Serial numbers on bullets – the new plan to ban guns
January 14, 2009
So, a day after I published my article on the proposed gun ban by the new Congress, I started to receive messages from readers who had no idea that this was a possibility. They believed that if it were a real threat, the National Rifle Association would be at the front of the crowd beating the drums and rallying the troops against this travesty.
The NRA’s “top story” on their Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) page is about an absurd idea that for some strange reason is gaining support. Even more shocking, some of the states where it’s beginning to become popular are states that have concealed carry laws and are considered “gun friendly.”
Ammunition Accountability is a company that states they have the solution to gun crime. By laser micro-etching a serial number on the base of the projectile that matches with the serial number on the inside of the cartridge it’s fired from, they plan to sell ammunition in boxes with unique codes that can be tracked and recorded by law enforcement. They admit that they won’t be able to identify “who pulled the trigger” but “will provide law enforcement with a valuable lead and a starting point to quickly begin their investigations.”
They also are pressing legislation which would require an ammunition code database. The database would hold the barcode of each box of ammunition sold along with the state-issued ID of the person who purchased it. Where will the mainframe that stores all this personal information be located? Conveniently, they haven’t answered that question yet.
You might be thinking, “But if the bullet will be able to identify where it came from, wouldn’t that be a good thing? We could finally catch everyone who uses a gun illegally!” Wrong!! That’s what they want you to think because they believe you’ll blindly assume that people who commit crimes with guns purchase their own ammunition at retail outlets like law-abiding gun owners do. If you own some of the newly serialized ammunition, you won’t be able to reload your own ammo; you won’t be able to share with your friends; and you won’t be able to resell your surplus ammunition as you can now.
Ammunition Accountability has done their homework. They know that ammunition is most typically sold in boxes of 20 or 50 rounds per box. They know that there are 12 common handgun and assault weapon calibers — and they’ve not said what they plan to do for those “uncommon” calibers. They’ve shown that even ammunition as small as .22 caliber and 12-gauge shotgun pellets can be etched and will be required as well to carry the marks. They also know that it will cost each manufacturer between $300,000 and $500,000 for each etching unit set. You should know where the money to pay for the cost comes from; and I can guarantee the incoming administration isn’t going to offer a stimulus package to fund it.
So instead of eliminating the firearms themselves, they want to eliminate the ammunition. If the cost becomes prohibitive and the hassle too great, most consumers won’t bother to buy what they need and will go without. And if you don’t have ammunition, your firearm becomes either an unwieldy club or an expensive paperweight.
Again I hear those saying, “But you don’t get it! People will just stock-up on ammunition before any legislation takes effect. And those who reload their own ammunition and blanks will just keep doing it. So what’s the problem?”
Well, if you look at the sample legislation proposal, you’ll see where they want “all handgun and assault weapon ammunition manufactured or sold in the state after January 1, 2009, to be coded by the manufacturer” along with a list of calibers required to have the codes. That’s a little hard to enforce at this date if the individual state hasn’t adopted the proposal yet, but what’s some correction fluid and a date change to those who want to oppress gun owners?
But the biggest part that thwarts the stockpiling and reloading theories above is the next section. “No later than January 1, 2011, all non-coded ammunition for the calibers listed in this chapter, whether owned by private citizens or retail outlets, must be disposed.”
So…. No more stockpiling currently made ammunition. No more reloading. What ammunition company is going to make projectiles and casings with matching codes that some hobbyist could mix up and have non-matching numbers found at a crime scene? The liability and threat of lawsuits will quickly squash any idea of them catering to those who’ve been reloading for years.
“And while you’re standing in line to turn over your newly contraband ammunition, you must certainly own a firearm that it fits, so why not surrender that to us as well?” the uber-liberals will chant. Thousands upon thousands of legal gun owners who are tired of the hassle and can no longer afford to buy the ammunition they need will blindly hand them over just to be rid of the hassle, especially if a monetary “reward” is offered as is currently done in many areas today.
So let’s recap: You’ll only be allowed to purchase the ammunition that has been coded and you’ll be required by the government to surrender all non-coded ammunition, cases, and projectiles. Criminals who steal guns will be sure to pilfer longer through your personal belongings looking for every last coded round so they’ll be able to pass blame on you since they (well, most anyway) won’t be stupid enough to purchase their own.
You’ll have to ensure that you pick up every shell casing you arrived with at the gun range and hope some unscrupulous person doesn’t pocket one of yours to use in illegal reloading. Plastic ammunition casings, such as those used in shotguns, can’t be etched so many crimes will be committed with shotguns, for which the desire will increase and more will be stolen. Yes, the metal bases of the shotgun cartridges can be etched, but for now the individual pellets can’t — but I’m sure they’re working on that as we speak.
It will take up to three weeks to produce the amount of ammunition made daily when the etching system is added. No imported ammunition will be allowed because it’s not etched — so there goes firing some of your collectible firearms more inexpensively or if no American companies make that caliber. You’d be required to keep meticulous records if you buy, sell, or loan ammunition even with friends and family members. Oh, and they quietly tuck in a five cent-per-round tax for good measure. It’s not only effective when your originally purchase the rounds but if you transfer them as well, which will be properly documented in your paperwork for every individual serial number registered in the official database, right?
Don’t think you’re safe if you’re a black powder enthusiast/re-enactor/hunter. It’s only small stretch of the imagination to know that if they won’t allow you to make your own projectiles for cartridge ammunition they won’t allow you to cast your own or even purchase black powder itself. Besides, they’ll write it under environmental legislation because lead is bad for you anyway and get away with it.
So let’s get back to the question of “Where is the NRA?” It’s my personal belief that because HR 1022 which would ban several types of firearms isn’t a huge media sensation they’ve decided not to worry about it. And because Ammunition Accountability is working on a grassroots platform and dealing with the states instead of a national audience, The Ammunition Accountability Act isn’t seen as a national threat and, therefore, not something they can raise big wads of cash with yet. Oh sure, they’re an organization that is there to help gun owners protect their Second Amendment rights — but they’re in it for the money too. That’s what runs this country. If we depended on human love and kindness we’d all be in a lot of trouble these days.
The Democrats, Bradys, and other anti-gun organizations are working feverishly to prevent anyone from privately owning any type of firearm. They prey on the sheep-like quality of the typical citizen to blindly follow whatever the government says and to give up easily. It’s up to each individual to decide where they stand on this issue.
So this is how democracy dies? Democrats plan new gun bans.
January 13, 2009
Here we are a week away from the inauguration of the first African-American president. While this can be either an exciting or upsetting time, depending on your point of view, the Democrats have already leaked their scheme to keep the general populous down and in submission towards the elite, criminal, and, of course, themselves.
Recently posted on the Internet and passed through emails was the proposed gun ban list created by the Democrats in Congress who knew there was no way they could pass it while a Republican sat in the White House. Now, the radical left sees its opportunity to take guns from law-abiding owners and collectors in the same way that Australia, Great Britain, and Canada have done. Oh…and their crime rates spiked after legal guns were surrendered to the government, in case you missed that.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this summer after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s restrictive gun ban:
I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a a law that’s less pervasive. I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools.”
I think we can all agree that guns near schools is a bad idea. We don’t want our children in danger. That begins with responsible parents and adults ensuring their guns are secured and that their children are educated in gun safety! And if she’s grasping at straws to reinstate a law that was clearly struck down by the highest court in the country, you can bet Pelosi is ready to team-up again with Sarah Brady to ensure no private citizen can legally own a firearm within our boundaries.
Notice the emphasison “legally” since most gun crimes are committed with an illegally-owned or stolen firearm….but they don’t want me to tell you that.
As a “bitter, clinger to my guns” type of person, I’m not terribly happy about this. You would think that the Democrats had learned from past mistakes — losing their majority control during Bill Clinton’s tenure because of the outrage over the assault weapons ban, for example.
Surveys conducted show that between 1.5 and 2.5 million Americans report every year that they have used a firearm for defensive purposes and that 1-in-6 believe that it saved their life.
With the proposal that the Democrats have leaked, the U.S. Attorney General would have the power to add “any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.” Wow — they’re just vague enough to encompass every type of firearm ever designed! And remember, President-elect Obama’s pick for Attorney General is Eric Holder. He wrote a brief in the Supreme Court case supporting the position that private citizens have no right to own a working firearm in their home.
If you’d like to read the entire proposed bill (HR 1022, 110th Congress) you can find it here. Oh, sure, many will point out Section 4, the “grandfather provision” to those who legally own or collect these firearms. However, if memory serves me correctly, she once said she’d have every gun turned-in and no one would privately own a firearm if she could find a way to make it legal.
What happens to veterans’ organizations and reenacting societies if they can’t legally own firearms? I don’t think funeral services or historical tributes will have the same panache as guys stand around saying, “Bang! Bang!”
What happens when the rogue military member or police officer, who is allowed to have a weapon in their possession by the nature of their career, decides to commit an illegal act with that firearm? The citizen being threatened would have no recourse to defend himself. And don’t even try to tell me that military and law enforcement personnel wouldn’t commit a crime like that….read your local news for examples.
Criminals will have weapons regardless of what laws and restrictions the Democrats propose. They don’t care about laws; that’s why they’re criminals. Law-abiding citizens will have no way to defend themselves if their Second Amendment rights are infringed. And don’t suggest that they should call the police to let them deal with it — in December, St. Louis Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe told his constituents to acquire guns and learn how to use them because the city’s police can’t protect them. Ever wonder why it’s got one of the highest crime rates in the nation?
Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334)
Oh, I’m misinterpreting that you say? How about this one….
Adolf Hitler said, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” (April 11, 1942)
Am I advocating the overthrow of the government? Hell, no….don’t be stupid. But even Mao Tse-tung in 1938 said, “Every Communist must grasp the truth, ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.’” That’s why they’re not allowed to own any. However, I strongly believe that my right to legally own and use a firearm has prevented me in the past from becoming a victim instead of being able to be here to excercise my First Amendment rights.
Birds of a feather — Blagojevich “appoints” Burris
December 30, 2008
As if to thumb his nose more at public opinion (remember, he only had a 13% approval rating when he was arrested!) and the U.S. Senate (Democrats have warned him against doing anything), Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich today “appointed” Roland Burris to the vacant Senate seat once occupied by President-elect Barack Obama, who has also released a statement that the nomination is inappropriate.
The “appointment” has to be certified by Illinois Secretary of State Jessie White who has said emphatically that he won’t approve anyone the governor names. U.S. Senate leaders have also stated they won’t accept anyone Blago nominates, either.
So why make the “appointment” anyway? Well, he may feel indebted to do so since Burris contributed $4,500 to Blagojevich’s campaign. His timing was appropriate as it was received while the embattled governor was in the middle of fighting charges of ethical misconduct.
What’s odd is that Burris recently was heard being critical of Blagojevich’s alleged corruption dealings. He even spoke negatively against Blagojevich when he was expressing his interest in the vacant seat while in the same breath praising Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s attempt to have the governor declared unfit to serve by the Illinois Supreme Court.
Illinois Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said the decision to announce the “appointment” was “an insult to the people of Illinois. We believe in clean government, and Rod Blagojevich has unclean hands.”
Really, Pat?? Amazing statement since Quinn stood on-camera with Burris as he touted his interest in the President-elect’s vacant Senate seat. Maybe he’s talking more about Blagojevich, but doesn’t it speak volumes about with whom someone associates? Burris has continually campaigned for the seat, even though he’s been a bit more quiet about it since the charges were fired.
Burris isn’t unremarkable, though. He was the first black politican elected to a statewide office. He’s a native of Centralia, Ill., and even graduated from Southern Illinois University – Carbondale before studying at the University of Hamburg in Germany and finally earning a law degree from Howard University. He served as Illinois’ comptroller from 1979 to 1991. He then served as the state’s attorney general from 1991 to 1995. He also served as the vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1985 to 1989.
His political career hasn’t been without heartache — he lost the gubernatorial nomination in 1994, 1998, and 2002, the last loss coming to Blagojevich. In 1995, former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley defeated him for the nomination to that city’s highest office.
Burris runs the lobbying and consulting firm Burris & Lebed Consulting, which might make him ineligible to serve in an Obama administration position but it doesn’t disqualify him from serving in the Senate. However, his own ethical fortitude might be questioned as you look farther back into his past. His tenures as comptroller and attorney general saw many, many contracts approved from contributors and many questionable contributions — just like most every Illinois politician before or since (the only exception I can think of would be the late Senator Paul Simon, who defeated Burris). A Chicago Tribune article in 1994 even noted that he “sweetened his state pension with a loan from his own political fund.”
Even though President-elect Obama and late-Senator Simon’s daughter, Sheila, have stated that he is a person to be admired, Burris may have dashed any hopes of holding the seat by allowing Blagojevich to move forward with the “appointment.” Obama’s statement reads:
“Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy.”
Blagojevich railed at the cameras and reporters as he left the press conference and said that he didn’t want the allegations against him to taint his nominee. Well, Rod, it will and it has. And Burris’ record doesn’t help the situation any, either.
I guess the newest hope for 2009 is that Illinois will find a politician that isn’t of the same political machine-driven fabric that has led to generations of cronyism and political corruptness.
The Clinton Compromise – Bill tells all for sake of Hillary’s career
November 30, 2008
No, no, no….everyone already knows all about that! What with Bill’s book, Hillary’s book, and the daily coverage on the news during his administration, Bill’s sexual exploits have been thoroughly covered.
The title is about how former President Bill Clinton has decided to disclose information so Hillary can be Secretary of State. President-elect Obama’s choice for the position, however, still raises eyebrows of many considering the heated contention between the two on the campaign trail. And many pundits are still asking, “What will Bill’s role be in all of this?”
No matter what Hillary Clinton wants to do in her career, as long as she is married to the former president she will have to contend with questions like that. Bill is still very active in his post-presidential career and is enjoying a continued success of which Hillary is still quite envious. As a junior senator, Hillary wouldn’t have the opportunity for immediate advancement she feels entitled to after her run at the presidency. Regardless of her pledges to represent New Yorkers in her senatorial re-election bid, she never really was satisfied being the small fish in the big pond. Add to that how much Bill’s celebrity has grown, especially since he’s been out of office, and you can see how Bill’s activities still impact what she can and cannot do.
Bill Clinton has always stated that he would not disclose the names of those who have contributed to his foundation since many did so on the understanding that they would remain anonymous. Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, who plans to vote to confirm Hillary’s appointment as Secretary of State, said:
I don’t know how, given all of our ethics standards now, anyone quite measures up to this who has such cosmic ties, but … hopefully, this team of rivals will work.”
Was there any English in that??
Lugar also said that “legitimate questions” will be raised with regards to Bill Clinton’s activities. However, there are many, including Democrats, who feel Hillary is too politically ambitious to effectively serve in a new position. Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island noted,
The presumption will be that both Secretary of State Clinton and former President Clinton will be very judicious in what they take on, because there’s a new dimension here.
But, in order to appease his wife (and, more likely, to help his star to continue to rise), Bill has agreed to terms that the President-elect’s transition team required. Included are agreements:
-to disclose the names of every contributor to his foundation since its inception in 1997 and all contributors going forward.
-to refuse donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Global Initiative, his annual charitable conference.
-to cease holding CGI meetings overseas.
-to volunteer to step away from day-to-day management of the foundation while his wife is secretary of state.
-to submit his speaking schedule to review by the State Department and White House counsel.
-to submit any new sources of income to a similar ethical review.
While Bill may be willing to compromise like that, the larger question is whether Hillary really is ready to follow suit. By agreeing to take the position, President-elect Obama has assured her that she will have direct contact with him and can pick her own staff. But is she really ready to let go of her campaign and fundraising habits? It certainly wouldn’t help the new president’s administration to have someone covertly planning a run at his office in 2012. And can Hillary really stand having to wait four or eight years to try again at the office for which she feels entitled?
After the way Hillary and Obama sniped at each other on the campaign trail and Hillary’s ambitious nature, is Bill really the biggest concern to the incoming presidency anymore? Maybe this is a way of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.
Citi too big to fail? Fed employees owe them money, too.
November 25, 2008
There are tons of news articles and blogs out there about how Citibank is too large to fail. President Bush said it yesterday. The new economic team being brought together by President-elect Obama seems to agree. Does anyone know why? Here’s some food for thought….
Most of it has to do with consumer spending and the crashing economy. But it’s not all because of main street spending or the irresponsible banks.
A close friend of mine works with a government disaster agency. They recently were told that their government travel cards for hotel and travel expenses only were going to change from Citi to JP Morgan Chase. Everyone who was eligible by their employment and credit ratings to receive a new card got one almost a month ago.
Remember when Hurricane Katrina hit? Remember when everyone was screaming for people to show up and help in New Orleans? And remember when FEMA recruited people off the streets to fill those positions? In that article it mentions that the lady couldn’t get her government travel card — something required by all employees in order to be able to work.
Many of those people were given credit cards to use for “travel only” that were issued from Citi. Just in April of 2008 the Department of Homeland Security had to accept the Government Credit Card Abuse Act of 2007 that requires actions to be taken against employees who misuse card. Many were fired because the credit cards could be used anywhere and these temporary “surge” employees bought computers, leather handbags, jewelry, and “entertainment” with their cards. They weren’t supposed to, of course, but the checks-and-balances of reviewing all purchases never happened. Many who were fired, as well as many who were not, never paid-back the money they owed. So who owes it now?
You may be thinking, so what if they changed from Citi to JP Morgan? Well, the government is still responsible for clearing those accounts with Citi. Also, my friend told me that he got a memo stating that JP Morgan isn’t ready to take over the accounts yet and that government employees will need to continue to use their Citi cards into 2009.
So of course the government thinks Citi is too big to fail! If the government itself is depending on that credit to keep itself going, then it absolutely would believe it’s important to save it. I haven’t been able to figure out where the money is going to come from to pay the old bad debts. I’d be willing to be they don’t get a dime out of the people who charged the bills in the first place. That leaves it falling back on the taxpayers, of course. We’re already bailing out everyone else. What’s one more bailout at our expense?
