Political Idiocy

A few days ago, our beloved InstaPundit suggested that, while background checks for would-be gun purchasers is a dubious idea, IQ tests for political candidates is looking mighty good. A supposed Tea Party-affiliated Senator provides a case in point:

“Toomey could be key to a deal on guns,” a headline yesterday on Philly.com reads.

Hopeful speculation that Republican senator from Pennsylvania Pat Toomey is preparing to partner with Democrats on so-called “universal background checks” follows reports that Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) had reached out to him to try to find a GOP partner,” that Toomey “signaled that he might be open-minded after the Newtown, Conn., school shooting, [that he] issued a statement saying in part that ‘there may be areas of agreement with the White House that can be addressed to improve public safety’ [and that] he would consider expanding background checks.”

The story is gaining traction as other hopeful “legitimate media” outlets pick up on a Politico report that brought the Manchin negotiations to light. Adding to the hubbub are related stories on The Washington Post blog, The Morning Call, CBS Philly, and other media outlets.

That Manchin continues to twist the knife he plunged into gun owners’ backs is hardly surprising -- his turnaround has been positively Gillibrandesque, and NRA, which had previously assured his suitability as a “pro-gun Democrat,” needs to take the lead in seeing that his political career is over. It doesn’t matter how he’s voted before any more than it matters that Benedict Arnold was once considered a great hero of the Patriot cause. You can never again trust someone who betrays you, especially in time of greatest need for unity.

As for Toomey, if he and his staff hadn’t opened their yaps to indicate things were open to discussion, they wouldn’t be in this self-created pickle. He, too, has had a pretty good record on guns (even Gun Owners of America grades him at “A-”), and he needs to be reminded that his duty is to improve that score, not to threaten the rights of a core constituency that entrusted him with power.

Assuming the "hopeful speculation" is accurate, the certified idiot in the above is Toomey, who barely won his seat (51% - 49%) and cannot afford to lose the affections of Pennsylvania gun owners and Second Amendment supporters. For a Republican to turn against firearms rights is a fatal step; he'll lose the support of one of the most passionate groups on the constitutionalist Right, without gaining anything from the Left. Manchin and Gillibrand are somewhat differently positioned; they require the support of the Democrat Party, and are unlikely to lose substantial backing from the Left because of a "compromise" on a Second Amendment issue.

I seem to recall that the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee backed thrice-traitorous Arlen Specter against Toomey in 2004. The RSCC regards the Tea Party movement as a threat to its hegemony, so now that Toomey's been linked to it, the RSCC is unlikely to smile upon him even at the cost of a Senate seat. So losing any appreciable fraction of the support that put him in that seat in 2010 is likely to end his political career.

If Toomey is "doing a McCain" -- i.e., trying to win some favorable ink from the Main Stream Media -- come 2016 he'll discover to his extreme sorrow just how little that's worth. A Republican conservative cannot gain the support of the Left, nor of any of its ill-disguised affiliates; their agenda has "kill the GOP" at the very top, in 72-point type.

I'm trying to find a silver lining to this...and failing.

And While We're On The Subject Of Oppression

Have a gander at this blatant admission of the Obamunists' plans:

Vice President Joe Biden on a conference call with "Mayors Against Illegal Guns:"

"And lastly, but not least, the Assault Weapons ban and the limitation on the size of magazines, let me say this as clearly as I can: this is just the beginning. We believe that weapons of war have no place on our streets. That’s the message that the retired admirals and generals have spoken to us about. The comment one of them used was: if you want to learn how to use a semi-automatic weapon, join the United States military, but these are weapons of war, and we believe there’s no rational reason why someone would need a clip that can hold fifteen, twenty, thirty, one-hundred bullets, one-hundred rounds. We have to do more and we will do more."

They are coming for all our guns.
They are determined that we be unable to resist them.
And they are lying about their respect for our rights.

Some years ago, I spoke against a proposed town ordinance that would have granted the town the power to confiscate items found in a private home's yard and fine the owner. I pointed out that that would amount to an arbitrary seizure power, extending to anything ever found outside thr home's front door. The town's attorney immediately rose to protest that "we would never use it like that!" They were only interested in eliminating "eyesores" that were upsetting one or two querulous residents. Not growing fat on deliberate violations of the Fourth Amendment. No, no! They just wanted to improve things.

That's right, sports fans: The town shyster actually trotted out the famous Nine Words:

We're From The Government,
And We're Here To Help.

You would have been cheered at the audience's reaction...but not by the town council's decision, which was to pass the ordinance in the dead of night, at a secret session.

Hang on to your guns. The time is drawing near when you'll be required -- by your conscience and your duty to your progeny -- to use them.

The War On Guns: A Flank Attack

From a conventional, gun-control-friendly news story such as this one:

Supporters of a U.N. treaty designed to regulate the multibillion-dollar global arms trade were optimistic that a final draft circulated a day before Thursday's deadline will reach consensus.

Negotiators reconvened last week in a final attempt to reach a deal on the Arms Trade Treaty, which would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and to regulate arms brokers....

The draft treaty does not control the domestic use of weapons in any country, but it would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers. It would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons if they would violate arms embargoes or if they would promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

The final draft makes this human rights provision even stronger, adding that the export of conventional arms should be prohibited if they could be used in the commission of attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.

...you'd most likely come away thinking that this treaty proposal is innocuous, even benign. After all, who's in favor of "acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes," or "attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals," anyway?

But the NRA is strongly against the treaty, and there are some mighty good reasons:

On Monday, March 25, the permanent mission to the United Nations from Mexico sponsored a press event where representatives of four major non-governmental organizations (NGOs) made statements on the progress of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) negotiations currently underway in New York....

“This treaty is not good enough,” said Anna MacDonald of Oxfam. “This is not the treaty that is going to save lives and protect people.”

Decrying the “loopholes,” “weaknesses,” and “deficiencies” of the proposal, the groups called for increased regulation and more robust enforcement provisions....

Among the many complaints registered by these human rights groups, the one most often mentioned Monday was the draft proposal’s failure to clamp down on the sale, trade, and transfer of ammunition....

When pressed by reporters to name the state parties responsible for the treaty’s lack of substantial anti-ammo provisions, MacDonald named the United States....

There is also the irrefutable fact that there would be no conference right now were it not for the fact that the Obama administration’s previously filed objections to the treaty mysteriously disappeared after the president won reelection in November.

Within hours, in fact, of locking up another four years in the White House, President Obama ordered the U.S. diplomats to vote in favor of another round of negotiations and to green light the globalist gun grab.

That sort of coverage makes you whip out a magnifying glass and scamper back to the first article...and looky here!

... if they would promote...
...if they could be used...

What criteria would be used to decide such things? Who would write them -- and who would interpret them?

(Apropos of that second article, The New American is the magazine of the John Birch Society, and a very fine publication it is. No matter whether or not you completely accept the Birchers' conspiratorialist premises, their coverage of freedom-related issues and political developments is about the best around.)

One of the worst mistakes a polity can make is to allow public officials any discretion at all. The law is supposed to be plain of meaning, stable and reliable, and consistent in its effects on everyone under its jurisdiction. If it isn't, you don't have "rule of law;" you have "rule of whim:" the whim of whoever's in office at the time.

Americans are jealous of their right to keep and bear arms, and rightly so: an armed populace is the ultimate control on the actions of government. Public officials dislike the thought of being controlled. In their opinion, it's their prerogative to do all the controlling. So they like "reasonable and proper" clauses, and laws filled with "coulds" and "woulds." The discretion those weasel words provide allows them latitude...latitude they can put to use in strapping us down ever more straitly.

The final form of the ATT Treaty is guaranteed to contain all sorts of variably interpretable language: the sort that allows public officials to rationalize any and every sort of intrusion on private firearms manufacture, sale, ownership, and use. If it's ratified by the Senate, the right to keep and bear arms will be chipped away to nullity. You can bank on it.

Where The Eye Does Not Focus...

...is often more important than where it does:

New Jersey police and Dept. of Children and Families officials raided the home of a firearms instructor and demanded to see his guns after he posted a Facebook photo of his 11-year-old son holding a rifle.

“Someone called family services about the photo,” said Evan Nappen, an attorney representing Shawn Moore. “It led to an incredible, heavy-handed raid on his house. They wanted to see his gun safe, his guns and search his house. They even threatened to take his kids.”

Don't think for a moment that this was really about the safety or well-being of Moore's son:

Moore immediately called Nappen and rushed home to find officers demanding to check his guns and his gun safe.

Instead, he handed his cell phone to one of the officers – so they could speak with Nappen.

“If you have a warrant, you’re coming in,” Nappen told the officers. “If you don’t, then you’re not. That’s what privacy is all about.”...

Nappen told Fox News the police wanted to inventory his firearms.

“”We said no way, it’s not happening,” he said. “This is a guy who is completely credentialed and his son is also credentialed.”

The attorney said police eventually left and never returned.

“He has a Fourth Amendment right and he’s not going to give up his Fourth Amendment right or his Second Amendment right,” he said. “They didn’t have a warrant – so see you later.”

The police were there, not because there was any honest suspicion that Moore's son was at risk -- the boy has his own New Jersey state hunting license, after all -- but because it might provide them with a pretext for seizing Moore's firearms.

We will see more of this, for some very simple reasons. First, the backlash against legislative incursions on the right to keep and bear arms has swelled to a great height: great enough to put many a politico in fear of his livelihood. Second, the Democrat Party, which has attempted to leverage recent atrocities in Colorado and Connecticut into a new "assault weapons" ban, has pulled back out of fear of losing the U.S. Senate to the Republicans in the 2014 midterms. But the third reason is the most compelling of all:

“You can’t be prosecuted for making an allegation of child abuse –even if it’s false,” [New Jersey Department of Children and Families spokeswoman Kristen Brown] said.

"Child Welfare" departments operate, de facto if not de jure, outside the bounds of the Constitution and its protections of individuals' rights. If the accused:

• Has no defense against an illegal search or seizure;
• Cannot demand a trial by a jury of his peers;
• And cannot compel his accuser to face him and stand responsible for the accusation in open court;

...then unless he's exceptionally rich and well connected, he's probably a sitting duck.

Shawn Moore was fortunate that the New Jersey police didn't force entry to his home despite their lack of a warrant. Under recent Supreme Court decisions, he would have had no recourse regardless of what happened next.

The anti-gun forces are the worst thugs in the political system. They will use your children against you if they can. If you're a firearms owner, keep that in mind.

Fusillade Atop The Mound Of Corpses

It would appear that the Dishonorable Charles Schumer has a competitor eager for space for her personal standard on that bloody hilltop:

Granted, you can't expect better from a leftist idiot such as Feinstein. But you'd think a creature with a seat in the United States Senate would be more aware of the transparency of such a naked appeal to raw emotion. Apparently we shouldn't expect that either.

As impressively incisive as Senator Cruz was -- which, incidentally, appears to be his pattern, and may we see much more of it in the months and years to come! -- I'd have loved to hear him pursue the Dishonorable Senator from California along the following lines:

"It would appear that the senior senator from California considers herself superior to other Americans. After all, she travels with an armed guard. She sits in a chamber guarded by men with fully automatic weapons. And she regards herself as qualified to decree what weapons private citizens should be allowed to own. That can only mean that she's a superior creature, privileged by God, one of the rightful masters of the people rather than one of their elected servants. In that light, it becomes terribly clear that my previous question was an act of lese majeste. Pray forgive me my presumption, Senator. I momentarily forgot my place."

Yes, there have been brawls on the Senate floor in the past, though it's been quite a while since the last one. Might liven the dive up a bit.

(I'd put an Andy Jackson on Cruz. Knockout in the third round. Any takers?)

Don't These Clowns Get It YET?

This is the Age of the Intertubes, Chuckie. You can't get away with this sort of crap any more, you moron:

Schumer had kept the bogus “background check” bill under wraps, only putting forth a shell bill with no specifics. Well, he applied the text through an amendment at the last minute, before it passed. John Richardson has the details, including the text. I’ve only skimmed the details, but here’s the key problems:

If you left town for more than 7 days, and left your gay partner, or unrelated roommate at home with the guns, you’d be committing a felony. This should be called the “denying gun rights to gays act.” Remember that the federal government does not recognize gay marriage, even if you’re state does, thanks to DOMA. 5 years in prison.

Actually, even married couples are questionably legal, because the exemption between family only applies to gifts, not to temporary transfers. The 7 day implication is if you leave your spouse at home for more than 7 days, it’s an unlawful transfer, and you’re a 5 year felon. I suppose you could gift them to your spouse, or related co-habitant, and then have them gift them back when you arrive back home. Maybe the Attorney General will decide to create a form for that.

It would be illegal to lend a gun to a friend to take shooting. That would be a transfer. 5 years in federal prison.

Steals the livelihood of gun dealers by setting a fixed fee to conduct transfers. The fee is fixed by the Attorney General. What’s to prevent him from setting it at $1000?

Enacts defacto universal gun registration, because of record keeping requirements. All lost and stolen guns must be reported to the federal and local government. This means everyone will have to fill out the theft/loss form, and not just FFLs. You only have 24 hours to comply. If you lose a gun on a hunting trip deep in the woods, and can’t get back home to fill out the form in 24 hours, you’re a felon and will spend 5 years in federal prison.

Want to lend a gun to a friend to go hunting? It’s a 5 year in prison felony.

No exception for state permits. All transfers must go through a dealer or 5 years in federal prison.

UPDATE: Teaching someone to shoot on your own land is a felony, 5 years, if you hand them the gun. Not an exempted transfer.

Sebastian continues:

We will go thermonuclear on anyone who votes for this crap, and that goes double for Republicans. It’s nothing more than an attempt to put more gun owners in prison. Schumer was wise to keep this under wraps, because his bill is truly draconian. I not only expect the GOP to vote against this piece of crap bill, I expect them to filibuster it. Let’s see if the Democrats can get to 60 without any Republican support, and let’s see how many of them want to lose their seats in 2014.

This bill has nothing to do with ensuring people who are getting guns are law-abiding, and everything to do with getting backdoor registration, and creating a patchwork of rules and laws that will land anyone who uses guns, and isn’t a lawyer, in federal prison for a long time. Lots of otherwise law-abiding people are going to federal prison if this ends up passing, and I’m convinced that’s the whole idea.

I'm sure of that, myself.

Beware the Dishonorable Charles Schumer. He's the lowest of the low: absolutely hostile to the Constitution -- especially the Second Amendment -- and an indefatigable publicity hound. If ever there were a creature utterly devoid of a moral conscience, bound and determined to plant his personal standard atop a mound of corpses, Chuck Schumer is it.

Sigh. If only Schumer had been aboard that train with Colin Ferguson. I know, I know: the odds would still have been in his favor, but one can always hope!

Insulting Our Intelligence

You'd think Mark Kelly, Navy officer, Space Shuttle pilot and husband to wounded Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, would know better than to think his BS would pass general inspection:

Why did Mark Kelly pick a rifle for which he has yet to do a background check?

Kelly, a gun regulation advocate and husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, has explained that he bought an AR-15 rifle last week because he wanted to show how "easy" it was to buy an "assault weapon."

Yet if that were really his purpose, why did he purchase a traded-in rifle for which he must wait 20 days--and for which he must still complete a background check? Why not purchase a new rifle he could have claimed immediately?

Kelly may have completed the background check process for the pistol he bought, but not for the AR-15.

There aren't many plausible explanations for this:

• Kelly wanted an AR-15 for personal reasons, but was "found out" and is doing the "cat trying to cover on a slate floor" bit out of sheer embarrassment;
• Kelly was "bought" by a Soros-type or similar institution and is doing as he was bid, despite the insult to our intelligence;
• The whole thing is a put-up job.

Ultimately it doesn't matter. We red-necked, gap-toothed, chest-beating, knuckle-dragging, Bible-thumping, gun-toting bitter-clingers aren't impressed...except by the hypocrisy among the bed-wetting anti-gun types, which has just reached a new high.

What continues to mystify me is how so utterly clueless a gaggle of creeps and pansies could continue to command even a sliver of popular accord, or any foothold in Congress, in a nation as fiercely proud of its armed state as ours. But then, I can't explain how Barack Hussein Obama got re-elected, either. Research continues. Grants accumulating. Results posted as they're confirmed by peer review. Watch this space.