Ding, Dong, The Wicked Ban is Dead

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:00:00 GMT
From price:
"We are less safe, not more safe as a result of this [Iraq] war." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla), Meet the Press, September 5, 2004, 10:41

From kimdutoit, commenting on anti-gun laws headed to the governor's desk in California:

"Let's see if the Governator is a real Republican or a girly-man..." -- Kim du Toit

From this KABA article, commenting on Dianne Feinstein's intention to renew the AWB:

Dianne's Gun Ban Comes to Pass--
She and Chuck Can Kiss My Ass!

--Angel Shamaya

From Dragon's Fury, Eagle's Talons by Jeff Head:

Another great change that had carried through to the present time and was directly tied to the Home Guard program and the principles behind it, was the reaffirmation in the American psyche of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. As a result of the Firearms Restoration Act of July of 2006, throughout all fifty states and within the Federal Code, law-abiding American citizens were not infringed in their bearing of arms in their own defense. In fact, with a backdrop of unrestricted and total war and terror, Americans were encouraged to bear arms... at all times. And in so doing, to the consternation of the very few people who were still inclined in 2011 to restrict gun rights, what had America experienced?

By 2011 the trends and statistics were clear. With three and one half years of data to draw on, there had been a tremendous drop in violent crime across the board. From assault to robbery to rape to murder, all major categories of violent crime were down... way down. The old western adage, that, an armed society is a polite society, had been proven true.

# Impact Guns - Ban Free Rifles and Magazines - The regular capacity magazine ban is over folks, unless you live in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Beta C-MAG M16 (100 rounds, $240) California, DC, or some cities. Lots of the mags and rifles are marked "Law Enforcement Only", but they're legal today in most states. No more ban premium, though prices will likely come down quite a bit more after manufacture ramps up. [google]

# Cheaper Than Dirt - Ammo .308 Wolf 150gr FMJ 20-Rd Copper Jacket, Steel Case - finally, Wolf .308 is available ($4.89/20 = $0.25), plus shipping and hazmat fee. That's less than they want for Australian milsurp 7.62x51 ($44.97/160 = $0.28). I've gotta try it. (Ammoman has Australian .308 for $179/800 = $0.22, shipped, or $140 if you pick it up at the store).

# AWBanSunset.com - Well, we did it! - the ban expired on schedule. AWBanSunset.com will continue operating to fight the hoplophobes' intentions to renew the ban in the next Congress. The_Macallan's Goodbye "Assault Weapons" Ban is still where I linked to it on July 26. It appears that I didn't handle negatives correctly in my countdown clock. I probably won't fix it until I need it again. I'll take it out of the right column in a day or two. From the BATFE web site:

Semiautomatic Assault Weapon Update

By statute, the prohibitions relating to semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices expired on September 13, 2004. As a result, certain sections of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, and its implementing regulations, 27 CFR Part 478, are no longer in effect.

# Jude Wanniski at LewRockwell.com - If Kerry Were President, Saddam Would Still Be in Power! - Mr. Wanniski answers some questions from Bill Kristol. Yes, if John Kerry were president, Saddam would still be in power. And though nobody would call that a good thing, it would be better in every way for most Americans, those who don't have a financial interest in Haliburton or other war suppliers, and for most people in the rest of the world. [lew]

Now I know you and your fellow neo-con warhawks want to say that at least the miserable people of Iraq are better off with Saddam Hussein gone. But bear with me on this. Say the President had been smart enough to see he had been snookered by you neo-cons and that Saddam was doing everything required of him by UNSCRes #1441, he would have said OKAY, let's continue and wrap this up. Hans Blix and his UNMOVIC inspectors would have spent the next two or three months cleaning up that list of teeny bits of paperwork on WMD. And Saddam would have signed the latest UNMOVIC protocol on perpetual inspections -- which Baghdad indicated he was ready to sign. The UNSC would then have had to sign off that, inasmuch as Saddam was CLEAN AS A WHISTLE, the 12-year-old sanctions on its economy could be lifted. Iraq would be back in business, although burdened with a zillion dollars of debts left over from the Gulf War. The only sad players in the Middle East would be the Likudniks in Israel, who have used you and the other neo-cons over the last decade to plan for the war in Iraq, to replace Saddam with an imperial puppet regime.

Would the rest of Israel be unhappy with the outcome? Not at all. Remember Saddam ran a secular regime. He would not build a wall against Israel to prevent commerce from taking place between the two countries, and in no time at all, Jewish businessmen would again be cutting deals in Baghdad. The Likudniks would have to give up their dream of occupying all the land between the Jordan and the sea. A Palestinian state would be in the offing. Al Qaeda would no longer have any reason to exist and would dry up. The clash of civilizations, which you have been assiduously promoting, would be unclashed. No?

# Charley Reese at LewRockwell.com - No Electricity - how hard do you think it would be to convince Mr. Reese that he's really an anarchist? [lew]

For all but a sliver of time, people have lived without electricity, and it's been an even smaller sliver of time since most folks had air conditioning and certainly computers. I survived childhood quite well without television, computers or even organized recreational activities. I had a public library, the local movie house and the great outdoors, and I had a great time. I loved climbing trees on windy days and being blown about like a sailor on a mast. I also loved playing on the boxcars at the railroad yard, something I would never allow my own children to do. I walked in the woods, dammed up creeks and made water wheels.

I was never very good at making model airplanes, but I made them anyway and usually blew them up with firecrackers. Flying kites, hunting and fishing were common pastimes, as well as jousting on bicycles with padded poles. Everything we did we did on our own and unsupervised.

In those days, parents did not believe it was their duty to keep their children constantly amused. They simply said, "Go outside." If there were guests for dinner (that's the noon meal in the South) or supper, children were usually fed at a separate table. The old phrase "Children should be seen but not heard" was heard often in those days.

And the government actually believed (at least in the rural South) that responsibility for life and safety rested with the individual. A child could buy firecrackers or bullets from the local hardware store, which also stocked dynamite, though that was off-limits to us kids. Part of growing up was learning how to handle dangerous things such as guns and knives and how to avoid breaking your neck or getting kicked by a mule or a horse. I was given my first Daisy air rifle at the age of 5 and my first .22 rifle at about age 10.

People 40 and younger have no idea what it's like to live in a really free country. Most don't even recognize all of the so-called health and safety regulations as a loss of freedom. They seem to them a good thing, but I still believe the main duty of government is to tote the mail and guard the coast, and nothing else.

# L. Reichard White at The Libertarian Enterprise - Protected My Ass -- The Sequel: Attacked By The Clowns - there is no protection from terrorists. No centralized security scheme can work. The defense has to be distributed, in the hands of we the people. And for that to happen, everybody needs to be armed, everywhere and always. Everybody. Everywhere. Always. So stop denying our rights and lying that you're doing it to protect us. [price tle]

So do we want them to continue putting on this police-state charade to fool and dupe us into imagining we're safe? What are you willing to give up for the illusion of security, for a situation that's at best like the one in the Israeli police state where "the safety of its citizens is far from guaranteed?" Are you willing to "have a police officer every place" "close down America," and "change the nature of a free society" in return for the sham of security?

Or would you rather they just stop severely ticking off foreigners by killing their innocent friends, neighbors and family, particularly with bombs which, no matter how "smart," don't discriminate between the innocent and guilty -- can't tell the difference between "terrorists" and the civilian men, women and children they kill -- any better than did the Molatov airliners of 911?

Add comment Edit post Add post