California Attorney General to Feds: No Handguns For You
Apparently, Attorney General (AG) Kamala Harris has changed California State Department of Justice policy and is now limiting federal law enforcement agents’ ability to acquire handguns. The AG says the feds can only buy firearms listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale (like the rest of us).
Understandably, federal law enforcement officers aren’t happy about it. Welcome feds, to the California disarmament festival.
In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, a tyrannical government attempts to control how people think by, among other things, reducing language to “a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc [English Socialism]” and “to make all other modes of thought impossible.” In the IngSoc government’s new language, Newspeak, the original meanings of many words are discarded in favor of new definitions designed to conform people’s thoughts to the tyrants’ political objectives. For example, Newspeak phraseology includes this gem, “ignorance is strength,” a nonsensical construction that gun control advocates appear to have taken literally.
Speaking of gun control advocates, that brings us to the Children’s Defense Funds’ (CDF) latest offering, “Protect Children, Not Guns, 2013.” If you can stand it, bear with us now, while we translate a representative sample of the CDF’s gibberish into English, so the real gist of what the group is saying can be conveyed. Sticking with conventional practice, we’ll go with a “Top Ten,” of sorts.
1. “The Senate voted down a package of common sense gun violence prevention measures.” Translation: This year, the Senate rejected legislation that would have banned semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, banned standard-capacity magazines that Americans want for self-defense and practical shooting sports, and paved the way for universal gun registration by requiring an FBI background check on private firearm sales. But if we refer to gun bans and registration as “gun safety,” maybe some people who don’t read the fine print will go along with us. Everyone’s in favor of “safety,” right?
2. “The U.S. has as many guns as people. The U.S. accounts for less than 5 percent of the global population, but owns an estimated 35 to 50 percent of all civilian-owned guns in the world.” Translation: Americans have more guns than people in other countries, because they have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms that people in other countries don’t. But pretending that Americans have “too many” guns pleases our donors and helps keep the money rolling in.
3. “America’s military and law enforcement agencies have four million guns. Our citizens have 310 million. Has this made our children safer?” Translation: Private citizens have almost 100 times more guns than the military and law enforcement agencies, because there are almost 100 times more civilian gun owners than there are military and law enforcement personnel who are issued firearms. Also, the rate of firearm-related deaths among children has decreased 59 percent over the last 20 years. But we’d be stupid to say that.
4. “The number of children and teens killed by guns in 2010 was nearly five times the number of U.S. soldiers killed in action that year in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Translation: In 2010, there were over 83 million “children and teens” in America, compared to about 150,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, so the per capita death rate among the military personnel was much higher than among the “children and teens.” Not to mention that combat operations ended in Iraq in 2010. But the people who pay attention to us don’t care about the facts, so let’s just throw this out there and see what it gets us.
5. “A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide, suicide and accidental death.” Translation: Several “studies” by anti-gun researchers have claimed that having guns at home is statistically unsafe, and even though the claim has been debunked, let’s repeat it anyway. It’s not like the mainstream media are going to call us on it, after all.
6. “Guns are the second leading cause of death among children and teens ages 1-19. Translation: If young people die, it’s usually due to external causes (mostly auto accidents) because they usually don’t die of diseases. But gun control supporters like this sound bite, so let’s roll with it.
7. “Children and teens die from gun violence in all states.” Translation: Sometimes we just have to say anything we can think of to rile up our gullible followers.
8. “A 1976 amendment to the Consumer Product Safety Act specifically states that the Commission shall make no ruling or order that restricts the manufacture or sale of guns, guns ammunition, or components of guns ammunition, including black powder or gun powder for guns.” Translation: Sure, the reason that Congress passed that law was to prevent gun control supporters from using the Consumer Products Safety Commission to shut down the manufacturing of firearms by imposing manufacturing requirements that would be impossible to achieve. But if we act outraged about it, maybe a few people will think we’re on to something.
9. “Common sense gun safety regulations protect lawful ownership and use of guns. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004 protected the rights of gun owners by exempting every shotgun and hunting rifle in use at the time.” Translation: If we refer to a gun ban as “gun safety,” and if we pretend that a law banning some guns “protects” other guns by not banning them too, maybe we can sucker a few naïve gun owners into coming over to our side.
10. “American companies manufacture enough bullets each year to fire 31 rounds into every one of our citizens.”Translation: American gun owners spend a lot of time at the range, so if we divide the number of rounds they fire by the U.S. population number, we can come up with yet another nonsensical factoid our few supporters will like.
Anti-gun U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently urged members of Congress to uphold their oath to “protect and defend” the Constitution by passing harsher gun control laws. Yes, Pelosi is proposing that Congress should support the Constitution by radically violating it. Such is the deconstructionist mindset of modern-day gun-control advocates.
As reported by CNS News, Pelosi made the plea in a press release marking the one-year anniversary of the Aurora, Colorado shootings. Said Pelosi: “In Congress, there can be no more fitting memorial to the lives lost in Aurora, in Newtown, and across the country than a concerted effort to enact commonsense gun safety legislation. We must uphold our oath to ‘protect and defend’ the constitution and all Americans by expanding background checks and keeping dangerous firearms out of the wrong hands.”
As most Americans know, the Constitution was conceived and inherently designed to ensure that the government does NOT attempt to overpower the people with its own agenda or unduly restrict not only the Second Amendment, but any other of our precious, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, a tyrannical government attempts to control how people think by, among other things, reducing language to “a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc [English Socialism]” and “to make all other modes of thought impossible.” In the IngSoc government’s new language, Newspeak, the original meanings of many words are discarded in favor of new definitions designed to conform people’s thoughts to the tyrants’ political objectives. For example, Newspeak phraseology includes this gem, “ignorance is strength,” a nonsensical construction that gun control advocates appear to have taken literally.
Speaking of gun control advocates, that brings us to the Children’s Defense Funds’ (CDF) latest offering, “Protect Children, Not Guns, 2013.” If you can stand it, bear with us now, while we translate a representative sample of the CDF’s gibberish into English, so the real gist of what the group is saying can be conveyed. Sticking with conventional practice, we’ll go with a “Top Ten,” of sorts.
We often report on anti-gun New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the follies of his gun control advocacy group “Mayors Against Illegal Guns.” In the past–at one of their particularly low points–we were even compelled to detail a long list of criminal acts attributed to MAIG members.
These days, some members of the group are disenchanted and are quitting MAIG.
The New York Post reported this week that one former member–Rockford, Illinois Mayor Lawrence Morrissey–has said, “The original focus, I thought, was going to be . . . on better enforcement of our existing laws, and if anything, we have talked about not getting involved with things like banning assault weapons and banning magazine clips.” Morrissey also explained, “The reason why I joined the group in the first place is because I took the name for what it said–against ‘illegal’ guns.”
On July 26, the New York Times editorial page contained something to which all gun owners should be accustomed: another anti-gun tract penned by the Times’ editorial board. This time, the board’s target was NRA’s support for the effort to recall a pair of Colorado legislators following their support for magazine restrictions and the criminalization of private firearm transfers.
Titled, The Gun Lobby Takes Vengeful Aim, the editorial criticizes the Colorado recall effort, stating that soon after the law was passed “the National Rifle Association was vindictively pressing for recall votes against two supporters of the stronger law,” in a “vengeful recall attempt.” The Times also makes clear its support for a statement by recall target Sen. John Morse, writing, “‘Recalls are for unethical behavior, and not disagreements,’ he properly noted in the Denver Post.”
Organizing for Action (OFA), an organization dedicated to promoting President Obama’s agenda and policies (and whose website includes an Obama campaign logo and whose URL is https://my.barackobama.com/page/s/organizing-for-action) is currently planning its “Action August”–an advocacy initiative set for next month that includes “national action days” focused on issues that will include gun control.
According to a recent Politico article, the thrust of OFA’s initiative will be to confront legislators who oppose Obama’s agenda while they’re in their home districts during the congressional recess and try to get them to change their positions. OFA’s grassroots efforts will include appearances at town halls, phone banks, rallies and office visits, in an attempt to replicate the August 2009 tea party backlash Obama received and–they hope–draw local attention and coverage, and start mounting political pressure, ahead of the 2014 midterm elections.
Get ready to vote for your favorite firearm! On Wednesday, July 31, the NRA will launch our “Firearms Face-Off” competition on Facebook. You will be able to vote for your favorite firearm in a bracket-style tournament where eight guns will be paired off to go head-to-head to receive the most votes. To help you decide how to vote, you’ll be able to watch a short video featuring each of the firearms.
You will have two days to vote on each round and a winning firearm will be announced at the end of the fourteen-day Firearms Face-Off. The firearms featured are: Springfield M1A SOCOM II, Kimber 8400 Patrol, Smith & Wesson M&P15, Remington Model 783, SIG556R, Mossberg 500, Ruger Mini-14, and Kel-Tec KSG.
To provide justification for the lead ammo ban in this State’s “Kondor Kountry”, Section 3004.5 (d) of the California Fish & Game Code reads:
“…(d) The commission shall issue a report on the levels of lead
found in California condors. This report shall cover calendar years
2008, 2009, and 2012. Each report shall be issued by June of the
following year…”
But as Tony Canales points out, June of 2013 has come and gone without such a report. And, it doesn’t look like one will emerge anytime soon. Could it be that the data for the 2012 report aren’t saying what the Kondor Kiddies wanted to hear? This would be especially unfortunate for them given that they’re still pushing AB 711, the Statewide lead ammo ban. Kinda hard to argue for an expanded ban when the data show no effect from the regional ban.
This sudden desire to repeal “Stand your ground” laws is confusing on two levels. The first is as a reaction to the Zimmerman trial; confusing since that trial had nothing to do with SYG. The second is that these proposals have no hope of passing. So what’s going on here?
This is another instance of anti-gun politicians toying with their supporters. They introduce these doomed laws to trick their supporters into thinking that something was done.
Florida Congresswoman Frederica Wilson has a bill she would like to introduce in Congress. However, she seems to be forgetting a few things.
Rep. Wilson proposes that Congress pass a law repealing all of the “racist” Stand-your-ground laws across the US. Now most of you probably guessed the first thing that escaped her notice: The 10th Amendment. Sorry Rep. Wilson, but you don’t get to do things like that. The States are not departments of the Federal Government that Congress can issue edicts to. It doesn’t work that way.
Yup… You read that correctly. Ms. Wilson voted for the law that Jeb Bush signed into law in 2005. The same law, by the way, that George Zimmerman didn’t utilize in his trial. (One cannot “stand his ground” when pinned to the ground with no possibility of retreat.)
As anyone who’s paid the least bit of attention knows, the NSA was caught hoovering up information about phone calls made by Verizon’s US customers. Odds are that it’s not just Verizon customers that the NSA views as potential terrorists; they probably have the same data from all of the other telecommunications carriers as well. Obama apologists attempt to minimize the impact this has on your life by saying that it’s “only” metadata.
Metadata isn’t the content of the call itself. Instead, it’s the information about the call: Who made the call? To whom? How long did they talk. Where was the caller? Where was the recipient? On the surface, this seems like a lot of useless information. And when we consider one call only, it is useless. It’s when we look at all of the calls a particular person makes, plus all of the calls made by the people they spoke to, plus all of the people they spoke to, and so on, and so on, and so on, that we see where the damage has been done. Like ever expanding ripples on a pond, the net cast by the government takes in more and more information about the behavior and social networks of more and more people.
This was then followed by the revelation of the PRISM program, also at NSA. This program gathered data from tech giants like Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, and Microsoft. And now we learn that the agency has been slurping up credit card transaction data as well. Again, it may be that this is “only” metadata, but someone can learn an awful lot about you from that information.
Fans of the CBS series Person of Interest will think that this is a case of life imitating art…
In that program, “Harold Finch”, whose real name we may never know, builds The Machine for the government in the aftermath of 9/11; an advanced computer system that monitors every type of communication it can. The Machine uses sophisticated pattern recognition software to identify terrorist threats. The plot of the show is that The Machine also identifies other, non-terrorist threats to ordinary citizens. Harold can’t stand the fact that these threats are considered unimportant by the government and ignored. (Though, as I recall, he does recognize that this is a “Coventry conundrum” for the government. Reacting to the non-terror threats would tip their hand and reveal The Machine’s existence.) Harold and “John”, an ex-CIA operative whose real identity we also don’t know, then work to find out what the threat involving a particular “person of interest” is and then neutralize the threat.
Harold’s computer system, which verges on sentience, has built in mechanisms for protecting the civil rights of those it monitors. Only Social Security numbers are given as output. Nothing about the nature of the threat is revealed or why The Machine identified a particular person. The information takes the form of a cryptic, anonymous tip. It’s up to the humans to discover the nature of the threat and to act accordingly. Also, The Machine’s inner workings are a complete mystery to the government. It didn’t come with the source code. The final safeguard against abuse is that The Machine resets itself every night at midnight. No data are retained. No suspicions linger for it.
But this isn’t how the NSA’s version of The Machine works. It remembers and stores its data; building up databases on each of us. All done without the burden of a warrant.
“But it’s only metadata”, the defense is. Let me use myself as an example of what can be learned from a person’s metadata. The other day, I “broke pattern”. My normal routine in the morning, like most people, is to drive to work. But my wife had car trouble, so I turned around and went home. I was making a phone call at the time and the metadata showed that my phone was suddenly going the wrong direction. My usual pattern of morning phone calls shows that my phone calls my wife’s phone while heading West at freeway speed. The software that crunches all of that data noted the change.
“The Machine” noticed the differences. Whether or not “they” noticed is another matter. But the point is that there is an electronic file out there, somewhere, on a government server that allows that computer to know my routine; enough to recognize when I’m doing something odd. “They” can access that data whenever “they” feel like it; all without a warrant.
The system also noticed that my phone was at a gun show a few months ago. It noticed that my credit card was used there. The metadata may not have the transaction details about what I bought, but when combined with the data from all of the other transactions made by those vendors, it’s possible to make an educated guess about what I bought. “The Machine” knows that I look at the NRA-ILA site almost every day. It knows that I write on this blog. It’s read every post. It’s read all of my tweets. It knows what news sites I read. It knows what products I run searches on and which I buy. It knows I’ve looked at things like the Liberator .stl files. It know what books I read and what music I listen to. It’s been watching me write this post! It’s the Facebook friend I didn’t know was there. Need I go on?
Now odds are that the nebulous “they” have known all these things for a long time. But “they” is a group of dozens if not hundreds of people and ‘they” don’t necessarily talk to one another. “They” each have their particular type of information on thousands or millions of people. In short, “they” don’t know what they know about me. To any of them, I’m just a single blip out of 300,000,000 other blips; nameless, faceless, anonymous. “They” don’t keep track of me because “they” can’t. “It” can. Now I’m just a database query away from gaining “their” attention.
