I would not normally bother with this, but today at a gun show, I heard a firearms dealer adamately insist that S. 2099 is a current threat.  Urban legends on the Internet are often almost impossible to kill.  Here is my two cents worth.  Die, Monster!  Die!  

Snopes, the Urban Legends Section of About.com, and the NRA-ILA all confirm that a 2009 version of S. 2099 does not exist as of this date.

A 2009 bill, HR 45, would register owners of handguns and semi-autos with magazine wells and apparently would ban anyone under 18 from touching a firearm under all but life or death, self-defense circumstances.  (See my posts on HR 45 under the Category: “Registration.”)  HR 45 is very bad bill that bears watching, even though it is probably not going anywhere.  Keep an eye on it!

Trust, but verify!  We all make mistakes, but let’s correct the ones that we discover and try not to spread unfounded rumors.

Def Mech

I’m not an attorney, but some people who are, take issue with the Seventh Circuit’s virtual dismissal of the “Due Process” Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.  Constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh offers his opinion here.

For me, personally, as a non-lawyer, there are several quotations that bear strongly on the argument.  The first is from William Rawle, who was appointed U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania by George Washington.  Rawle reportedly turned down Washington’s offer to name him Attorney General of the U.S.  In writing about the Second Amendment, Rawle asserted:

“The prohibition is general.  No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people.  Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature.  But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

In the Supreme Court Decision, Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S.253 (1886), the court cited U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542.  The Cruikshank opinion said that, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms ‘is not a right granted by the constitution.  Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.  The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress…”

Eugene Volokh points out in the above citation that 19^th Century cases do not cover arguments relating to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Due Process arguments are precisely those arguments that were later used to incorporate other amendments against the states, in many cases involving civil rights for Blacks.  Cruikshank also states that the right to keep and bear arms is independent of the Bill of Rights.  As such, in my opinion, it must be counted among the natural rights of free individuals.  The Seventh Circuit, in a truly amazing and terrifying hypothetical, postulates that even the right to self-defense could be “legally” criminalized.  See David Codrea’s post here.

Presser goes on to say: “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.”

It would appear from this long statement that the Supreme Court in Presser made the critical distinction between the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the power of the states to raise and regulate militias.  The much more recent Heller Decision should have driven a final stake through the heart of the “Collectivist Right” argument.

Since the “Commerce Clause” has been used by the Federal Government to impose so many restrictions on state sovereignty, it would be interesting to see if this so-called “Elastic Clause” could be used to impose Second Amendment guarantees of freedom upon recalcitrant state governments.  (Just a thought.)

We can expect opponents of the individual right to armed self-defense from crime, tyranny, and genocide to grasp at every legal straw in their efforts to disarm the American People.  The Collectivist Argument is hopefully dead forever.  Now we will continue to fight the battle for freedom at both the state and federal levels.

Colorado and a number of other states have in their own constitutions an articulation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  This will help.  However, as I have said before, we can not rely upon the provisions of the law alone.  (See my Post, “S. 843-Gun registration bill threatens your rights,” April 27th, 2009, Category: “Registration.”)

We must make the political price of infringement of the Second Amendment so prohibitively high that, to paraphrase Patrick Henry, no one will dare approach the “jewel” of the public liberty with anything but reverence.  Eternal vigilance!

Def Mech

Def Mech

The problem with registration is that it is often a necessary prelude to gun confiscation.  In 1938, the Nazis used Weimar Republic gun registration records to disarm Jews. ( See Dr. Stephen Halbrook’s scholarly article, here.) 

In England, Australia, New York, and California, registration records have been used to punish law-abiding gun owners by the “legal” theft of their firearms.  (See my posts under the Category: “Registration.”

In 1975, Charles Morgan, Director of the Washington, D. C. Office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Crime, “I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that that kind of record keeping procedure (gun registration) is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another.”  Now comes anti-gun Senator Lautenberg to offer up American gun owners as sacrifices on the altar of Left-wing Socialism.  It’s a short step from registration of gun show sales to a ban on all private sales of firearms.

Please tell all your friends who own guns to oppose this dangerous bill and contact your senators and representatives and ask them to oppose it.  We must politely advise the Democrats in Congress that gun registration is as unacceptable to 80,000,000 American gun owners as the outright banning of certain classes of firearms.  We must make the Democratic Leadership understand that their dramatic congressional losses of 1994 will be repeated in 2010, if they further infringe America’s birthright of freedom recognized by the Second Amendment.

The Constitution may not protect us.  See here  Dr. Eugene Volokh’s opinions regarding the probable constitutionality of waiting periods,  taxes, fees, registration and licensing with regard to guns.  It is up to us to exercise our right to free speech and beat back this serious national challenge to our right to armed self-defense against, crime, tyranny and genocide.

“Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them…  The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those who they oppress.”  (Fredrick Douglass, famous abolitionist, author, speaker, U.S. Marshal, son of a slave.)

We must first warn the Democrats and then make them pay a terrible political price for every infraction, no matter how small, of our natural, fundamental  right to firearms’ ownership.

Def Mech

On Page One, “Obama takes aim at flow of arms to Mexico,” the Post quoted Mexican President Calderon as saying that, “90% of the weapons seized in Mexico can be traced to the United States.”  You would think that somebody, the President of Mexico, someone on the Associated Press staff, or someone at The Denver Post would have watched the Fox News story that blew the “90%” canard out of the water.  (See my post: “Left overstates US gun impact on Mexican Violence,” tagged: “Mexican gun violence,” done on 04-07-09.)

In actuality, about 17% of the crime guns seized in Mexico came from the US market.  By allowing this “90%” misinformation to stand without comment, both the AP and the Post seemed to demonstrate either ignorance or bias.

On Page 12 B, The Denver Post printed an editorial from the anti-gun rights Washington Post.  In this piece, the writers opined that the Interior Department should reject the Bush Administration rule allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry in national parks in states that honor their permits.  The editorial mischaracterized the rule by saying that the regulation allows “visitors” to carry concealed, loaded guns.  In reality, all CCW permit holders in parks would be visitors, but not all park visitors would be CCW permit holders.

The uninformed reader would naturally believe from this piece that all visitors could legally carry concealed.  The writers go on to emote a “parade of horribles,” including increased poaching, accidental shootings of wildlife and park visitors, and apparently (Gasp!) lead pollution from the tons of bullets that would presumably be sprayed around the parks by red-necked, racist, sexist, one-toothed, beer-swilling, gun-toting barbarians.  (See my posts on the parks under the Category: “Concealed Carry.)

(According to a more recent post on the Volokh Conspiracy, the Washington Post got its wish.  The Obama Administration has apparently decided not to appeal the liberal judge’s injunction against the Bush rule.  The Department of the Interior will reportedly keep the matter under study, but I think that we can conclude that concealed carry in national parks is a dead issue, at least until after the next presidential election.)

The Washington Post editorial reflected its usual animus toward armed self-defense against crime.  The Denver Post, by publishing this piece without comment, either exposed its own indifference to the details of the situation or a tacit agreement with the misinformation contained in the editorial.

David Sirota, in his op-ed piece, “Columbine questions we didn’t ask,” blamed spree killings on our warlike, violent society, that, according to him, has a “winner take all economy,” and “The killing machine…” of our “defense and security” establishments.  Michael Moore said essentially the same thing in his distorted “mocumentary,” Bowling for Columbine. (See David Kopel’s excellent deconstruction of Bowling…here.)

Sirota wasn’t shy about his own bias.  ”…the assault weapons ban expiration is an abomination.”  Never mind the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and the National Academy of the Sciences could find no significant crime prevention benefit from the ban or other gun control laws. (See my posts under the Category: “Research.”)

At least, Sirota rejected the simplistic notion that guns cause crime, although he didn’t bother to explain his animus against semi-automatic firearms, which he misnames, “assault weapons.”  It would be interesting to see his rationale for this dislike of these common guns, which many liberals seem to view as a necessary article of their faith.

Sirota’s opinion that the American defense establishment, journalists who support the military, and “every other suit-and-tie clad industry,” (whoever they are) promote the idea that “…killing is a legitimate form of national ambition and self-expression,” seems to be a bit over the top for my taste.  (See my politically incorrect posts under the Category: “War on Terror.”)

In conclusion, Friday’s Denver post was rife with sentiment against guns and gun owners, without so much as a single, mewling letter to the editor expressing the other side of the argument.  It’s no wonder that people who only get their “news” and opinions from Mainstream Media outlets are misinformed about the costs and benefits of firearms to society.  (See my Category: “Benefits of Guns.”)

“Obviously a man’s judgement cannot be better than the information on which he has based it.  Give him the truth and he may still go wrong when he has the chance to be right, but give him no news or present him only with distorted and incomplete data, with ignorant, sloppy or biased reporting, with propaganda and deliberate falsehood, and you destroy his whole reasoning processes, and make him something less than a man.”  (Address to the New York State Publishers Association, August 30^th, 1948)Bartlett, John, Familiar Quotations, Fourteenth Edition, Brown, Little and Company, Boston and Toronto, 1968, Page 1020 a.)

I would argue that the same concept applies to women and students of all ages.  If more Americans do not get a balanced view of the world from the New Media, (Internet, Talk Radio, and Cable News) I believe that we are headed for a new Dark Age of ignorance and savagery.  The ancient Romans thought that they had grown beyond the reach of history and that their republic would last forever.  (Remember!  Rome is the “Eternal City.”)  Many Americans believe that we have grown beyond the reach of history…

Def Mech

The African-American Experience

Understand!  Gun control is discrimination.  The rich and powerful will always enjoy the benefits of the protection of armed force through legal privilege and bodyguards.  It is only “common citizens” who are disarmed by restrictive laws and gun bans.

Hard-Left Democrats often describe the centuries of slavery and repression endured by African-Americans as a holocaust or genocide. During the Civil War, it was Southern Democrats and their northern cousins, the Copperheads, who defended slavery.  Abraham Lincoln, who freed the slaves, was the father of the Republican Party.  After the war and Lincoln’s assassination, it was most often Democrats who were the leaders in denying constitutional rights to blacks, including the right to keep and bear arms.

Before the war, the Scott V. Sanford Supreme Court Decision, often known as the Dredd Scott Case, cited the right to go armed as one of the rights of an American Citizen that was denied to a slave.  Of course, the forced disarmament of black slaves and free blacks long predated the Civil War Era.

David Kopel, a prominent Colorado Attorney, who was part of the plaintiff’s legal team in the important Supreme Court Heller Decision that struck down the Washington, D.C. handgun ban, discussed the racists roots of American gun control in his book, The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy.  “…the first mention of Negroes in Virginia’s laws had been a 1644 provision barring free Negroes from owning firearms…”  (Page 332)

Following the War Between the States, southern “states enacted Black Codes, which barred the black freedmen from exercising basic civil rights, including the right to bear arms.”  (Page 333)

“The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867 complained that freedmen were ‘forbidden to own or bear firearms and thus…rendered defenseless against assaults by whites.”  (Page 333)  Kopel goes on to describe the activities of the Ku Klux Klan and other white racists in disarming and terrorizing blacks.  (Kopel, David B., The Samurai, The Mountie, and the Cowboy, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1992, Pages 332-335.)

Arniter Jamison is a black Republican activist.  When interviewed in 2004, she was the Public Relations Director for the Colorado Black Republicans.  She described the relationship between the Ku Klux Klan and the Democratic Party and why she is a Republican.

“Most of the intimidation and the Ku Klux Klan, which was an auxiliary of the Democratic party-…-it was their job to intimidate Republicans.”  “During the Reconstruction and during ‘Jim Crow laws,’ we had the same gun control laws that they’re trying to put in place now, which meant blacks could not own guns.  When the Ku Klux Klan came to intimidate them, they had no way of defending themselves.”  (Hanks, Ed, “Rampart Exclusive Interview, Arniter Jamison, Communications, Colorado Black Republicans,” The Front Range Rampart, Denver, Colorado, March 4^th, 2005, Pages 8 & 9.)

On 01-31-09, the History International Channel (276) ran a documentary made in 2008 from 8-10 PM Mountain Standard Time.  It was entitled, Aftershock, Beyond the Civil War.  This presentation detailed the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and how “Radical Republicans” fought to suppress Klan violence across the South.  In 1871, President Grant deployed federal troops in an attempt to protect blacks, workers of the Freedmen’s Bureau, and Union sympathizers who were being intimidated and murdered by the Kan and other white supremacist organizations.

For two other articles on the history of racism in America, see “The Democrats’ own history with race,” and “Black Leader: Democrat Party Architect of Racism.”  For our purposes, however, we are more concerned with the fact that gun control was a key element during centuries of repression and genocide against African-Americans.

Gun control/disarmament is always a necessary precursor to oppression and genocide.  Racists find it hard to lynch minorities, when those minorities are armed and able to effectively resist intimidation, terrorism, and murder.

To be fair to modern Democrats, there are a number of them who have supported civil rights for blacks and other minorities. Charlton Heston was a Democrat, when he marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  In Colorado, we are fortunate to have a number of Democrats who support all the natural, fundamental rights of all citizens recognized by the Constitution.  State Senators Isgar and Tochtrop come to mind.  U.S. Representative John Salazar is a supporter of the Second Amendment.

Dr. Gary Kleck, the Florida researcher who has done groundbreaking research on defensive gun use in this country is a registered Democrat.  David Kopel, quoted above, of the Independence Institute, is also a registered Democrat.  There are Democrats who believe in freedom from draconian gun laws.

Let us all learn from the racist roots of American gun control.  When someone says, “Power to the People!” remember that gun control has always taken power from the people and given a monopoly on armed force to those who are rich and politically connected.

Ask your Liberal acquaintances to imagine the politician that they most hate and fear.  Give them a moment to think. Then, ask them a question.  Do they want to pursue gun control and possibly give that despised person an absolute monopoly with regard to firearms’ possession and use?

Stay tuned for the Native American experience with regard to guns.

Def Mech

Churchill said, “Politics are almost as exciting as war, and quite as dangerous.  In war you can only be killed once, but in politics many times.” 

In war, one of the ways that you anticipate “imminence of hostilities” (IOH) (the other side coming to kill you) is the amount of artillery fire and aerial bombardment that the enemy devotes to a particular position that you hold. Another way to foretell an attack is to analyze intelligence information about the location of the enemy’s tank and infantry units. If they are massing in front of one of your positions, they are probably going to try to overrun it.

A buildup in the area of a particular position, accompanied by bombardment on and behind the potential enemy objective are usually strong indicators of IOH in a particular sector of the battlefield. The intelligence officer or commander also must look at the history of the enemy. Is he cautious or aggressive? What maneuvers has he used in the past? Does he attack directly or rely on misdirection and diversionary raids. The friendly analyst and unit leader must also be aware that the enemy will try to mislead our people as to his true intentions by disinformation. (The enemy will try to fake us out and lie about what he plans to do. He may even lie to his own troops.)

On some occasions, when the enemy believes that he has an overwhelming advantage in numbers, equipment, and machines, he will simply tell you about his plans in the hope of demoralizing your troops and civilian population. Propaganda leaflets, radio and TV broadcasts, newspaper and magazine articles, and bombastic speeches often play a part in these campaigns of intimidation.

Does the enemy have the capability to attack? What forces does he have available? How are they equipped? Do they have the ammunition, food and transportation that they need to sustain offensive operations against us? As Pearl Harbor so painfully proved on December 7^th in 1941, failure to acquire, correctly interpret, and act on IOH information can have catastrophic consequences.

How does the war metaphor apply to the current situation of law-abiding gun owners in America? I believe there are strong IOH indicators of impending infringements by the incoming Obama Administration against the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the rights recognized by that important pronouncement.

In politics, the battlefield scenario is made up of public opinion, legislative muscle, and political will. Propaganda translates into artillery and air preparation for an attack in the war metaphor. I have recently seen three examples of Liberal attempts to propagandize the American Public with regard to the desirability of gun control.

 Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore’s slanted indictment of “The Gun Culture” has been showing up more often than usual on cable TV.

Dear Wendy, a movie about a bunch of teenage losers and the “true (evil) nature” of guns, seems to be getting more air time than it has in the recent past. The Sundance Channel, a reliably Liberal media outlet aired this naked propaganda flick last week. Look for it again and again, as the Left ramps up their anti-gun rights campaign.

On 12-06-08, MSNBC, that paragon of “even-handed” reporting presented “Armed in America,” a documentary (first in a series) that purports to “describe how guns wind up in the hands of criminals,” and “the role that guns play in gang violence and drug trafficking.” (See my post: “Has your gun caused “personal injuries or property damage?” under the category, “Psychology.”)

With regard to the massing of forces, the Dems have at least thirteen anti-Second Amendment bills in Congress. One of them allows the Attorney General to declare that you are a terrorist based on hearsay information. Once you have been branded, you will not be able to fly on a commercial flight and you will not be able to legally own a gun. Confront your accuser? Not! “National Security” concerns trump your constitutional rights. (See my post: “If Obama wins, you lose legal gun rights. He only has to sign the bills,” under the category, “Legislation.”)

Obama’s record on guns is not a good one.  The Democrats have a long history of anti-individual rights activity. This questionable past includes the anti-immigrant NYC Sullivan Law, Jim Crow Laws in the Post-Civil War South, the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Clinton “Assault Weapons” Ban, the Lautenberg Amendment that retroactively denies legal gun ownership to persons previously convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, and gun bans in Chicago, New York City, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. (See my post: Democrat-controlled cities most violent. Go figure!” under the category, “Gun Law Failures.”) Democrats have promoted predatory lawsuits against gun makers, ammunition taxes, confiscation of citizens’ weapons during natural disasters, and a host of other “nanny state” restrictions on the rights of Americans to armed self-defense against crime and tyranny.

Barack Obama keeps assuring “bitter” gun owners that he is not going to “take” their firearms. However, he supports the Chicago handgun ban and the Washington, D.C. Council in their defiance of the Heller ruling with regard to a ban on semi-automatic weapons and the continuing requirement that guns be disassembled or locked up until an actual home invasion. (See my post: “Heller goes after D.C. once more with feeling,” under the category, “Courts.”) Does BHO support the Second Amendment? Is he spreading disinformation? You make the call.

The Democrats look like they will have a 58-vote edge in the U.S. Senate. That number is just two votes shy of a 60-vote, filibuster-proof “supermajority.” How many Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) are there in the Senate? The Democrats certainly have to capability to eviscerate the Second Amendment, if they want to spend the political capital to do so.

A cautionary note! The Dems might do well to recollect what happened in 1994, after the Clinton “Assault Weapons” Ban, when they lost both Houses of Congress. Are there enough “Blue Dog” Conservative Democrats to offset the RINOs, who will probably defect to the Left on votes affecting the fundamental individual rights of their constituents?

Will the GOP be able to enforce party discipline to keep the RINOs in line? Will Obama learn from Clinton’s mistakes? Will reinforcements arrive in time to save the American patrol from the Al Qaeda terrorists? (Oops! Not politically correct!) Revisionist version-Will the main force units of the imperialist, Eurocentric, running dog occupiers arrive in time to fight off the righteously indignant, morally equivalent, indigenous freedom fighters, who are not necessarily connected with any religious sect? Whew? That was close! (For those of you recently educated in American Public Schools, that was sarcasm.)

I believe, based on the available information, that the Obama Administration is about to launch a massive offensive against the Second Amendment. I hope that I am wrong about this important issue.

If I am right about the impending offensive, I believe the only thing capable of saving the fundamental individual rights of American Citizens recognized by the Second Amendment is a massive public outcry like the one we saw last spring that derailed the impending Immigration Bill. If eighty-million U.S. gun owners stand up and say, “No!” even the Hard Left Democrats will have to listen.

Def Mech

Def Mech

Let’s look at the parallels. The AIDS Virus is hard to stop with a vaccine, because it mutates rapidly. It is always changing, yet always bent on replicating itself, and in so doing, destroying the host organism. Gun control constantly mutates, shifting from “Saturday Night Specials,” to “Assault Weapons,” to “Sniper Rifles,” to “Ammunition Accountability,” to attempts to classify ammunition as explosives. We see predatory lawsuits against gun makers, ammunition taxes, government intrusion into private medical records, and numerous other ploys to strip the American People of their fundamental, individual right to armed self-defense against crime and tyranny.

What does the AIDS Virus do to the body? By killing the T Cells, AIDS allows cancers and other diseases to spread in the human system. By denying citizens the right of self-defense to crime, gun control insures that armed criminals will have a much better chance to succeed against unarmed victims. The criminals kill and injure more and more honest citizens. The call goes out for more gun control. Like an infection racing through the body, the contagion spreads. In the worst cases, genocide results, when criminals become entrenched in governments and begin to kill their unarmed citizens and others wholesale.

Cities like Chicago, Detroit, New York City, and Washington, D.C. are examples of relatively low-level infections perpetuated by the AIDS Virus of gun control. (See my posts under the category “Gun Control Failures.”) Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia are examples of overwhelmingly fatal cases of genocide preceded by governmental disarmament of the intended victims.

(See the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms’ Ownership Website for a comprehensive list of countries where gun control has preceded wholesale murder.)

I believe the Second Amendment is the most important amendment in the Bill of Rights, because it is the article that recognizes the fundamental, natural right of the individual citizen to personal self-defense. This individual right translates into an effective shield against both criminal activity and governmental slaughter.

In our own county, the roots of gun control are sunk deep into the rotten soil of racial discrimination. Native Americans and Blacks were both “legally” denied the right of armed self-defense before their freedoms were infringed upon and many of them were slaughtered outright.

I believe we do ourselves and our children a fatal disservice, if we ignore the lessons of history and allow ourselves to be deluded into thinking that laws will deter armed criminals and potential tyrants. I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask the following question. What are the proponents of gun control planning that is so terrible that they fear armed resistance?

Def Mech

According to a website promoting this idea, every single bullet made for certain caliber handguns and so-called “assault rifles” would have to be marked with a “unique identifier.” I suppose this marking could be an alpha-numeric serial number, Germanic runes, or Egyptian hieroglyphs. I would suspect serial numbers, teeny tiny, really small, itty bitty, itsy witsy, eenie weenie, microscopic serial numbers.

They could mark them by the box, or by the case, but wouldn’t it be so utterly cool, and oh so progressive, if an ammunition maker had to mark every single bullet with its very own, absolutely unique number. The retooling costs alone would be astronomical. Oh Joyous Day! Each round would cost a small fortune to manufacture! Think how many lives would be saved! It boggles the mind. No! It really does. It boggles the mind. You have to wonder about the people who come up with these things. (For those of you recently educated in public schools, this paragraph is an example of sarcasm.)

The marking number would be applied to the actual projectile base, making the process different from “microstamping,” which would put an identifier on the cartridge case from the firing pin of the weapon. What a unique idea! Police could trace a criminal shooter by matching a bullet at a crime scene with the stupendous, humongous, stupendous, gigantic, gargantuan database contained in “Big Brother’s” computer network.

Practical problems with this approach might be something like the following. Professional criminals would not use marked ammunition. There would be widespread non-compliance with the proposed requirement that all unmarked ammunition be destroyed or used within two years after the implementation of the law. This law would do nothing to hinder spree killers who often remain at the crime scene until they are stopped by police or armed citizens, or commit suicide.

This attack on gun ownership would raise the price of ammunition to prohibitive levels, create massive disrespect for police agencies, breed armies of informants, result in the deaths of officers and citizens, foster a huge black market in unmarked and fraudulently marked ammuniton, and cause many law-abiding ammunition makers to go out of business. Seems to me to be a really bad idea! Remember learning about how Prohibition corrupted law enforcement, promoted the rise of powerful criminal gangs, and degraded the respect of the general population for law and order. (If you were taking all self-esteem seminars, Marxist economics, and “New Games” classes in high school and college, take my word on this.)

Of course, few of the above consequences would apparently bother the Liberal backers of such propositions, since their goal seems to be the disarmament of the American People. Great Britain serves as a sad example of this kind of “nanny state” thinking. (See Category “Foreign Gun Laws.”) What are the Liberals planning that is so terrible that they fear free speech and armed resistance? (See my posts on the “Fairness Doctrine” for the free speech part of these schemes.)

Def Mech