Big Head Press


L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 716, April 14, 2013

The "Don't ask, don't tell" style of concealed carry


Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant, Volume 5
by Neale Osborn
nealebooks@hotmail.com

Bookmark and Share

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Gun makers of America, you now have another haven. Texas has told you that THEY will never tolerate 2nd Amendment infringements like NY, Maryland, Colorado, and Connecticut have shoved down the throats of both their citizens AND the firearms manufacturers that employ some of those citizens. Texas- the eyes of freedom are upon you. Stay strong!!

What the hell does THIS mean?? "there's a glimmer of progress in negotiations over universal background checks between Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA). The Washington Post has more: "Manchin and Toomey are developing a measure to require background checks for all gun purchases except sales between close family members and some hunters, which addresses concerns of some conservatives."" Why the hell do HUNTERS (and only "some") qualify for an exemption on background checks? Why the hell does ANYONE have to undergo a background check to excercise a Constitutionally enumerated right? But if background checks are finally legislated even for person-to-person sales, why is it exempted for "some hunters"? The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. It is about our right to forcibly change the government if it finally steps over the line and attempts to become tyrannical. Many would argue that time has come, and that is the reason these laws are being pushed. Others argue that IF these laws pass, that would be the deciding factor for that time's arrival. Either way, this (and all other victim disarmament laws) are direct and egregious violations of our Constitution, whether supposedly Constitutionally conservative justices like Antoni Scalia consider them aceptable or not.

You wonder where this guy is when watching anything mainstream. I have wondered, over the last few months, if there was any Newtown parent who hadn't (understandably) been so emotionally scarred that they wanted to ban the tool that was used to kill their child, rather than fix the underlying problems that led to the death, and to protect future kids from death by stopping bad guys. I have found one. Mark Mattioli. This loving parent mourns the loss of his 6 yr old son, as any parent would. But he has not allowed vultures to use his son's dead body to feed an agenda. He is not demanding that law abiding citizens lose rights because his son's rights were egregiously violated. I was choked up listening to him break down. As the father of 3 boys and a girl, I know the horror of wondering if they are going to live or die. I watched my daughter spend 3 months in the NICU after her premature birth. How much worse it must be to have a crazy son of a bitch murder your child? And to have a bunch of people tell you "It's all the fault of these evil "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines. You must help us get rid of them!" must be empowering. It gives you SOMETHING to do to fight the mind-numbing sorrow of knowing your child will never call you "Mommy" or "Daddy" again. I do not hold anything against these parents. Their world has been destroyed, and people they SHOULD be able to rely on are viciously and cynically using their sorrow in order to advance a malevolent political agenda. I disagree totally with the goals of that agenda (DUH!), though of course people have the right to feel the way they do about guns. What people do NOT have, though, is the right to use and abuse these parents as the media and our president are doing. Feeding off of their grief, and offering a false belief that by playing along, these poor bereaved parents will somehow prevent other children from dying, is the very depth of evil.

(Cue baby crying) Joe Biden today whined that a filibuster of the gun bill would be "embarrassing" to our country, and he "Imagines how we must look to other countries". Hmmmm. No consideration of how we ALREADY look to other countrie, having a president, vice president, and a Senate that totally ignores our founding documents, and is currently working their asses off to destroy what's left of it. Or how embarrassing it is that our vice president thinks our Constitution is "100 years old, and doesn't matter much anymore". Or that our president thinks that violating our Constitution is "no reason for conflict". I say "Whatever it takes to shut Obama, Biden, Feinstein, Reid et alia off from violating our Constitution is a good thing. And if it embarrasses Biden, even better."

Got a new gun yesterday. I had a shotgun I didn't like. And It wasn't worth much. But a new gunshop in the area with a 23 yr old greenhorn at the helm gave me $350 in trade for it (BlueBook Value of $225), and I used it to buy a Rock Island Armory Compact 1911. It is a copy of the Colt Officer's ACP (now called the Defender), but this one is a 9mm. I know, I know. But I already had close to 1000 rounds of FREE 9mm, So I decided "WTF? I can always sell it after I shoot off the ammo." I had to give an additional $80.80, and I'll need to order a spare magazine, but it shoots like a dream. I put 200 rounds through it yesterday, and had two malfuntions, but all the ammo was 1960s and 70s surplus, so I expected that. No feeding problems. And it ate two mags of Winchester Silvertips smoothly AFTER eating 200 rounds of dirty Greek surplus ammo. It'll need more shooting to trust it on my hip, but I like it. Oh, and it will take a Colt .45acp top end from an Officer's ACP. I see this gun spending a LOT of quality hip-time with me. Oh, and it's accurate enough for my purposes. A carry gun that shoots 2" bench groups at 15 yards and 3 inch offhand at the same distance is good for carry purposes. And after I throat and polish the ramp and smooth the rails, it'll be even nicer.

Ted Cruz, Republican senator from Florida, pointed out an interesting fact today. He was discussing the latest round of "Pass it so we can see what's in it" gun control laws on the radio this morning.

"The biggest problem—and it is a problem that is also true with the compromise bill that's coming out today—is that the Justice Department has explained the only way to enforce universal background checks is for the federal government to maintain a gun registry—a list of all the firearms that [are] in possession of every American across this country," Cruz said.
The senator argued that in 2010, more than 15,000 felons tried to illegally purchase guns, but only 44 of them were prosecuted by the Justice Department.

Now, I do not happen to support ANY of the Victim Disarmament laws passed, starting with ones requiring cowboys to leave their guns at the town limit or with the Marshall upon arriving in town, and going all the way to the NFA '34, GCA '68, and whatever oozes out of that cesspit in DC this week. But it DOES happen to be true that IF obama was serious about fighting crimes, and IF he actually thought "gun control" laws WOULD fight crime, his precious AG Eric Holder would have been directed to prosecute more than 44 of the more than 15,000 people who violated federal gun laws by applying for a gun they are (illegally) prohibited from owning in the first place! As pointed out by several people (Rush Limbaugh among them), IF gun laws would prevent gun crimes, then wouldn't it make sense to PROSECUTE PEOPLE WHO VIOLATE THOSE LAWS?? But no. The solution to laws that are not enforced and therefore have no chance to show if they will work (which, to be honest, I doubt) is to pass still more laws to hinder hinest Americans from excercising their rights. And I will bet dollars to donuts that IF these laws pass, they, too, will not be enforced against criminals. Only against people wrongly denied that right. And when crime increases because fewer and fewer Americans are willing to subject themselves to a federal anal-probe in order to own and carry a gun are kept from protecting themselves, the solution proposed will be more laws, not allowing the American people to defend themselves as the 2nd Amendment was established to allow. And make no mistake- the 2nd isn't about hunting or collecting. It isn't about target shooting and competitions. It is about one thing, and one thing only. Self defense. From the burglar in your bedroom, the assailant on the street, the rapist in the alley, and, most importantly, the tyrants in government. Tell it like it is, Ted, and you might well become the first hispanic president of the US. Hell, I might even vote for you, even though I don't agree with you on a lot of things!!

Our beloved Vice-Dictator, Joe Bite-me, said the main reason most gun owenrs actually own guns today is no longer for hunting and a few for self defense, but is because we "love the feel of an AR15 in our hands at the range", the same reason for owning a Ferrari according to our vice-idiot. And of course, we all KNOW (said in a sarcastic voice) that no one really needs a Ferrari.

Sooo, the fact that people are upset (justifiably) over the deaths of their family, McCain (among other Republican senators) feels it acceptable to violate the rights of American citizens. Fucking asshole. I feel sorry for the families. But their sorrow is not a justification for violating the Constitution. I'm thinking that McCain would have been as bad a choice for president as Our Muslim Motherfucker is. Oh, wait! I already thought that!

What a blatant attempt at indoctrination!! I cannot imagine how a teacher can get away with this kind of crap. Forcing children to write "I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure" is unacceptable. IF a child knows what Constitutional rights are, and chooses to say that, that is the child's choice. But forcing a classroom full of children to write that crap is a definite NO!!

Feeling a bit concerned about the new Gun Control bill's psychiatric provisions? You should. The latest psycho-babble rating system claims that over 50% of Americans will have a "diagnosable mental disorder" in their lifetime. Oh, and a diagnosable mental disorder is a justifiable reason to deny you a clean NICS background. Anybody think this new manual was released a few days early for the Obama regime's plans. This "report" may be just the death-knell for this asinine background check law. Because it can show people just how easily "psychiatry" can be used to screw with our rights.

Well, that's it for this rant. See ya next week!


TLE AFFILIATE

Big Head Press