happen in the 2008 Election. It remains to be seen how much damage will be done to the Second Amendment by the incoming administration and anti-gun rights Democrats in the state legislatures across the country.

Mexico offers what should be a strong cautionary lesson to the U.S. about the dangers of strict gun control. The unfortunate people of Mexico are mired in a deadly swamp of crime, violence and corruption. The rich can afford armed guards. The lower economic classes are merely living targets for the gangland drug lords that turn the streets into rivers of blood.

Yet, in our own country, we continue to hear calls for more and more gun “control.” If gun control worked, Pobre Mexico would be the perfect non-violent society. Gun control advocates promise us safety, but Mexican violence gives the lie to their assurances of bliss in a gun-free America.

Benjamin Franklin aptly said in his Historical Review of Pennsylvania that “They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The coming years will be a stern test of the character of American sports shooters, those who own guns for self-defense, gun collectors, and advocates of individual freedom.

Storm clouds are gathering. May we prove equal to the task of maintaining our birthright of liberty in the face of “nanny state” socialistic paternalism!  Remember Pobre Mexico!

Def Mech

When somebody steals your sign, you feel angry and violated.  That person has not only taken about three dollars worth of wire, paper, or plastic, they have effectively stolen your freedom of expression.  That freedom is one of the most important jewels that we as Americans possess.  When someone steals it, we need to be angry.  We need to get out and campaign for our candidates, we need to tell our friends and neighbors of all political stripes, that the other side doesn’t care about the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  We need to put out more yard signs and bring them in at night to force the Democrats to steal them during the day.  However, there are other considerations in this request for restraint and self-control in the face of Liberal thuggery.

First of all, we do not want to give the Democrats the excuse to call us barbarians, vandals, suppressors of free speech, etc., for stealing or defacing their signs.  We are better than that.  We are better than they are, because we do not have to engage in Nazi Brownshirt behavior to make our points

I read an article on gun rights a few years ago that said in effect, “It’s great to be on the individual right to self-defense side of this argument, because we don’t have to lie to support it.”  That doesn’t mean that everyone on the Democrat side of the political spectrum is a vandal, but they certainly have their share.  We want to stay on the moral high ground in this debate.

Tactically, we don’t want to steal or vandalize Democrat signs because it angers and energizes them.  Look at the comments from people on this site who have had their signs stolen!  We want the Democrats who can think for themselves to vote McCain/Palin and keep on going down the GOP side of the ticket.  We don’t want them stomping to the polls and voting three times for Barack Hussein Obama, because they want revenge against a Republican who stole or tore up their sign.

The other possible meaning of hunting is even more chilling and more demanding of self-control.  I don’t believe that Craig intended this meaning, but I want to take this opportunity to make an important point.  This is not legal advice.  I am not an attorney, nor a trained self-defense instructor.  The following is my personal take on dealing with vandalism and violence.

  One of the best ways to avoid being injured or killed by gangsters, muggers, rapists, or vandals is to exercise good judgement in the matter of situational awareness.  This means that you don’t put yourself into situations where you are likely to become a victim.

You don’t walk down dark alleys alone at night.  You stay out of dangerous neighborhoods.  You don’t flash a lot of money or jewelry around.  You don’t get staggering drunk or high.  You stay out of places where you get the feeling that someone would cut your throat for a twenty.  You don’t go looking for confrontations.

You get a concealed carry permit for a handgun.  You religiously follow the rules of gun safety.  You practice with your weapon until don’t have to think about your actions, if you ever need to use it.  You buy pepper spray, a legal knife, a cane, or another possible way to defend yourself or help another citizen in case of attack.  You realize that being armed carries with it a burden of responsibility.  You don’t want to hurt someone in error and have to face the personal guilt, or the criminal, and civil consequences of an “unrighteous” shoot or other incident.

Would I confront a vandal stealing my yard sign?  Probably.  It would be a judgement call.  Would I be armed?  Yes.  I would also be acutely aware of my legal rights and responsibilities in that situation.  There is no legal “bag limit” for vandals.  The law discourages inflicting injuries on others for crimes against property, when you or other persons aren’t at risk. 

If you choose to arm yourself, I believe there are certain basic issues that you have to take into consideration.  You learn the laws about the use of deadly force and what the laws are in your state regarding the right to stand your ground as opposed to a “duty to retreat.”  You do your best to defend your natural right to self-defense against crime and tyranny, and you thank whatever God you pray to, or your lucky stars, that you live in the United States of America.

As bad as it is here, and it could get much worse if Obama gets elected; we still have people climbing fences and crossing oceans to get in.  In a really big chunk of the rest of the world, people are climbing fences and crossing oceans to get out, so that they can come to what Reagan called our “shining city on a hill.”

So I am going to discourage hunting either yard signs or Democrat vandals.  I will instead encourage actively campaigning for the GOP in this election.  I believe large numbers of thinking Democrats are going to step back from the edge of the cliff and vote Republican.  If we can get the GOP Base out, convince Independents to vote for Freedom instead of Socialism, and keep intellectually pure gun owners from throwing away their votes by staying home or voting for a third party candidate, I believe we have a good chance of winning this election.

If we win, we can, for a time, relegate the sign stealers and vandals to the trash heap of history, along with the Nazis, the Japanese Imperialists, and the Stalinists who believed that suppressing free speech is an effective way to gain and keep power.  (Have you heard anything in the Mainstream Media about Obama’s attempt to muzzle the NRA in Pennsylvania?)

The fight will never be over.  There will always be those who want to be “more equal than others.”  There will always be those who “mean to rule well, but who mean to rule.”  “Eternal vigilance is” truly “the price of Freedom.”  If we are to survive as a Republic, we must be willing to pay that price, and we must be able to control ourselves in the face of Left-wing provocations, voter fraud, and Mainstream Media pandering.  Remember, we don’t have to lie, cheat, or steal to win elections, because we have the truth and the Bill of Rights in our corner in this fight.

Def Mech

It is apparent that I need to work on attracting a more intellectually substantive Liberal element to this blog. If there were rational arguments available that supported Chicago’s disarmament of honest citizens, you would think mc loving would have made them.

I am reminded again of the old legal adage that runs something like,” If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table, howl to the four winds, and call the other side names.”
We probably should add to that advice. Please use appropriate capitalization and punctuation, if you pound and howl on the Net.

Def Mech

What are we to make of this carnage in a city with a handgun ban and some of the most onerous anti-self-defense laws in the country?  First of all, Democrat gun control laws obviously aren’t working.  This is not surprising, considering the lack of evidence that gun control laws work at all.  (See previous posts under the category “Gun Law Failures.”)

I suppose the “good news,” if there is good news in this story, is that 90% of the shooters and 80% of their victims appear to be gang members.  It seems the gangsters are keeping most of the violence within the (crime) family.

With regard to domestic/foreign policy: will Barack Obama now say that the U.S. should pull out of Chicago, since the city appears to be a more dangerous place for Americans than an actual war zone?  (Chicago, you know, is much smaller than Iraq, so the relative danger factor would seem to be greater in Chi Town.)  I believe Obama thinks that Illinois is one of our 57 states, so I’m pretty sure he would treat this as a domestic issue.

Oh!  Right!  I doubt we will hear a pronouncement favoring withdrawal, because Obama is a product of the Chicago Political Machine.  He supports that city’s ineffective gun laws and other draconian gun control measures. 

Vote Republican, or lose your legal right to own a gun.  Actually, as long as Heller stands under an Obama Administration, you might be able to own a firearm, other than a semi-automatic; but you probably won’t be able to lawfully assemble the weapon or use it for anything other than a doorstop.  If Obama appoints liberal judges to the Supreme Court, they may overturn Heller.  It would only take one new liberal justice’s vote for the Court to rule that you do not have a fundamental, natural right to self-defense against crime and tyranny.  You do the math.

Def Mech

This public dispair again underscores the failure of gun control laws in Mexico.  The corrupt police are armed by the state.  Criminals have no qualms about violating weak laws against murder and kidnapping, and apparently no problems obtaining guns.  Even if the domestic supply of firearms were magically eliminated and cross-border smuggling stopped, the gangs could still get guns from the corrupt police!

Is that the direction that we want this country to go?  Do we want the American Democrat Party to eliminate the death penalty, as the Mexican Government has done?  Do we want the Democrat Party to appoint “soft” judges who impose relatively short sentences, as the Mexican Judiciary does?  Do we want the Democrat Party to impose draconian restrictions on the possession and defensive use of firearms?  Do we want our police forces corrupted by black markets in drugs and guns the way that American law enforcement was corrupted by Prohibition?  Do we want to be forced to publicly demonstrate to protest the fact that we are helpless in the face of gang violence and police corruption?

How we vote, or don’t vote, will have a major impact on the future safety of the citizens of this country, aside from the Democrats’ apparent desire to surrender to radical Islamic jihadists.  I am afraid that if we don’t vote or waste our votes on candidates who can’t possibly win, we will find ourselves in the position of the non-rich in Mexico.

Vote for the most pro-individual rights, electable candidates.  Party trumps person. 

Def Mech

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