Tag: Your Government Doesn’t Love You

Microstamping Failing in California

I found some hilarious news on the NRA ILA site dealing with the Peoples Republic of California. Apparently that fancy microstamping law isn’t doing so well. Not only has California’s Attorney General not signed it into law but nobody is working to implement it. And why hasn’t the Attorney General signed the law? For good reason:

The microstamping process was invented 15 years ago by Todd Lizotte, a New Hampshire engineer who patented the process under the trademark NanoMark Technologies. Because the technology was available nowhere else, the Legislature required the attorney general to certify that it was available “to more than one (gun) manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.”

That hasn’t happened yet.

“We’re continuing to review the legislation, but the certification requirements have not yet been met,” Christine Gasparac, the attorney general’s press secretary, said last week.

The relevant patents are not yet in the public domain, Gasparac explained.

“Nothing can move forward until the patent issue has been resolved,” she said.

The patent system is a bitch, huh? Too bad and so sad.

This is bad news for the Brady Bunch. If they can’t get this crap done in Communist California you can’t get it done anywhere. Furthermore I’m still waiting to hear how stamping the casings of a cartridge are going to help police track the shooter. First of all there are no spent casings from revolvers and spent casing from pistols can be picked up. Likewise the microstamping device can be filed off and most importantly most of the guns used in crimes or stolen and hence the trace will come back to the original owner not the criminal who used the gun. On a side note I wonder if this technology has been tested on steel and aluminum cased ammunition.

Congress Slipped in a Book Ban, Clever Girl

As with many things I find Snowflakes in Hell has a link to an article on the book ban Congress passed. I know what you’re thinking, how could Congress pass a ban on books? The first amendment protects the freedom of speech.

Although that’s true Congress didn’t base the ban on a book’s content but on the ink. Remember last year when there was a panic over Chinese toys that contained lead? As a knee jerk reaction Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. This act in essence banned any amount of lead from childrens’ items and it was retroactive. We’re not talking simply lead paint on toys but lead in any products aimed for use by children.

So how does this ban books? Well before 1985 there was no law regulating the use of lead in dyes and inks used in children’s books. This means any children’s book printed before 1985 must first be tested for lead before it can be sold. Failing to to this means you a used book you sell can be an illegal item for resale and you could face up to a $100,000 fine or even prison time.

This law was appalling to begin with but is doubly so to me since I’m an avid reader with books printed before 1985. If I should allow a child to read such a book I can be brought up on charges. And this is how the government works people. If they can outright ban something they do it through regulations. Granted I don’t believe banning childrens’ books was the intention of this law but due to its poor wording that’s what it has accomplished.

But government does use regulations to ban items directly. The assault weapon ban of 1994 a perfect example. The government knew it would be hard to flat out ban specific guns so they regulated the features hoping that would accomplish the ban. They made a list of features which were not illegal when a certain number of them were on a single gun. Everything from bayonet lugs to pistols grips fell on this list. Furthermore any magazine with a capacity beyond 10 cartridges was now illegal to produce. Unlike the law this article primarily aims at the assault weapon ban was not retroactive.

The scary thing is anything can be regulated so long as it can be found to be bad in some way. Lead ammunition is being restricted more and more in the Peoples’ Republic of California because it’s “harmful to the environment.” The federal government could pull the same thing. Being you can still get ink poisoning it is possible to regulate anything that uses ink period. Granted that’s an extreme case but it is meant to be to show the extent unregulated government to reach.

This is why we need to fight pointless and knee jerk laws. They never accomplish solving anything and always accomplish harming people whom were not criminals before the passing of the law.

Further Research

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. (PDF)

Dissidence isn’t OK when It’s Against Obama

A short by excellent post over on the Smallest Minority sums up something that’s been bothering me since the election.

Back when Bush was in office everybody was making fun of him. Let’s be honest nobody liked him and he did nothing good for the country. Many people were using the old phrase, “Dissidence is the highest form of patriotism.” Fast forward to the new president. All of the sudden it’s not OK to question of criticize the president. Once again he’s, so far, done nothing good for the country. In fact as much as his supporters hate to hear this he’s promoting the same idea as Bush, which is to say we need to print tons of money to insert into the economy in order to avoid another situation like the Great Depression.

Furthermore Obama has been breaking promises left and right. I remember him clearly stating that he would sign no bill into law until there was a five day review and comment on it. I remember during his campaign he was talking about how he would abolish warrantless wire tapping? He then turned around and supported FISA. But my absolute favorite was how he said the new administrator wouldn’t have lobbyists and then turns around and hire lobbyists.

Of course whenever this is pointed out to a worshipper of the Obamessiah you get a deluge of insults ranging from being a Republican (Apparently that’s somehow an insult while being called a Democrat is considered a compliment. I don’t get that.) to, the insult that appears to be the favorite among his devoted followers, a racist. Back when he was running for the Democrat nominee I was already being called racist because I wasn’t supporting him (In fact I was supporting Ron Paul.). Likewise Hillary’s supporters would call me sexist so they had their own emotionally derived label for me that had nothing to do with why I wasn’t supporting their nominee.

The bottom line is Obama isn’t God even though you can’t tell when talking to his most devoted followers. He’s human and he fucks up just like the rest of us. And when you fuck up it’s best to be corrected so you don’t fuck up again. I always say if I were to purchase a company I’d get a list of all the whiners, bitchers, and moaners. Once this list was in hand I’d bring them into a meeting and make them my advisory board with the idea that they will complain about things that need to be looked at. Of course to avoid pointless bitching I’d tell them if they guide me right they get a bonus but if they guide me wrong there would be consequences. The reason I say and believe this is because I like criticism. Criticism is the only way I know how to correct my fuck ups.

Being our elected officials are our employees I feel it is not only our right but also our duty to let them know when they do something right and when they fuck up. Obama is in this same boat. You have a right to free speech period so make it useful. Criticize Obama and the rest of the administrator when you don’t agree with their actions. It’s a patriotic to want the best for your country and you can only get the best for your country if you work for it. And remember anybody who tries to call your ideas dangerous or you a racist is somebody who lacks any real arguments or facts to go against you with. These are the ones who argue emotionally instead of through facts. Don’t take it, let them know they are fucking up.

And now I leave you with the picture that started this new firestorm:

A New Definition of Multitasking

OK this man gives new definition to the word multitasking. Nicholas Sparks, while driving his tow truck, was not only talking on his cell phone but was also texting on a second cell phone. That’s two for the price of one baby! Of course because driving wasn’t on his list of tasks he crashed into one car and drove his truck into a swimming pool. Darwin has spoken and he doesn’t like people on their cell phones while they are driving.

Of course now the issue will be brought up about the proposed federal law banning texting while driving. I can sum up the reason that such a law is unnecessary:

Sparks was charged with reckless driving, talking on a cell phone and following too closely. It couldn’t be determined Thursday whether he has a lawyer.

Notice he’s being charged with three violation. But there really is only one that needs to be used and that’s reckless driving. We can throw out the law on talking on a cell phone while driving since that leads to reckless driving and if it doesn’t who cares. Following too closely is stupid but rear ending somebody is a crime and hence there is already a law on the books that covers it.

This concept is going to sound foreign to many but bear with me. Why do we need all these new laws? Why not use the laws on the books already? Better yet why not get rid of all the laws that end up being redundant by other laws? Let’s face it using a cell phone while driving is stupid but it’s stupid because it makes drivers far worse at driving. Hence somebody on their cell phone is going to violate a law called reckless driving. And people not worried about violating that law certainly aren’t going to give a flying fuck about violating a law that bans texting while driving.

The biggest issue I have with a texting while driving ban is the fact cell phones do so much now that they are a legitimate tool while driving. I’ve stated before I use my phone with Google Maps to navigate where I’m going. If I look at the map on the phone it would appear no different than if I were texting to a passer by hence I’d be pulled over and ticketed for trying to find where the fuck I’m going. I could correct this by getting a GPS but why would I want to buy a device that serves the same purpose a device I already own servers?

Either way Darwin did his duty and busted this guy up a bit.

Today’s Stories from the Unarmed United Kingdom

As we all know Oceania has an almost total ban on private ownership of firearms. They did this in the name of dropping violent crime, so they say. For instance there is a complete ban on handguns in the country but I guess nobody told the four men who robbed the Culleybackey post office.

An eight person has been charged in the case of Swinder Singh Batth’s murder. He was shot dead even though there guns are strictly controller in Oceania to prevent shootings.

Finally a couple had their home invaded not once but twice in the same night. In the first robbery three men entered (after the women opened the door for them, remember ensure you know the people before opening the door) and ended up stealing their holiday savings the sum of which wasn’t given. After the couple went to bed that night two other men broke into the home and stole £400 in cash and the couple’s television. Luckily neither person was murdered but it could have likely went the other way. Being able to defend yourself, especially at home, is not only a nice thing but a required thing.

No Firearms for Foreign Felons Act of 2009

Seriously doesn’t senator Feinstein ever quit? From Snowflakes in Hell comes this story.

Senator Feinstien is pushing a new piece of legislation called the “No Firearms for Foreign Felons Act of 2009.” The law if enacted would prohibit anybody who has been convicted of a felony in a foreign country from obtaining a gun in this country. There are some good examples of so called felons in foreign countries such as Francis Gary Powers who was the pilot in the U2 that was shot down over the Soviet Union.

This legislation has bad written all over it since it’s basing an American citizen’s rights on events that occurred in another country with a different set of rules. Can you imagine being a woman from the Middle East who escaped here after being convicted of indecent behavior (in other words not covering every inch of her body) who wants to buy a gun now that he has a new citizenship? Oh too bad and so sad since she’s been convicted of a high crime in another country even though this country doesn’t recognize the crime.

I’m sure the next piece of legislation will say anybody who could be convicted of a felony in another country can no longer purchase guns in America. That would effectively ban guns in this country since many things we do in our daily lives is felony material in some country or other.

So far it doesn’t appear as if the bill has many sponsors:

The legislation, introduced late Tuesday, is co-sponsored by Senators Richard Durbin (D-Ill.); Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.); Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.); Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). This bill was originally introduced in the 110th Congress.

That’s a good sign obviously and after getting a majority vote for inclusion of the national carry reciprocity amendment I think not only is congress skittish with anti-gun laws but they appear to be willing to support pro-gun laws. Either way we need to keep our eyes on this one.

Using 1984 as a Blueprint by “Protecting the Children”

If there was every a story to use my “1984 was a Warning not a Blueprint” tag it’s this one found on John C. Dvorak’s site. Everybody’s favorite fascist state, Oceania the United Kingdom, is at it again and this time in the name of everybody’s favorite excuse, protecting the children.

Oceania has setup a new program where they put “problem” families into a “sin bin.” This excerpt is directly from the article:

The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes.

They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.

Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction.

Yes these “problem” families, all 20,000 of them, will not be under 24 hour surveillance by their government and have their homes invaded checked out by the Party private security guards. This is of course being done to protect the children as all invasive government programs generally are.

Just imagine the scope of this for a second. You will have 20,000 homes under 24 hour government surveillance. If that isn’t a page ripped straight from 1984 I don’t know what is. Now I’m going to extend off of this and bring up the fact that government likes to use power to obtain more power. It certainly wouldn’t take much to put more families into this “sin bin.” Why almost anything can be considered bad for children.

For instance talking badly about the government could be seen as a method of scaring your kids and frightened kids need to be protected. Not properly sorting your recyclables (current an topic of government crackdown) could be seen as destroying the environment and would impact negatively against your children in the future. Not preparing government approved meals could be seen as acting against the health of your child. The list goes on as you can make almost anything work against the welfare of children.

I think it’s well overdue time for the citizens of Oceania to rise up and take back their liberties. Oh wait never mind the government already confiscated their guns making armed resistance very difficult.

I hate subjects like this because it makes me out to be a conspiracy theorist but honestly when a government does something as blatant as place CCTV cameras not just on the streets but also in peoples’ homes you have to be at least a wee bit worried.

Even Permanently Disabled Guns are Scary in the United Kingdom

Ah yes the United Kingdom. This find conglomeration of government intrusion and control is so afraid of guns that even completely disabled ones are feared…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8178254.stm

A person was selling two guns which were disabled, via being welded shut, and properly certified at a local market. Some moron calls the police because apparently even permanently disabled guns are scary in Wales. The police arrive and tell the owner to sell the guns “more appropriate channels.”

Now there was nothing illegal about these guns, all the accompanying paper work was with them and the guns were unable to be restored to their original working configuration. That’s right lawful commerce was being practiced which we know Oceania is completely against hence the police had to put a stop to it. And I love this quote by the officer…

We would like to reassure the public that the use of guns in south Wales remains extremely rare and immediate action is taken if information is received about the use, threat or sale of items.

Yes they sure do crack down on guns be it a use, threat, or sale. Heck apparently even non-functioning guns which can’t be used to shoot somebody are cracked down upon. Of course they also crack down on those who defend themselves with a firearm since self defense is also all but illegal in that region.

Brooklyn Police Afraid of Flintlock Rifles

I found this story over on the Gun Rights Radio Network forum…

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2009/07/29/2009-07-29_replica_rifle_has_brooklyn_man_at_odds_with_cops.html

Michael Littlejohn, a citizens of Brooklyn, had a replica flintlock rifles produced for him. Under New York state law you are not required to register such guns. Now why would he want a flintlock rifles in Brooklyn you ask? Not that it matters why he wants it but the answer is he’s a Revolutionary War aficionado.

Anyways the police are saying he needs a firearms license to own the flintlock. Although this isn’t true I think the police feel they can beat Mr. Littlejohn into submission. After all anybody who is willing to own a flintlock rifle is only doing so to bypass the state’s gun registration laws and perform crimes with it. I think I will dub this the flintlock loophole. Just think if he has an unregistered gun he could perform a mass shooting at any of the state colleges. Back when such evil military style assault weapons were in regular use by the military a good rifleman could get off up to three shots in a minute! Just image the terror this man could produce with this unregistered military style assault weapon!

Australia’s Restrictive Gun Control Doesn’t Stop Straw Purchases Either

And interesting story I saw on Snowflakes in Hell…

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/criminal-are-telling-lies-to-buy-guns/story-e6freuy9-1225755343569

Australia has some very draconian gun laws put in place in the hopes of making it’s citizens wholly dependent on the government for protection controlling violent crime. One of these laws is the requirement of obtaining a firearm license to purchase a gun. The theory goes that running massive checks and making people jump through many hoops will prevent criminals from buying guns. Unfortunately Australia is finding out what some American states already know, criminals will ignore the law and obtain their guns illegally.

Members of an organized crime gang were able to build up a small cache by performing straw purchases in Australia. Of course instead of admitting they were wrong members of the Australia government are calling for even more strict gun control laws. Now some magistrates are calling for finger printing and DNA checks on the country’s gun owners.

These magistrates apparently are missing the lesson, which is criminals will get guns because they are willing to break the law to obtain the tools they need to break laws. No amount of gun control can prevent this. Britain is a perfect example of a country having stringent gun control laws and a high rate of gun related violence.

Source: http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/07/29/straw-purchasing-in-australia/