December 2009 Archives

In Seattle Democrats' latest assault on the Constitution, several state legislators are attempting to ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons and force current owners to submit to background checks.

Why? Because "there's no place to have sales of military assault rifles or weapons in this state." Why? Because, according to Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire, "These are weapons of war. They can kill, shoot 200 bullets a minute."

All types of guns are weapons of war. All guns can kill. And no, these guns cannot shoot 200 bullets a minute, not with accuracy, and not at a sustained rate before they break down.

(I want someone to explain why the board president of a gun control group doesn't know much about guns. You'd think being informed would be a prerequisite for a position like that.)

So really, why? Rep. Ross Hunter and Senators Adam Kline and Jeanne Kohl-Welles are proposing to ban semi-automatics "designed for military use" (which would be determined, no doubt, by subjecting the gun designers to Vulcan mind melds) that are "capable of rapid fire" (which is likely a synonym for either "automatic," or "semi-automatic") and "can hold more than 10 rounds," motivated in part by the slaying in October of Seattle Police Officer Timothy Brenton, with a .223 semi-automatic rifle.

The "10 rounds" thing is a dumb ploy: it's meant simply to exclude hunting rifles, which are ballistically equivalent to "military" rifles (the .223 round that killed Brenton is used for hunting, and "military" rifles don't shoot the round differently, of course). And the difference in number of rounds isn't significant: no one can point to shooting incidents where the shooter used more than a few rounds, or didn't have time to swap magazines. They include this simply because they know they will lose the bill if hunters oppose it.

Of course, Brenton could have been killed with a rifle not covered under this ban: witnesses heard eight to 10 shots. But facts don't matter when people are dying!

Now, the text of the bill isn't up, but this would probably ban the sale of some hunting rifles, and certainly would ban the sale most semi-automatic handguns, because most of them can accept clips of more than 10 rounds, and were designed with military use in mind (for example, the classic 1911 was designed explicitly for use in war, and you could easily make the argument that all semi-automatic weapons were designed for military use, given that they all use concepts designed for military weapons).

My favorite quote in all this is from Kohl-Welles: "Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" Actually, yes, they almost surely did.

While the first repeating rifle as we know it today didn't come along for 100 years, it was not for lack of trying: the problems of reloading quickly were well-considered by The Framers, and many people of the time wondered what it would take to be able to just pull the trigger multiple times without having to reload. (Indeed, in 1780, Bartolomeo Girandoni developed his first repeater, an air rifle.) And there can be no doubt whatsoever that if they could have had such practical weapons, they would have loved for the citizens to have them, that they might be used against the British.

Maybe Kohl-Welles and her colleagues can join Fascitelli in taking a gun education class.

Republican Congresswoman from Spokane, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, cosponsored a bill to make certain types of punishment and restraint illegal in schools.

She says in her piece on CNN.com, "It's difficult to believe, but there are no federal laws to prevent this from happening." I don't see how it is difficult to believe that there's no federal law regarding a purely state matter. While I have nothing against the aim of this legislation -- to restrict these particular practices -- it is nevertheless obvious that the law has no constitutional foundation, and further obvious that the citizens of each state -- being guaranteed a republican form of state government by the Constitution -- are fully capable of fixing the problem without federal legislation.

She never even attempts to say what justifies such an intrusion into the states. On her Facebook page -- I am on her friends list -- several people are congratulating her. They say the law is justified because "some states don't have these laws" and "states sometimes need a swift kick in the bumpus."

Last time I checked my Constitution, there was no clause that read, "the federal government can take over state functions if the states choose not to."

Even worse, many of these people are parrotting the Democratic deception that if you classify something as a "right," then that justifies federal intrusion. By that standard, almost any criminal statute can become a federal statute.

It's disheartening to see so many Republicans continuing -- in the face of the events of the last few years -- to jump on this bandwagon accelerating down the slippery slope toward tyranny.

I don't fault McMorris Rodgers' intentions, but it's obvious that good intentions are not good enough from a government. Following the Constitution and the important principles of limited government it is based on is the means by which our liberty is protected: it's what allows us to know we can speak freely, own property, purchase (or not purchase!) goods and services of our choice. McMorris Rodgers, through her misguided though well-intentioned sponsorship of this bill, is fighting against those liberty-protecting principles, and -- hopefully -- against the tide of change in her own party.

Senator Harry Reid said today, "Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all [the] Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"

He went on to compare it to women's suffrage and civil rights, too.

So according to Reid, any time anyone says any bill is bad and that you should slow down or start over, then you are like the defenders of slavery. I won't even bother to point out the many times Reid tried to "slow down" or "start over" something under Bush and a Republican Congress (nor that the Democrats were primarily the ones doing the blocking in all three of his examples).

And then when Reid was, rightfully and obviously, condemned for his insipid remarks, his spokesman actually attacks the people for pointing out the fact that what Senator Reid sayid was moronic: "It is hard to believe Senate Republicans are making these charges with a straight face."

Right. When you actually make the argument that any attempt to delay or block legislation amounts to trying to preseve slavery and hold back the rights of women and other minorities, it's hard to imagine people would actually criticize you for it.

So I don't know if he is dumb enough to believe this idiotic comparison, but the Senate Majority Leader is dumb enough to believe it's reasonable or helpful to say it, and then to defend it.

Ladies and gentlemen: your Democratic Party.

A man from Chicago, presumably Muslim, who travels the globe, is accused of being behind the Mumbai attacks a year ago.

Sound familiar?

It does to me. I'm no genius, but it sounds awfully familiar to me.

Let's get out the chalkboard.

The man's name is David Headley, and the connections to Obama are too questionable to not question, especially if you match up the letters in their names. I am not making up words here, these are their own names; names which, in at least one case, they chose for themselves.

Let's just take the first letter off of each name. O for Obama, H for Headley. "OH!" is an exclamation: this is important, this is big.

Next we take a B from Obama and EAD from Headley. You draw a "BEAD" on a target you're going to strike.

Then there's AM and EL. "AMEL" is an Arabic name, meaning "hard work." Curiouser and curiouser.

Finally, the last letter of each name, A and Y. "AY," as in, affirmative: yes, do proceed with the important attack we've been working hard for.

If you need it spelled out for you, there it is!