Surveillance State Failure

The shooting at the Washington Navy Yard this week is inevitably calling for more gun controls, such as increased background checks.  But the shooter had already passed the background check to a hold a SECRET level clearance.  Why was he able to kill so many people on a military base?  Unilateral disarmament is one explanation, from CNS News:

"My son was at Marine Barracks -- at the Navy Yard yesterday - and they had weapons with them, but they didn't have ammunition.   And they said, 'We were trained, and if we had the ammunition, we could've cleared that building.' Only three people had been shot at that time, and they could've stopped the rest of it." 

The Navy Yard shooting brings up the legitimate issue of carrying - and using - firearms on military installations. 

Back in 1993, the Clinton administration virtually declared military establishments "gun-free zones." As a result, the policy banned "military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that 'a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel 'may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan," according to economist John Lott.

None of the proposals for gun-control will make us any safer.  They are the typical noise from politicians who demand that Something Be Done!  Whether or not it addresses the problem is irrelevant.

Gun Rights are Human Rights.

Drawing the Wrong Conclusion - As Usual

The tragedy at the Washington Navy Yard turned a bit personal for me when I was unable to contact colleagues due to the shootings.  I was glad to see that none of the victims were colleagues or acquaintances, but of course my heart goes out to the families and friends of those who died.  Inevitably, the tragedy is not going to waste in the leftist war on our civil liberties.  Predictably, Diane Feinstein has called for more gun control legislation.  However, unless she means to ban all guns in the hands of private citizens, which I believe is true, there is little that more laws could have done to prevent this tragedy.  The perpetrator was armed primarily with a shotgun and held a security clearance.  What gun control law could be passed other than outright confiscation of all private firearms to prevent this tragedy?

Richard Viguerie's web site debunks the whole myth that the surveillance state and more control of our rights will make us safer.  The Navy Yard shooters prior misconduct, Nidal Hassan's obvious radicalization at Fort Hood, the Tsaernaev's in Boston, PFC Manning's personal issues with gender identity were all missed due to either political correctness or the overwhelming amount information collected by the surveillance state.

In a free society, there will never be perfect safety.  The statists on the left know this and use every tragedy to argue for more regulation.  Arguing that the regulation will not be effective is necessary, but we should also argue that it is our right to own guns as a matter of the inherent human right of self-defense.  No pile of statistics removes my right to make a judgement about my own personal safety and how to best defend myself.  Every person on the planet has the right of self-defense, which is God given.  Gun rights are human rights.

Photo below from The Mad American Club Blog which has a pretty amusing article on self defense.

μολὼν λαβέ

Politics Tonight - Some Good News

Tonight's political news seems pretty good for the country.

Obama's Syria Speech Has Little Effect 

The President was wrong-footed by both his own Secretary of State and by Putin in the run up to his speech tonight.  Even after the speech, preliminary polls continue to show that the public is opposed to military intervention.  This is good news, because American vital interests are not served by military intervention at this time.

Weiner, Spitzer Suffer Humiliation - Again

These two jackasses have no place in public office and not just because of their sexual scandals.  Weiner didn't break 5% of the popular vote and Spitzer couldn't win the Democrat nomination in the usually bland race for City Comptroller.  I would hope that Spitzer couldn't be elected dog catcher.  The WSJ has documented Spitzer's record of abuse of power.  Weiner was just one long embarrassment.

Colorado Gun Control Lawmaker Loses Office

From Reuters:

Colorado Senate President John Morse, one of two state lawmakers fighting historic recall elections because of his support of tougher gun control laws, conceded defeat on Tuesday as preliminary results showed him trailing in the vote count, the Colorado Springs Gazette reported.

Nice going.  I read in another report that the gun control forces outspent recall supporters.

Reported contributions to Morse and Giron totaled about $3 million, dwarfing the amount raised by gun activists who petitioned for the recall, though some independent groups didn't have to report spending.

Yes we can defeat those who would trample our rights.

Australia Elects Conservative Government

This isn't news, but feels like it anyway.  Tony Abbott and his conservative Liberal Party (that's not a typo) soundly defeated the Labor party in elections in Australia over the weekend.  It was a good weekend for Aussies, even if Collingwood exited the first round of the finals at the hands of Port Adelaide.  Guy Benson of HotAir's Green Room explains why Yanks should care.

(1) The defeat of Statists anywhere on the planet merits attention and applause.  (2) Two of the main issues used by the opposition to successfully bludgeon the ruling party were lax immigration enforcement and public anger over a proposed carbon tax.  . . .  (3) Labor went full-bore “war on women” against the Abbott & Co, and failed miserably.

We close with a picture of Tony Abbott and his family celebrating his victory.  Doesn't look like a guy about to launch a war on women to me.

Colorado House Restricts Gun Rights

The Colorado House of Representatives passed four bills placing restrictions on gun possession today.

Among the proposals are bills that would require background checks for all gun purchases - paid for by applicants - a ban on ammunition magazines with more than 15 rounds and a measure to allow colleges in the state to ban concealed weapons on campus. 

The left and the President, but I repeat myself, keep arguing that background checks are just so reasonable that only child-haters would object.  What does a background check really mean?  The FBI says this about background checks and its database.

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase.

It all seems so quick and reasonable. Who else is ineligible, besides criminals?  It turns out that you don't have to be convicted of anything to be ineligible.  From the U.S. Code:

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing orhaving reasonable cause to believe that such person -         (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;        (2) is a fugitive from justice;        (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));        (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;        (5) who, being an alien -           (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or          (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

The paragraph regarding "adjudicated as a mental defective" made me wonder as well.  It turns out that your Second Amendment rights can be violated without the need for a court hearing.  Adjudicated turns out to mean that a government agency has decided that you're crazy.  Maybe because you want to keep your guns. According to ABC News:

The definition of a "mental defective" includes anyone whom "a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority" has determined to be "a danger to himself or other" because of "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease."

I can't find the primary source for that definition, but its pretty scary.  It means that any American could be targeted and once committed, can never really get their gun rights restored.  In the comments section of the lead news article, a gun control advocate remarked that gun-rights supporters were complaining over being inconvenienced.  I think not.  Restrictions on our rights that lack the due process is hardly an inconvenience; it attacks the bulwark of our liberty, the Bill of Rights.

None of this would have prevented the tragedy at Newtown, CT.  Given that some of the most tragic gun violence has occurred at schools, allowing schools to ban concealed weapons will lead to more, not less gun violence.  I think these killers are perfectly aware that there is a near zero probability that they will face armed resistance when they launch their murderous sprees on campus.  Only arming a sufficient number of personnel on campus will change that calculus.

Finally, it is predictable that these laws will be shown to have zero statistical correlation to any reduction in firearm violence.

Some Useful Statistics in the Gun Control Debate

From the FBI's Uniform Crimes Reporting Database (click to enlarge):  (H/T Magic Blue Smoke)

1 Populations are U.S. Census Bureau provisional estimates as of July 1 for each year except 2000 and 2010, which are decennial census counts.
2 The murder and nonnegligent homicides that occurred as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, are not included in this table.
3 The crime figures have been adjusted.

Emotionalism is the friend of politicians pushing an agenda.  If you view the entire table, no category of crime is increasing, including murder.  What national crisis needs to be solved with bold new action?  Aren't we solving it already, with slow steady progress?  The murder rate dropped from 9.3 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000 during this period.

Odds and Ends

The administration's proposals on guns fills many Americans with fear and loathing.  Especially odious is the idea that the President will restrict our rights unilaterally through executive orders.  I look forward to seeing him getting smacked down in the courts.  Further, his efforts will damage the rest of his political agenda. Good. I view his entire agenda with equal distaste.  He doesn't have the best interests of the country at heart; rather he sees his Presidency as a quest for social justice.  His pre-2008 comments that he was in favor of higher capital gains tax rates was enough proof for me; he said that he didn't care if the higher rates raised less revenue, he wanted them higher in the name of fairness.  This sent the clear signal that his agenda is based on animosity towards particular groups.

 The Under Secretary of Defense issued a memo today, authorizing the military departments to take actions to deal with the threat of sequestration, including freezing new hires; canceling certain types of new contracts and furloughing civilian employees for up to 22 days.  (Can't find a link.)  Typically, the mainstream media has mostly ignored the issue and there has been some inaccuracies in the reporting of the issue.  The Washington Post reporting that the Pentagon will take immediate action.  In fact, according to the memo, the military services are directed to consider those actions.  Whether they do so has not been determined.  Whenever, I see press reports about matters of which I have knowledge, I am always amazed at the inaccuracies I find.  Makes me wonder about the rest of the news I read.

Meanwhile, the issue of the national debt continues to be ignored.  See clock at right.  And since we can't deal with that issue, everything else pales by comparison.

Locally, Bob Filner has said that he wants to stop city legal action against local pot dispensaries.  He has said that the City Attorney should end such prosecutions.  San Diego City Beat reporter Dave Maass tweeted  

Filner says Goldsmith doesn't realize he's the lawyer and the city is the client.
— Dave Maass (@DaveMaass) January 9, 2013

While I agree with the idea that medical marijuana should be dispensed according to state law, I don't think the mayor has the right to remove prosecutorial discretion from the city attorney.  Is this what we want out of city government, the politicization of prosecutions?  Filner's proposal to change the city's laws regarding medical marijuana dispensaries seems a more sensible approach than bullying the City Attorney.

I owe a post on an issue involving the AT&T cell tower in Point Loma and an update on the Bay View Plaza in Bay Park. So far, no news on the latter and not much news on the former.

Unspoken in the Debate About Gun Controls

The President has promised to put his "full weight" to pass gun control legislation which proposals will likely include the usual suspects of an "assault weapons" ban, whatever that is, background checks, and assorted other restrictions.  The debate over guns will involve the left waiving the bloody shirt of the Newtown shootings while proposing legislation that will do little to prevent future occurrences.  I say that because, from what I can gather, the perpetrator had no criminal record, did not own the guns he used and of course violated a number of other "gun controls" including bringing a gun onto school property.  Beyond confiscation of all firearms, how will new laws prevent a similar attack?

Here is what the left will be thinking, but will not say openly; there is no legitimate reason to own guns.  Dana Sherne published an article on Policymic that almost says as much. They won't say so openly, because they know it evokes massive reaction that impedes their goal of banning firearms.  But they believe that only the government should have such weapons, make no mistake.  Why this is so has to do with the left's self identification with victimhood.  Gun owners tend not to be victims and in fact because gun owners are viewed as strong and competent, they are loathed on the left. 

But those on the right won't speak the full truth either.  There are a number of very impolitic reasons to own guns that don't get uttered publicly, only self defense and hunting are discussed.  However, I am considering buying guns for reasons of insurance.  First, there is the "zombie apocalypse" scenario; more accurately, the total break down of law and order, that is always possible due to some catastrophe.  Who doesn't believe that you will need a gun under those circumstances?  Nobody wants to say that guns are insurance, because it makes you sound like a crazy survivalist.  But insurance is about being prepared, and frankly guns need to be part of your thinking in case the world goes to hell.

The other aspect of insurance is even more unspeakable in polite company.  Ours is a government made of flawed human beings.  It is highly unlikely, but still possible, that it could deteriorate into a dictatorship.  Guns would be necessary to protect oneself from such a tyranny or to even actively fight back.  No one cares to utter these fears in open debate, but they are valid considerations.

So we will get some kind of ineffective legislation that slightly erodes our rights and sets dangerous precedents for further erosions, as the President refuses to let the crisis of the Newtown shootings go to waste.  But the measures will be ineffectual and in a few years we will have another mass killing at a school.  But that's what we expect when the President puts his "full weight" behind a bill.  Kind of like the affordable care act, we will get a contradictory and ultimately ineffective outcome that attacks our basic freedoms.

More Obama = Bush: Gunwalking

Dean has been crushing the Fast and Furious story, since only CBS and the LA Times seem to want to cover it, and now CBS maybe not so much. Now, the administration is resorting to its first and last line of defense, blame Bush. The differences between this administration and the Bush administration shrink by the day. The only big difference? Obamacare. Other issues? Gitmo still open, even more wars in progress, use of secrecy to obfuscate legal justifications for prosecuting the war on terror, loads of bankers and Wall Street types in the administration, growing the size and scope of government, PATRIOT act extension, even higher deficits, lax border enforcement; the list is nauseatingly long. Now we can add gunwalking to the list, apparently. See all the latest gory details at Beers with Demo.

Gun Control and Racism

So Garry McCarthy, Chicago Police Superintendent, links federal gun control regulation to racism. Turns out he is right, but not in the sense he means. First, his comments:

“I want you to connect one more dot on that chain of African-American history in this country, and tell me if I’m crazy: Federal gun laws that facilitate the flow of illegal firearms into our urban centers, across this country, that are killing black and brown children,”

Well, Garry, you are crazy. Keeping guns out of the hands of blacks and Hispanics has been the racist goal of gun control attempts. A review of the historical record reveals that gun control in America has been directed at keeping guns out of the hands of blacks. Historian Clayton Cramer argues

"The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws -- and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place," and to quiet the racial fears of whites."

He cites numerous examples starting with those that predate the American revolution. As late as 1941 the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court openly acknowledges that a gun control law was intended to only apply to non-whites:

I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.

Garry McCarthy should be ashamed to assert that an assertion of the right to own a gun is racist, when in fact it is gun control that is the historically racist position.

Mumbai and Gun Control

So why is the terrorist gunman, pictured at right, in the Chatrapathi Sivaji Terminal railway station in Mumbai, able to walk around with impunity, no protective cover, so much so that a photographer can get a clear picture of him? American Thinker has a solid piece on the failure of poorly paid police and a regime that actively discourages ownership of guns by its citizens and the comments of the photographer, Sebastian D'Souza who took this photo:

There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything. At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, "Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!" but they just didn't shoot back. I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera.

American Thinker lays out the long history of the Indian government's hostility towards gun ownership by it's citizens. The end result:

At the Jewish outreach centre, bystanders pelted the terrorists with stones in a vain attempt to ward off the attack, but had to retreat when the terrorists opened fire with automatic rifles. Our citizens were trying to ward off the terrorists with stones! I cannot think of a more extreme example of how helpless the government has rendered it's own citizens.