Previous

Contents

Next

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 11
by Neale Osborn
[email protected]

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

California's got a new way to do a backdoor gun ban. Require microstamping. And require that the microstamping be re-certified every three years, apparently to verify that the gun still stamps. Wanna bet the re-cert will cost a substantial chunk of cash?

This is why you should own a gun and defend yourself rather than rely on the cops. At Hofstra University, Long Island, an armed man invaded an apartment. When one tenant got out and called the police, they responded quickly. But when the criminal held the other girl hostage, they shot BOTH of them. So remember, class, it's probably better to own a gun and protect/defend yourself. At least at Hofstra, the cops will kill you quicker than the criminals Isn't it kinda funny tthat an organization that regularly and vigorously advocates for the destruction of the 2nd Amendment bitches because the government attacks the 1st Amendment? Unlike the AP, however, I happen to support the ENTIRE Bill of Rights. So I stand strong beside the AP, demanding that this assault on the 1st be punished immediately and vigorously. I recognize that whenever we tolerate (or worse, aid in) the restriction, reduction, or destruction of an enumerated right, of ANY enumerated right, we leave the door gaping wide to the destruction of them all.

How many ways is this story wrong and/or scary as hell? Let me just point out one wrong part and one scary part. The story is about a cell-phone activated gun disabler. The wrong part I wanted to point out is the FALSE claim that 2nd Amendment concerns killed the owner device gun disablers of 20 or so years ago. Not true. The magnetic ring disablers (no ring on finger, gun doesn't fire) died for two reasons. It relied on exact placement of the ring in order for the gun to work, meaning if your grip on the gun was not IDENTICAL EVERY TIME (which is hard to do under stress, when you need the gun the most) the gun won't fire. Also, if your strong hand was injured, the weak hand could not use the gun unless you wore TWO rings, one on each hand. The rings were VERY pricey. The scary part is the new system itself. It is claimed that it "Notifies the owner via cell phone of unauthorized movement of the gun and allows the owner to disable the gun remotely." Sounds great, doesn't it? But wait, there's an unsaid more to that idea. The gun contains a radio receiver AND transmitter. The receiver lets you disable the gun. The transmitter is necessary in order to let you know the gun has moved, right? But any building could be wired to receive/detect these signals. Traffic cams on the street could do the same with a little wiring. Hell, ANY surveillance system can. Suddenly, your concealed weapon is anything but concealed. Defeating both the purpose AND the requirements most states have that the gun remain hidden. But wait... there's more! Who else can disable the gun? Why, anybody who can receive the signal. Or even anybody who can build a blanket transmitter that will shut down ANYTHING operating in the assigned set of wavelengths. The cops don't want people defending themselves at the scene of a disaster, they broadcast the shut-down signal, and suddenly you're holding a 2.5 pound club. The government decides no one needs a gun anymore, they can shut them all down. Now THAT is scary as hell to anyone who knows what the 2nd Amendment is all about. And you can bet that it will become mandatory in some states.

Uncle Ted's brother Jeff is supporting the unConstitutional background checks The Nuge opposes. (For those not in the know, "Uncle Ted" and "The Nuge" are nicknames of Ted Nugent.) Ted's brother, former Revlon CEO and supposedly avid gunner and supporter of the 2nd Amendment nevertheless feels that "Some people shouldn't be allowed to own guns, so background checks are a necessity". While Ted and Jeff are both NRA members, Jeff supports the background checks the NRA is accused of helping to kill this past month. Ted vigorously (and correctly) opposes them. Don't back down, Uncle Ted. You're on the right side despite your support of the NRA.

Does this smell as bad to you as it does to me? The FBI has a man in their control, and is questioning him. He confesses to having helped one of the Boston marathon bombers kill 3 people during a drug heist, when they realized their victim could have identified them. THEN he draws a knife and attacks the interrogator, and they shoot him down. I'm calling BS on this one. Sounds more to me like a trigger happy FBI clown or a local cop who was participating in the interrogation killing a suspect for no legitimate reason. New developements claim he was a MMA fighter. So what? He confesses, then decides "WTF? I think I'll attack these G-men, the local cops, and anybody else around with a knife. Cuz, that way, I'll get away scot free."

The TSA finally begins to show a teeny glimmer of intelligence, and sparks "Bipartisan support" for an over-rule of that spark. Remember a few months ago, TSA announced they would permit small knives (less than 1.5 inch blades) on airplanes. It sparked outrage from stewardesses, pilots, and politicians, as well as the ignorant fools who roam the streets. ALL of them forget that, using nothing but boxcutters (which have even smaller blades), 19 terrorists took over 4 airliners, resulting in the deaths of over 3000 people. (No, I do not believe the Twin Towers were blown up by Dubbya) ONE group, on Flight 93 out of Newark Airport, using their hands and feet, managed to force a crash of the plane. Imagine if the passengers on those planes had ALL had the right to carry a small pocketknife on board. Perhaps, the passengers on Flight 93 would have lived. Perhaps another plane or two might not have hit their target. So Republican and Democrat politicians alike are joining up to remove the first intelligent action of the TSA. Currently, the Democrats are working on a bill to prevent the TSA from doing this. What really ought to happen is to allow armed passengers to carry on planes, with their weapons loaded with frangibles (airframe safe bullets at low velocity.)

MSN lies again. But what else can you expect? They correctly refer to gun building parties, which do happen, as growing in popularity. What they lie about is, they claim the parts are obtained "untraceably on the internet". First, if you buy it on the internet, the government can trace it. Second, the receivers, without which there is no gun, you cannot buy "untraceably" on the internet. While it IS possible to buy a receiver without a background check from a private individual, the number available is actually (sadly) rather small. But again, MSN, like the rest of mainstram media, will tell any lie, omit any fact, and twist any truth, in order to advance their agenda of making the total disarmament of the American people a reality.

Washington DC is contemplating mandatory liability insurance, to the tune of $250K, for ALL gun owners. They claim it will cut crime (even though insurance companies do not cover you if you commit a crime), and will force you to be more careful with storage and handling of your weapons. They have NO idea what the policy might cost (because the insurance companies won't even agree to to write these policies). And they can find no justification for requiring insurance to engage in a Constitutional activity (can anyone say "Poll tax"? I knew you could). You have to wonder what these idiots would say if you were forced to have liability insurance before being permitted to publish anything in case what you write might be libelious. Or any other Constitutionally enumerated right.

Was that worth reading?
Then the author wants you to:
Pay TLE!