BlogWonks

It may seem impossible, but Mr. Obama can enact new gun law AND satisfy the gun lobby with his proposed “assault-weapon” legislation.

If he bans criminal misuse of these firearms, he’ll earn support from NRA-types and the half of America that owns guns, a great accomplishment.

If he instead bans firearms that millions of Americans own in homes, apartments and farms, he risks an uprising. However he spins it, people have the right to these tools now. If new law confiscates these rights, it will go down badly.

Assault is a type of behavior, not a type of hardware. Outlaw criminal behavior — big win. Outlaw people’s property — big problem.

He says “these” firearms (Clinton included normal magazines like police use for protection), belong on “foreign battlefields.” God help us if they’re needed on domestic battlefields against a government confiscating rights. Mr. Obama — I know these people. Disarm criminals, mobilize robust support, disarm the public, mobilize robust resistance. Please choose wisely.

By Special Guest Columnist Craig J. Cantoni

Almost all of the myriad political philosophies can be distilled to two competing ideas:

Individualism holds that people own their bodies and the fruits of their labor, and that they can do what they want with both as long as they don’t harm anyone else. Under this idea, the purpose of government is to protect what people own from predators.

Collectivism holds that the king, emperor, alpha male, clan, tribe, state, Nancy Pelosi, or George W. Bush owns people’s bodies and the fruits of their labor. Under this idea, the purpose of government is to force people to work for other people, either through slavery, serfdom, tribalism, nationalism, communism, fascism, socialism, Jacobinism, imperialism, mercantilism, utilitarianism, progressivism, modern-day liberalism, neo-conservatism, Obama-ism, Clinton-ism, or McCain-ism.

I can complicate this with an egghead discussion of the great philosophers through the ages, but we’d just go full circle and end up with the two competing ideas. You either own your body and the fruits of your labor, or other people own them.

With the exception of voluntary communes and utopian social experiments, collectivism depends on force. Public education is an example. People who don’t use government schools are forced to subsidize those who do, including wealthy people who use them. If public schools are so great, then why do they depend on force?

The same question can be asked about nationalized healthcare.

With individualism and its sibling of capitalism, social and business relationships are voluntary, including feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and educating the poor. The other “isms’ are based on involuntary relationships.

The greatest terrors in the world have come at the hands of collectivists; yet collectivists continue to characterize individualists as mean-spirited, selfish and uncaring.

When taken to its logical conclusion, collectivism results in the absurdity of communism. But individualism would not result in absurdity if taken to its logical conclusion. There is no reductio ad absurdum of individualism.

Collectivists say that individualism leads to social Darwinism, but if individualism had prevailed around the world throughout human history, there would have been no slavery, no genocide, no mass starvation, no gulags, no Holocaust, no Jim Crow, no income gap between blacks and whites, and no constituency for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Hundreds of millions of people wouldn’t have died for someone’s collective notion.

The logical conclusion of individualism may be utopian, but it isn’t absurd.

What is absurd is that collectivism has won in the United States, which was the last hope for individualism. Collectivism’s victory has been so total that individualism is no longer even mentioned as an option by the political, media, business and education establishment.

Do you think that you own your body and the fruits of your labor? Don’t be absurd.

An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

The lamestream media told you:

The $700 billion bailout is good, bad, ugly, pretty, pretty ugly, will help, will hurt, is designed for the fat cats, will protect the average American, is run by insiders, is a normal management move, if we don’t do this the sky will fall, if they do this the nation’s financial system will be nationalized by czars and money dictators and turn the nation socialist. — ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, virtually all newspapers and radio broadcasts.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Not a single report the Uninvited Ombudsman could find provided the number of the bailout bill, which would be needed for a person to look up the proposed bill and see what it actually says.

Failure to provide the number strongly indicates the reporters and pundits, as is standard practice, have not looked at the bill themselves before making wild claims that can’t be backed up and don’t match each other.

Politicians speaking on the “news” have apparently not read the bill (HR 1424), because it was not even posted on thomas.gov where it would normally appear when they voted for it (originally HR 3997, when it was three pages but still had the $700 billion in it). But…

Politicians haven’t written it either. Bureaucrats and “staff” in cubicles in the vast dungeons of government buildings sat and typed, anonymously deciding for themselves how to write the (formerly three pages) and now hundreds of pages that became law. As a writer, I can assure you that one small turn of phrase creates a slush fund or quashes it.

It has been impossible so far to identify, much less interview, the people who actually wrote whatever it is this bill says. They are more protected from view than prisoners in Guantanamo — no one in the outside world knows their names, locations, ranks, pay grade, home addresses, level of education, agendas, voting records or anything that would shed light on who they are and what they’re up to.

The “news” media, in its wisdom, only reported on the bill as either — a horse race between the parties and houses of Congress, or, as a “he said she said” stew of competing contradictory dreamscapes whose link to reality is unknown — and obviously wrong for at least half the partisan pundits with their pie holes open.

Real reporting would include the actual content of the bill or who is actually choosing its words, and the verbiage would be vetted by certifiable experts instead of “pundits” and pretty faces.

Whether reporters and editors fail to do this out of ignorance, incompetence, laziness, alliance to the power brokers, misguided morals, personal agendas or plain stupidity is unknown, though some observers say it is all of the above. News consumers generally agree the current methods harm the nation.

A quick glance at the table of contents for HR 2414 reveals entries for college tuition, mine rescue team training, Indian employment, motor sports racing tracks, film and TV productions, mental health parity, disaster relief, Exxon Valdez litigation, and tax exemption for wooden arrows used by children. Don’t believe me? Trust your own eyes.

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The post office will no longer let you mail a package with postage stamps on it, if the package weighs over 13 ounces. Muslim jihadi attacks on 9/11 are blamed by officials for the new approach to U.S. mail. The weight limit had been two pounds, dropped suddenly to one pound, and is now just over 3/4 of a pound, without advanced notice.

The only exception is to stand in line at a post office and hand it to a clerk. Handing it to a letter carrier, using a mailbox, or dropping it off at a post office will get it cancelled and sent back to you. For security. How this might prevent a dangerous package from doing harm is unclear. To everyone. Including the people enforcing the new rules. I’ve asked.

Due to reduced staffing, clerks are only allowed to accept ten pieces of mail at a time (some of the smarter ones however risk their jobs and break the rule to help move the mail despite the insane new policies). I am not making this up.

Time was when the post office was friend and ally, reliably handling mail decade after decade, supporting our efforts, and together we advanced The American Dream in a partnership the Founders would have loved.

This new outrageous denial of service is being done without direct congressional approval, to satisfy new HSA and FAA control over the postal service. FAA rules (for airplanes) apply even if you send books, as I do, by Media Mail, which travels more economically by truck.

The alternatives are to use a meter because it is “traceable,” but that’s a farce. Anyone can get a meter, move it to Idaho, stuff packages with anything, and drop them in mailboxes. Officials insist metered mail is safer. The English language lacks adjectives for how stupid that is.

Traditional personal hand delivery to your letter carrier in front of your own office is no longer deliverable mail, because officials say it’s not traceable if stamped (I know, it’s total bullhincky). In truth, hand delivery is a positive trace, while metered mail is…

Extortion. The cheapest meter for us is about $600/yr., plus supplies, plus the cost of postage. That’s a 60-cent tax increase per item (if you ship 1,000 packages a year) with no congressional oversight. Online stamp tools, like stamps.com and similar, are not available to Apple computer users. At least meters only represent an unauthorized letter increase of about a nickel (people go bonkers when letters go up a penny), and look at the bright side — meters replace exquisite full-color hand-crafted artistic collectible historic postage stamps with attractive bar codes.

The post office is harming productivity instead of enhancing it, devaluing the historical tradition of stamps, interfering with business instead of facilitating it, following mindless rules that make no sense, ignoring its regular customers, bowing to bureaucratic demands from outside agencies, removing customer service, falsely and deceptively claiming to increase security while doing nothing in that regard, and working toward the gradual destruction of America, a role not defined in its charter. Did I mention they’re wasting my time… and everyone else’s?

If you can tell I’m upset after standing at a window for an hour while the clerk put zero-cents postage-meter labels on 70 packages that already had the right postage stamps on them, you’re right. At least, we backed up the other customers out the door, used an hour of a paid clerk’s time to put, literally, nothings on the packages, and got a four-foot-long receipt, total value, zero. To all of our new Heller Case book buyers and other customers — enjoy your books.

The lamestream media told you:

In a debacle that was widely anticipated, Lehman Brothers investment bank, saddled with toxic uncollectible mortgage debt from under-capitalized loans to low-income high-risk home buyers who obviously couldn’t afford homes, collapsed into bankruptcy on Sep. 15. Recently revealed secret talks with South Korea and Communist China failed to sell a half interest in the broke company for desperately needed capital. The company’s shares dropped from $66 in Feb. to just over $3 by Sep. 12, leading to the expected failure. –This “news” courtesy of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, and virtually all newspapers and radio stations.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Before the debacle, writing for Bloomberg.com, financial expert Yalman Onaran noted, confirming what other experts were saying back then, “Like other Wall Street investment banks, Lehman can now borrow directly from the Federal Reserve, so there’s no rational reason to believe the firm will run out of money.” Quoted in The Week, June 20, 2008.

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Despite a complete lack of relevant gun-related questions in the “news” media, the public has the subject in mind. Author Barrett Tillman has come up with some excellent additions to the Liberty Poll, aimed at those who would seek to take away your guns:

“Tell me why you think a woman should ‘lie back and enjoy being raped’ instead of shooting a rapist dead with the handgun in her handbag.”

“Tell me why black Americans should submit to being lynched instead of shooting the lynch mob dead.”

“Tell me why homophobes should be free to beat up homosexuals without the risk of being shot.”

“Watch Schindler’s List and tell me again why only the police and military should have guns.”

“Tell me why you think police should be able to shoot an attacker to save their lives but I shouldn’t.”

“Tell me why I shouldn’t have the best means of defending myself — a semiauto firearm with a standard capacity magazine.”

“Tell me why a woman’s right to choose should not include weapon, mag size and ammunition.”

“Tell me why you think I shouldn’t be able to defend my life or my freedom.”

“More than that, tell me why you should not have that right!

The lamestream media told you:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27201917/

“PARIS (AP) — Shocked, embarrassed and angry, French officials vowed Wednesday to cancel future national team soccer games if fans ever jeered the French national anthem again. “The jeers that erupted Tuesday before a game between France and Tunisia came from fans of North African descent — and laid bare the alienation that many of France’s minorities feel. Just three years ago, that simmering resentment exploded into nationwide rioting by youths in the immigrant-heavy housing projects…”

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Following the formula “approved” by the Society of Professional Journalists and others, news reports of disruptive and intolerant Muslims jeering the French national anthem failed to use the word Muslim even a single time in a 700-word article that ran verbatim by CNN, FOX and countless others.

“Fans of North African descent” is a code phrase for radicalized, isolated, sequestered, poor Muslim immigrants who have taken over sections of French suburbs around Paris and are fomenting trouble in areas the police are afraid to enter. The unruly Muslims fail to integrate or adapt to their local culture, and submit largely to self-imposed Sharia law, a backward system of rights denial and tribal-style theocratic rule. Although this poses a grave threat to Western civilization, it is a movement all but hidden by the so-called “news” media.

“The alienation that many of France’s minorities feel” is another code phrase for immigrant Muslims who legally or through deception enter into foreign lands, with plans to spread their “umma” or orthodoxy to the entire world. No charges have been brought against the media for disguising the true nature of the disruptions.

“Youths in the immigrant-heavy housing projects” is a code phrase for out-of-control young Muslims in “affordable” government-housing-project slums outside Paris.

In other news, the AP reports that “Hundreds of terrified Christian families have fled Mosul (Iraq) to escape extremist attacks that have increased.” The lengthy story refers to Christians by name 13 times, while mainly speaking of extremist attacks, militants, and “Islamic extremists” once, in the next to the last paragraph. The Christians, according to the report, are subject to abductions and ransom, but are now subject to a “killing campaign” in violence the AP was at a loss to explain. This version of the AP story actually used the word Muslim more than once for reasons that were difficult to explain.

The lamestream media told you:

Obama has announced an incentives package that is fresh, innovative and could save the economy, including $60 billion in giveaways to average people.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Barack “Steve” Obama was just endorsed by the gun-ban advocates at the Brady center. They know what they’re doing and he has not refused the endorsement, he’s earned it. Any mouthings that he supports gun ownership is not worth the air used to utter them, and his extensive plans to outlaw guns, gun possession and gun use are widely known — the Brady endorsement is just icing on the cake.

The lamestream media didn’t get the memo, and hence has not covered the very late endorsement.

On another note, offering money to people so they’ll vote for you is borderline fraud (giving the money before the election is actual fraud). The media didn’t get that memo either.

The lamestream media told you:

Stock pries are plunging as frantic investors sell sell sell in panic that is affecting world markets as prices tumble tumble tumble and investors sell sell sell in fear of global collapse, the worst seen since nearly forever.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Missing from frantic identical news reports is that some investors somewhere are buying buying buying, as a media fueled fire sale turns into the largest shift in capital ownership of business in history. For every share sold, a share is bought, right? Are the buyers the Communist Chinese, fat cats in Japan, India and the EU, the stock funds, mutual funds and pension funds? It must be someone. They’re picking up assets for pennies on the dollar, all this sky-is-falling fervor will make some people fabulously wealthy. Maybe it’s time to buy a little more Smith and Wesson, at only $2 a share, what a steal.

“America has 3% of the world’s population but uses 25% of the world’s energy.”

Everyone’s heard that. The “news” promotes it routinely. But is it true? Is it even possible? Who of all those factoid users actually did the research? No one knows. 25% measured how? Who uses the whopping 75% and is the real “villain” in energy use? Does the real villain use 85%? No one knows. Does Europe have only N% of the world’s population, but use NN% of the world’s energy? Should Communist China’s billion farmers without power in the countryside be counted? Of all the people in the world who actually have power, the U.S. has only N% of the pie? Why so little? The popular highly dubious 25% stat is great for attacking America’s greatness and denigrating all we have accomplished, but it doesn’t do much for knowledge. Maybe that’s why the media likes it so much and uses it without a disclaimer.

I got more than 100 suggestions (see here for request) for a term to replace “gunnie” and the abominable “N” word (gun nut), and the other derogatory terms the media uses against gun owners, and that we even use ourselves — to our detriment. Hah, the media rails against stereotypes and false characterizations, then maligns and belittles decent gun owners by ranting about bubbas packing heat. It’s a national disgrace.

Well all the suggestions are listed on my site, and they sparked an idea that I think works, or at least it works for me, and I’ve been using it with excellent result. You’ll notice that not all the ideas are suited to the job of nicely saying, “Yes, I’m a (gun nut)” (for example, Consummate Confronter of Criminals, Barrel Chested Freedom Fighter, Self Defense Community Organizer, and “Personally I don’t mind knuckle-dragging-truck-driving-beer-bellied-sloped-forehead-one-eyebrowed-trailer-trash-redneck”). Man, there’s some creative people out there, thank you all for participating.

The idea of “marksperson” from Charles W. got me thinking. When I was a youngster I earned my badges as a Marksman. I believe I still am a Marksman, and so are you. A good Marksman? A great one or a poor one? It doesn’t matter. A nation of Marksmen is a good thing. We Marksmen have to hang together, and support one another. Women Marksmen, boy and girl Marksmen, GLBT Marksmen, we’re all in a struggle for our civil rights, and those who would disarm America’s decent, law-abiding, honorable Marksmen have no honor and should be resisted as the threat to freedom that they are. Marksmen unite. There, I’ve said it.

I’ll admit it took a little getting used to, and the grammar sometimes seems strained, but only through its unfamiliarity. The more I use it, the easier it flows off the tongue. It’s easy for a gun hater to sneer at a gun nut and feel self righteous, but it just doesn’t work so well when dealing with a Marksman.

It’s fully proper and correct for a Marksman to teach other people the craft. Offer to take your acquaintances to the range, so they can become Marksmen too.

The Marksmanship Movement in America should qualify for freedom from taxation, just like other enumerated constitutional rights like free speech.

“Are you a gun nut?”

“Of course not. I’m a Marksman. How about you?”

“Are you a gun owner?”

“I’m a Marksman. How about you?”

My band, The Cartridge Family, is on YouTube. Pretty crummy recordings of some pretty cool tunes –

Miguel Row Your Coke Ashore

Battle Hymn of the Repubic

Bad New Tax Arising

That’ll Be the Day (When You Take Our Guns)

Glock 17:

CORRECTION: I was mistaken (see “Election Avoids Guns,” Obama does have a posted gun policy, but not about rights — about Crime And Law Enforcement:

“As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.”

Will Anti-Gun Group’s Endorsement Help Or Hurt?

Anti-Gun-Rights Candidate Could Gut “Heller” Decision

Now that Barack Obama has received the endorsement of the Brady Campaign gun-control group, will the Supreme Court’s findings in the D.C. gun-ban “Heller” case matter?

That’s the question experts are asking in the wake of Obama’s 11th-hour support from America’s leading gun-ban advocates. The late-date endorsement was conspicuously absent from most large news outlets. Those groups have repeatedly claimed that anti-gun-rights agendas were a key issue in the Democrat election defeats of 2000 and 2004.

“Obama publicly supported Washington D.C.’s total gun ban until the Supreme Court’s ‘Heller’ case voided it,” says Alan Korwin, co-author of “The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed,” which was just released (see below for news-media review copies). “His opposition to gun rights is well known and carefully documented in the new book,” he said. Obama swiftly reversed his position after the High Court found that gun rights belong to individuals, a point also documented in the new book.

“Before the ban was overturned, Mr. Obama supported the position of the Court’s dissenters — that gun bans are fine and the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights does not protect people, it protects ‘collective rights’ of states,” Korwin notes. That position had little to support it in the historical record, but was favored by people seeking to ban firearms from public hands. The “collective rights” theory, a recent creation, was dismissed with ridicule by the Court (equating it to Alice in Wonderland). The Amendment itself speaks of “the security of a free state,” and “the right of the people.”

As the first book released about the landmark gun-rights decision, “The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed” describes the events leading up to the case, and precisely what the Court said, word-for-word and in plain English. If Obama follows the Court’s decree, the civil rights of the general public should be fairly well safeguarded with respect to owning and using firearms.

If he instead follows the lead of his endorsers in the Brady Campaign, gun rights as America has known them for more than two centuries could easily end. His campaign positions so far suggest the latter, if he is elected. His widely available voting record is 100% consistent — voting for every restriction on law-abiding gun use, and against every proposed protection for innocent individuals.

Virtually all recent gun-law proposals fall into those two categories — bans on honest ownership and rights, or support for honest ownership and rights. New laws targeting criminals are rare, since every imaginable criminal activity with guns is already against the law and carries severe penalties.

The only thing left, according to leading experts, is to ban guns for non-criminals, a policy choice adopted in some circles. Gun bans on criminals have had embarrassingly little effect on street gangs, the drug war and career criminals in general. Facing abject failure of crime-related social policies, and unable to disarm criminals, many politicians are turning instead to civil-disarmament schemes. Working against this trend, “Disarm Criminals First” says one campaign slogan in the Marksmanship Movement.

The three publicly announced elements of the Brady-Obama anti-gun positions include 1- Ban the freedom to sell firearms from one innocent person to another, euphemistically called the “gun-show loophole”; 2- Allow all law enforcement officers to fish through gun-dealer records looking for paperwork or other violations, and compile data as they see fit, euphemistically known as “repealing the Tiahart Amendment” (which prevents them from doing so currently); and 3- permanently ban an enormous list of perfectly legal firearms and accessories based on looks, names and operating characteristics, euphemistically called an “assault-weapons ban.”

First, knowledgeable observers know assault is a type of behavior, not a type of hardware, plus the ban seeks to outlaw all semiautomatic firearms. Second, it’s already completely illegal for criminals to buy firearms under any circumstances, so the proposed private-sale ban would only affect innocent citizens. And third, the Tiahart Amendment protects the innocent from government registries and abuse, so all three proposals, as noted above, have virtually no effect on stopping crime, but do crush freedoms Americans currently enjoy.

A long wish list of other gun-freedom repeals have been previously announced by Brady, Obama and their supporters, but have not shown up in the candidate’s platform yet. See some of them here:

http://www.gunlaws.com/PageNineIndex.htm

and many more here:

http://www.gunlaws.com/Left-wing%20Gun%20Plan.htm

including (as listed during the Clinton administration):

THE FIVE YEAR PLAN:

1. National Licensing of all handgun purchases.

2. Licenses for Rifle and Shotgun owners.

3. State Licenses for ownership of firearms.

4. Arsenal Licenses (5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition).

5. Arsenal License Fees (at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00).

6. Limits on Arsenal Licensing (None in counties with populations of more than 200,000).

7. Requirement of Federally Approved Storage Safes for all guns.

8. Inspection License. (Gun safe licenses, yearly fee for spot inspections).

9. Ban on Manufacturing in counties with a population of more than 200,000.

10. Banning all military style firearms.

11. Banning Machine Gun Parts or parts which can be used in a Machine gun.

12. Banning the carrying a firearm anywhere but home or target range or in transit from one to the other.

13. Banning replacement parts (manufacturing, sale, possession, transfer, installation) except barrel, trigger group.

14. Elimination of the Curio Relic list.

15. Control of Ammunition belonging to Certain Surplus Firearms. (7.62×54R and .303).

16. Eventual Ban of Handgun Possession.

17. Banning of Any ammo that fits military guns (post 1945).

18. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder which would constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition.

19. Ban the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kg. at any one time.

20. Banning of High Powered Ammo or Wounding ammo.

21. A National License for Ammunition.

22. Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.

23. National Registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.

24. Requirements of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.

25. Restricting Gun Ranges to counties with populations less than 200,000.

26. Special Licensing of ranges.

27. Special Range Tax to visitors. ($85.00 per visit per person).

28. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.

29. Banning Gun Shows.

30. Banning of military reenactments.

PLUS:

Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.

Elimination of the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship.

Ban on all realistic replica and toy guns (including “air soft” and paintball).

The right of gun-violence victims to sue, with financial assistance from government programs, the gun manufacturers.

Taxes on ammo, dealers, guns, licenses to offset medical costs to society.

The eventual ban on all semi-automatics regardless of when made or caliber.

The lamestream media told you:

A meat packing plant in Nebraska has fired at least 86 Muslim workers for walking off the job to conduct prayers during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Mohamed Rage, a spokesperson for the Muslims and one of the people fired, says 150 were fired. A spokesman for the plant says the company, Swift, told the workers that if they walked off they would be fired, a fact the Muslims dispute. The plant employs 2,500 people, with about 20% of them Muslims, many immigrants from war-torn impoverished Somalia.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Showing spine that hasn’t been seen in some places in years, a meat-packing plant in Nebraska refused to cave in to Muslim segregationist demands, and fired scores of religious followers insisting on special treatment for a month that would disrupt orderly business practices. In other parts of the country, virtual quislings have caved into Muslim demands, for example providing segregated swimming times (Harvard) and public foot baths for Muslims (just Google it), in what numerous observers see as a carefully orchestrated attack on American values, using American values to advance Muslim causes, Muslim culture and Sharia law.

The lamestream media told you:

“CHICAGO (CBS) — 125 Shot Dead In Chicago Over Summer; Total Is About Double The U.S. Troop Death Toll In Iraq

“An estimated 125 people were shot and killed over the summer. That’s nearly double the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period.

“In May, cbs2chicago.com began tracking city shootings and posting them on Google maps. Information compiled from our reporters, wire service reports and the Chicago Police Major Incidents log indicated that 125 people were shot and killed throughout the city between the start of Memorial Day weekend on May 26, and the end of Labor Day on Sept. 1.

According to the Defense Department, 65 U.S. soldiers were killed in combat in Iraq. About the same number were killed in Afghanistan over that same period.

In the same time period, an estimated 247 people were shot and wounded in the city.”

You can see the maps yourself.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

In a story almost without precedent, CBS identified Chicago’s high murder rate as almost totally gang related and geographically isolated. In modern America, that would mean these are war deaths in the War on Some Drugs, and not “gun deaths” as the media likes to frame the argument, to vilify firearms and create public fear.

With surprising candor, CBS announced, “Gang and gun violence continue to be the dominating threat on our streets,” according to a police e-mail to CBS. “Up to 60 percent of the shootings are gang related. More than 90 percent of the offenders have criminal histories and up to 80 percent of the victims have criminal histories.”

It’s unclear how the police concluded that only 60% of these crimes are gang related, when 90% of the shooters have criminal records and 80% of the victims do too. It’s also a fairly typical police distortion to suggest gun violence is the dominant threat “on our streets” when these gangland rubouts happen “on their streets,” and normal citizens generally only get to see it on the news from the “bad” neighborhoods. Look at the maps. Comparing Chicago’s rubout rate to the wars against Islamofascists is just bad reporting, from the town that has virtually banned guns (unlike Iraq and Afghanistan) and spawned Barack Obama.

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

A fully informed jury is a bedrock principle of American freedom. Simply put, a jury of your neighbors (“peers”) has the power to decide the facts in a case if you’re charged, and the righteousness of the law you’re charged under. If legislatures pass laws that are unfair, your neighbors (those pesky peers again) can let you go, even if you’re guilty under the facts. It’s an ideal check on the system — prosecutors stop bringing bad cases, and legislatures stop the bad laws. It’s elegant, ingenious, a beautiful thing.

This played out swell in failed attempts to convict people helping slaves escape pre-civil war (deemed a crime), or catching grandmas with wine in the bathtub (during prohibition). The roots are in the trials of William Penn (Sep. 5, 1670) and John Peter Zenger (1735). The court told the juries to convict, and they refused (and were imprisoned for their audacity!). What good is a jury if it can’t make up its own mind?

Today, judges are determined to keep juries in the dark, won’t reveal excessive punishments awaiting minor offenses, give out checklists requiring convictions, and call fully informed jury actions “jury nullification,” a derogatory term meant to keep power away from juries and in judges’ hands. It’s a horrific abuse of power.

To combat this, three states have declared Jury Rights Day on Sep. 5th, to let the public know they, not the court, can decide the fate of a person charged, as it should be. The most recent declaration came from the great state of Alaska under… Governor Sarah Palin. Last year, in 2007.

Read Vin Suprynowicz’s marvelous piece on Jury Rights Day, and visit the fully informed jury association to educate yourself about this bulwark of liberty.

Do note however that if you are in a juror pool and talk up fully informed juries, they won’t let you sit on a panel. I did mention it’s a horrific abuse of power, right?

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The District of Columbia is being sued for $3.5 million in legal fees, the cost of bringing the successful Heller gun-ban case against the city, to restore people’s civil rights. Taxpayers may have to foot the bill for the city’s arrogant denial of rights to its… taxpayers.

“Certainly this money would be put to better use if it were allocated to proven crime-reduction measures like adding more police officers and prosecutors,” said National Shooting Sports Foundation senior vice president and general counsel Lawrence G. Keane. The city apparently would prefer to squander its limited funds — forcing Dick Heller to sue them again — to get them to obey the Supreme Court’s ruling. The hubris of these people is just over the top.

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Lawsuits and court cases post-Heller have been piling up. UCLA prof. Eugene Volokh has been keeping track, and tabulating the results. I’ll post a review of the cases soon. An initial glance doesn’t look good — as predicted, bad guys are using Heller to try to skate, and courts are finding that Heller allows them to go to prison, with accompanying language that doesn’t hold rights in very high esteem (even though bad guys do deserve punishment).

The lamestream media told you:

A new biography on Sarah Palin is now available and here’s the book’s author, with some softball questions aimed at her. FOX TV.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

How did anyone get a book out on Sarah within two weeks of her appearance as a VP candidate? Being in the book publishing business, that’s, well, impossible.

The book by Kaylene Johnson actually came out in April, by a small press in Washington state (Epicenter) that specializes in books about Alaska. The 7K run of the hardback was called, “Sarah: How a Small Town Girl Turned Alaska’s Political Establishment on Its Ear.”

After the announcement, the book went through a facelift and was rushed out over the Labor Day weekend by a print-on-demand outfit (Lightning Source) that paid workers overtime to work the holiday weekend, and “Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska’s Political Establishment Upside Down” was now a 40K-unit paperback available nationally. Tyndale House took over distribution and put 250K copies into print. That’s how. Thanks to the Southern Review of Books for the details. Other Palin books are reportedly in the pipeline.

My latest book, “The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed!” is due off press this week and has attracted no attention from lamestream media, though large advanced orders have been placed by most major gun-rights groups in the nation, and is still available at a pre-press discount.

The lamestream media told you:

Dennis Miller, speaking on FOX, thinks he’s pro-gun, and that everyone should be able to get a gun permit, but it should be as hard to qualify for as a pilot’s license.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Of all the elitist claptrap I have to put up with in preparing these reports, this just beats all. The testing for a pilot’s license is extreme. The idea that exercising your rights should require an extreme test or else you forfeit your rights is bizarre, and Mr. Miller just babbles on thinking he’s bright. Note that CCW permit holders, many of whom must endure a lightweight test before they can exercise their rights, are five times below the national average for committing crimes.

The lamestream media told you:

Very little about the candidates position on RKBA, besides exclaiming that Sarah Palin is a moose hunter.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The Democratic National Committee official party platform on its position on gun control is not far from Obama’s:

“We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common sense laws and improvements — like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban …”

The Republican National Committee party platform position on gun control is different world, here’s a piece:

“Gun ownership is responsible citizenship… We condemn frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which are transparent attempts to deprive citizens of their rights. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as violations of the Second Amendment. We recognize that gun control only affects and penalizes law-abiding citizens, and that such proposals are ineffective at reducing violent crime.”

In other news, pro-gun Democrats must have a conflict between their stance on human rights, and the Dem party rules for Town Halls, where “Submissions must not… (iii) contain profanity, pornographic, or sexual content, content promoting alcohol, illegal drugs, tobacco, firearms, or weapons, hateful content of any kind (including racism, sexism, etc.), content that promotes violence or harm to another living creature, or any other offensive, obscene, or inappropriate content….”

The lamestream media told you:

There are many good ideas for cutting “gun deaths,” according to a Freakonomics quorum run by The New York Times. “Let’s put aside for a moment the standard discussions about the right to bear arms,” quotes the piece, which goes on to discuss novel ideas — but not the demographic reality that 80-90% of gun deaths (omitting suicide) are related to the War on Some Drugs, making them actually war deaths.

Among the suggestions: rewards for snitching on illegal possession, increased parental involvement, garnishing wages to pay victims, elect gun-death-reduction politicians, tipping the Supreme Court away from its current pro-rights stance, and other ideas.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Anti-gun-rights crusader and Brady gun-ban hero David Hemenway, a Harvard professor of “health policy,” has developed plans for gun bans and rights restrictions that will skirt the Heller gun-rights findings and attack the rights of the public, with little or no effect on crime. He is being hailed as a champion in some dark circles opposed to the right to keep and bear arms. The plan is fiendishly simple:

Create the National Firearm Safety Administration, which could quickly occur if anti-rights candidate B.H. Obama wins the presidency (see Obama’s unbroken anti-gun-rights voting record). It would mimic the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in some respects, with stunning power in a loosely controlled agency’s hands.

Massive funding would be poured into the new agency to study crime, firearms injury and deaths, and “public health problems due to firearms,” with no mention of self defense, crime prevention, legal justifications or lives saved. Hemenway draws analogies about air bags and seat belts for proposed requirements on firearms “for safety.” The agency, he says, should have a broad “mission to reduce the harm caused by firearms” while ignoring the good that guns do.

Hemenway says, “The agency should require safety and crime-fighting characteristics on all firearms manufactured and sold in the U.S. It should ban from regular civilian use products which are not needed for hunting or protection and which only endanger the public. It should have the power to ensure that there are background checks for all firearm transfers to help prevent guns from being sold to criminals and terrorists.

“The agency needs the resources and the power (including standard setting, recall, and research capability) for making reasonable decisions about firearms… Similarly, each specific rule regulating the manufacture and sale of firearms should go through a more scientific administrative process rather than the more political legislative process. It’s time to take some of the politics out of firearm safety.”

The cleverly crafted plan would move the constitutional right to keep and bear arms out of the legislative process and representation of your elected officials, where your voice can be heard, and into the hands of bureaucrats and agenda-driven insiders immune to your desires or fundamental rights.

The Democrat party, frustrated in its constant failed attempts to eradicated your rights, once again is handed a deceit-driven scheme for accomplishing their nefarious, freedom-defeating goal.

Off the radar but still on the drawing boards, Dennis Kucinich’s proposed U.S. Dept. of Peace would likely get new life under Obama too, along with a $10 billion budget, hundreds of permanent new federal bureaucrats, and control over everything from animal “rights” to women’s issues and firearms, along with sinister influence over the U.S. military.

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

BATFE has announce a plan to allow licensed firearms dealers to maintain their required “bound book” record of all gun sales electronically (in computers). On one hand, this is a relief from the stone-age approach of handwritten records dealers are burdened with by law, will save time, and reduce the likelihood of errors, a frequent government excuse for attacking gun dealers. On the other hand, the potential for gathering the now-computerized data into centralized federal registries of gun owners is a potentially catastrophic abuse of gun rights, and a goal feds have been seeking unsuccessfully for decades.

Although some industry leaders are praising the development, alert gun-rights activists are not so sure. The software approved for an electronic “Acquisitions and Dispositions” book must satisfy “certain ATF requirements set forth in the ruling signed by Acting Director Michael Sullivan,” according to NSSF, which said in a statement, “NSSF would like to congratulate ATF, and in particular the leadership of Acting Director Sullivan, on helping to reduce the paperwork burden on industry.” The true contents of software programs cannot be discerned by average computer users.

The stated requirements in the program include the ability to search, and out-of-business records will fall into the hands of BATFE as they do now. Dealers have in the past been able to request electronic record keeping, now it will be simply available.

At the urging of industry leaders, BATFE plans to launch an “E-Form 4473,” heightening activists’ fears, and presumably easing the collection of data by the feds. No word on safeguards or concerns over the potentials for abuse has been made by any of the usual suspects. Gun Owners of America has informed the Uninvited Ombudsman they are looking into the matter.

I reported that Olympic shot-put records for women are 15% inferior to men (60-foot vs. 70-foot throws), contradicting the politically corrupt myth that men and women are equal. Thanks to Rick D. of Arizona for noting that women get to use lighter shots than men too, making the deception worse. This helps hide the inequality of the sexes, perpetuates the lie of equality, makes men look less capable than they are (or makes women look more competent than they deserve), and is just one more bias the news perpetrates on the public without compunction, regret or ethics. How much lighter? A lot: Men throw 16 pounders, women toss a mere 8.8 pounds — and still throw 15% shorter. Discus uses dual standards as well. High schools have a similar double standard. I didn’t say men are superior, the Olympics did. And it’s OK — don’t deny the difference, celebrate it.

Although I was correct that B.H. Obama’s 64-page policy guidelines don’t mention “gun” in any form, he has sent letters (which have since been discontinued) to people asking for that information. Two readers sent copies. It ain’t pretty — leans on all the things we need to do to stop filthy guns, while mouthing hollow support for 2A:

From Barack Obama:

Dear Friend, Thank you for contacting me about gun laws and the Second Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. Americans broadly agree that guns must be kept from those who may pose a threat, and that the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen should be protected. We must work to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill through an effective background check system. We also have to strike a reasonable balance between public safety and sportsmen’s rights. I will continue to work for effective gun laws, including reinstatement of the assault weapons ban that the last Congress allowed to expire, and effective law enforcement. I will also speak out against the culture of violence that traps so many of our young people. Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue.

Sincerely, Barack Obama

Paid for by Obama for America

Obama’s unbroken record of anti-rights votes on guns are documented here.

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing. In fact, they never provide this crucial information to the public, perhaps because only half of all American homes have firearms.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Chris Bird, author of the exceptional Concealed Handgun Manual, reports: The NRA says there are 40 right-to-carry states. That includes Vermont which does not issue licenses so you don’t need a license to carry open or concealed. Alaska is a shall-issue state but you don’t need a license to carry in the open or concealed under current law. The state has kept the permit process going for Alaskans who want reciprocity with states in the Lower 48.

There are three other states – Alabama, Connecticut and Iowa — that the NRA considers right-to-carry because they say permits are almost always issued to law-abiding residents. I have no quarrel with Connecticut and Alabama but I do not count Iowa as I have talked to people in one state gun-rights organization and they say it depends on which county you live in. Some counties issue few if any licenses.

So I say there are 36 states that have mandatory issuance if a person qualifies: AK, AR, AZ, CO, FL, GA, ID, IN, KA, KY, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WY.

I use the terms license and permit interchangeably, though states are generally dedicated to the word they’ve chosen. Also note that some states issue permits for concealed weapons that include more than just a handgun, some issue licenses for concealed handguns only, or for any possession, or for a specific firearm listed on the permit. In my home state of Texas, the CHL is for a revolver only, or for semi-auto and revolver, at your choice.

For information on how the wonderful firearm licensing laws attack and diminish your right to keep and bear arms, read this and this.

The lamestream media told you:

Francoise Hollande, the head of France’s Socialist Party, has endorsed Barack Obama for U.S. president, and promised “to work for the senator’s victory,” in the words of the Associated Press in an unbylined article.

The article goes on to say, “but he (Hollande) acknowledged that the French Socialists’ endorsement could end up tarnishing Obama’s image in the eyes of the American electorate, given the way some voters regard socialism.”

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The AP has once again reported on an event without identifying who is speaking. The words quoted above are the AP’s, probably a paraphrase or summary of Hollande’s actual words, not provided in the story. The accuracy of such pseudo quotes is anyone’s guess, darkened by AP’s failure to identify the writer who framed the remarks. Newspaper editors nationwide ran the piece anyway.

Most disturbing is the editorial comment at the end, concerning, “the way some voters regard socialism.” Whether this is Hollande speaking, or even worse, the AP itself, it is a reprehensible distortion of reality that portrays socialism in an almost neutral light.

Socialism is an avowed arch enemy of the American way and personal freedom, not dependent on how “some voters” view it. It detests capitalism, profit and free markets, the very strengths that have made America great, and which have led more people out of abject poverty than any other system in the world. The socialist system disparages any sense of private property, a linchpin of American economic principles and historical success.

Socialism is a politically designed rather than naturally evolved system, dependent on a dictatorial ruling class, state ownership of property, and the subjugation of individual people for the benefit of “the masses,” or the “collective,” as defined and managed by the rulers. Modern attempts at imposing socialism routinely end in utter failure, with the collapse of the Soviet Union a prime example and the debacle of Castro’s Cuba close behind.

“Some voters” and most of the awake world recognize socialism for what it is, a way to defeat individual liberty, freedom, and turn “the working class” into a political tool for elite leaders with a death grip on power.

The AP should be ashamed of itself for the shoddy deceptive anti-freedom reporting. No correction has been made or is expected.

The lamestream media told you:

The good news is that 90 to 95% of the people from New Orleans have reached the evacuation areas, and have voluntarily taken wrist bracelets with bar codes on them so they could be safely evacuated, according to FOX news, 8/30/08.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Just think about that.

Bar codes for people.

The lamestream media told you:

The best athletes in the world assembled in China for their moment on the world stage.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The Olympics held in communist China have provided mathematical proof that men and women aren’t equal, to the chagrin of feminists and other reality deniers on the political left.

All the top acrobatic gymnasts were girls, mostly little girls. All the top muscle gymnasts were young men. There was no crossover. Reports omitted mentioning the inequality, even though they showed it for the world to see, knowing many people cannot connect the dots. The fastest “people” in the world are black men, a fact you’re not supposed to mention in polite company. Whites are inferior when it comes to such things. Whether blacks, like whites, are also inferior in some areas was unclear according to leading experts.

The most striking numerical difference was in shot-put, where the world’s top women peaked at about 60 feet and the men couldn’t exceed about 70 feet, a roughly 15% difference. Knowing they’re unequal, they’re allowed (required, actually) to participate in segregated competitions. No segregation charges have been filed.

Although a sense of justice and morality demands that people are entitled to equal treatment under law, the idea that men, women and the races are equal is pure nonsense. The solution is obvious. Instead of denying the obvious, celebrate the difference.

The lamestream media told you:

Little.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

By now even closed-minded TV viewers know that the only reason they could see the Olympics at all was because the Chinese dictators shut down industry and vehicle traffic for weeks so the air was at least partially transparent.

What many couch potatoes have not recognized is that nearly everything they watched had already happened, the results were known, and the timing of the event they saw was completely artificial and managed.

NBC did a great job of hiding this primary fact by refusing to put “Live” and “Recorded” on any of the broadcasts. This made it seem more real, a cool deception that enhanced enjoyment at the expense of honesty.

Did you notice that the smoke cleared immediately after fireworks displays? That’s because as soon as the flash ended production crews spent hours editing the recordings.

Did you notice that team scores advanced, like, a real lot, between commercials? That’s because production crews edited out large chunks of the game so you didn’t have to stay up late and watch the whole boring thing.

Did you wonder how so many thousands of people could “volunteer” their time for nine months to practice for the spectacular opening and closing ceremonies? That’s because dictators can command the presence of anyone they choose, for as long as they choose, under any conditions they choose, and if you argue, you know you can be simply killed.

Did you wonder what it would be like to face an army of those one-size-fits-all nattily dressed synchronized people? That concept wasn’t lost on the dictators strutting around on the “world stage” created by the media. The communist dictators fielded more “entertainers” than machine guns have belts.

Did you notice they were all good looking? That’s because unattractive ones were weeded out of the “volunteer” corps and sent home.

Did you notice how the entire staging of the ceremonial events deemphasized the role of individuals, and how the main thing that mattered was the coordinated effort of the collective whole? That communist principle was at the heart of the design.

Do you think any free society could even come close to matching the scope or spectacle the dictators were able to muster? Could a free society even mount the will and financial resources to assemble, house, clothe, feed and control that many people for that long?