In the gun issue, as in almost any sensitive one, there are two essentially radicalized positions with most people not having anything to do with either. On one side you've got the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, and assorted loons and then on the other you've got Michael Bloomberg, Jesse Jackson, and the Bradys and taken all together about as much stupidity and over-heated rhetoric as I've seen since... well the last time anything touchy came up.
Now look here, if you think that the idea of putting armed guards in every school, church, or other gathering area makes any sense - you've gotten yourself seriously derailed. If you think you're going to persuade anybody that isn't already all the way over in your corner of the loony bin you've missed your calling as a seller of bridges. If you think you're going to gain any ground with somebody that knows just even a little bit about firearms by telling them that AR15s are going to shoot down airplanes and stop trains or that Mayor of a place where you can own a firearm if you're rich and/or well-connected but otherwise suck it, well you can have the other corner from Wayne. That is straight up political calculus.
Most people in the US do not get their knickers in a twist about firearms, one way or the other. They may look at an incident and think, "wow, that just cannot keep happening," but they don't want Bloomberg's version of reality or LaPierre's. People who own guns don't want to be shouted at that they're evil any more than non-owners want to be shouted at and called weak-kneed pussies and the ones trying to make up their minds don't want to be called stupid. That is straight up political calculus.
Wayne LaPierre and his loons and Michael Bloomberg and his loons are not persuadable. I don't give a damn how many facts and statistics you provide to either group - they are not going to go along with anything other than their pet hobby horse. You can forget them and for the sake of your sanity you should turn the sound off when either bunch starts up. You are not going to get reality based anything from them and your thinking is not going to be improved and your decision making will only be impaired.
This is an actually serious issue. This is not a "you didn't build that" kind of dust-up. It isn't about semantics and it isn't about what something looks like - it is about fucking carnage and it is about something important enough to be enshrined in the Bill of Rights and stupidity is not a guarantee of anything other than just that - stupid results. The only reason to have this discussion at all is to do something constructive in regard to a problem and that involves addressing goddam realities. There are realities regarding who can get guns and how they can get them, there are realities involved in what a particular type of gun is and what it does and why it does that, and I could go on and on and on about just how many things bear on this issue and none of this stupidity has any bearing at all. I'm sick of it and I'm sick of feeling as though any time I spend on this would be as well spent sitting in the corner sucking on my thumb.
You have a legislative process that is currently being driven by people who are ignorant of the function of a particular firearm proposing to deal with that particular firearm and people whose view of the Second Amendment makes it a suicide pact. This has got to stop, it has got to be stopped in its tracks. I agree that this needs to be addressed expeditiously or the populous will move on the the next hare-brained thing our pols get up to and it'll just hang fire and that isn't good enough, but - and this counts - rushing to do any old thing won't do the job, anyhow.
Ammunition capacity is a real thing, access to firearms purchase is a real thing, our war-like culture is a real deal, our mental health disaster is a real thing, the complete unreality around firearms offered up by media is an issue, the ignorance we inculcate in our children is an issue. We have very real things to deal with and we can do some things short-term and mostly long-term to address these real things. We do not need to be wasting time playing at people's fantasies.
(Yeah, I know - I'll just go piss into the wind and accomplish just as much)
Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts
Friday, January 11, 2013
Saturday, May 01, 2010
What Does It Mean To Have Rights?
***Feb 27,2007*** Someone from England Googled into this and it has been a regular archive hit since it was written. I don't think it will seem dated today.
I will start with a disclaimer, an entire library could be written on this subject and I'm not going to.
The US government recognizes some rights, the basic documents of our form of government set some out. These documents begin officially with the Declaration of Independence, there are preceding documents, but this one is officially American. The Declaration sets out two ideas that form this nation's soul, that certain rights precede all forms of government and that when a government no longer serves its people they have the right to change it, violently if needed.
The Revolutionaries fought a long, bitter war against a government they previously had every reason to believe was their own. This experience taught them that their belief in inherent rights could come into conflict with a government's interests and that a government might not represent its citizenry. They had no interest in repeating the experience and tried to pre-empt such a thing's recurrence. They argued long and hard about the Constitution, having failed with the Articles of Confederation to create stability, in order to make a system which was strong enough to withstand the competing interests of its citizenry and flexible enough to meet those interests. Some things like Habeas Corpus they considered basic enough in Law to survive mention in the basic document, the Constitution, others were not so well codified and yet considered of great import. These others composed the Bill of Rights, a formal recognition of rights that were not derived from government, or created by government, but actually superior to government. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence were given codification or enumeration.
The things that they had declared in embarking on war with the most powerful nation in the world was now set out in definite wording. These men never intended that these rights superseded responsibility in action nor that a right allowed the destruction of our fellows, they assumed that simple humanity required an end point to the exercise of a right. They also were more inclined to err on the side of the individual's sense than the government's interests. It is important to remember that these individuals were primarily of English descent or of English Law culture and had watched and finally fought the disintegration of their relationship with their government over a clash of interests. They knew these issues first hand.
When you accept the idea of rights that are superior to and precede governance you have set a high ideal. You put your government out of business in areas where it has almost always interfered. These are areas that the citizenry has strong feelings and beliefs about, areas that governments have always used or suppressed in service to their interests. No one can deny that religion, as an example, is an issue that is of tremendous import to members of society and that its co-option by government is a powerful tool. It is extraordinarily dangerous to government to let it loose for free expression, government takes a large blow to its interests. Each of the rights that were enumerated is similarly debilitating to government and dangerous in the hands of individuals. The Framers were engaging in a risky course of action.
That brings us to us. We are engaged in a risky enterprise, the exercise of rights that all previous governments restricted in one way or another. The government cannot tell us to only praise it with our words, it also cannot tell us not to say mean hurtful things. It cannot tell us that to say one group is unfit to be within society is wrong and forbidden, it must allow us to go our own way. We can say that our elected officials are liars and cheats in the service of unelected elite interests. This creates a possible source of chaos that the government is forbidden to interfere with. The very few limitations the government is allowed to attempt to enforce are those that involve direct deliberate harm to other's rights. Virtually the only protection offered the government is in the transmittal of government secrets. Even in this arena the government treads on very thin ice, it has of late asserted privileges that it may find are specious. Just in the narrow limits of free speech and free press the situation is fraught with risk to order and civility and particularly to government.
It is easy in our modern world to become comfortable and believe we have safe and secure lives and it is a mistake. We live in a system that encourages and supports dissidence, and finally places the tools of rebellion firmly in the citizenry's hands. This systemic deprivation of power of governance is so deep and broad that its beneficiaries often are not aware of it. The tools of sedition range from speaking and gathering together, to having the arms to fight, and protections from governmental investigations. Every direction the government turns it is constrained. This is not the recipe for quiet sedate life if the people do not wish it and frequently despite their wishes it is not.
Because government, the enforcer of societal order, is so constrained it falls on the citizenry to exercise its rights in manners that do not create harm to their fellows. It falls to the citizenry to make informed and reasoned votes for those who represent them. It falls to the citizenry to be responsible for a government that allows and encourages cooperative society. The onus for failure of the system and violent reaction falls on those who have the very things that so constrain their government. There are those who would place restrictions on rights in the name of order and security, they would attempt to undo the system because its own members are failing it. This is misplaced responsibility, if a situation requires redressing it is not because rights are too broad, it is a failure of those responsible for the structuring of our relationships, which is finally the citizens.
We have the most glorious of opportunities, a government restrained and citizenry empowered and that is where we start. Almost a quarter millennia ago we put into operation the most daring and audacious experiment in history and we stand or fall on our own. We cannot blame the hamstrung and hobbled government, we are the power. Let us take ahold with both hands and move this forward, not fall back into the decay and decadence that is all previous governments.
I will start with a disclaimer, an entire library could be written on this subject and I'm not going to.
The US government recognizes some rights, the basic documents of our form of government set some out. These documents begin officially with the Declaration of Independence, there are preceding documents, but this one is officially American. The Declaration sets out two ideas that form this nation's soul, that certain rights precede all forms of government and that when a government no longer serves its people they have the right to change it, violently if needed.
The Revolutionaries fought a long, bitter war against a government they previously had every reason to believe was their own. This experience taught them that their belief in inherent rights could come into conflict with a government's interests and that a government might not represent its citizenry. They had no interest in repeating the experience and tried to pre-empt such a thing's recurrence. They argued long and hard about the Constitution, having failed with the Articles of Confederation to create stability, in order to make a system which was strong enough to withstand the competing interests of its citizenry and flexible enough to meet those interests. Some things like Habeas Corpus they considered basic enough in Law to survive mention in the basic document, the Constitution, others were not so well codified and yet considered of great import. These others composed the Bill of Rights, a formal recognition of rights that were not derived from government, or created by government, but actually superior to government. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence were given codification or enumeration.
The things that they had declared in embarking on war with the most powerful nation in the world was now set out in definite wording. These men never intended that these rights superseded responsibility in action nor that a right allowed the destruction of our fellows, they assumed that simple humanity required an end point to the exercise of a right. They also were more inclined to err on the side of the individual's sense than the government's interests. It is important to remember that these individuals were primarily of English descent or of English Law culture and had watched and finally fought the disintegration of their relationship with their government over a clash of interests. They knew these issues first hand.
When you accept the idea of rights that are superior to and precede governance you have set a high ideal. You put your government out of business in areas where it has almost always interfered. These are areas that the citizenry has strong feelings and beliefs about, areas that governments have always used or suppressed in service to their interests. No one can deny that religion, as an example, is an issue that is of tremendous import to members of society and that its co-option by government is a powerful tool. It is extraordinarily dangerous to government to let it loose for free expression, government takes a large blow to its interests. Each of the rights that were enumerated is similarly debilitating to government and dangerous in the hands of individuals. The Framers were engaging in a risky course of action.
That brings us to us. We are engaged in a risky enterprise, the exercise of rights that all previous governments restricted in one way or another. The government cannot tell us to only praise it with our words, it also cannot tell us not to say mean hurtful things. It cannot tell us that to say one group is unfit to be within society is wrong and forbidden, it must allow us to go our own way. We can say that our elected officials are liars and cheats in the service of unelected elite interests. This creates a possible source of chaos that the government is forbidden to interfere with. The very few limitations the government is allowed to attempt to enforce are those that involve direct deliberate harm to other's rights. Virtually the only protection offered the government is in the transmittal of government secrets. Even in this arena the government treads on very thin ice, it has of late asserted privileges that it may find are specious. Just in the narrow limits of free speech and free press the situation is fraught with risk to order and civility and particularly to government.
It is easy in our modern world to become comfortable and believe we have safe and secure lives and it is a mistake. We live in a system that encourages and supports dissidence, and finally places the tools of rebellion firmly in the citizenry's hands. This systemic deprivation of power of governance is so deep and broad that its beneficiaries often are not aware of it. The tools of sedition range from speaking and gathering together, to having the arms to fight, and protections from governmental investigations. Every direction the government turns it is constrained. This is not the recipe for quiet sedate life if the people do not wish it and frequently despite their wishes it is not.
Because government, the enforcer of societal order, is so constrained it falls on the citizenry to exercise its rights in manners that do not create harm to their fellows. It falls to the citizenry to make informed and reasoned votes for those who represent them. It falls to the citizenry to be responsible for a government that allows and encourages cooperative society. The onus for failure of the system and violent reaction falls on those who have the very things that so constrain their government. There are those who would place restrictions on rights in the name of order and security, they would attempt to undo the system because its own members are failing it. This is misplaced responsibility, if a situation requires redressing it is not because rights are too broad, it is a failure of those responsible for the structuring of our relationships, which is finally the citizens.
We have the most glorious of opportunities, a government restrained and citizenry empowered and that is where we start. Almost a quarter millennia ago we put into operation the most daring and audacious experiment in history and we stand or fall on our own. We cannot blame the hamstrung and hobbled government, we are the power. Let us take ahold with both hands and move this forward, not fall back into the decay and decadence that is all previous governments.
Monday, May 11, 2009
DPO Gun Owners Caucus To Sen Wyden
Senator Ron Wyden
223 Dirksen Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510-3703
RE: Supreme Court nominations and the Second Amendment
Dear Senator Wyden:
We are writing to you on behalf of the members of the Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon. As a caucus, the second largest within the DPO, we exist to promote appreciation and understanding of the Second Amendment within the Democratic Party, and to work for the election of Democratic candidates within Oregon to further our party’s goals of economic justice and civil rights for all.
One way in which we work for the election of Democrats is in advertising our party’s strong record on civil liberties, including respect for the Second Amendment. Our members represent every county in Oregon from the most liberal to the most conservative but share the central belief that individual gun ownership is a Constitutional guarantee and one that has served to support our Democratic freedoms.
The official position of the Democratic Party of Oregon shows the same depth of support for the Second Amendment as it does for the entire Bill of Rights. The party’s official position on gun ownership as a right is summed up in Resolution 2005-008, which was overwhelmingly passed by the members of the State Central Committee in 2005. This resolution reads as follows:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has long been dedicated to the preservation of civil liberties; and
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has long been dedicated to the preservation of freedom and social justice.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. To recognize and support the right to keep and bear arms in Article 1 Section 27 of the Oregon State Constitution and the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America as an individual right not granted by the government, but rather guaranteed by the government.
Section 2. In recognition of the tremendous personal responsibility engendered by the right to keep and bear arms, the Democratic Party of Oregon further advocates severe penalties and their enforcement for criminal use or misuse of the right.”
Further information on our caucus and the position of the Democratic Party of Oregon regarding Second Amendment guarantees is posted on the party website: http://www.oregondemocrats.org/gun_owners
Today we are writing on behalf of our members to express our hopes and concerns for the replacement of retiring Supreme Court justice David Souter.
President Obama has made his position clear in regards to Second Amendment rights—he has stated he agrees gun ownership is an individual right. In this position the president shows his agreement with by both the Democratic Party of Oregon and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in last year’s landmark ruling “District of Columbia vs. Heller.” As Democrats it is our greatest hope that the president will follow up on these expressed beliefs and in his first Supreme Court nomination assuage the concerns of those gun owners who would otherwise vote Democratic if they were convinced of the sincerity of the party’s support for gun rights. We believe this can best be done by choosing a nominee with a strong history of supporting both Second Amendment rights and the concept of stare decisis, especially in landmark cases such as Roe v. Wade or D.C. v. Heller which have settled long-standing civil rights struggles.
We do not feel researching the background of a nominee to gauge his or her prior opinions or readiness to uphold or overturn prior case law represents a litmus test or unreasonable queries. Further, given the freshness of the Heller decision, we suggest and request you should do a service to those who value civil liberties by asking direct questions about the Heller case, in addition to other cases directly affecting interpretation of the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.
The Oregonian recently noted that during a town hall meeting you held in Fossil, Oregon this year, a young girl asked you what so many in the crowd were clearly thinking—“Is the president going to take away our guns?” Your response, in our view, was perfect—you noted that the president has done nothing to diminish Second Amendment rights and you do not believe he intends to. We believe it is of utmost importance that future events allow this statement remain true. It would be even better if the president were to do something truly positive for gun owners by appointing a justice with a deep passion for the Second Amendment and empathy with the concerns of the 30 million gun owners who voted for President Obama in 2009. There are as well as millions more watching who would also vote for Democrats if only for their concerns around this single issue could be soothed with action as well as words.
Appointment of a pro-gun rights, pro-Heller-decision justice with a history of respect for stare decisis is, in our opinion, how the president and yourself can “seal the deal” with gun owners in Oregon and through the U.S. Please do not miss this opportunity to show Democratic support for this central tenet of American democracy.
Sincere regards,
Zak Johnson, Chair Chuck Butcher, Vice Chair Brian Reichhoff, Treasurer
Portland, OR Baker City, OR Portland, OR
Contact: Zak Johnson, 503-230-2314, Zakariah.Johnson@gmail.com
223 Dirksen Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510-3703
RE: Supreme Court nominations and the Second Amendment
Dear Senator Wyden:
We are writing to you on behalf of the members of the Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon. As a caucus, the second largest within the DPO, we exist to promote appreciation and understanding of the Second Amendment within the Democratic Party, and to work for the election of Democratic candidates within Oregon to further our party’s goals of economic justice and civil rights for all.
One way in which we work for the election of Democrats is in advertising our party’s strong record on civil liberties, including respect for the Second Amendment. Our members represent every county in Oregon from the most liberal to the most conservative but share the central belief that individual gun ownership is a Constitutional guarantee and one that has served to support our Democratic freedoms.
The official position of the Democratic Party of Oregon shows the same depth of support for the Second Amendment as it does for the entire Bill of Rights. The party’s official position on gun ownership as a right is summed up in Resolution 2005-008, which was overwhelmingly passed by the members of the State Central Committee in 2005. This resolution reads as follows:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has long been dedicated to the preservation of civil liberties; and
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has long been dedicated to the preservation of freedom and social justice.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. To recognize and support the right to keep and bear arms in Article 1 Section 27 of the Oregon State Constitution and the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America as an individual right not granted by the government, but rather guaranteed by the government.
Section 2. In recognition of the tremendous personal responsibility engendered by the right to keep and bear arms, the Democratic Party of Oregon further advocates severe penalties and their enforcement for criminal use or misuse of the right.”
Further information on our caucus and the position of the Democratic Party of Oregon regarding Second Amendment guarantees is posted on the party website: http://www.oregondemocrats.org/gun_owners
Today we are writing on behalf of our members to express our hopes and concerns for the replacement of retiring Supreme Court justice David Souter.
President Obama has made his position clear in regards to Second Amendment rights—he has stated he agrees gun ownership is an individual right. In this position the president shows his agreement with by both the Democratic Party of Oregon and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in last year’s landmark ruling “District of Columbia vs. Heller.” As Democrats it is our greatest hope that the president will follow up on these expressed beliefs and in his first Supreme Court nomination assuage the concerns of those gun owners who would otherwise vote Democratic if they were convinced of the sincerity of the party’s support for gun rights. We believe this can best be done by choosing a nominee with a strong history of supporting both Second Amendment rights and the concept of stare decisis, especially in landmark cases such as Roe v. Wade or D.C. v. Heller which have settled long-standing civil rights struggles.
We do not feel researching the background of a nominee to gauge his or her prior opinions or readiness to uphold or overturn prior case law represents a litmus test or unreasonable queries. Further, given the freshness of the Heller decision, we suggest and request you should do a service to those who value civil liberties by asking direct questions about the Heller case, in addition to other cases directly affecting interpretation of the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.
The Oregonian recently noted that during a town hall meeting you held in Fossil, Oregon this year, a young girl asked you what so many in the crowd were clearly thinking—“Is the president going to take away our guns?” Your response, in our view, was perfect—you noted that the president has done nothing to diminish Second Amendment rights and you do not believe he intends to. We believe it is of utmost importance that future events allow this statement remain true. It would be even better if the president were to do something truly positive for gun owners by appointing a justice with a deep passion for the Second Amendment and empathy with the concerns of the 30 million gun owners who voted for President Obama in 2009. There are as well as millions more watching who would also vote for Democrats if only for their concerns around this single issue could be soothed with action as well as words.
Appointment of a pro-gun rights, pro-Heller-decision justice with a history of respect for stare decisis is, in our opinion, how the president and yourself can “seal the deal” with gun owners in Oregon and through the U.S. Please do not miss this opportunity to show Democratic support for this central tenet of American democracy.
Sincere regards,
Zak Johnson, Chair Chuck Butcher, Vice Chair Brian Reichhoff, Treasurer
Portland, OR Baker City, OR Portland, OR
Contact: Zak Johnson, 503-230-2314, Zakariah.Johnson@gmail.com
Friday, October 03, 2008
DPO/GOC Shoot Succeeds, Democrats and Guns
The Central Oregon Shooting Sports Association provided the Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon range rental Sunday Sept 28 and provided Range Officers for a very reasonable price. Association President Bill Flocker worked with GOC Vice-chair Chuck Butcher (me) to make this work, and it did and the Assn deserves great credit. This is a fine organization with great facilities, and it appears they may have gained a few members. Sandra Lowry of Deschutes Co Democrats provided invaluable help in coordination.
Range photos by TA Barnhart***
Before shooting started I conducted one of those basics of any shooting event that might include anyone unfamiliar with firearms, the safety orientation. It never hurts for those with experience to hear it once again. Firearms are potentially dangerous tools and it is entirely too late to try to correct something afterwards. GOC Chair Zak Johnson is to my right in the photo. The bed of the SSR is filled about half way with firearms and ammunition. The object being to provide opportunities for those who don't own firearms and something different for those who do. Zak also brought along extras.
Around 25 shooters from disparate parts of the state attended, Portland and Multnomah County were well represented as was the Bend area, and Baker City. I do not have at hand the names and homes of all attendees, but this was a gathering of urban and rural Democrats with a common interest. Maren Lundgren, a candidate for the State Senate District 2 7, is pictured learning the function of a .45 Colt SAA which is an uncommon handgun requiring special treatment. Other candidates present were:
Judy Stiegler, HD 54 candidate, Conrad Ruel, House District 53 candidate, Noah Lemas - running for Congress, 2nd CD (apparently he antelope hunts close to COSSA), Al Unger. current Mayor of Redmond, running for Deschutes Co. Commissioner.
Pictured is Bill Flocker, Assn Pres and one of the Range Officers giving a helping hand with accuracy. Range Officers provide an invaluable service on a shooting range, monitoring for safe conduct and opening and closing the firing line for target changes. I would like to make clear to those unfamiliar with shooting clubs that you will seldom find anyone more friendly or more helpful than their members. Politics stop at the gates, we flew our Democratic 'flags' but in no way advocated for candidates or issues. Shooting clubs, for obvious reasons, are predominately Republican and the mere presence of so many Democrats being just like them at the range is political capital that is hard to beat.
Here is Wayne Kinney who wears many hats as a Democrat, he is the DPO's DNC Committeeman and general activist as well as Sen Ron Wyden (D-OR)'s eastern Oregon chief liaison. He is shooting a Ruger Vaquero .45 Colt and grouping his shots nicely but hitting low and left of his aim point. Chuck is making the point that with that consistency the fundamentals of firing are good but the sight picture he is using has a consistent fault. I know this is not about the revolver since I can hit a 10 inch circle of metal at 200 yards with it, although with much heavier loads than used on this 7 yard pistol range or by anyone not familiar with very high power rounds - Hotrod Reloads for Vaquero 45 Colt.
Media has paid some attention to these Democratic Party activities, specifically James Sinks of the Bend Bulletin.
James and I disagree about Portland liberals, since Zak Johnson certainly qualifies as a Portland progressive and the largest percentage of GOC membership lives in the Portland urban area. Ah stereotypes.
Um, Ted, that ain't rhetoric - it's gun powder and lead - and it's concrete not the air you're pushing around. In point of actual fact, his Party's stance on the issue of the 2nd Amendment is inferior in every respect to the DPO's Resolution 08-05. Really Ted, considering your public statement that Democratic voting Democrats are somehow less "God-fearing, red-blooded American citizens" than those who vote for your Party sounds a lot like really stupid really ugly partisanship typical of many in your Party. I don't vote for you or your ilk and I'll match my contributions to this society and my values against yours any day. As far as red-blooded, I've run in a real tough Federal campaign while you hang onto your safe State campaign and most of my pastimes and manner of making a living would put your ass in the dirt.
James Sinks is a pretty good reporter, so I'm not going to undercut his livelihood by poaching too much of his article. Buy a copy of the Bend Bulletin, 10/3/08 and help support them. Sure, the paper is more conservatively oriented than I am, but they perform an important function and do it well.
If the DPO/GOC strikes your fancy as an organization you could get behind there are a lot of ways to contact us, DPO Contacts is probably the best or see your County Party. The GOC is not just a propaganda arm of the DPO, though it is certainly one of our functions to educate the voting public, it is also an interest group within Party politics. If you're thinking, "oh sure, like you've got leverage," it pays to know that GOC is one of the two largest caucuses in DPO with one of the very largest geographic representations. Are we visible?
That cap worn in a parade reads:
GUN OWNERS CAUCUS
Democratic Party of Oregon
That parade just happen to be in Lane County, not Eastern Oregon, Sen Ted. We aren't
playing at anything and we're not pretending to be something we're not. This is about "why in the hell are the Republicans getting to run the show in the ditch over this issue?" Cutting firearms crimes is not about guns, it is all about people and exactly one Party has the ideas to address the things that drive crime, how people live.
GOC is tired of stupidity, blaming guns for crimes is just like blaming Chevrolet for drunk driving. People are the issue, drug and alcohol treatment, job creation, equal treatment, sufficient income, some sort of civil and economic fairness and that is not the agenda of the Party that gets the "gun vote." While gun ownership spreads across the economic spectrum it is concentrated amongst those who are most ignored and harmed by the Party they vote for, and vote for as an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and this divide is stupid. This is the Party of the expansion of civil liberties, not the Republicans - let's help that happen.
Range photos by TA Barnhart***
Before shooting started I conducted one of those basics of any shooting event that might include anyone unfamiliar with firearms, the safety orientation. It never hurts for those with experience to hear it once again. Firearms are potentially dangerous tools and it is entirely too late to try to correct something afterwards. GOC Chair Zak Johnson is to my right in the photo. The bed of the SSR is filled about half way with firearms and ammunition. The object being to provide opportunities for those who don't own firearms and something different for those who do. Zak also brought along extras.
Around 25 shooters from disparate parts of the state attended, Portland and Multnomah County were well represented as was the Bend area, and Baker City. I do not have at hand the names and homes of all attendees, but this was a gathering of urban and rural Democrats with a common interest. Maren Lundgren, a candidate for the State Senate District 2 7, is pictured learning the function of a .45 Colt SAA which is an uncommon handgun requiring special treatment. Other candidates present were:Judy Stiegler, HD 54 candidate, Conrad Ruel, House District 53 candidate, Noah Lemas - running for Congress, 2nd CD (apparently he antelope hunts close to COSSA), Al Unger. current Mayor of Redmond, running for Deschutes Co. Commissioner.
Pictured is Bill Flocker, Assn Pres and one of the Range Officers giving a helping hand with accuracy. Range Officers provide an invaluable service on a shooting range, monitoring for safe conduct and opening and closing the firing line for target changes. I would like to make clear to those unfamiliar with shooting clubs that you will seldom find anyone more friendly or more helpful than their members. Politics stop at the gates, we flew our Democratic 'flags' but in no way advocated for candidates or issues. Shooting clubs, for obvious reasons, are predominately Republican and the mere presence of so many Democrats being just like them at the range is political capital that is hard to beat.
Here is Wayne Kinney who wears many hats as a Democrat, he is the DPO's DNC Committeeman and general activist as well as Sen Ron Wyden (D-OR)'s eastern Oregon chief liaison. He is shooting a Ruger Vaquero .45 Colt and grouping his shots nicely but hitting low and left of his aim point. Chuck is making the point that with that consistency the fundamentals of firing are good but the sight picture he is using has a consistent fault. I know this is not about the revolver since I can hit a 10 inch circle of metal at 200 yards with it, although with much heavier loads than used on this 7 yard pistol range or by anyone not familiar with very high power rounds - Hotrod Reloads for Vaquero 45 Colt.
Media has paid some attention to these Democratic Party activities, specifically James Sinks of the Bend Bulletin.
SALEM — On any given Sunday in campaign season, you’d expect to find Democrat Judy Stiegler, a candidate for the Oregon House, knocking on doors in Bend, or maybe in a coffee shop, sipping a latte.
What about shooting pistols?
That’s exactly what Stiegler, a Bend attorney, and several other Democratic candidates from Central Oregon did Sunday near Millican, as part of an event staged by the Democratic Gun Caucus.
Now wait just a minute, you might be thinking.
Democrats? Guns?
Yes, it’s true.
It’s events like those that Democrats — especially those who are seeking office east of the Cascades, which has been reliably Republican turf for decades — say are helping to illustrate that not every Democrat fits a stereotype that they’re identical to Portland liberals.
James and I disagree about Portland liberals, since Zak Johnson certainly qualifies as a Portland progressive and the largest percentage of GOC membership lives in the Portland urban area. Ah stereotypes.
“That’s the whole idea,” said Conrad Ruel, a La Pine retiree who is seeking an Oregon House seat and who attended the shooting event with his son, who is a member of the National Guard.
“There are a lot of Democrats who have guns and support the Second Amendment,” he said.
State Sen. Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, said it’s good political strategy for Democrats to say they’re just like most folks in rural Oregon.
But he doesn’t think it will sway many voters.
“A great deal of the registration in rural Oregon is Democrat, but they are conservative, gun-owning, God-fearing, red-blooded American citizens, and they vote conservative,” he said.
“They are not going to be fooled, no matter how much rhetoric you pile on.”
Um, Ted, that ain't rhetoric - it's gun powder and lead - and it's concrete not the air you're pushing around. In point of actual fact, his Party's stance on the issue of the 2nd Amendment is inferior in every respect to the DPO's Resolution 08-05. Really Ted, considering your public statement that Democratic voting Democrats are somehow less "God-fearing, red-blooded American citizens" than those who vote for your Party sounds a lot like really stupid really ugly partisanship typical of many in your Party. I don't vote for you or your ilk and I'll match my contributions to this society and my values against yours any day. As far as red-blooded, I've run in a real tough Federal campaign while you hang onto your safe State campaign and most of my pastimes and manner of making a living would put your ass in the dirt.
Chuck Butcher, a former Democratic congressional candidate from Baker City, helped to form the Gun Owners Caucus because he was frustrated at the perception that all Democrats were anti-gun, he said.
“Yes, there are Democrats that want to ban all ammunition, but there are Republicans that want to do that, too, such as (former New York Mayor) Rudy Guiliani.”
But at the same time, plenty of Democrats are hunters and gun owners, he said.
James Sinks is a pretty good reporter, so I'm not going to undercut his livelihood by poaching too much of his article. Buy a copy of the Bend Bulletin, 10/3/08 and help support them. Sure, the paper is more conservatively oriented than I am, but they perform an important function and do it well.
If the DPO/GOC strikes your fancy as an organization you could get behind there are a lot of ways to contact us, DPO Contacts is probably the best or see your County Party. The GOC is not just a propaganda arm of the DPO, though it is certainly one of our functions to educate the voting public, it is also an interest group within Party politics. If you're thinking, "oh sure, like you've got leverage," it pays to know that GOC is one of the two largest caucuses in DPO with one of the very largest geographic representations. Are we visible?
That cap worn in a parade reads:
GUN OWNERS CAUCUS
Democratic Party of Oregon
That parade just happen to be in Lane County, not Eastern Oregon, Sen Ted. We aren't
playing at anything and we're not pretending to be something we're not. This is about "why in the hell are the Republicans getting to run the show in the ditch over this issue?" Cutting firearms crimes is not about guns, it is all about people and exactly one Party has the ideas to address the things that drive crime, how people live.
GOC is tired of stupidity, blaming guns for crimes is just like blaming Chevrolet for drunk driving. People are the issue, drug and alcohol treatment, job creation, equal treatment, sufficient income, some sort of civil and economic fairness and that is not the agenda of the Party that gets the "gun vote." While gun ownership spreads across the economic spectrum it is concentrated amongst those who are most ignored and harmed by the Party they vote for, and vote for as an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and this divide is stupid. This is the Party of the expansion of civil liberties, not the Republicans - let's help that happen.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Second Amendment Individual Right And End Of World
Heller V DC just brought civilization as we know it in these United States to an end. Really, the gun control, gun ban crowd would have you believe the streets will be awash in blood thanks to a finding in favor of an individual right. DC Mayor Fenty states that more guns means more crime, and says it with not only a straight face, he says it with conviction. So now guns will just be everywhere in DC and everybody will have one and just shoot each other to pieces?
Let's just back the train up here. DC has had a draconian handgun ban since 1976 and they still are shooting each other to pieces. DC pols blame VA for this. What they really mean is that despite a gun ban there are guns aplenty in DC. What guns there are not in DC are the ones in law-abiding hands. There can't be because it is against the law. To be sure there are probably ordinarily law-abiding people who violate this one, but is asking for all kinds of trouble. If every law-abiding citizen who wants one buys a gun that will surely result in a net increase of firearms in DC.
There evidently hasn't been much problem with the getting of a gun in DC, there seem to be plenty to go around in criminal circles. Law-abiding citizens having them will result in more crimes for what reason? People who haven't killed their neighbors or spouses will suddenly want to because they can buy a gun? Criminals in search of guns will break into houses to get them? That might actually be a side benefit of a burglary but as a motive it is a rather risky method compared to buying an illegal one. It is surely an aspect of legal ownership that burglary will become a bit more risky in DC. I qualify that statement with reason, I strongly doubt that DC will not put road blocks in the path to private ownership. They're going to have some real problems if it becomes capricious or elitist.
There are a handful of communities in the nation with draconian, capricious, or otherwise questionable firearm regulations. California and Massachusetts may have some difficulties with their laws. One thing is quite certain, owning firearms is not a universal desire in this country. The numbers of lawfully held firearms will increase but where that leads to an increase in mayhem is unclear. Most of the bloodshed pictured by the gun banners is already either a fact - in criminal circles - or accomplished with other means by homicidal bent people. Do I think firearms crimes won't increase? No, I think they will, but I don't think the number of murders will increase. The guy who beats his wife to death may opt for shooting her, the intention is the same and the result the same, simply a different means. I think firearm accidents may well increase as inexperienced people acquire things they should learn about and don't. I'm afraid our culture has mystified and mythologized firearms to the point where that is the common denominator among non-shooters.
Entertainment media and, most unfortunately, news media present inaccurate and frequently completely stupid portrayals of firearms. It is not an easy thing to hit a target with any firearm and handguns are particularly not easy, just pointing isn't likely to achieve good results without a tremendous amount of practice. Firearm lethality is exaggerated in many cases, a handgun is certainly a lethal weapon, but the bullet must hit something lethal and the body isn't that chock full of them. Entertainment depicts things that just flatly don't happen, people are not thrown or even knocked down by bullet impacts. The idea that body parts explode is a fantasy excepting large caliber high velocity bullets, or small caliber hyper-velocity bullets.
There may be some people hurt or killed by firearms that shouldn't have been as a result of this decision and there may well be people hurt or killed who should be, how that will balance I'm unsure. There will be cases where the presence of a firearm will just stop a crime without anyone hurt and there will be crimes uncommitted out of fear of running into an armed victim. These latter cases will not be documented in any meaningful way and thus not appear in the record. Gun banners are fond of citing the lack of such numbers and never bother to note that they aren't really reported.
The world isn't going to end and neither is violent crime going to disappear as a result of this decision.
Let's just back the train up here. DC has had a draconian handgun ban since 1976 and they still are shooting each other to pieces. DC pols blame VA for this. What they really mean is that despite a gun ban there are guns aplenty in DC. What guns there are not in DC are the ones in law-abiding hands. There can't be because it is against the law. To be sure there are probably ordinarily law-abiding people who violate this one, but is asking for all kinds of trouble. If every law-abiding citizen who wants one buys a gun that will surely result in a net increase of firearms in DC.
There evidently hasn't been much problem with the getting of a gun in DC, there seem to be plenty to go around in criminal circles. Law-abiding citizens having them will result in more crimes for what reason? People who haven't killed their neighbors or spouses will suddenly want to because they can buy a gun? Criminals in search of guns will break into houses to get them? That might actually be a side benefit of a burglary but as a motive it is a rather risky method compared to buying an illegal one. It is surely an aspect of legal ownership that burglary will become a bit more risky in DC. I qualify that statement with reason, I strongly doubt that DC will not put road blocks in the path to private ownership. They're going to have some real problems if it becomes capricious or elitist.
There are a handful of communities in the nation with draconian, capricious, or otherwise questionable firearm regulations. California and Massachusetts may have some difficulties with their laws. One thing is quite certain, owning firearms is not a universal desire in this country. The numbers of lawfully held firearms will increase but where that leads to an increase in mayhem is unclear. Most of the bloodshed pictured by the gun banners is already either a fact - in criminal circles - or accomplished with other means by homicidal bent people. Do I think firearms crimes won't increase? No, I think they will, but I don't think the number of murders will increase. The guy who beats his wife to death may opt for shooting her, the intention is the same and the result the same, simply a different means. I think firearm accidents may well increase as inexperienced people acquire things they should learn about and don't. I'm afraid our culture has mystified and mythologized firearms to the point where that is the common denominator among non-shooters.
Entertainment media and, most unfortunately, news media present inaccurate and frequently completely stupid portrayals of firearms. It is not an easy thing to hit a target with any firearm and handguns are particularly not easy, just pointing isn't likely to achieve good results without a tremendous amount of practice. Firearm lethality is exaggerated in many cases, a handgun is certainly a lethal weapon, but the bullet must hit something lethal and the body isn't that chock full of them. Entertainment depicts things that just flatly don't happen, people are not thrown or even knocked down by bullet impacts. The idea that body parts explode is a fantasy excepting large caliber high velocity bullets, or small caliber hyper-velocity bullets.
There may be some people hurt or killed by firearms that shouldn't have been as a result of this decision and there may well be people hurt or killed who should be, how that will balance I'm unsure. There will be cases where the presence of a firearm will just stop a crime without anyone hurt and there will be crimes uncommitted out of fear of running into an armed victim. These latter cases will not be documented in any meaningful way and thus not appear in the record. Gun banners are fond of citing the lack of such numbers and never bother to note that they aren't really reported.
The world isn't going to end and neither is violent crime going to disappear as a result of this decision.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Paul Helmke - Brady Campaign Liar
Paul Helmke has repeatedly stated that it is plain on its face that the 2nd Amendment is only applicable to militias and therefor the Military today. He has ridiculed arguments opposing this view, a view with no historical precedence, and made it clear that only loons saw it as an individual right. Now, ABC quotes this guy:
Theory? The only people engaging in something theoretical was Helmke and his ilk. The language in the Amendment cannot be twisted into the loops the Brady Campaign proposed, it flatly cannot make the case. You have got to understand this concession in real terms, "We've lost the battle," means exactly what it means, they engaged in a battle to crush a plain right.
On a Court that is narrowly split on right and left Helmke expects to lose, understand the thust of that statement. Helmke has long asserted the right to strip ordinary citizens of the 2nd and he expects to lose? Every assertion that what the Brady Campaign was up to was Un-constitutional was ridiculed, Brady opponents were labeled gun-nuts and kooks for their stance. Helmke expects to lose a Supreme Court decision about the very thing he has advocated as Constitutional.
So, when was Helmke lying? This decision is not about what most Americans view as an individual or collective right, it is about what the Supreme Court views it as. If you are advocating the mangling of the Bill of Rights amendment numbered two and you have doubts...what in the hell kind of person are you? He did not state, "oh, we've had an epipheny," no he says we expect to lose.
Every time I've read this guy I've been struck by how much straighter a cork screw is than he is. I'll argue differences in policy, but I'll be damned if I'll argue against lies, I'll just call them such and prove it. I will not be polite about it, a liar is just that. Screw Paul Helmke - liar.
"We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," Brady Campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically."
Theory? The only people engaging in something theoretical was Helmke and his ilk. The language in the Amendment cannot be twisted into the loops the Brady Campaign proposed, it flatly cannot make the case. You have got to understand this concession in real terms, "We've lost the battle," means exactly what it means, they engaged in a battle to crush a plain right.
"We're expecting D.C. to lose the case," Helmke said. "But this could be good from the standpoint of the political-legislative side."
On a Court that is narrowly split on right and left Helmke expects to lose, understand the thust of that statement. Helmke has long asserted the right to strip ordinary citizens of the 2nd and he expects to lose? Every assertion that what the Brady Campaign was up to was Un-constitutional was ridiculed, Brady opponents were labeled gun-nuts and kooks for their stance. Helmke expects to lose a Supreme Court decision about the very thing he has advocated as Constitutional.
So, when was Helmke lying? This decision is not about what most Americans view as an individual or collective right, it is about what the Supreme Court views it as. If you are advocating the mangling of the Bill of Rights amendment numbered two and you have doubts...what in the hell kind of person are you? He did not state, "oh, we've had an epipheny," no he says we expect to lose.
Every time I've read this guy I've been struck by how much straighter a cork screw is than he is. I'll argue differences in policy, but I'll be damned if I'll argue against lies, I'll just call them such and prove it. I will not be polite about it, a liar is just that. Screw Paul Helmke - liar.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Merkley On The 2nd Amendment
****Cross Posted From Blue Steel Democrats****
Jeff Merkley on 2nd Amendment Rights
The campaign for Jeff Merkley, Oregon Democratic Candidate for Senate, has sent out the following statement on Merkley's views on gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment. It is published here without edits.
For more information, please visit www.jeffmerkley.com.
------------------------------
Jeff Merkley on the 2nd Amendment
Jeff Merkley believes in increasing personal freedom by keeping government out of people's bedrooms and out of their gun cabinets.
Merkley believes government works best when it is promoting personal freedom and responsibility, not trying to impede by getting involved in people's personal lives.
Merkley is a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and as Oregon's next US Senator he will work to protect the right of individuals to own guns.
He believes we need to focus our efforts on enforcing the laws we already have on the books. And we need to close loopholes that allow guns to get into the hands of criminals. This is why he strongly supports a national law requiring back ground checks at gun shows.
(End of Statement)
***there is frequent cross posting between these sites and this was authorized by the blog admin
Jeff Merkley on 2nd Amendment Rights
The campaign for Jeff Merkley, Oregon Democratic Candidate for Senate, has sent out the following statement on Merkley's views on gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment. It is published here without edits.
For more information, please visit www.jeffmerkley.com.
------------------------------
Jeff Merkley on the 2nd Amendment
Jeff Merkley believes in increasing personal freedom by keeping government out of people's bedrooms and out of their gun cabinets.
Merkley believes government works best when it is promoting personal freedom and responsibility, not trying to impede by getting involved in people's personal lives.
Merkley is a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and as Oregon's next US Senator he will work to protect the right of individuals to own guns.
He believes we need to focus our efforts on enforcing the laws we already have on the books. And we need to close loopholes that allow guns to get into the hands of criminals. This is why he strongly supports a national law requiring back ground checks at gun shows.
(End of Statement)
***there is frequent cross posting between these sites and this was authorized by the blog admin
Monday, April 28, 2008
Novick on Firearms
NOVICK FOR SENATE
Statement on Firearms and the 2nd Amendment
Growing up in rural Oregon, I have a deep appreciation of the importance of firearm ownership for many Americans. It is my pledge as Oregon’s next senator to support sensible gun safety measures, while preserving the rights of lawful Americans to possess and use firearms. In addition, it is my pledge to always provide an open door for Oregonians to register their concerns and priorities and that pledge extends to all firearm owners.
Generally, I think that Clinton-era federal laws struck the right balance between the constitutional rights of firearm owners and concerns about public safety regarding the dangerous or illegal use of firearms. I believe that the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights guarantees the right of individuals to own and use firearms. As I have said frequently on the campaign trail, progressives can’t pick and choose what part of the Constitution they support. If you stand up for the First, Fourth or Fifth Amendments, you need to stand up for the Second too.
My campaign is founded on upholding consistent principles and being honest with voters about the issues and choices we face as a nation. I know from personal experience that the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible, law-abiding citizens who pose no threat to others and regard guns as an important part of their daily life – either for protection or recreation. In my mind, it is also basic common sense to recognize that the realities of firearm ownership are very different for those living in rural communities to those living in our urban areas – yet absolutists on both sides of the issue fail to recognize this distinction. It is my commitment to offer sensible, fair representation of Oregonians when it comes to gun safety and gun rights issues in the Senate.
Unedited direct from Jake Weigler to "Chuck for..."
Statement on Firearms and the 2nd Amendment
Growing up in rural Oregon, I have a deep appreciation of the importance of firearm ownership for many Americans. It is my pledge as Oregon’s next senator to support sensible gun safety measures, while preserving the rights of lawful Americans to possess and use firearms. In addition, it is my pledge to always provide an open door for Oregonians to register their concerns and priorities and that pledge extends to all firearm owners.
Generally, I think that Clinton-era federal laws struck the right balance between the constitutional rights of firearm owners and concerns about public safety regarding the dangerous or illegal use of firearms. I believe that the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights guarantees the right of individuals to own and use firearms. As I have said frequently on the campaign trail, progressives can’t pick and choose what part of the Constitution they support. If you stand up for the First, Fourth or Fifth Amendments, you need to stand up for the Second too.
My campaign is founded on upholding consistent principles and being honest with voters about the issues and choices we face as a nation. I know from personal experience that the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible, law-abiding citizens who pose no threat to others and regard guns as an important part of their daily life – either for protection or recreation. In my mind, it is also basic common sense to recognize that the realities of firearm ownership are very different for those living in rural communities to those living in our urban areas – yet absolutists on both sides of the issue fail to recognize this distinction. It is my commitment to offer sensible, fair representation of Oregonians when it comes to gun safety and gun rights issues in the Senate.
Unedited direct from Jake Weigler to "Chuck for..."
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
NYT Argues For Ban On Free Press, Sort Of...
The NYT Editorial Board once again shows its authoritarian leanings. Be under no illusion, they will not only step on your rights, but they will engage in blatant misrepresentation to do it. Ah, here's the reasoning:
Now with regard to the reasoning and the banning of the free press, the first part of the argument is naturally applicable to kiddie porn, there is indisputable inevitable universal harm to children involved, it is a reasonable restriction on a right and naturally the NYT is exempt provided their advertisements don't get anymore grotesque. Moving right along, kiddie porn is published online and on paper, so the NYT is arguing that bytes and newsprint be banned - so long guys. Oh, I know the editorial is about handguns not newsprint, at least it is supposed to be. It isn't. It is about 'the powers that be' deciding that the perception of security trumps the Constitution. I seem to remember them screaming that CIA considerations weren't sufficient to prevent the reporting of secret prisons...um their sacred cow.
Nobody is conceding one iota to the NYT about "reasonable" restrictions. Does somebody remember the wiggle word in the Fourth Amendment? "Unreasonable" search and seizure... means something different to tyrants than it does to the Framers. RICO would involve hot tar, feathers, and a rail, but that law is still on the books. BushCo would have been hung, despite Adams' Alien and Sedition Law, for which he is still reviled. You see, it is hugely in the corporate interest to protect newsprint and, to a degree, bytes; but not at all to protect firearm owners or the citizenry's rights. If they'd like to sue me for calling them liars, they're free to; a hamster could represent himself in that case, and not on the First Amendment, simply by introducing Miller as evidence. Here you go, corporate lawyers:
NYT LIES ABOUT MILLER
Try me out, please, I could use the income from the counter-suit.
I therefore propose that because the NYT has proven that it will misuse the First Amendment right to Free Press through lies and misrepresentations to suppress the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people that they be banned for inevitable universal irreparable harm to the citizenry. Makes as much sense to me.
The appeals court made two mistakes. First, it inflated the Second Amendment into a sweeping rightNow what misrepresentation, you ask? The most blatant one:
***
The second mistake that the appeals court made — one that many supporters of gun rights may concede — was its unduly narrow view of what constitutes a “reasonable” law.
The decision broke with the great majority of federal courts that have examined the issue, including the Supreme Court in 1939. Those courts have held that the constitutional right to bear arms is tied to service in a militia, and is not an individual right.Starting with that misrepresentation part, the Supreme Court ruled in Miller that a weapon's applicability in military service was not shown to be represented by a sawed off shotgun. Military service was not in any way tied to the possession of weapons, only that they must possess military applicability. This argument is completely false in regard to who has the right to keep and bear arms. So, charitably speaking, the NYT lied. They also know they lied, Miller has been around since 1939. They have the Freedom of the Press to lie about the BOR and the Supreme Court, they're still liars.
Now with regard to the reasoning and the banning of the free press, the first part of the argument is naturally applicable to kiddie porn, there is indisputable inevitable universal harm to children involved, it is a reasonable restriction on a right and naturally the NYT is exempt provided their advertisements don't get anymore grotesque. Moving right along, kiddie porn is published online and on paper, so the NYT is arguing that bytes and newsprint be banned - so long guys. Oh, I know the editorial is about handguns not newsprint, at least it is supposed to be. It isn't. It is about 'the powers that be' deciding that the perception of security trumps the Constitution. I seem to remember them screaming that CIA considerations weren't sufficient to prevent the reporting of secret prisons...um their sacred cow.
Nobody is conceding one iota to the NYT about "reasonable" restrictions. Does somebody remember the wiggle word in the Fourth Amendment? "Unreasonable" search and seizure... means something different to tyrants than it does to the Framers. RICO would involve hot tar, feathers, and a rail, but that law is still on the books. BushCo would have been hung, despite Adams' Alien and Sedition Law, for which he is still reviled. You see, it is hugely in the corporate interest to protect newsprint and, to a degree, bytes; but not at all to protect firearm owners or the citizenry's rights. If they'd like to sue me for calling them liars, they're free to; a hamster could represent himself in that case, and not on the First Amendment, simply by introducing Miller as evidence. Here you go, corporate lawyers:
NYT LIES ABOUT MILLER
Try me out, please, I could use the income from the counter-suit.
The District of Columbia City Council concluded that prohibiting the easily concealable handguns preferred by criminals, and imposing prudent safety rules on rifles and shotguns, was a good, practical strategy for reducing crime, suicide, domestic violence and accidental shootings. Far from a blanket ban, the law strikes a balance between gun owners and the larger community.Boy did they walk out on a limb here, what they do not have is one iota of evidence that this is the case, nor did they at the time. In point of fact, DC and NYC both defied the national trends in decreasing firearm crime after their bans. They, in fact, became more dangerous despite public perception, the FBI's numbers are clear. The premise is based on the ultimate stupidity, that people who would obey their laws regarding possession of firearms would otherwise violate the law by shooting each other. The legal penalty for violating the bans is considerably lighter than the penalty for shooting someone illegally. You'd think that might enter their minds.
I therefore propose that because the NYT has proven that it will misuse the First Amendment right to Free Press through lies and misrepresentations to suppress the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people that they be banned for inevitable universal irreparable harm to the citizenry. Makes as much sense to me.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
DeFazio Weighs In On DC Ban
Over at Blue Steel Democrats you'll find an article detailing the members of Congress who have filed a brief supporting plaintiff Heller in the DC gun ban case, including Rep. DeFazio (OR-D). Head on over there for more.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
NY Times And Civil Liberties
The NYT is a vocal proponent of the protection of civil liberties, the ones they like. The fact that I also like the ones they like only means just so much. You see, the NYT has what you might call selective approval, they pick and choose and mangle whatever is convenient for mangling at the moment. The NYT is currently pretty hot on the 4th Amendment, they believe the government has now overstepped the bounds, a good question might be, "where were you on RICO?" Since they are the press, one shouldn't be too surprised that they wish to protect their corporate welfare and since that's rolled into one Amendment they don't want any messing about, though the strength of their support for "freedom of assembly" got pretty weak during the '04 RNC Convention in their fair city. They were pretty muted on the issue of the government paying religious organizations for "social work," (the quotes are intended).
When the Appeals Court overturned the DC gun ban, the NYT finished their Editorial with this paragraph:
The Bill of Rights is not about the government giving people rights, that is a commonly played card of immense falsehood, it is about rights that pre-exist the formation of the government and the government's guarantee that it will stay out of them. A state has no rights other than those conferred on it by its citizens. It has a presumed "right to self-defense" just as the citizenry has the right to smash it as King George III found (not to be confused with the American wannabe kinglet George II). The people are the people, always, to attempt to confuse the word with an organization is only argumentation back from a preconceived point - they are something different because my argument only works if I change a word. Had the Founders meant the word to mean militia they would have used the word militia rather than people, there is absolutely no grammatical reason to use people in place of militia, there is no sense of his meaning that requires people in that part of a sentence. In point of fact, there were people excluded from the militia by law at that time, the words are not interchangeable. They are not equal with or without the comma, the comma only makes that abundantly clear.
The NYT's editors seem to believe that because some things belong within a group, all similar things belong, Because robbers are human and people are human works in this sense - all robbers are people - but it does not work at all in this sense - all people are robbers. Nobody in their right mind tries the latter - well, the NYT certainly does.
This sort of intellectual dishonesty, the re-framing of definitions and class inclusions makes one wonder just how accurate the NYT's reporting really is...
When the Appeals Court overturned the DC gun ban, the NYT finished their Editorial with this paragraph:
A lot has changed since the nation’s founding, when people kept muskets to be ready for militia service. What has not changed is the actual language of the Constitution. To get past the first limiting clauses of the Second Amendment to find an unalienable individual right to bear arms seems to require creative editing.One is tempted to ask questions about the NYT's editing process and whether words mean what the dictionary says or if it is a matter of personal preference, their latest OpEd piece by Adam Freedman has more in common with the fiction he writes than law.
Beyond grappling with fairly esoteric arguments about the Second Amendment, the justices need to responsibly confront modern-day reality. A decision that upends needed gun controls currently in place around the country would imperil the lives of Americans.
The decision invalidating the district’s gun ban, written by Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, cites the second comma (the one after “state”) as proof that the Second Amendment does not merely protect the “collective” right of states to maintain their militias, but endows each citizen with an “individual” right to carry a gun, regardless of membership in the local militia.This gets to the guts of his argument, he's unhappy about the comma, and commas were pretty much optional tag ons at the time. He has a solution for this awkward piece of punctuation.
How does a mere comma do that? According to the court, the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one “prefatory” and the other “operative.” On this reading, the bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don’t really get down to business until they start talking about “the right of the people ... shall not be infringed.”
The best way to make sense of the Second Amendment is to take away all the commas (which, I know, means that only outlaws will have commas). Without the distracting commas, one can focus on the grammar of the sentence.Now that we've dispensed with that comma we can get down to the business of dismantling the Second Amendment:
Likewise, when the justices finish diagramming the Second Amendment, they should end up with something that expresses a causal link, like: “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary.That seems pretty clear, we take out that nasty comma and things are all fixed up. We've got it all covered, um, except for a couple points, there's the little matter of the definition of militia and even worse is that adjective in front of state - free - which tilts things a tad. So far maybe this seems like legalese hair splitting, but then there is the absolute kicker, people, the word does not appear in the Second alone and it turns the BOR into a diagram for repression if people means State, which it does not.
Advocates of both gun rights and gun control are making a tactical mistake by focusing on the commas of the Second Amendment. After all, couldn’t one just as easily obsess about the founders’ odd use of capitalization? Perhaps the next amicus brief will find the true intent of the amendment by pointing out that “militia” and “state” are capitalized in the original, whereas “people” is not.
The Bill of Rights is not about the government giving people rights, that is a commonly played card of immense falsehood, it is about rights that pre-exist the formation of the government and the government's guarantee that it will stay out of them. A state has no rights other than those conferred on it by its citizens. It has a presumed "right to self-defense" just as the citizenry has the right to smash it as King George III found (not to be confused with the American wannabe kinglet George II). The people are the people, always, to attempt to confuse the word with an organization is only argumentation back from a preconceived point - they are something different because my argument only works if I change a word. Had the Founders meant the word to mean militia they would have used the word militia rather than people, there is absolutely no grammatical reason to use people in place of militia, there is no sense of his meaning that requires people in that part of a sentence. In point of fact, there were people excluded from the militia by law at that time, the words are not interchangeable. They are not equal with or without the comma, the comma only makes that abundantly clear.
The NYT's editors seem to believe that because some things belong within a group, all similar things belong, Because robbers are human and people are human works in this sense - all robbers are people - but it does not work at all in this sense - all people are robbers. Nobody in their right mind tries the latter - well, the NYT certainly does.
This sort of intellectual dishonesty, the re-framing of definitions and class inclusions makes one wonder just how accurate the NYT's reporting really is...
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Regarding Democratic Party of Oregon and Guns
It's time to run this again:
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-008
A RESOLUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has long been dedicated to the preservation of civil liberties; and
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has long been dedicated to the preservation of freedom and social justice.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. To recognize and support the right to keep and bear arms in Article 1 Section 27 of the Oregon State Constitution and the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America as an individual right not granted by the government, but rather guaranteed by the government.
Section 2. In recognition of the tremendous personal responsibility engendered by the right to keep and bear arms, the Democratic Party of Oregon further advocates severe penalties and their enforcement for criminal use or misuse of the right.
ADOPTED by the Democratic Party of Oregon on 16th day of July, 2005.
Resolution submitted by Charles H Butcher III, Baker County.
Platform and Resolutions Committee recommends adoption.
Date approved
7/16/05
Resolution sponsor(s)
Chuck Butcher
If you want to try and make the Republicans look better on the issue, you'd better have them re-write their mess. Yes, there are Democrats that don't like this; but to take measure this passed with 73% vote. The DPO also has The Gun Owners Caucus with Blue Steel Democrats as its unofficial Blog and a page on DPO's website and it is one of the best attended and most active Party caucuses. We (I'm a charter member, not an officer) aren't quiet and some candidates carry R08-2005 in their pockets when they campaign.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-008
A RESOLUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has long been dedicated to the preservation of civil liberties; and
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has long been dedicated to the preservation of freedom and social justice.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. To recognize and support the right to keep and bear arms in Article 1 Section 27 of the Oregon State Constitution and the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America as an individual right not granted by the government, but rather guaranteed by the government.
Section 2. In recognition of the tremendous personal responsibility engendered by the right to keep and bear arms, the Democratic Party of Oregon further advocates severe penalties and their enforcement for criminal use or misuse of the right.
ADOPTED by the Democratic Party of Oregon on 16th day of July, 2005.
Resolution submitted by Charles H Butcher III, Baker County.
Platform and Resolutions Committee recommends adoption.
Date approved
7/16/05
Resolution sponsor(s)
Chuck Butcher
If you want to try and make the Republicans look better on the issue, you'd better have them re-write their mess. Yes, there are Democrats that don't like this; but to take measure this passed with 73% vote. The DPO also has The Gun Owners Caucus with Blue Steel Democrats as its unofficial Blog and a page on DPO's website and it is one of the best attended and most active Party caucuses. We (I'm a charter member, not an officer) aren't quiet and some candidates carry R08-2005 in their pockets when they campaign.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment
It has been since 1939 that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Second Amendment case, that one was US vs. Miller regarding a sawed off shotgun. The case had been decided against Miller in appeals court and the Supremes agreed to hear it, Miller in the mean time died, leaving no appellant, a moot case. The Court has aggressively avoided hearing cases involving the 2nd, and for the most part firearms rights organizations have preferred legislative fights. This has of course lead to quite a bit of speculation regarding why this issue has stayed out of Court for so long. The Washington DC case may end this long dry spell.
A lawsuit sponsored by Robert A Levy was filed against Washington DC by Dick Anthony Heller a security guard at a building which houses the federal judiciary administrative offices. Heller carries a handgun at work, he had applied for and was denied a permit to keep the gun at home. This denial gave him legal standing as an appellant to contest an arbitrary denial of 2nd Amendment rights. The lawsuit alleged that the Second Amendment is an individual right while Washington DC takes the stance that the Second only applies to state militia service, that the limitations only apply to the federal government, and finally that a handgun ban is a reasonable restriction in the interest of public safety and health. The three judge US Court of Appeals for DC disagreed 2/1, asserting that the 2nd is an individual right which allows for reasonable restrictions on people such as felons but that DC's outright prohibition and refusal to grant permits is unconstitutional.
Both sides have been spoiling for this fight, now the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case or not, known now as District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290. The Second Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Framer's attempt to keep things simple with a single sentence did not anticipate the narrow arguments around language that has changed over the years and changes in culture. At the time the population could be described as primarily rural, in today's world most of the urban areas of the time would be regarded as rural, having a distinct effect on cultural outlooks. Another cultural aspect was the recent history of the Revolution and the rule of George III. The populace was quite familiar with the concept of a government expected to behave in one manner usurping the "ancient rights" of Englishmen. What the language of the time meant, what the writings surrounding ratification say, and what the English law antecedents say are not much in debate, the debate around the Second devolves into modern interpretation and agenda. This is a case where the use of specific language has caused confusion and the use of grammar rules well understood now opens the door to revisionism.
"Well regulated" was a military term meaning well equipped and turned out, today the term no longer is used in regard to military units, in fact only a single word "regulated" is used and that is in regard to bureaucratic rules being applied. Language has changed. The section of the 2nd regarding militias is a dependent clause which is used as a descriptive or explanatory phrase in a sentence regarding the independent clause which is the definitive meaning of the sentence. This usage is still recognized as proper grammar usage and sentence structure. This has not stopped the argument from being made that the dependent clause gives the states the right to arm their militia - the National Guard. Disregarding the incorrect grammatical interpretation of this clause as the operative wording this stance also ignores the definition of militia which was nearly all able-bodied free white men, not a State sanctioned military unit.
Over the years the Supreme Court has managed to avoid ruling on the Second, Miller was sent back to the Appeals Court and stood with the narrow definition of the Second being that the arms were of military utility and denying that a sawed off shotgun was such. Congress sidestepped the issue regarding full automatic weapons by passing a law which required a tax stamp, issued on payment and the meeting of essentially background check and also allowing Federal inspection of the weapon at the government's discretion - essentially a voluntary surrender of 4th Amendment rights. While this law is a discouragement to the ownership of that sort of firearm it is also not an infringement in the sense that an absolute ban is. An uncomfortable status quo was achieved. Firearm rights groups avoided having to take a criminal case to the Supremes, such a case has legal standing but would come to the Court from an uncomfortable direction, the current case involves a sympathetic appellant with legal standing.
The Supreme Court is now in a difficult position, if it refuses to hear the case the Appeals Court ruling stands and DC's handgun ban is overthrown, if it hears the case it must rule on the issue of individual right which has been the gun ban lobby's one refuge, unless the Supremes are willing to rule that public health and safety is so universally and inevitably at risk so as to trump a Constitutional guarantee. That is an extremely high hurdle to make and a demonstration that legal ownership is such a threat will be statistically very difficult. This is not a venue where the gun banners' media fueled emotional appeal based on the small percentages of devastation wreaked by legal possessors will carry much weight. This has obviously worked within legislative bodies and with a fair sized segment of the general population, but the Supreme Court is a bit different.
There are a multitude of reasons the Court has avoided this issue, public opinion and the interference with legislative bodies are all dissuasive reasons and rulings on very basic rights are of tremendous import, not ground the Supremes really care to tread. This is going to be interesting, and the fallout will be even more interesting.
A lawsuit sponsored by Robert A Levy was filed against Washington DC by Dick Anthony Heller a security guard at a building which houses the federal judiciary administrative offices. Heller carries a handgun at work, he had applied for and was denied a permit to keep the gun at home. This denial gave him legal standing as an appellant to contest an arbitrary denial of 2nd Amendment rights. The lawsuit alleged that the Second Amendment is an individual right while Washington DC takes the stance that the Second only applies to state militia service, that the limitations only apply to the federal government, and finally that a handgun ban is a reasonable restriction in the interest of public safety and health. The three judge US Court of Appeals for DC disagreed 2/1, asserting that the 2nd is an individual right which allows for reasonable restrictions on people such as felons but that DC's outright prohibition and refusal to grant permits is unconstitutional.
Both sides have been spoiling for this fight, now the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case or not, known now as District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290. The Second Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Framer's attempt to keep things simple with a single sentence did not anticipate the narrow arguments around language that has changed over the years and changes in culture. At the time the population could be described as primarily rural, in today's world most of the urban areas of the time would be regarded as rural, having a distinct effect on cultural outlooks. Another cultural aspect was the recent history of the Revolution and the rule of George III. The populace was quite familiar with the concept of a government expected to behave in one manner usurping the "ancient rights" of Englishmen. What the language of the time meant, what the writings surrounding ratification say, and what the English law antecedents say are not much in debate, the debate around the Second devolves into modern interpretation and agenda. This is a case where the use of specific language has caused confusion and the use of grammar rules well understood now opens the door to revisionism.
"Well regulated" was a military term meaning well equipped and turned out, today the term no longer is used in regard to military units, in fact only a single word "regulated" is used and that is in regard to bureaucratic rules being applied. Language has changed. The section of the 2nd regarding militias is a dependent clause which is used as a descriptive or explanatory phrase in a sentence regarding the independent clause which is the definitive meaning of the sentence. This usage is still recognized as proper grammar usage and sentence structure. This has not stopped the argument from being made that the dependent clause gives the states the right to arm their militia - the National Guard. Disregarding the incorrect grammatical interpretation of this clause as the operative wording this stance also ignores the definition of militia which was nearly all able-bodied free white men, not a State sanctioned military unit.
Over the years the Supreme Court has managed to avoid ruling on the Second, Miller was sent back to the Appeals Court and stood with the narrow definition of the Second being that the arms were of military utility and denying that a sawed off shotgun was such. Congress sidestepped the issue regarding full automatic weapons by passing a law which required a tax stamp, issued on payment and the meeting of essentially background check and also allowing Federal inspection of the weapon at the government's discretion - essentially a voluntary surrender of 4th Amendment rights. While this law is a discouragement to the ownership of that sort of firearm it is also not an infringement in the sense that an absolute ban is. An uncomfortable status quo was achieved. Firearm rights groups avoided having to take a criminal case to the Supremes, such a case has legal standing but would come to the Court from an uncomfortable direction, the current case involves a sympathetic appellant with legal standing.
The Supreme Court is now in a difficult position, if it refuses to hear the case the Appeals Court ruling stands and DC's handgun ban is overthrown, if it hears the case it must rule on the issue of individual right which has been the gun ban lobby's one refuge, unless the Supremes are willing to rule that public health and safety is so universally and inevitably at risk so as to trump a Constitutional guarantee. That is an extremely high hurdle to make and a demonstration that legal ownership is such a threat will be statistically very difficult. This is not a venue where the gun banners' media fueled emotional appeal based on the small percentages of devastation wreaked by legal possessors will carry much weight. This has obviously worked within legislative bodies and with a fair sized segment of the general population, but the Supreme Court is a bit different.
There are a multitude of reasons the Court has avoided this issue, public opinion and the interference with legislative bodies are all dissuasive reasons and rulings on very basic rights are of tremendous import, not ground the Supremes really care to tread. This is going to be interesting, and the fallout will be even more interesting.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Democrats and the NRA
Hold on to your hats, folks - the NRA and the Democrats are in agreement on a Bill. Democrats/NRA/Agreement The agreement is in regard to the NICS or National Instant Check System and the goal is to get their records in order, a goal driven by the Virginia Tech killings.
The agreement calls for states to keep their records current with monetary rewards and penalties for failure. The NRA demanded in return that people with minor infractions be allowed to petition states to have their names removed, that 80,000 vets be allowed to have their VA mental health records reviewed. The Federal govt would be permanently barred from charging buyers or sellers for their checks. Duplicate names and expunged convictions must be purged. John Dingle (D) MI led the talks with the NRA, The WaPo reports saying, "The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a . . . system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement."
Rep Carolyn McCarthy (D) NY had been pushing a similar legislation, but her hostile relation with the lobby nixed any chance of a deal. Oddly considering the Democratic relationship the Republicans had been unable to reach such a deal previously. The NRA's chief lobbyist, Chris Cox, said the the organization has been on record for decades for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally adjudicated. He warned that if the bill becomes a gun control wish the NRA will oppose it. Both sides were motivated by the fact that the bill is good politics and a good policy.
The last Federal gun control bill of major importance was the 1994 assault weapons ban and the NRA opposed it ferociously. That Bill played a major role in Democratic loss of Congress that year and in the 2000 election loss of Al Gore. The WaPo article has a fairly detailed report of the mechanisms of the bill, the contrast in sense and thoughtfulness between the bills is stark. The message that the NRA is willing to support legislation that isn't harmful to law abiding gun owners and helps keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them.
There are ways to run a legislative body that will work to the benefit of the country, this might be a start. Let's see if they can keep from screwing it up, that means watching and it means telling them.
The agreement calls for states to keep their records current with monetary rewards and penalties for failure. The NRA demanded in return that people with minor infractions be allowed to petition states to have their names removed, that 80,000 vets be allowed to have their VA mental health records reviewed. The Federal govt would be permanently barred from charging buyers or sellers for their checks. Duplicate names and expunged convictions must be purged. John Dingle (D) MI led the talks with the NRA, The WaPo reports saying, "The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a . . . system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement."
Rep Carolyn McCarthy (D) NY had been pushing a similar legislation, but her hostile relation with the lobby nixed any chance of a deal. Oddly considering the Democratic relationship the Republicans had been unable to reach such a deal previously. The NRA's chief lobbyist, Chris Cox, said the the organization has been on record for decades for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally adjudicated. He warned that if the bill becomes a gun control wish the NRA will oppose it. Both sides were motivated by the fact that the bill is good politics and a good policy.
The last Federal gun control bill of major importance was the 1994 assault weapons ban and the NRA opposed it ferociously. That Bill played a major role in Democratic loss of Congress that year and in the 2000 election loss of Al Gore. The WaPo article has a fairly detailed report of the mechanisms of the bill, the contrast in sense and thoughtfulness between the bills is stark. The message that the NRA is willing to support legislation that isn't harmful to law abiding gun owners and helps keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them.
There are ways to run a legislative body that will work to the benefit of the country, this might be a start. Let's see if they can keep from screwing it up, that means watching and it means telling them.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Virginia and the NY Mayor
The state of Virginia recently passed a law making under-cover firearms purchases by non-law enforcement individuals a felony. This might seem like a rather odd sort piece of legislation but its target is rather large - NY,NY Mayor Bloomberg (R). It seems the Mayor has inflated ideas of his status, he has been sending undercover investigators to other states to make straw-man purchases of firearms, an illegal activity under federal law. Now, I know little of Mayor Bloomberg and since his city has draconian firearms regulations he does have that agenda in his own town, I'll repeat that, his town. He has people violate or attempt to violate federal law in order to issue law suits against other state gun shops. NY,NY law enforcement or private investigators have no police powers any place other than NY,NY. The feds can go to any state to enforce federal regulations and within a state or other entity their own law enforcement has power to do so. Anybody else is committing a crime and the fact that the feds have not arrested and prosecuted Bloomberg's undercovers makes a statement about the exaggerated import of NY,NY.
The unequal application of law in this country is an abomination and while we see it all the time that does not mean we should be complacent about it. The motive for the commission of a crime has no bearing whatever on whether the act is criminal or not and the status of the conspirators has no bearing either. What matters is whether they have standing under law to commit the act, and Bloomberg and his accomplices have no standing outside NY,NY. Bloomberg seems to believe that he as Mayor of NY,NY is so important that he can send people to our homes to commit crimes.
If you think about this in a clear and rational manner and apply the Federal Laws that everybody else is subject to you get a rather nasty outcome. The Mayor of NY,NY is running an organized criminal operation in violation of Federal Law, that would make RICO applicable on top of the violations of Federal Firearms Law. He not only isn't being prosecuted, certain elements are lionizing him. You try this crap...
Virginia sent him a letter of warning, he doesn't like it. I do. Law means what it means, for all of us.
The unequal application of law in this country is an abomination and while we see it all the time that does not mean we should be complacent about it. The motive for the commission of a crime has no bearing whatever on whether the act is criminal or not and the status of the conspirators has no bearing either. What matters is whether they have standing under law to commit the act, and Bloomberg and his accomplices have no standing outside NY,NY. Bloomberg seems to believe that he as Mayor of NY,NY is so important that he can send people to our homes to commit crimes.
If you think about this in a clear and rational manner and apply the Federal Laws that everybody else is subject to you get a rather nasty outcome. The Mayor of NY,NY is running an organized criminal operation in violation of Federal Law, that would make RICO applicable on top of the violations of Federal Firearms Law. He not only isn't being prosecuted, certain elements are lionizing him. You try this crap...
Virginia sent him a letter of warning, he doesn't like it. I do. Law means what it means, for all of us.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Dangerous Ruling Says WaPo
This stalwart of American civil liberties, the Washington Post maintains a myth that is perpetuated by the Brady Bunch, that the Second Amendment is in place to allow the government to arm itself. No kidding, "the right of the people," actually means the state governments. Dangerous Ruling regarding the US Appeals Court for DC Circuit actually states, " the unconscionable campaign, led by the National Rife Association and abetted by the Bush administration, to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights" was the prelude to "this radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder. Moreover, if the legal principles used in the decision are applied nationally, every gun control law on the books would be imperiled."
I'm sure that since the WaPo is a large corporate entity they have no fear of liberties like freedom of speech or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure not being applied to them. Surely large elite groups have those rights but not the smelly mob. People is a dangerous concept in liberty, they might get uppity and want the same rights as their betters. Worse yet, if they're armed they might demand them.
The court found that the Second Amendment protections "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or continued intermittent enrollment in the militia." Oddly enough the Democratic Party of Oregon also says
NOW, THEREFORE, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. To recognize and support the right to keep and bear arms in Article 1 Section 27 of the Oregon State Constitution and the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America as an individual right not granted by the government, but rather guaranteed by the government.
Section 2. In recognition of the tremendous personal responsibility engendered by the right to keep and bear arms, the Democratic Party of Oregon further advocates severe penalties and their enforcement for criminal use or misuse of the right.
If the acolytes of liberal bias media myth can't figure out that the DPO is a little more left than the WaPo and that we do not stand with the WaPo in this kind of nonsense, but rather stand with the citizens of the United States of America and their liberty then they pay no attention at all. By the way Republicans, why don't you go read your Party's statement? Indies, we're not kidding around, if this has been bothering you, read it again. The Gun Owners Caucus of the DPO has a blog, Blue Steel Democrats as a public forum. I don't think you'll find us exactly supportive of the WaPo's stance.
I'm sure that since the WaPo is a large corporate entity they have no fear of liberties like freedom of speech or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure not being applied to them. Surely large elite groups have those rights but not the smelly mob. People is a dangerous concept in liberty, they might get uppity and want the same rights as their betters. Worse yet, if they're armed they might demand them.
The court found that the Second Amendment protections "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or continued intermittent enrollment in the militia." Oddly enough the Democratic Party of Oregon also says
NOW, THEREFORE, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. To recognize and support the right to keep and bear arms in Article 1 Section 27 of the Oregon State Constitution and the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America as an individual right not granted by the government, but rather guaranteed by the government.
Section 2. In recognition of the tremendous personal responsibility engendered by the right to keep and bear arms, the Democratic Party of Oregon further advocates severe penalties and their enforcement for criminal use or misuse of the right.
If the acolytes of liberal bias media myth can't figure out that the DPO is a little more left than the WaPo and that we do not stand with the WaPo in this kind of nonsense, but rather stand with the citizens of the United States of America and their liberty then they pay no attention at all. By the way Republicans, why don't you go read your Party's statement? Indies, we're not kidding around, if this has been bothering you, read it again. The Gun Owners Caucus of the DPO has a blog, Blue Steel Democrats as a public forum. I don't think you'll find us exactly supportive of the WaPo's stance.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Zumbo and the New York Times
I don't expect the NYT to get much right on guns, gun owners, and the 2nd Amendment, but I would about half expect them to get journalism a bit better. The NYT has had its own problems with journalists and fired them. They get this much almost right,
"He of all people should have known that “ban” is the mother of all fighting words to gun zealots."
Zealots is an unfortunate word, pretty loaded and dismissive, for people who care about a right that is enumerated second in the BOR. You begin to get a feeling about where this is coming from, but what the Times is ignoring is that first part of the sentence about him knowing and the journalistic aspect of his statement,
“Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist,” he wrote, “but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity.” He added: “To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods.”
The statement is not only inflammatory it is basically inaccurate. I have to wonder how long the NYT would keep a journalist around who publicly advocated the suppression of publication of news critical of government and used false information and analogies to present it.
"One or two say that instead of cementing their reputations for reflexively enshrining gun ownership above everything, they might have asked Mr. Zumbo what he was talking about. They might even have had a healthy debate. But they shot first."
So, the NYT would like to have a nice healthy debate about their right to publish on the basis of a false and inflammatory piece by one of their own? The NYT fires people for this kind of story. But that's about the news, not guns, thus sacrosanct. I did notice that a previous Editorial put a great deal of emphasis on governmental infringements of liberty and justice.
"He of all people should have known that “ban” is the mother of all fighting words to gun zealots."
Zealots is an unfortunate word, pretty loaded and dismissive, for people who care about a right that is enumerated second in the BOR. You begin to get a feeling about where this is coming from, but what the Times is ignoring is that first part of the sentence about him knowing and the journalistic aspect of his statement,
“Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist,” he wrote, “but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity.” He added: “To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods.”
The statement is not only inflammatory it is basically inaccurate. I have to wonder how long the NYT would keep a journalist around who publicly advocated the suppression of publication of news critical of government and used false information and analogies to present it.
"One or two say that instead of cementing their reputations for reflexively enshrining gun ownership above everything, they might have asked Mr. Zumbo what he was talking about. They might even have had a healthy debate. But they shot first."
So, the NYT would like to have a nice healthy debate about their right to publish on the basis of a false and inflammatory piece by one of their own? The NYT fires people for this kind of story. But that's about the news, not guns, thus sacrosanct. I did notice that a previous Editorial put a great deal of emphasis on governmental infringements of liberty and justice.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Gun Violence
In a comment in the Zumbo article I stated that I wanted to move a discussion about gun violence to another forum and then emailed my thoughts. It was rightfully pointed out to me that much of these discussions is carried on out of sight. So I've put it up. I thought this format leads to long delays and missed communications, particularly since I'm ordinarily unavailable most of the day. We'll try it.
Regarding gun violence, that’s not what we’re actually talking about, we’re talking about violence committed with a deadly weapon, violence by a human being. You can pass all the laws in the world and not affect a gun; it will just lay there doing nothing. The problem is that people pick things up and do things to other people, guns, knives, bats, chains, hammers, etc and that’s what needs to be addressed. We will lock up dopers for long terms and kick loose people who’ve used weapons, this is ridiculous. I have no sense of humor about people who commit crimes with weapons, remember this, I shoot and I hunt; I do postmortems (field dressing and butchering) on large animals killed with gun shots. I know exactly what exploded lungs, shot off limbs, etc look like; it’s no joke. I’m an advocate of long hard time for crimes of that nature, murder or not. We let it go, and then we blame a thing for what we do. What do we tell the criminal world when it’s worse to get caught dealing than to shoot somebody? The law is an idiot.
There is not a single statistic that makes gun owning more dangerous than owning a swimming pool, doctors will kill more people than guns this year (not just die on them, kill them). (Docs against guns got real quiet after those numbers came out) We talk about a thing, we don’t do education, we don’t do actual have a real job, we don’t do punishment, and we don’t do rehabilitation. We don’t do shit about people. Take away all guns and drive-bys will get pretty rare, but up close and personal stuff, nope. Knives are wickedly fast and lethal, and so are a number of other things. It takes time and premeditation to use a gun in a crime, you have to get one and then you have to use it, it’s not a case of just snapping – that involves a beating almost always.
There’s nothing to say people can’t disagree about things, and treat each other with respect. But it pays to remember that gun owners aren’t trying to do something to other people, gun banners are. I can take the most hardcore staunch 2nd A stance and not be trying to do anything to anyone, the reverse cannot be said about even “reasonable” people. What does this current government think is dangerous? The 1st Amendment is dangerous to your security, that’s exactly the same argument broached regarding the 2nd. The government doesn’t get to piss around with the BOR, it’s not their rights, and we have them despite the government. Any other road is counter to the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of the Constitution and those guys understood exactly what it means. They’d just fought a war, they knew how dangerous to government these ideas are, and that’s what they wanted. They fought a bloody war against their natural government, the government they’d known all their lives and for generations and had every reason to believe was their own and they set our government up to be overthrown. That’s the meaning of the BOR, we get to have our freedom despite our government, we can preach, write, yell, get together, and finally shoot them if they don’t get it. It’s a dangerous set up. It’s supposed to be dangerous, just getting to shoot off your mouth is a dangerous idea, back it up with all the rest and you’ve got a hell of a deal.
Safety is a goddamn illusion, here’s how I’m so sure. I was 16 and to take my DL test on Monday, Sunday I’d asked my Dad to let me drive the family home from our boat, he thought about it, said another time, and we set off on our 2 ½ hr drive. Fifteen minutes from home a Semi crossed the center line and hit us, 60 mph each. I was sitting behind the driver’s seat, asleep, with my head against the headliner. For some reason I woke and saw the truck jump the line, it hit the car behind the front wheel well and started coming in, I’d moved my head about 6 inches and the bumper missed it by about an inch. I ate all kinds of glass and impact and body crush. I was minding my own business, asleep, my Dad was driving perfectly reasonably, so was the trucker, he had a mechanical failure at just the right moment to get us. Everybody did everything right and I got to see death from 1 inch, because I woke up, still asleep – dead. If I’d been driving we wouldn’t have been there. It’s not safe, no matter what, it isn’t. Yes you can invite bad things, but you don’t have to and it’s still risky business. People refuse to admit it.
There are criminals in the world, they will be criminal, they won’t care about laws, they’ll do what they want to and find ways to do it. There are guns all over NYNY in the hands of criminals; hell the city licenses criminals (money and influence talks). The who doesn’t have guns is law abiding citizens. That’s how it works; if you don’t care or have money and power you’ll have a gun. Same thing happens in DC.
The government and its enablers will prey on fear and insecurity to have their way with you. I don’t care if it is a D or R Admin, the risk remains. Power and influence are what they are and some are susceptible to it, always have been and always will be. Never ever give unmitigated power to another entity.
*Ok, if you've got something to say please do. But don't troll, you'll waste your time because I'll trash it. Please give yourself a name or handle, Anyoldmouse gets tough after a couple.*
Regarding gun violence, that’s not what we’re actually talking about, we’re talking about violence committed with a deadly weapon, violence by a human being. You can pass all the laws in the world and not affect a gun; it will just lay there doing nothing. The problem is that people pick things up and do things to other people, guns, knives, bats, chains, hammers, etc and that’s what needs to be addressed. We will lock up dopers for long terms and kick loose people who’ve used weapons, this is ridiculous. I have no sense of humor about people who commit crimes with weapons, remember this, I shoot and I hunt; I do postmortems (field dressing and butchering) on large animals killed with gun shots. I know exactly what exploded lungs, shot off limbs, etc look like; it’s no joke. I’m an advocate of long hard time for crimes of that nature, murder or not. We let it go, and then we blame a thing for what we do. What do we tell the criminal world when it’s worse to get caught dealing than to shoot somebody? The law is an idiot.
There is not a single statistic that makes gun owning more dangerous than owning a swimming pool, doctors will kill more people than guns this year (not just die on them, kill them). (Docs against guns got real quiet after those numbers came out) We talk about a thing, we don’t do education, we don’t do actual have a real job, we don’t do punishment, and we don’t do rehabilitation. We don’t do shit about people. Take away all guns and drive-bys will get pretty rare, but up close and personal stuff, nope. Knives are wickedly fast and lethal, and so are a number of other things. It takes time and premeditation to use a gun in a crime, you have to get one and then you have to use it, it’s not a case of just snapping – that involves a beating almost always.
There’s nothing to say people can’t disagree about things, and treat each other with respect. But it pays to remember that gun owners aren’t trying to do something to other people, gun banners are. I can take the most hardcore staunch 2nd A stance and not be trying to do anything to anyone, the reverse cannot be said about even “reasonable” people. What does this current government think is dangerous? The 1st Amendment is dangerous to your security, that’s exactly the same argument broached regarding the 2nd. The government doesn’t get to piss around with the BOR, it’s not their rights, and we have them despite the government. Any other road is counter to the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of the Constitution and those guys understood exactly what it means. They’d just fought a war, they knew how dangerous to government these ideas are, and that’s what they wanted. They fought a bloody war against their natural government, the government they’d known all their lives and for generations and had every reason to believe was their own and they set our government up to be overthrown. That’s the meaning of the BOR, we get to have our freedom despite our government, we can preach, write, yell, get together, and finally shoot them if they don’t get it. It’s a dangerous set up. It’s supposed to be dangerous, just getting to shoot off your mouth is a dangerous idea, back it up with all the rest and you’ve got a hell of a deal.
Safety is a goddamn illusion, here’s how I’m so sure. I was 16 and to take my DL test on Monday, Sunday I’d asked my Dad to let me drive the family home from our boat, he thought about it, said another time, and we set off on our 2 ½ hr drive. Fifteen minutes from home a Semi crossed the center line and hit us, 60 mph each. I was sitting behind the driver’s seat, asleep, with my head against the headliner. For some reason I woke and saw the truck jump the line, it hit the car behind the front wheel well and started coming in, I’d moved my head about 6 inches and the bumper missed it by about an inch. I ate all kinds of glass and impact and body crush. I was minding my own business, asleep, my Dad was driving perfectly reasonably, so was the trucker, he had a mechanical failure at just the right moment to get us. Everybody did everything right and I got to see death from 1 inch, because I woke up, still asleep – dead. If I’d been driving we wouldn’t have been there. It’s not safe, no matter what, it isn’t. Yes you can invite bad things, but you don’t have to and it’s still risky business. People refuse to admit it.
There are criminals in the world, they will be criminal, they won’t care about laws, they’ll do what they want to and find ways to do it. There are guns all over NYNY in the hands of criminals; hell the city licenses criminals (money and influence talks). The who doesn’t have guns is law abiding citizens. That’s how it works; if you don’t care or have money and power you’ll have a gun. Same thing happens in DC.
The government and its enablers will prey on fear and insecurity to have their way with you. I don’t care if it is a D or R Admin, the risk remains. Power and influence are what they are and some are susceptible to it, always have been and always will be. Never ever give unmitigated power to another entity.
*Ok, if you've got something to say please do. But don't troll, you'll waste your time because I'll trash it. Please give yourself a name or handle, Anyoldmouse gets tough after a couple.*
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Zumbo, Details Count
I'm going to steal quoted material from Jeff Alworthy in order to disagree with him about a Blue Oregon post . Have no fear, I think Jeff is one of the better writers in blogging and I can usually follow how he got where he went, even when we disagree. This time, nope. If you think I don't respect Jeff, back up, he's one of the people who backed me politically, even with some disagreements. I admire how he got there and appreciate it.
Zumbo wrote in part this regarding "assault weapons":
"Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."
This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods."
I'm sorry about you losing your jobs for this, but really, you deserved to. Many jobs have serious to deadly consequences of actions this stupid. I beat nails for a living, if I screwed up this bad a building would fall down. There is so much wrong with this piece of nonsense that it's not just a matter of a slip of the tongue, this is basic.
First:
An assault weapon is a military short rifle capable of large capacity and full automatic fire. These things aren't generally available, not since the 1930s. This is a machine gun.
Second:
The things Zumbo is referring to are "assault rifles" in appearance and ammunition capacity. They are NOT assault rifles, they are semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic refers to the fact that the weapon auto-loads, each firing loads another round in firing position.
Third:
Most states have hunting regulations regarding ammunition capacity, making an "assault rifle" no different than any other semi-automatic except in appearance. Well, too small a round and too little power for some hunting purposes, but that's an individual decision.
Fourth:
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting other than tangential references to its utility in hunting. It's not about hunting, it's not about bad guys in your living room, it's about your right to be armed for the security of a free state. Your state of freedom, not the US or Oregon, or ... The other stuff follows in those heels.
Now, if you think getting fired is overkill, let's take a real look at this. This writer stuck out in front of people the idea that what a gun looks like has some bearing on its legitimacy. Now that would be laughable except that the Congress of the US banned guns on that basis, California did so and then confiscated them. NYNY and DC have blatantly unfair and unevenly enforced rules regarding firearms. This guy knows all this and still handed to the opponents of the 2nd Amendment a gift. He knows what the game is, he knows who the players are, and he knows what the stakes are; then he chose to write this. Do you want me to build your house like this? Would you care if I put the roof on top like everybody else does? What does the appearance of terrorist weapons have to do with anything at all? Looks is everything? So a shiny paint job on a car makes it faster? Or it means it looks good while it can't get out of the driveway?
Most hunting rifles are deadlier than "assault rifles." Sorry, it's a fact. Very little body armour will stand up to a 30-06 round much less some of the other stuff used for hunting. I have no doubt that Zumbo owns and shoots stuff that would make kindling out of advanced body armour, I certainly do.
Yep, I'm a gun totin' drag racin' Leftie and I think the NRA is stupidly right wing when it should be concentrating on the 2nd, gun safety, and shooting issues, but on this one, there is no middle ground. And yes, I'm a long time NRA member. There is not one piece of the Bill of Rights that the people espousing the middle ground would tolerate getting the abuse the 2nd gets.
The Democrats have gotten back from the woods (a little) which shows that Parties can recover, Rights on the other hand do not. People know this, they will vote against their own economic and social interests for this reason. The Religious Right is a very apt example of people voting against their own economic interests, almost completely against. I'm not willing to watch the Democrats sacrifice the welfare of this nation over something this ridiculous and they'll get put back into the woods if they go there. Pay attention to details.
Zumbo wrote in part this regarding "assault weapons":
"Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."
This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods."
I'm sorry about you losing your jobs for this, but really, you deserved to. Many jobs have serious to deadly consequences of actions this stupid. I beat nails for a living, if I screwed up this bad a building would fall down. There is so much wrong with this piece of nonsense that it's not just a matter of a slip of the tongue, this is basic.
First:
An assault weapon is a military short rifle capable of large capacity and full automatic fire. These things aren't generally available, not since the 1930s. This is a machine gun.
Second:
The things Zumbo is referring to are "assault rifles" in appearance and ammunition capacity. They are NOT assault rifles, they are semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic refers to the fact that the weapon auto-loads, each firing loads another round in firing position.
Third:
Most states have hunting regulations regarding ammunition capacity, making an "assault rifle" no different than any other semi-automatic except in appearance. Well, too small a round and too little power for some hunting purposes, but that's an individual decision.
Fourth:
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting other than tangential references to its utility in hunting. It's not about hunting, it's not about bad guys in your living room, it's about your right to be armed for the security of a free state. Your state of freedom, not the US or Oregon, or ... The other stuff follows in those heels.
Now, if you think getting fired is overkill, let's take a real look at this. This writer stuck out in front of people the idea that what a gun looks like has some bearing on its legitimacy. Now that would be laughable except that the Congress of the US banned guns on that basis, California did so and then confiscated them. NYNY and DC have blatantly unfair and unevenly enforced rules regarding firearms. This guy knows all this and still handed to the opponents of the 2nd Amendment a gift. He knows what the game is, he knows who the players are, and he knows what the stakes are; then he chose to write this. Do you want me to build your house like this? Would you care if I put the roof on top like everybody else does? What does the appearance of terrorist weapons have to do with anything at all? Looks is everything? So a shiny paint job on a car makes it faster? Or it means it looks good while it can't get out of the driveway?
Most hunting rifles are deadlier than "assault rifles." Sorry, it's a fact. Very little body armour will stand up to a 30-06 round much less some of the other stuff used for hunting. I have no doubt that Zumbo owns and shoots stuff that would make kindling out of advanced body armour, I certainly do.
Yep, I'm a gun totin' drag racin' Leftie and I think the NRA is stupidly right wing when it should be concentrating on the 2nd, gun safety, and shooting issues, but on this one, there is no middle ground. And yes, I'm a long time NRA member. There is not one piece of the Bill of Rights that the people espousing the middle ground would tolerate getting the abuse the 2nd gets.
The Democrats have gotten back from the woods (a little) which shows that Parties can recover, Rights on the other hand do not. People know this, they will vote against their own economic and social interests for this reason. The Religious Right is a very apt example of people voting against their own economic interests, almost completely against. I'm not willing to watch the Democrats sacrifice the welfare of this nation over something this ridiculous and they'll get put back into the woods if they go there. Pay attention to details.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Ruger No.1 Rifle in 45-70 Government
The Ruger No.1 is a falling block , under-lever, single shot rifle which follows some of the Farquharson design characteristics but contains features never previously found in rifles of this type. The No.1 buttstock is mortised onto the receiver with a bolt passing through the stock into the receiver. The forearm is attached to a heavy steel extension from the receiver. The hammer is concealed and retracted by the first opening motion of the lever and can never strike the firing pin unless the breech block is fully elevated. The swinging transfer block virtually locks the firing pin forward against gas pressure during firing.At the top rear of the receiver is a sliding ambidextrous safety which can only be moved to safe with the hammer cocked. Loading and unloading can be accomplished in the safe position.
This rifle loads from the breech, or rear of receiver and ejects rearward as well. Fast operation of the lever can throw hot brass onto the shooter, the standard ejector mechanism can be modified easily to only partially eject cartridges. Directions are included in the manual.
This is one of the strongest actions available in a rifle and has been known to handle outrageous
pressures. This is not a recommended policy. Within the safe operating pressures high performance loads can be accomplished, loading data for 400gr bullets show muzzle
velocities of 2100fps and 500 gr bullets at 1900 fps.
The 45-70 Government cartridge is the oldest rifle cartridge chambered in modern firearms. It is a straight taper rimmed cartridge and the bullet, although a 45 is a .458 diameter bullet vs the modern 45 Colt which is .451-.452. Commonly available bullets are 250, 300, 350,
400, and 500 grain. For comparison's sake typical 30-06 rounds are 150, 180, 200, and 220 grain. Loading data for the Ruger No.1 show muzzle velocities of 2100fps with 400 gr and 1900 with
500 gr. A typical 30-06 muzzle velocity is 2600 fps. This is an extremely powerful rifle and is capable of hunting anything that walks the earth. The cartridge and un-cased bullet shown are .458 Speer Jacketed Flat Nose 400 grain which were loaded for Model 1895 Marlin.With all that power comes significant recoil. This gun will hit the shooter quite hard and with big game loads is not for the faint of heart or small of stature.
Due to the relatively low speed of the rounds serious drop occurs over distance so the shooter must allow for an occurrence that is not common in smaller high velocity rounds. It is of very real importance to remember that rounds suitable for the Ruger No.1 are not suitable for other rifles chambered in 45-70 and serious care must be taken with vintage arms to not use rounds that even a Model 1895 Marlin is capable of using, that rifle is considerably stronger than the old Springfields.
From my first exposure to the 45-70 Govt, which was a Marlin Model 1895, I have wanted a Ruger No. 1 in 45-70. Today it arrived, the rifle you are seeing is unfired and anticipation is killing me - it is also not nice out today, mixed snow, rain and wind.
RIGHT CLICK PHOTOS FOR FULL SIZE
Update
This thing kicks like a mule, I ran some 400gr 1900 fps loads for my 1895 Marlin (57gr IMR4895) through it and am quite sure this thing is never getting the very nice scope rings, that came with it, attached. I will very soon begin a hunt for a nice peep sight and update when I have located something worthy of this firearm. At full load with 500gr I don't want anything near my face and the factory leaf sights are inadequate. This post is about a tie with the Ruger Vaquero post for top popularity. There's some good lefty politics on here as well, check out the main.
Regarding Ruger No1 peep sights.
Hot Rodded Loads
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)