"There's a reason they call 'em 'Cheeseheads.'"
"We all remember the oaths we took, and they didn't have an expiration clause. There is no debating that the Constitution is under assault from enemies both foreign and domestic. Our elected public servants should quake in fear each time they hear the phone ring, the fax hum, the click of a mouse button, or better yet the sound of their office door opening. And if we don't provide the reason for them to be afraid we will be derelict in our duties as free citizens. I have always gotten better results when the other person I am dealing with has to worry about me pulling them across the desk to emphasize the depth of my convictions." --
Comment on KeepandBearArms.com by "OK fellow vets." (5/16/2008)
"I've got to tell you, I think the guy (the judge in the Olofson case) is out of his cotton-picking mind. I mean there's no semblance of proportion here, 30 months in prison? This is outrageous. . . Does anybody in that town care -- in that state (Wisconsin)care -- what's happening to one of their fellow citizens? I mean they're just sitting there like sponges watching it go by. And those -- by the way -- what's going by are the Second Amendment rights of every American."
-- Lou Dobbs, CNN, 14 May 2008.
Last night, I read the Lou Dobbs' transcript regarding the Olofson case to a buddy of mine who has lived in Wisconsin. "Mike," he replied, "there's a reason they call 'em 'Cheeseheads.'" It would be hard to overestimate the frustration and anger which has swept the community of Second Amendment activists over the Olofson case and the continued sell-out of our rights by those who claim to be our friends, those indeed who claim to be our leaders: the Republican party and the National Rifle Association. Those who ignore this anger do so at their own peril, and that includes most especially the arrogant ninja-wannabes of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. One day soon, they're going to tackle the wrong guy, an angry guy, a guy who knows what Olofson really represents -- the complete breakdown of the rule of law in our country. And that guy is going to deliver them justice, if not law.
This dangerous anger comes from our frustration that we have been gradually stripped of any possibility of the redress of our grievances by peaceful means. What do the courts mean when the BATF and their handmaiden US attorney enablers are able to violate with impunity the laws which are supposed to regulate them? Of what significance is a positive ruling in the Heller case when measured against the government villainy represented by Olofson? And how long has it been since a traditional view of the Constitution has been delivered in the wrongly named "main stream media?" In truth, we have become a despised minority in our own country, shoved back from the free exercise of our God given rights, and its about to get worse.
1 a: a small opening through which small arms may be fired
b: a similar opening to admit light and air or to permit observation
2: a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded -- Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Regardless of who wins the next election, we will have a president who has pledged to "close the gun show loophole." Funny word - "loophole," especially when used in a firearms context. I'm sure the liberal lawyers pals of Josh Sugarmann who came up with the canard "assault weapons" invented this one as well. Products of their law school upbringing, I'm sure they meant the second definition rather than the first. Indeed, being completely ignorant of the history of firearms, I doubt they knew of the first meaning of the word at all.
One of the wonderful things about living in north central Alabama is its proximity to the Gulf coast of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Pensacola is one my favorite places along those white sandy beaches. What with Fort Pickens and her sister Fort Barrancas both available for exploration, a history buff like me can't resist their ghostly charms.
Completed in 1844 as a small sea coast defense fortification capable of resisting a land assault (if not a regular attack) Fort Barrancas is one of most interesting and creepiest little masonry castles on the Gulf Coast. Fort Barrancas was sited on a slight bluff above a pre-existing battery built by the Spanish opposite the entrance to Pensacola Bay where it could cross the fire of its water bearing heavy guns with those of Fort Pickens on Santa Rosa Island and Fort McRee on Foster's Bank. The fort itself consists of a main work traced as an irregular quadrilateral redoubt with two fronts positioned for land defense and two fronts for defense of the bay. A counterscarp wall covers the two land fronts and is itself covered by a massive earthen glacis that seems to slope a bit too sharply for the foot to be well seen from the interior crest of the parapet of the main work, a fact of some importance since the work does not feature a covered way for defense against a land attack. The main ditch, which was about 34 feet wide, was defended by crenallated scarp and counterscarp galleries; embrasured and loopholed casemates were built into both extremities of the counterscarp gallery (to flank the water fronts of the main work) and within the salient angle of the two land fronts. -- Source: http://civilwarfortifications.com/
Colonel H.L. Scott, in his 1864 Military Dictionary, defined loopholes as "apertures formed in a wall or stockade, that through them a fire of musketry may be directed on the exterior ground. . . Loopholed Galleries . . .are vaulted passages or casemates, usually placed behind the counterscarp revetment, and behind the gorges of detached works, having holes pierced through the walls, to enable the defenders to bring a musketry fire from unseen positions, upon the assailants in the ditch. Loopholes, however, are not confined to galleries. In modern fortifications, the revetments, both scarp and counterscarp, are very generally pierced for a musketry fire." Here is an example of a loophole in the scarp gallery of the northeast land front of Fort Barrancas:
Loopholes as a feature of military fortifications predate both gunpowder and masonry castles, being originally built as angled slits in wooden palisades to give bowmen good fields of fire while affording them excellent protection from enemy bowmen. Loopholes are murder holes, designed to allow one marksman to kill the maximum number of attackers from cover. Loopholes are still used today, especially in city fighting. Witness this quote from a recent Marine manual on Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT):
"Machine guns play an important role in urban military operations. . .Upon entering a building, all windows and doors should be secured. If boards are used, leave small gaps between the boards to allow for alternate firing positions. . .Loopholes should be used extensively when defended a building. Loophole construction should not follow any logical pattern or be constructed at floor or tabletop level. By varying the height and location of loopholes, you will make it difficult for the enemy to pinpoint and target the loophole firing position. Dummy loopholes should also be used to deceive the enemy in his efforts to locate actual firing positions. Loophole openings should be small in front and wide in back" Machine Guns in Urban Terrain, http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6453/moutpoi43.html
Thus, from bows and arrows to machine guns in the 21st Century, loopholes have served their purpose. Just where and when the terminology used for killing became a "an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded" is lost in time. I don't know, ask a lawyer.
"Drowning in an ocean of lies."
"Americans today are drowning in an ocean of lies. Virtually everything they think they know -- about history, about economics, about the Constitution and the law, about a hundred other things -- is wrong. The shameful truth about the National Rifle Association, for example, is that there seems to be some kind of mutually beneficial -- symbiotic -- relationship between that group, which would like you to believe it was created to protect the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the agency that enforces federal gun laws, the notorious Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Neither could exist without the other to prop it up." -- L. Neil Smith, "With Friends Like the NRA . . ", http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-friends-like-nra.htm
"Over the years, I haven't agreed with the NRA on every issue. I have supported efforts to have NICS background checks apply to gun sales at gun shows. I recognize that gun shows are enjoyed by millions of law-abiding Americans. I do not support efforts by those who seek to regulate them out of existence. But I believe an accurate, fair and instant background check at guns shows is a reasonable requirement." -- John McCain, Speech to the NRA Annual Convention, 16 May 2008.
"Reasonable requirement" and "gunshow loophole" are just two drops in this ocean of lies. And John McCain has been prominent in pimping the "gunshow loophole" line. Others have written convincingly and passionately about the nature of these lies. Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, for one. (See Larry's series of articles on the GOA website. GOA rates John McCain as an "F Minus" on the Second Amendment) In 2002, McCain and his Democrat sidekick Joe Lieberman produced television ads on this subject for "Americans for Gun Safety" (AGS), seeking public support for their own bill to "close the loophole." Dave Kopel fired back in an article in National Review Online called "Gun Games":
"(McCain's and Lieberman's statements) create the entirely false impression that gun shows are some sort of Brigadoon, where the normal gun laws do not apply . . .(T)o the contrary, federal gun laws (for firearms dealers) apply at gun shows preecisely as they apply anywhere else. . . (But) if you are not engaged in the business, then the federal paperwork laws do not apply to you -- nor should they, since federal power to regulate gun sales is based on the interstate commerce power, and a collector who sells three guns a year to people in his home state is not engaged in interstate commerce. . . In other words, there is no 'gun show loophole.' The phrase is an audacious lie, invented by people who want to abolish privacy for firearms owners . . . AGS is simply using Fabian tactics. Its own internal strategy documents state that its long-range goal is the licensing and registration of every gun owner in the United States. . . And, in fact, McCain-Lieberman does far more than impose federal registration and background checks on small-time, non-business vendors at gun shows. As I detail in the Issue Paper 'Should Gun Shows Be Outlawed?' McCain-Lieberman is a cornucopia of poison pills which would allow a future anti-gun executive branch to shut down gun shows entirely. In particular, the bill makes it illegal for a person to operate a gun show without a federal license, and structures the license application process so that licenses need never be issued. The bill indirectly requires that people who ATTEND gun shows must be registered. The bill even requires that people who cdon't sell guns (e.g., the numerous book, food and clothing vendors at gun shows) be registered; and it would allow the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to demand a list of every book being sold by a book vendor. Finally, McCain-Lieberman authorizes BATF to create additional, limitless gun-show regulations, which could be used to make it nearly impossible for gun shows to be held." -- National Review Online, 21 May 2002.
Sound like a "reasonable requirement" to you?
When McCain first started this nonsense, the NRA bitterly denounced him. Wayne LaPierre asked, "Is it possible that John McCain thinks you have too much freedom?"
That was then. Now, they have him speak at their convention
AND NO ONE DENOUNCES HIM.
He is not booed into shamed silence.
Has McCain recanted? Has he changed his mind?
He stands there in front of them and tells them how he still intends to take away our rights. The NRA not only won't fight for your rights, they won't even risk being impolite for them. He feeds them excrement and they eat it with gusto.
McCain wants government control of all private firearms sales! That's what his "loophole" is all about. Not even King George III was THAT grasping. It's like an urbane and sophisticated Hitler addressing a crowd of German Jews, telling them "I'm not going to persecute you as much as the OTHER guy, so vote for me." Jeez leweez, can't these NRA idiots SEE THAT?!?!?
And many no doubt applauded anyway. Just to be polite.
"A Wake Up Call"
"This was a real wakeup call for us," someone named Robert M. Duncan, who is chairman of the Republican National Committee, told the New York Times. This was after (the GOP loss in) Mississippi. "We can't let the Democrats take our issues." And those issues would be? "We can't let them pretend to be conservatives," he continued. Why not? Republicans pretend to be conservative every day. -- "Pity Party," Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, 16 May 2008
The time for politeness is long past. Like the poster on KeepandBearArms.com, it is time for us to start pulling these pukes across the desk to emphasize the depth of our convictions. Realize this: we have no friends. Not in the media, not in the courts, not in either major party. We have only ourselves, alone. The next President, whoever he is, WILL sign a "gun show loophole" bill. How shall we respond? One way might be to engage in civil disobedience. They can ban "unauthorized" gunshows, and we can conduct them anyway, daring the BATF to do anything about it. Why not hold the first one at Fort Barrancas? It has loopholes, ready-made. Just in case they want to see what a REAL loophole is for.
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."